King_Hrothgar

Wrong thread, not a US plane. Cause an F-5E is basically the same as a T-38C, except it has guns, missiles and bombs in addition to aerobatic smoke. Give it another 20-30 years for the US to get around to declassifying it.

The J-15 is unlikely along with anything else that's relatively new and PRC only. However, the J-10 or JF-17 seem likely candidates for a Chinese design. They are also a better fit as they have a heavy emphasis on ground attack in addition to air supremacy, just like the F/A-18C. One of the ED guys made a poll about a Chinese addition a little while back asking about such things. I don't think any of the Su-27 clones were on the list but it did include the J(F)-7, J-8 and J-10 (or was it JF-17, I remember it being one of them but not both). Edit: Found the thread http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=145021

Dogfighting is more than just rolling to the side 90 degrees and pulling the stick as hard as you can. Dogfighting an F-15 in a MiG-25 would be similar to dogfighting an A6M in an F4U. If you turn, you die. But blow through at absurd speed taking shots along the way and you'll dominate. And you have to understand that the MiG-25 isn't just a little bit faster than an F-15, it's a lot faster and the F-15C is one of the fastest things in the sky. Many of the aircraft being worked on are a lot slower. In particular, the F-5E, tops out at less than half the speed of the MiG-25PD. That's about like putting a Gloster Gladiator up against an Fw-190D9. Well flown, the Gladiator can dodge attacks all day. But he will never get a shot at the Fw-190 either if it too is well flown. The same applies to the MiG-25 vs F-5E, F/A-18C, both upcoming Mirages and many other aircraft in or in development for DCS.

And that's a problem because??? I realize pure fighters aren't for everyone, but some of us do enjoy them. The MiG-25PD, MiG-23MLA and MiG-31 are what I'd like on the fixed wing Russian side. I do enjoy ground attack too, but I'd prefer that in the form of a Mi-24.

Nice, and stop picking on us whirlybird pilots!

I was referring to the original IL2 from 2002 but honestly it goes back further than that. DCS's damage modeling is a legacy from the 1990's Flanker games. I don't think it's ever been updated tbh. So yeah, it was dated even in LOMAC but it didn't matter since all the planes had gatling guns and missiles. Now that we have more lightly armed aircraft with many more coming, the details matter. To that end, I'd like to see AI aircraft suffer engine damage, fuel leaks, control failures and pilot wounding (added to player aircraft too). None of these are terribly CPU intensive. AI engine damage can be as simple as putting a multiplier on their overall thrust. For liquid cooled engines, a coolant leak could be added. Under the hood this wouldn't be anything more than a timer for an engine failure. Fuel leaks don't do anything but alter fuel usage, so that's no big deal either. It's just a constant added to the end of the fuel usage equation. Control damage is straight forwards, the left aileron either works or it doesn't. If AI aircraft aren't modeled that detailed, then a multiplier to the roll/pitch/yaw rate can be used instead. Pilot wounding can also be approached easily. Once again, a simple multiplier will do the trick. The current standard is for wounded pilots to have reduced control authority and a reddened screen (similar to blackout effect). For AI aircraft, the screen reddening is replaced with a reduced visibility ring multiplier. These relatively simple additions to DCS's damage model would not bring it fully up to modern standards (structural damage, cascading failures and so on), but it's a good place to start. It would be an enormous improvement over what we have even if stopped at the few suggestions I made.

Yeah, no. I prefer my runways stationary.

I made the switch over the weekend as well. I Didn't deactivate any modules and so far none have prompted a reactivation. But I haven't tried them all yet either. All my stuff works fine too, no issues with controllers or anything like that. I didn't have a measurable change in FPS with DCS or anything else. It also runs fine with RoF, BoS and Rome II.

I'd rather they simply update the damage model to at least the standard 10 years ago. I don't think it would eat up too much CPU power since it was done just fine 10+ years ago on the single core CPU's of the time. That desired damage model update applies to both AI and player aircraft.

A 1970's F-4E (with mavericks) would be my pick. I suppose an F-4J would be an acceptable stand in for an F-4E but why not just do it properly to begin with? As for the whole cold war thing, I prefer to simulate actual wars rather than make believe ones. The F-4 fought the MiG-21 on many occasions across multiple versions of both planes. The same is true of the Mirages and F-5's. Even the F-104 faced them in combat but the EE Lightning? I'm not sure. VEAO has it on their development wishlist anyways, so not much point in arguing for it. I should probably mention the F-4E isn't at the top of my wishlist. I prefer attack helicopters and single seat fighters/attackers. I'd mostly go for it for the sake of its wartime significance from 1960 to 1990.

The 3d models are pretty, but pretty 3d models are cheap. VEAO dropped this team because they (including VEAO) couldn't come up with the people to program the systems and flight model. I wish them the best but I don't have any expectation of this actually being released for DCS. I think they are also an FSX developer though, so it might find its way there if it hasn't already.

That's the thing, 1954 isn't exactly modern is it? You wouldn't consider a 1954 car modern would you? What about a boat or a civilian plane? How about a computer? Why would a military plane count but nothing else? Push that example to 1970 and nothing changes. It's only in the 1990's that the answer starts getting difficult to answer. It isn't until the mid 2000's where the answer becomes easy again.

True, but as you said, they never flew over the USSR itself either.

In the case of the SR-71, the MiG-31 happened.

That's something that's bothered me too. Many here take a lot of liberties with the word "modern." I've seen it stretched to mean anything post WW2 by some. I'm much more strict when I say modern as I don't consider the F-14 modern and find the F/A-18C questionable. I'm not sure where Cobra falls on the spectrum. In regards to the MiG-25PD and F-4, they don't fit the hints provided. Yes, I'd love to have them and both are high on my wishlist for fixed wing aircraft, but they don't appear to be in the works by anyone. And the MiG-25 is a plane that's a bit controversial. The problem is it's basically the 1970's equivalent of an Me-262. Flown properly, it should be untouchable but flown properly is a way that many players would find boring. Hence some would love it while many others would hate it.

Impossible to say what people have done to their systems besides updating the OS. Maybe he moved the plugs around? In any case, my X-55 and CH pedals had no change from 8.1 to 10. But there is one other possible source of a problem and that's using the profile software to have the joystick emulate a keyboard. Other than adjusting some global deadzones and response curves, I don't use Saitek's profile tool. So it is possible the profile tool maybe messed up even if the drivers themselves are fine. That would explain the different experience assuming power isn't a problem.

I installed Win10 today and played RoF, BoS and DCS. I encountered no issues. The issues described above look an awful lot like the usual insufficient power issue the X-55 is known for. Give it more electricity and it should work just fine.

I use the compass, map and Mk.I eyeball for most of my navigation needs. Sometimes I use the RSBN for getting to a distant airfield of interest, but I don't use the system for typical waypoints.

Fixed

Never even seen a static display of any Mirage aircraft, but still really looking forwards to this one. Thanks for the update.

It was just a thought. The planes I proposed are also not particularly capable.

I was in a UH-1 for the event, but I fly the Ka-50 regularly on various servers. In my experience: 1) The same as most other DCS aircraft include the FC3 ones. 60+ in a server is fine so long as the server is powerful enough to handle that many clients. The only issue is DCS doesn't handle large numbers of objects well. I don't recommend putting more than 20 aircraft of any type, including AI, within 50km of each other. 2) DCS doesn't handle a lot of bullets or clusterbombs well in general. So high rate of fire weapons such as miniguns and the Mi-8's MG pods can cause a lot of problems. A-10's and Su-25's spamming cluster bombs are also problematic. Ka-50's with their very low RoF cannon, missiles and rockets don't cause problems. On a related note, I have ideas on some future missions. Below are some broad strokes: 1) Russian backed forces vs rebels: Mi-8's + MiG-21's (or L-39's once released). Same basic setup as our last mission, but with those aircraft instead. 2) Same as 1, only with western aircraft such as UH-1H + Hawk T.1A 3) Epic tank battle: 16+ Ka-50 vs more Abrams, Bradly's and M1097 Avengers than you can count. Ideally this would be setup to defend greatly inferior friendly ground forces or to support a ground attack. I'm not sure on how well this would run given the numbers involved, but it would be pretty epic if it can be done. It might have to wait for DCS 1.5.

That seems very unlikely due to rarity of information and the inevitable fury if such an oddball version were chosen. A Viggen (strongly hinted at, almost F-14 level) and a standard issue WW2 pacific fighter seem the two most likely candidates. Both the F4U and F6F are good candidates for the WW2 fighter, but I think it's safe to assume it would be a standard F4U-1a/d or F6F-3/5. No crazy night fighter or recon variants are likely.

Yes, which the Viggen has.

The MiG-25PD is very high on my fixed wing wishlist and no, we don't have enough Russian aircraft. Now I'd say we don't have enough DCS level aircraft in general at the moment, but looking forwards the Russians are in bad shape. Why? The following jet fighter modules are officially in development by teams with a reasonable chance of delivering sometime in the next year or two: Western: F-5E, F-14A/B, F-18C, Mirage 2000C, EF2000, Vampire, Meteor. Eastern: Nothing. The MiG-25PD and MiG-23MLA + MLD would go a long ways towards evening it up a bit. That said, all hints at LNS's unknown modules currently point to WW2 pacific something and the Viggen. And I do think the Viggen will be fairly interesting. But moving forwards, I really hope LNS gives Russia a bit of love since it seems no one else is interested in doing so.