King_Hrothgar

I'm trying to decide if I want to pre-order it or not tonight. I have one question that needs to be answered first and despite a few searches, I haven't been able to come up with an answer. The question is what specific armament options are there on a per pylon basis? I know the outer pair are Magic only, the middle pair are Super 530D only and the fuselage stuff is a mix of bombs/rockets/tanks, I just don't know what configurations are possible on each of those inner pylons. A list or graphic would be great. Thanks!

It isn't just one problem keeping WW2 fans away, it's several. But damage modeling is pretty high on the list for me and those I've spoken with on TS3 and other WW2 CFS forums. The lack of content (maps, AI units and so on) is another major issue. But the thing about updating the damage modeling is, it helps the game as a whole. It's just as important to a UH-1 as it is to a Bf-109 and so is something the whole community can get behind. So I give it higher priority even if a lack of content is a bigger issue for the WW2 side of things.

We will soon have a few flyable 1970's and early 1980's fighters in DCS, so I think it's time to expand the missiles available to both AI and FC3 planes to stuff that encompasses those eras. Specifically, I'm thinking an AIM-9G, AIM-9L, AIM-7E, AIM-7F, R-23R and R-23T. This would allow for mission builders to create pre-1985 scenarios with appropriate air to air missile types. A good example of a limitation currently is the MiG-21Bis vs F-4E. The AIM-7M didn't enter service until the 1980's, but the F-4E is from the 1960's. Yes they could later carry the 7M, but not before they existed and some F-4E users never had the newer model (thinking of Iran specifically).

Scripted system failures work pretty well, it's the reaction to bullets (especially for AI planes) that needs work. But yeah, the radiator thing is a nice touch. Never encountered it myself but I'll trust that it's there.

It was "Lock On: Modern Air Combat." In any case, I'm really hoping for a tiger. We have 2 utility choppers already with two more anti-tank equipped utilities on the way. When it comes to proper attack choppers, we have a prototype Ka-50 and might at some point have a BST developed Mi-24.

I don't think it's a bug though, it's just how the damage model is currently with the AI. Until you shoot off a wing, tail or other major section, they will fly as if nothing has happened.

I wouldn't be concerned with balance as far as the F-15E goes. In the air to air role, it doesn't do anything our current FC3 F-15C doesn't. It has the same missiles after all and the AIM-120 combined with a lack of R-77 capable machines is the real complaint. My only concern with the F-15E is that of redundancy. The way I see it, the F-15E, F-16C and F/A-18C/E are all basically the same. They use the same weapons, all have glass cockpits and are all US aircraft. That puts them in direct competition with each other for customers. I don't expect I'll be buying more than 1 US 4th gen multirole fighter, and it will probably be whatever gets released first. My bet is it will be ED's F/A-18C. I have nothing against the F-15E and would be happy to see it added, but I wouldn't buy it if I already had the Hornet. On the other hand, having an F/A-18C would have no impact on me buying something totally different, like the A-7, AV-8B, MiG-23 and so on. That's why I keep pushing all the devs towards making some eastern aircraft (not necessarily Russian). The more aircraft that do basically the same thing for the same nations, the wider a limited number of sales will be spread. In short, I'm concerned about market saturation with western 4th gen fighters while all other aircraft categories are basically ignored.

I've left it on my 250GB SSD for the moment, but if I bother with the 2.0 alpha then I'm sure it will go.

It's my understanding that DCS uses a relatively simple surface based damage model. What I mean by that is it only looks at where the projectile hits the aircraft's skin, no penetration or internal structure is modeled. Instead, each panel of skin has a list of systems associated with it and a random number generator decides what, if anything, is damaged. That system works great for explosive cannon shells and missiles, but is terribly problematic for simple kinetic projectiles like your standard issue 12.7mm AP/API round. ED has expressed an interest in redoing the damage modeling, my hope is that they do what the competition did and fully model the internal structure of their aircraft and the systems within. That's what makes the current main WW1 and WW2 flight sims so good when it comes to damage models. Yes oil slicks across the windshield are nice, but sending a 37mm AP round through a gunner in the fuselage, a fuel tank in the wing and into an engine is even nicer. That's something you just don't get in DCS, because in DCS that 37mm stops the instant it hits the gunner's windshield. So yeah, hopefully that's next on the list after DCS2 is sorted out. It is a massive task of course, so I don't expect we'll see it anytime soon. But hopefully it comes at some point.:)

I assume it can carry some sort of general purpose bomb like the Mk.82. That would be your anti runway bomb.

He stated very clearly in the post that the third aircraft they would like to do is a current production airbus helicopter. The Tornado thing sounded like an option for much later. That said, I'd be interested in it. It's a major type that's seen a bit of combat over the years and is a pretty decent mud mover by all accounts. I would want an IDS or ECR model, not an ADV. I'm more interested in choppers though. Being unable to fly sideways or backwards is just so limiting.

Against the brain dead AI (despite cheater FM's), it's easy enough to maneuver into a favorable position even when loaded like a dump truck. But against a human, that won't work. That said, my standard loadout for the MiG-21Bis is 2x R-3R + 2x R-13M1 or 4x R-60M. In a fight against the F-5E and many other opponents, having a pair of all aspect missiles is a great help. As for the R-13's, I like the bigger warhead and longer range. They also don't cripple handling like 4x R-60's do. Obviously I could carry single R-60 pylons instead, but I find them pretty weak overall. It almost always takes 2 hits to down anything, so the more restrictive but harder hitting R-13's are nicer at times.

Agreed but VEAO has also listed basically everything the UK has flown since 1939 on their "road map." They obviously lack the means to deliver all those aircraft, it's more of a wishlist than an actual plan I think. I'd ask them prior to developing anything on that list of course, but provided they aren't currently working on it, it's fair game I think.

I have all the aircraft in DCS except the trainers, my approach to learning them goes like this: 1) Watch a youtube video on cold starting. 2) Cold start in game, often requires alt tabbing back to youtube. 3) Takeoff, fly around, land. Repeat until I'm comfortable with it. 4) Learn how to use the essential weapons systems (ie vikhrs on Ka-50) via youtube. 5) Blow stuff up on target range missions until I'm reasonably effective with that main weapon. 6) Dive into MP with it and pick up additional skills as I go.

LNS is planning to release a plane with A2G radar in the next month allegedly. On a related note, is there anything the F-15E does that the F/A-18C doesn't? I mean in terms of weapons and how they are delivered.

1.5 would be a better bet.

F-14 scenarios don't have to be fictional. It fought an 8 year long symmetric air war against a mix of Soviet and French equipment in the 1980's. It just wasn't USN pilots doing the fighting.;) It also served in a defensive role during the 1991 Gulf War. Admittedly it didn't see much action there, but it was present in substantial numbers. As for the Viggen, it's selling point will be youtube I think. It's too obscure of an aircraft to have mass appeal no matter how vocal people here are. With that said, I think I'm more likely to buy the Viggen than the F-14. I'm not a fan of two seat fighters and the Viggen has some interesting capabilities from a team death match standpoint.

I wouldn't call that terribly diverse, every single one of them is western. I have to wonder what the Russian forum results are like, assuming this was posted there too.

DCS: Mirage 2000C RDI claims to have a high fidelity flight model and advanced systems modeling similar to what the A-10C has. However, it hasn't been released yet, so that's just the advertisement. Only those connected to the project know exactly what it does and does not have. The MiG-21Bis has been out for over a year now and I've had it nearly the whole time. Its flight model falls a little short of ED's and BST's PFM's, but it is pretty decent still. It's Certainly better than the SFM/AFM used by many FC3 aircraft as well as the Hawk and C-101. In terms of complexity, the aircraft is simple from a technical standpoint but difficult to use. The radar and weapons are finicky while the plane itself unforgiving. It certainly takes some time to master.

It's a 1992+ bomber variant of the Viggen, the real question is how it performs against surface targets with F-15C's, Su-27's and MiG-29's around.

I wonder if it really is popular though. I'm not sure I'd even heard of it prior to the giant speculation thread. It quickly became clear to me and many others that it was the most likely "modern" plane, but that isn't the same as being highly desired. I could go either way on it tbh. The plane itself is a footnote in military aviation, but it might be fun on 104th regardless.

The D9 doesn't. Edit ninja'd. Also, there is nothing unique about the F4U's FM and systems. It's all very conventional, those comments clearly applied to the Viggen.

The MiG-25PD is top of my wishlist of the options given, but all of them are on it. In general I'd like to see DCS focus on 1970 to 1991 since fleshing out that period properly is a reasonable task (unlike WW2 + Korea + Vietnam + 1980's + modern...).

It's been a long time since there was any real question as to if it was a Viggen + a WW2 pacific thing or not. So yeah, this shouldn't surprise anyone at this point. Iwo Jima is a logical map choice for the F4U-1. Not sure why someone would question that. It's an incredibly simple map and a place where the F4U-1's played a major role. The choice of the AJS-37 instead of the AJ-37 is unexpected for me, I would have thought they'd keep it in the 1980's to better match the MiG-21 and F-14 modules (and DCS in general). But it doesn't really matter I suppose. I'm just glad it's an attack version. DCS could really use a few supersonic strikers.

My only issue with Win10 is that my monitor will never turn off nor will a screen saver run. Might be the controller thing above, something to look into. Other than that very minor thing, it works well. The switch didn't result in a measurable performance change in DCS, BoS, RoF, RomeII or anything else I play. Regardless, Win10 is effectively the result of taking the basic design of Win7 and then adding the best parts of Win8.1 to it while skipping most of the garbage. The end result is a very nice OS. Overall I like it better than win7, but 7 did have more user control over certain aspects.