Baltic Dude

I thought M61 Vulcan was the same gun used by F-5 which behave very differently. I was clearly wrong about that but I absolutely believe ED's A2G F-16 has a frankenstein FM following the same pattern of Black Shark 3, which some may actually view as a positive (and many aren't complaining)

I hope with upcoming Kola and Sinai Peninsula they can briefly focus on the MiG-19S, and have that release as a separate paid module with 19P owners receiving a discount if they desire, and then focus on their other modues. MiG-23MLA unfortunately hasn't had much work done on it so far, so this would be a good alternative for the time being.

I hope with this new exciting Sinai map we can see Razbam finally give us that promised MiG-19S for historical battles or campaigns.

This is fantastic news, but I hope we can see an Iwo Jima expansion for Marianas and Qatar expansion for Persian Gulf.

Yes but I would rather have an official module. Wouldn't we all? Also his mod in progress has major issues. Even the visual model is inaccurate.

I've talked to other people on forums and they agree with me in that for the variant we have in DCS, it shouldn't have such performance. It seems like ED prioritized the best capabilities of all Viper variants and put them together for DCS' F-16. Same mindset with Black Shark 3. If we were to get a proper Block 50 multirole F-16, it should not have such powerful acceleration, or at least that's what others have also been saying.

Before the FM update, the aircraft was underpowered, we can all agree on that. However after the FM update, it seems to me that the acceleration is way too high. I think they overdid it. Our variant block 50 shouldn't have such performance and I am worried that it's due to pressure from DCS' Nato community to get sales. I hope it's not the case and was wondering if anyone else thought the same or had other ideas about the F-16's current performance. I would welcome another look over and FM adjustment.

If you seriously don't know about the Yak-38 operations in Afghanistan and its home being Kola then you're long gone. Yak-38 in cold weather environment is capable, only high altitude, hot temperature Afghanistan gave it problems which is why people like you dog on it so much. I would very much enjoy anti-shipping operations with Yak-38 and encourage either ED or a third party to give REDFOR a VTOL opportunity.

By "adjusted the muzzle position" do you mean you changed the angle the gun fires?

Yes OFP2 and thank you, I included the information in the video's description.

I hate how people buy into NATO propaganda like this and mistreat MiG-23 and Yak-38. Yak-38's mere existence was a deterrent to NATO in the Kola Peninsula. Its main use was to perform anti-shipping capabilities, as well as being able to carry R-60's, rockets, ATGM's, gunpods and bombs. Of course it's not a dogfighter, why does everything have to be a dogfighter for it to matter? If you want to use its full capability, use it in cold Kola, not hot Afghanistan, even though when we get Afghanistan, IT WILL BE A HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT. People draw "lines" for the most childish of reasons.

I have spent already something like $500 dollars on DCS, MORE when you include my HOTAS, pedals and Track-IR. If you want more people to try DCS WWII, they need to make WWII Assets pack free. There is a reason why people get into IL-2 first and foremost before trying out DCS: WWII. I have paid my dues, do not tell me I haven't contributed to DCS' development. Not to mention, people can't even take-off from the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier online without payment of NATO's Supercarrier module even if you purchased Su-33. Little things like this that require the purchase of $50 modules absolutely turn people away from an otherwise enjoyable experience.

Whenever I fly with my friend, we do 1v1 gun fights when he flies F-5 and F-14 when I fly MiG-19S and Su-33. From what I see online as well, the F-5 guns seem realistic and have an area where the gun's volume of fire ends up. The F-14 on the other hand is pin-point accurate and has no variation whatsoever. I was under the assumption that they used the same 20mm Vulcan? The F-14's gun looks and feels more like a 30mm cannon than a Vulcan. Why is there such a discrepancy? Is this because F-14 is artificially better than it was IRL so it gets more sales from the NATO guys? Are they different guns entirely?

I hope we get some news soon. Surely they have 3D modelers and coders they're not just paying to do nothing all this time?

I was hoping for DEKA to make a J-10A module themselves, but this will also work in the meantime! I have a question. Does the J-10A have a gun that's angled upwards instead of JF-17's downward angled gun? If so, does the gunsight compensate for the increased elevation of the gun's angle?

I think its just that nobody here really knows if they are underperforming or not. Maybe make a bug report and send it to ED?

You have a lot of comments on the forums. Are you an ED employee?

That is perfectly fine and understandable, but I most likely won't be, as I already have the same low-fidelity module which will be easier to use for me in singleplayer and multiplayer. If MAC comes out they will probably merge the two or give FC3 players a discount. I would have much preferred them to make a new module instead of a copy of what we already have. It's a Professional Flight Model, if they give previous MiG-29A pilots a discount then I might reconsider. If they instead made a Yak-38 module then absolutely I would purchase.

That doesn't really make much sense. The same buttons can be bounded for all the FC3 modules. The FF switches is ONLY for that module. It's way easier to remember the same keybinds for F-15C, Su-33, J-11, MiG-29, Su-25, etc. Once you learn the module I'm sure it would be easier but it's also easier to forget after a while. Even if I forget FC3 keybinds, I just take a look and I'm back in it. I fly exclusively REDFOR but I'm just not gonna buy the MiG-29 simply because I already own the MiG-29.

LOL

Personally, I'm happy to just keep the FC3 MiG-29's. To be honest having less buttons to remember makes me want to fly them more often.

Iwo Jima makes more sense than Okinawa...

The Meteor and the 262 never fought each other...

I prefer Iwo Jima over Okinawa. It's smaller, easy to model with high detail, and MUCH closer to the Marianas to easily include into the map as an expansion. If Syria added Cyprus, then ED can easily add Iwo Jima and should. Mine is an N1K2-J, A7M or Ki-43 but that'll never happen lol.