Temetre

The image can be a bit misleading on video, the climb is probably not fully vertical. The plane might also lose speed during the climb and its not that apparent. Or are you talking about airshow planes? Those are often very different from "combat ready" planes, much lighter, might have tuned engines and flight control systems. Those usually have a pre planned coreography to maximize the planes performance for stunts, drive it to the final edge. Thats very different from the expected combat performance usually, espeically with payload.

Btw you can put the text from the file into a spoiler tag like i just did, thats makes it a lot easier to read the thread. I think that the issue Ive reported, and its already a known problem.

Another thing is to consider that even the maximum T/W only takes weight in consideration. So even if the engines could lift the weight of the aircraft in a vertical climb, you will have air resistance slow you down. And the slower you go, the less air gets pushed into the intakes, the less thrust you produce, etc. Thats why almost no aircraft can sustain a vertical climb. Thrust to weight ratios are very misleading, because the thrust of an engine depends a lot on the air coming into the intakes. As a rule of thumb, the only aircrafts that can actually hold their own weight at stillstand are VTOLs, and only when theyre very light (no payload, low fuel).

Neat! Yeah, sounds like you guys are already on the issues, i just dropped it mainly in case it can help to fix more issues For now im just not using the preset feature. Feel free to ask if you need something else.

Heres the log, just launching the updater and doing the select default/go to preset and back to home/save changes thing: ED Updater Utility v2.log Edit: Oh, I found an error. If dont select default first in home screen, and go to graphics preset, it offers me to generate a default file. Clicking "yes" to that actually produces an error:

Crowdfunding and Kickstarter is to give money for projects that wouldnt be done otherwise. And the F-4 will have crowdfuding/Early Access, when they start giving an unfinished version of the plane module, against a price. Preordering digital goods that have been financed already, but have no released elements is NOT crowdfunding. Thats just emotionally investing yourself with money into something. Is that aimed at Heatblur? Because in that case you'd be making stuff up, theres no indicator for that. And if Heatblur deserves that effort, then Im sure theyre good enough to be honest about it. To me, it would actually lower my opinion if HB opens an early preorder, as long as they dont clearly state a believable requirement for it. I hope they are better than that.

Im not an expert here, but would it allow you to scan a huge area at the reduced range? After all even the F-14s and F-15s radar got huge ranges, 100 miles against hot fighters, and thats 80s radar. EF radar is a bit smaller, but much more modern. If you can get, idk, 75km range but scan a large area, that might be a useful mode.

Imo better to save yourself the disappointment. The Eurofighter might be 2 years away for all we know. Its an incredibly complicated aircraft, probably the most complicated ever done in DCS. That plane requires ED to make some changes to the codebase, likely. And while I assume the F-4 comes this year, it might face unexpected delays too.

Aye, heres a normal options.lua, set with DCS ingame options. Then I start the launcher. When I just click "default" preset on the home page, nothing changes. However, if I click "graphics preset editor", it shows the abnormal values, like 5900%. If then click back to home, it says values have changed. If I confirm with "yes", it sets the broken options. Starting the game, some get limited to maximum settings. Every single time I restart the launcher and do this, it repeats. The second options.lua is when I do that one time and select "write to options.lua". Options.lua Options_writebyGUI.lua Idk if useful, this is the logged bit, from opening the tab, going back to home and accept saving the new (buggy) values.

I think the change might be the issue ive been mentioning, it might misread values. Probably a formating issue, thats a very easy mistake to make.

As long as youre not claiming its a military simulation, rather than a video game sim for entertainment, I dont think people would disagree

You can talk a lot about it, but I feel the unspoken thing is more, why do you say "only a game"? Im just reading into those comments obviously, but often it feels like theres a reluctance in accepting in saying that its play. Like, DCS doesnt become less valuable when we admit its a game. When we admit that were playing a game, that were roleplaying a video game fantasy thats not real at all. It doesnt change how close we get to reality, its always a game. People dont just become adults and lose their sense of playfulness, or the need to play. And even the "real jet pilots" dont do that, pretty much nobody becomes a pilot without doing it for fun, besides other things. Just look at the podcast, all those real plots having a sense of humor and joking around, while talking about a game. And theres nothing wrong or to be ashamed about that.

Compared to table bombing, its probably a lot less work to get a bomb on target Already read up a bunch about it. The WRCS modes actually seem really powerful, it has "ground lockon" modes like A-4 mod, but even with offset for horizontal bombing and stuff. Really impressive stuff. Also even on the '75 F-4, it should be integrated with ground radar and Pave Spike pod. Even got an AGM-65 handoff function via pod. Its crazy how much technology they crammed into that plane and its partially analogue computers. Its almost like a proto-F18.

Im super excited for the F-4, but I suspect that plane will be very complicated from all Ive see and read Which tbf im fine with, I dont limit myself to simple planes or anything. Cant wait to dive into the Phantoms bombing computer!

Btw, funny tidbit: I find eg the Mig-21 already quite easy to control, its what I can go into when I dont want to deal with the complexities of the insane digital structure of Viper and Hornet, or the finnicky but powerful systems (and GIB) of a Tomcat. Its kinda like FC3 in that regard, but the cockpit+sytems simulation adds to immersion. I imagine a Mig-29 would be similar, just a bit convoluted to control, but otherwise quite straightfoward without much gimmicks and extras.

I got a ton of stuff and experience with DCS, theres about zero chance i would switch. And I doubt the quality of MAC would hold up. Mind, DCS is a really big system, and MAC would likely be a much more downgraded experience. ED would be heavily incentivized to support and improve DCS for the most part, with MAC likely becoming an afterthought. And lets be real, upgrading DCS is already a huge amount of work, with campaign, MT, Vulkan, AI+GFM, and so on being in the work for years. Theres not much other capacity. Splitting game systems into two seperate products like this never works well. As long as MAC isnt so limited and linear that it doesnt require much support. Oh yeah, to me that sounds very unlikely, Im not worrying about that. Im sure ED understand how much such a step would people annoy. Godwill is thin enough with the state of some modules. And I dont know ED really, but im not even sure theyd like the idea of not having late cold war soviet fighters in their game. Especialy the Mig-29 has gotten a bunch of nice upgrades, its probably the nicest of the FC3 cockpits, flight models and AI I think. Its so fun and interesting to fly, despite the limitations. Someone at ED probably likes that thing, even as a simplified module.

I dont think I would ever again buy an ED product, if they actually just remove bought modules from DCS. Im not that long with this game, but I think that would be unprecedented, too? edit: The only effective solution for me in that case would be, if ED gives a full fedility Mig-29A as an apology for removal of FC3. That I would accept.

Btw, maybe this is a "hot" opinion, but anyway: Id like if the STARM would be implemented int the F-4E, if documentation for the G's usage is available and translates well. As a kind of "fictional upgrade". To make the argument I wanna first mention the elefant in the room. I do not believe in slippery slopes here, like "does HB then have to implement any weapon ever made". That kind of argument is a fallacy, because its unlimited and arbitrary, and usually fuled by emotions. You cannot really argue such a thing The question to me is more, is rather a) is it believable, b) is it benefitial, c) is it worth the effort, and d) fits the devs vision. I also trust HB to make those decisions, theyve shown their competence, we users dont need to "protect" them from bad decisions. If they say no, then so be it. Basically, as long as were not getting the F-4G, the F-4E will be the choice for SEAD/DEAD in any scenario. And IRL SEAD/DEAD missions were often even done by teams of Es and Gs, with Gs mostly using their special features to locate SAM sites, and direct the F-4Es, who then used AGM-45s agains the positions. In a scenario with no availability of F-4Gs, it seems only logical to give them STARMs, and generally would allow "roleplay" kinds of scenarios where F-4Es are used in place of Gs. From what I understand, the STARM as a fictional upgrade to the F-4E should be very straightfoward, and would mostly just be a software update. E and G use the same tech-base for the most part, and shared the Shrike missile as well. Now idk how well that fits in HBs vision, and whats the effort/difficulty in implementation, thats up to their judgement and decision. But personally I think this would add a lot to the F-4 in DCS, considering the G is a far dream and quite niche. And the F-4E being the only pre-90s official module with actual SEAD/DEAD capabilities, with the only other thing being the A-4 mod.

edit: Also, temporary fix for my issue was to disable presets again. Seems like opening the user.config and removing the "set_preset" with the empty value was enough? Could be benefitial to have a button to "disable/unselect presets" in the app if its that simply. --------- First of all, Ive just starting using the Utility because I had some issues, and its amazing! Thanks a lot, Ive had some big confusion with DCS' exe/update/etc structure, and this especially makes starting the game in VR a lot easier. I have some problem with the graphical presets, however, I hope I can describe the issue: What I could identify is, when the launchers tries to retrieve/store certain options, the format doesnt seem to work. Eg my scenery rendering is 0.63, and my forrest rendering quality is 0.59. The utility, however, translates that to 6300% and 5900%: Issue also exists for gamma, some VR setting, etc. When I launch with launcher GUI, then ingame I get either those absurd numbers, and sometimes the options.lua generated by the updater GUI is just incomplete. Even on "default" setting it causes problems now (which I cant disable?), I basically cant use the launcher without clearign its options. I can set the launcher to use "ED medium preset", and it shows 10%, but launching the game it becomes 100% again. I deleted the config file for a reset, but as soon as I set my install and select a preset, the same issue reappears. Im using Win10 64 bit and a german OS language, not sure if that matters? Id appreciate if someone could help me here, and if I can contribute to fixing a bug, even better! (if it helps, below in spoilers are the problematic entries; in this one case gamma isnt wrong, its 22 usually, IPD distance is wrong too)

Yup, thats the kinda stuff im talking about.^^ Thats what im afraid off. When Im already playing DCS, I have little motivation to play MAC as a seperate game. Id much rather have it as a better version of FC3 planes or aircraft we wont get in FF, all integrated in DCS.

Yeah, thats a shame. FC3 is great because it fills out holes in the roster and scenarios. The higher level of detail of FC3 even benefits AI planes generally.

Aye, I knew ED said its still in works, but not sure hwo active in development. Do we know if its gonna be part of DCS like FC3, or a seperate game? Some comments sounded like the latter, which would be a big shame imo.

I dont think many people would be against a Flaming Cliff 4

Ive been getting blackouts on launch again, though shorter than originally. Anyone else having the issue?

Random suggestion, why not use the 5 position mode switch for the Liftoff/Nav/AA/AG/Landing modes?