King_Hrothgar

Maybe maybe not, doesn't matter since it isn't a comparison to AMD anything. They only talk about the 1070 and 1080.

From what I've heard, the non-VR numbers are less impressive but still a significant improvement. For me, I was planning to get a 1070 or AMD equivalent before the 1070 was ever hinted at. I typically try to update my GPU every 2 generations. The charts by nvidia I've seen all suggest a substantial improvement over their entire lineup even with the 1070 in all cases, not just VR. I've linked a reputable video below, the technical discussion starts at 3:15 and carries on for the rest of it.

Modders use LUA script, third parties use LUA script plus C++ and I don't know if ED uses anything in addition to those two.

I grabbed a 2GB GTX 770 in fall 2014 as a relatively short term card when the GTX 970's were all sold out. Figured I'd just run that until the 1070 came and damn, I seem to have lucked out with that move. Even the 1070 is expected to smoke a 980TI and should be about the same price as the GTX970 too. Hurrah new architecture. :) I don't plan to upgrade anything else, except maybe to a larger higher res monitor. I expect my I5-4690 to remain good for many years given that neither Intel nor AMD have shown any real movement on CPU's since 2011. There's bound to be a change at some point, but I haven't heard of anything.

BST never teases much tbh.

It works at up to about 8km, at which point the missile self destructs. Incidentally, the missile does not start losing speed after the rocket motor burns out, it holds a constant speed until impact or self destruct. I do not know if the missile can still be steered beyond 4.3km, but it can definitely hit a static target.

Good to hear, as said, I was just making shots in the dark on possible reasons and tried to make it as clear as I could that that was all I was doing. Not at all, solving logic and mathematical equations is something C++ is very good at. The point I was getting at is there comes a point where more detail doesn't actually add anything to the combat flight sim experience. That excessive detail is for anything under the hood that the player has little to no chance of ever noticing. I've gotten the impression from other posts you and other VEAO staff have made that you run into problems trying to add that level of detail. That impression could be wrong. As for the OEM side of things mentioned previously, change a circular knob to an octagon, yellow/black slashed warnings to white/black slashes and other similar cosmetic changes for any problematic bits, problem solved. :D Will it be 100% accurate like that? No, but I'd rather 99.9% accurate then not getting critical aircraft at all. And I still don't see what the issue is, I just looked and a quick google search revealed 3 different paid F-4 Phantom II addons for FSX on the first page alone. Some have working weapons, or as working as a super heavily modded FSX install allows. The procedures should be accurate if not the actual missiles.

There are different levels. Last time this came up (comes up a lot doesn't it?) I actually checked the Boeing website for licensing information. They list multiple tiers for painters/photographers/film makers as well as toy and video game makers. It came off as all very standardized, though they didn't give prices or terms on the non-free licenses (painting/filming is free). VEAO seems to have issues with anything post 1950, so I think what maybe going on is they specifically are asking for a license far above what DCS requires (I think this was actually mentioned by them at one point) or they are asking for information far beyond the scope of a flight sim (ie how to build a specific circuit board). It's also entirely possible VEAO is blacklisted by Boeing for something we don't know about. That happened with 1C:Maddox with IL2: Pacific Fighters and Northrop Grumman. I'm sure many of us are familiar with that little fiasco. Honestly, I think we will see the F-4 in DCS at some point. It's just too popular of an aircraft to be skipped and Boeing is reasonably flight sim friendly (just look at FSX/P3D/XPlane and DCS itself). It's clear VEAO won't be making it, but I wouldn't discount LNS, RAZBAM or some other yet to be created third party.

Has nothing to do with that. Below are a list of McDonnell Douglas aircraft either in DCS or currently being developed for it: 1) F-15C (ED) 2) F-15E (RAZBAM) 3) F/A-18C (ED) 4) AV-8B (RAZBAM) 5) F-4E (AI) 6) C-17 (AI) The F-4 has been licensed to multiple third parties for the MSFS series, P3D and possibly X-Plane too (I haven't paid much attention to them).

It hasn't been released yet and the Gazelle is for both (will be in the next 1.5 update).

Maybe for the oddball UK version you wanted to do, but not for the F-4 in general. It's also entirely possible that restriction only applied to your particular company. I do not know the details, but I do know that there have been numerous F-4's made for high fidelity flight sims over the years and some very recently. Clearly it is possible. I will not take your word on it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Edit: I don't mean any disrespect. I'm glad you're developing for DCS and appreciate you being willing to talk about this, even if cryptically. But I don't accept your answer in this case.

Depends on the plane. The MiG-21Bis's contemporary opponents are the F-4E, F-5E (flyable soon), F-14A, F-15A, F-16A (sort of), Mirage F.1 and tbh, the MiG-21Bis itself (lots of MiG-21 vs MiG-21 fights over the years). Of those, it's competitive with the F-4E, F-5E, F-16A, Mirage F.1 and itself of course. The F-14 and 15 were better matched against the MiG-23, MiG-25 and Su-15, all of which were produced alongside the MiG-21Bis. Edit: important note, the F-16A couldn't carry AIM-120's or AIM-7's like it can in DCS, the real one had 4x AIM-9's + a gun. The AIM-9's weren't AIM-9M's initially either. It wasn't until around 1990 that someone finally strapped an AIM-7 to an F-16, nearly 20 years after the MiG-21Bis entered production.

There is one reason we don't have it and one reason only, none of the DCS development teams wanted to make it more than the other things they made or are making. It is absolutely doable from both technical and legal standpoints. I consider the F-4 to be a critically important flyable aircraft for DCS (some others being the Mirage F.1E, F-5/14/16/18, MiG-23/25, Su-17, AH-1J/W, UH-60A and Mi-24V/P). That said, I probably wouldn't buy it because it's a two seat fighter. I'd love to fight a human one in MP though or fly as escort while they bomb stuff.

The only regularly active 2.0 server is F99th, but they run some pretty epic missions even with far fewer players (10-15 is typical). They are COOP focused, so it actually works better like that. It is US based and doesn't have admins round the clock, so outside EU and US primetimes, it can be buggered. There are other servers, but they have 0 players or are 2-3 person private servers. I don't think NTTR is worth $50 if you are planning to play mostly MP, but it's worth the $15 they keep offering it for if you get it with something else.

No, my reasons: 1) Not produced in significant numbers. 2) Didn't participate in a meaningful way in any major wars. 3) Doesn't have any unusual or interesting weapons/systems. 4) Doesn't fill a gap or add any new interesting capability to DCS. 5) Seems completely redundant with the AT-27 Tucano.

1) Targeting system knows if target is in range or not without using the laser and gives shoot queue accordingly. 2) HOT3 can not be deliberately fired at targets out of range but still within valid fire arc (possible bug, not sure). 3) HOT3 doesn't spin in flight 4) HOT3 is laser beam precise after cable is cut, allowing for pinpoint strikes far beyond the theoretical max range by aiming at a closer target and then slewing to a target much further away.

With an X-55 and CH pedals, I'm using 50% cyclic saturation, 60% yaw saturation and linear control (pedals are hardware inverse curve, curved in game to be linear).

I found that as well. It trims wonderfully with a 4 way hat until I touch the stick, then it goes nuts. Trying to describe it is difficult, but I know exactly what the problem is. It is an error in the code, not an issue of realism. What's going on is if pitching down with trim, forward stick works as it should, but back pressure does not. What seems to be happening is backstick is deadzone while also slowly deleting your trim setting too until you reach the physical centered position, and then it jumps to the untrimmed state with back pressure. The result is basically an uncontrollable aircraft. I bet the exact same effect could be observed if trimming it to pitch up and then moving the stick forwards, but I haven't tested it. For now the only advice I can give is to not use trim at all as it is completely broken atm. And that is a shame, since the fine tune trim controls would otherwise be amazing.

1) Ability to fly chopper if pilot is killed but copilot is still alive (this actually came up 3 times last night). 2) Iraqi 1980's skin. 3) Ability to hide copilot model (already mentioned)

Definitely twitchy and yet also not very responsive at the same time, as odd as that sounds. It seems to want to start rolling/pitching easily but then refuses to stop. Also seems to VRS pretty easily, though maybe not as easily as the Mi-8. It's certainly going to take a bit of getting used to.

Sweet Mother, sweet Mother, send your child unto me, for the sins of the unworthy must be baptized in blood and fear... by a Tiger (and Mi-2)!

I should point out I may have made the suggestion in jest but I do actually want it. There is a decent argument for the Mi-2 and specifically the URP-G, it's the closest eastern block chopper I know of to the Gazelle, Bo-105, MD-500 and other armed light western choppers. I think having both sides represented well is important in a combat flight sim from both a SP and MP perspective. So the Mi-2 shouldn't be quickly dismissed, it's a very good option after the current projects are finished.

Nonsense. Why can't we for once have a shiny new plane in a flight sim (this isn't DCS specific) with a fresh coat of paint. Never understood the obsession with representing aircraft as 40+ year old beaten to hell planes instead of factory fresh ones. Sure, any Iraqi MiG-21's that survived the 1991 Gulf War were beat to hell probably, but they were brand new in the early 1980's when going up against Iranian F-5's. Just once in a flight sim, I'd like to see a factory fresh paintjob on something. It's entirely possible I am the only one in the entire FSX/P3D/XPlane/RoF/BoS/DCS community who wants that. But I do want it.:)

It's a sign of a highly enlightened community.