TheFreshPrince

You can land it gently when you aim the velocity vector at the runway at an angle of less than 3° below the horizon. It just takes much more time and distance for the landing approach and a clear path. Flaring the thing just before landing is also a thing. But you're gonna go down instantly afterwards, so timing is very difficult.

For me it looks very similar, but with Opentracker. And it's equally bad in internal or external view. I can only reproduce it with opening the F10 map, otherwise it's sporadic. But it won't go away after it occurs and DCS needs to be restarted.

A good demonstration of the capabilites of the Hornet is this airshow video imo: Unfortunately you cannot see the HUD clearly, but one can get an impression of the speeds from the wind noises. I have tried to somewhat reenact maneuvers like the high alpha pulls and then rolling near stall speeds, but I keep falling out of the sky. 6:30-7:30 is a good example. The DCS Hornet loses all of its speed when pulling hard but is not controllable at slow speeds.

I remember that with DLAA this was less of a problem, maybe give it a try. With MSAA this is even worse, absolutely horrible.

I'm having massive problems after opening the F10 map, which won't go away afterwards, even when leaving a server. It's basically unplayable and I have to restart DCS. My whole PC is lagging extremely, the head tracking is not responding and my audio is stuttering.

In a dogfight chase sometimes it works to lock up the target in front, sometimes you get a lock but it's nowhere near the actual plane (single player, so no desync issue) and creates a false target, but sometimes it doesn't work at all. Pretty annoying.

Some F-14 and Mariannas love TheFreshPrince

I highly doubt that, because that also implies that IR-missiles have zero countermeasure-resistance and will always fall for flares from longer range. Which might be true in DCS, but I don't expect this in real life. Also, in real life every aircraft has its own type of flare, where certainly some must work better than others against certain missiles. In DCS unfortunately we only have one type. So claiming that an IR-missile will always go for any flare from a distance seems illogical to me. But I guess there's no public data about it anyway.

From my understanding, a shot from further distance gives the seeker more time to evaluate and the countermeasure resistance more likelyhood to work it's magic. Always missing the first shot seems highly unrealistic, but from my tests and experience, it's the case in DCS. A close up shot on the other hand gives the seeker only a brief time to select one target and no chance to reacquire the target due to field of view limitations. I'd appreciate an overwork of the missiles logics and countermeasures in DCS in general.

Ngl, that thing is badass

Yeah but this doesn't look like in the video at all... In DCS the plane also becomes extremely unstable after such maneuvers, which you cannot see IRL.

Don't forget we're getting older models with older equipment and it should be only A2A ready in the beginning. It's still complex, but not as a fully modeled one. So there's a good chance it won't take that long.

I have a feeling that it's a general problem in DCS where the planes are not as responsive and maneuverable at slow speeds as they should be. They always feel a bit slow in response and stiff, so you can't really reproduce airshows. SU27 and MIG29 are other examples.

The IR missile logic is bonkers in DCS. If you shoot at max range and the target is flaring during the shot, you're gonna miss 100% of the time. Unless shooting from behind. So usually the first missile in an engagement is gonna miss anyway. With the next ones it's a lottery. But it's possible to miss all missiles against a flaring target, I've done that multiple times.

Assembly of the "Quadriga"

It's huge! (that's what she said)

I like how they put a road toll sticker on the canopy and the pilot wears a special patch. Swiss humor

ED bekleckert sich in letzter Zeit eh nicht gerade mit Ruhm, da passt das schon ganz gut ins Bild Mal sehen, was noch so kommt mit dem Patch. Anscheinend liegt das Problem bei ED:

Have you ever been to northeastern Scandinavia? It's at least 95% forest or steppe. So, yes the trees are important. Imagine having New York skyline in Dubai on Persian Gulf map. Same type, but not the same style. I have also never said that I don't like the rest of the map. But apparently, according to your post, it's forbidden to ask for improvements and point out inaccuracies? And just accept everything as it is? What kind of attitude is this? The community is putting in a lot of work to find out the problems, create solutions (like mods) and helping the devs improve everything. Your post is like stabbing them in the face by saying "ask for refund or fly other map". No! Always keep improving the products and ask for more. This is how DCS grows.

We are talking about specific regions of the map, where the trees don't fit. That's why this thread was created. Of course, in some regions the trees will fit. There have been posted many Screenshots in different threads, where they don't even look remotely close to reality. Posting Screenshots of areas where it already fits and praising the map is pointless as this does not help improving the map! Also the developers have already acknowledged the problem and promised to work on this topic, which shows that it's a) important and b) not trivial. And that's fine by me, as long as they keep their promise. If you have never been to Scandinavia or don't care, then please don't post in this thread, as it's purpose is to improve the map.

With that logic, you can play on Syria map and pretend it's Afghanistan, right? No need for a new map... It's still supposed to be a sim, so either you get the stuff right or it's kind of pointless to call the map "Kola peninsula". Because Norway, Sweden and Finnland just don't look like this.

Very interesting survey. Only 8% of the interviewed people are looking forward to new maps and only 23% to new modules lol. Most people just expect better DCS experience. Seems like ED got their priorities a liiiittle bit wrong. (if this is representative)

Forest density runterstellen soll wohl deutlich helfen. Dafür gibt es ja Reshade.

Well from the distance most things in DCS look quiet good, that's true. But on the ground it's sometimes difficult to accept the quality of the surroundings. Especially when the aircraft look so neat. I wish they could find a way to enhance the details while not loosing the performance with a wider view. Otherwise, future maps will have the same issues. And then you will always have a lot of people complaining how bad it looks, although it's not all bad and the potential is still there. But it can't be reached without fundamental changes within DCS. Even business wise it's a waste of money when you look at all the negative feedback that keeps others from buying.

I'm probably gonna buy this map, because many parts of it already look really beautiful and it's the right theatre for modern missions. But if DCS wants to stay in the business, they seriously have to step up their immersion-game, including terrain-textures, water, trees, weather, etc... I just looked at the F4-release-trailer and the jet looks absolutely spectacular, as will probably all of the new aicraft. But do you really want to taxi or fly them through maps that look like they are from a 20 year old game like Battlefield 2? It's a bit sad to watch. And future maps won't look much better, if the foundation doesn't change. But hey, at least the grass is moving now.