shagrat

^this!

Bedenke aber auch, daß es das in beiden Richtungen gibt. Damit geht es generell um "toxisches Verhalten" (finde persönlich "asoziales Verhalten" treffender). Jeder Mensch verdient ein wenig Respekt, unabhängig von Geschlecht, sexuellen Vorlieben, oder beliebigen anderen Kriterien. Toxische Männlichkeit ist nicht mehr oder weniger akzeptabel als toxische Weiblichkeit, weil wir wollen ja das Verhalten anprangern und nicht die Tatsache in welchem Körper jemand geboren wurde, oder? Und ja, dieses unterschwellige Belächeln und Kleinreden von Argumenten und Meinung aufgrund der Annahme, daß "eine Frau da keine Ahnung hat" nervt, ist asozial und vor allem häufig völlig aus der Luft gegriffen. Das gehört benannt und unterbunden... aber nicht als männliches Alleinstellungsmerkmal. Ist zumindest meine Sicht.

Nachdem Eagle-Eye den Thread ausgelagert hat, kommentiere ich dann doch mal, was mir auf der Seele brennt. Es wurde eigentlich schon erwähnt, ist auch eigentlich selbstverständlich, aber scheint heutzutage nicht mehr üblich zu sein: ein Verkauf findet statt, indem ein Verkäufer seine Ware anbietet und ein Käufer diese kauft. Dazu kann(!) der Verkäufer seine Preisvorstellung angeben und der Käufer hat die Möglichkeit der Preisverhandlung (im Volksmund "Feilschen" genannt). Weder haben Preisvorstellungen anderer Anbieter direkt etwas mit dem Angebot zu tun, noch muss der Verkäufer den Käufer akzeptieren, oder umgekehrt. Selbst das Argument "ist den Preis nicht Wert" ist vollkommen sinnbefreit, da auch der UVP nicht den "Wert" (Material, Produktions und Transport/Lagerkosten) widerspiegelt, sondern den erwarteten Gewinn des Herstellers. Wert ist am Ende, was ein Käufer bereit ist dafür zu bezahlen. Einzig der Verkäufer muss das entscheiden.

Well, that City is definitely still there. And it isn't small either, while smaller villages in the area are at least present through the generic buildings. That's all I am asking for: put a couple generic city blocks and town houses around the road crossing in the spot were Afrin is on the map.

The F-15E Strike(!) Eagle was intended to replace the F-111 and already had the advantages of the F-15C airframe, thus a good maneuverability. Yet, it's not an air dominance fighter, like the original design of the "C". It should perform well enough to defend itself and force its way through to a target, but the turn performance in close quarters, should be worse than the "C". That doesn't mean it will be bad, just not as good as the "C" and definitely worse than the F-16C or F/A-18C. For me personally it's perfect, as it combines Air-to-Ground (btw. very popular with the singleplayer and PvE customers) with great sensors, multiple modern weapons, has the legs to do a deep strike and on top of all that, the teeth to defend itself properly... Only disadvantage, it can't land on a carrier.

I made a similar request in the wishlist. May add your thoughts there? https://forum.dcs.world/topic/315915-george-cpg-option-to-enforce-listing-of-red-objects-only/

(...)"the DCP calls for the F-15 to be "superior in air combat to any present or postulated Soviet fighters both in close-in, visual encounters and in stand-off or all-weather encounters."(...) Directly from the "Development Concept Paper". What was your point again?

That's not the point of the bug report. They should be on the model, if they are selected as a "loadout" in the ME.

Because if you have only buttons or keys instead of a proper ministick/thumbstick it is another button you need to press and hold with only two hands, that you actually need for throttle and stick.

The point was more about the fact, that the very first(!) engagement, already went from BVR to close quarters, as trained and emphasized by the Israeli air force. This is getting ridiculous... I am out.

Then it failed spectacularly... You may want to read about the first combat engagement of an F-15 to understand what people are talking about. Every intercept with ROE to VID the opponent as hostile... Basically, Gulf War, Operations Northern/Southern Watch, Syria... You don't want to have a BVR kill of a coalition aircraft, because your IFF had compatibility issues.

^this

-sarcasm on- Maybe that is, why the F-15C has no gun? ...wait a minute? -sarcasm off-

Yeah, BVR is definitely the reason people ask for the option to remove the CFTs... Not the idea to get the same PvP maneuverability as in the FC3 F-15C.

The issue with that is, it has a different airframe, a second seat, additional equipment and not only the CFTs. It is developed as a Strike Fighter, based on the airframe design of the F-15, but not just an air-superiority fighter with CFTs and bomb capable pylons and renewed engines. It can definitely defend itself, but I doubt the dream of some PvP focused players to get a "full fidelity F-15C in disguise", if they can get rid of the CFTs, will likely not come true.

^this

The designation happens, when you release the TDC not when you depress it. You depress and hold it down (called action slewing, which ground stabilizes the DMT), slew over the supposed target and release. Now you can use no-action slewing (not depressed) to refine the designation, if necessary.

...and this may be of interest, as well. As I said, depends on the time frame, aircraft, library etc. The thing is, we happen to switch aircraft a lot in DCS, while real pilots usually fly mostly one combat aircraft and train to perfection, taking what the aircraft provides and learn how to operate that equipment. That's why from a game perspective it seems weird to have no uniformity in such a critical device, but a pilot would likely never notice.

I don't think so, at least not if you listen to real live in-cockpit audio...

Thank you soooo much. Can't wait for the next patch. This was something that was subconsciously always bugging me.

The thing is: a simulation should simulate the real life RWR sounds. This the AV-8B uses a different library, than the F-14 which uses a different library than the F-16, which in turn uses a different library than the A-10C... And then there's the Mirages and that's just the western aircraft. From a "game" perspective, it would be convenient to have all RWRs use the same sounds, symbols and logic, to make it easy for the players to switch aircraft. From a simulation perspective, the individual aircraft should replicate their real life original... Just my two cents.

Looks more like the screenshot(s) have not been updated since the original BlackShark release... Old LOMAC/FC map pre FC2/3?

As Razbam stated very clearly, the delays are related to the promotion material, not the product development. They also said clearly that the release plan is not affected, by this. So we will have a shorter(!) time between pre-order and Early Access release. From my point of view, they could delay the pre-order sales another two weeks, or months, as long as it releases on time.

From what I have seen Razbam invented a new system, kinda like selecting the "active control stick" via in cockpit click zones and/or assignable keys/buttons. So you can simply use one Joystick and click the stick in the pit that you want the controls to address. Click in the flightstick to fly the aircraft, click on the left side control stick to work the left MFDs and click the right side control stick to work the right MPDs. Though I think of using my collective grip as the control sticks and Flightstick and Throttle for flying.

Same in the real aircraft. The controls set brightness and contrast for the selected sight, either TADS on the TDU or HMD.