Temetre

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?

Visibility and accuracy of ground units is a massive issue. BMP-2s are among the most powerful anti air guns in the game, its insane. CAS is hardly even a thing in DCS with how accurate any gun that shoots in the air is. I also got my doubts about the ability of MANPADs to easily spot, track and take out supersonic jets.

Just wanna report back, I fixed almost all my performance, stutter, slow startup, VR and MT issues, just by reinstalling the game. Full repair didnt change anything, and I didnt need to touch my config files at all. Just clearing the DCS game folder and redownloading did it. Maybe some files mustve gotten corrupted or so, and the repair tool couldnt fix it. Either way, those single spike stutters are gone in MT, VR+MT works perfectly fine now, and the framerate is much better in VR. Also, starting time of DCS went from ~2 minutes to 20 seconds.

This is an amazing mod, thank you! Mig-21Bis is a ton of fun as a module, the only real issue I found the sound (eg engine noise location).

Honestly I think some Simmers take themselves too serious, at least on the internet But yeh, its interesting how sim setups get a way more positive reaction, its a nice change.

That looks really nice!

This Kola map seems a bit out of the way at first, but its a great setting for cold war scenarios. I think itll fit very well into DCS as well, just from the environment. Sure Syria is cool, but its nice to finally have a more forrested european map, and the central land mass will probably allow a lot more variety in campaigns, compared to mediteranean/gulf maps, where you usually fight in lanes at the edges of the sea. From the pictures, the mountains also seem quite pronounced, so low flying action might be pretty cool too. At the same time theres still a lot of sea and ports, if you like the water stuff. Its by far the map im most interested in currently.

Well put, but to be fair, its not like were getting an F-4F ICE, its still gonna be a ~75s aircraft and arguably the most famous interation^^ Personally I think its important to have a "big variant" like the F-4E, rather than a more specifc niche model, because this is gonna be the only big F-4 simulation for a long time. If HB didnt make an F-4 with slats, for example, then we'd never get the fly a slatted F-4 for the foreseeable future. A big part of the puzzle that is the F-4s story would be missing. The '85 is less relevant for histroical conflicts probably, but its a very intresting evolution of avionics, and likely give F-4 a bigger role as strike-aircraft in later scenarios in DCS. Likely a lot easier to do than eg simulating an F-4D instead.^^ IMO its actually a nice surprise how many variants well get. Not just the two F-4Es, but also a naval one, which will likely include the unslatted J and the S. And if the F-4 is highly succesful, and HB is interested, maybe we gonna get later addons for different variants?

Im not saying people just "make up" what is the meaningful variant. They have 100% reason to think so. I was more on about how those reasons, the factors themselves with which you judge relevance of an aircraft, can be subjective. Eg its not hard to make an argument that Vietnam was very close to the planes history. But thats not an unassailable argument either. Is Israels use of the F-4 less relevant than the US use of the F-4 in Vietnam? Thats the kinda question where I dont think you can really make a clear judgement. And how relevant is the difference between the used variants? Can we have one to represent multiple types of F-4s? Purely personally I like the F-4E because it can portray so many variants, can be limited to what job I want. Especially the export models are often based on the E too (tho not all with slats apparently). But honestly most people in this thread were perfectly reasonable about that when asked more about their view. Original comment that made me write my thing was actually the earlier one saying: "One problem I have with DCS modules is that they are almost always the latest, most advanced variant rather than the types that were historically significant" Which I guess slightly triggered me and made be a bit more presumptious than I shouldve been.

Yeah maybe im attributing something ive seen elsewhere to these comments. No harm intended

I dont think its language difference, and more that people portraying subjective opinon as fact. Taking their view on which plane is the most "important" way too serious, to the point where its condescending towards others (see 'people always want the most modern and capable' bit). Like, you even say the hardwing F-4E is more relevant than the slatted F-4E. You dont see how arbitary that is? The D/hard E doesnt even line up with the factors you mention. Biggest historic impact? Well, neither version won the war. And the late vietnam F-4E is the result of all historic lessons for the USAF use of fighters. Most widely known/appreciated? Definitely late war F-4E. Not in service is not a factor here, but I think you could make in argument that planes in service are pretty relevant too. And its not like the F-4E is even limited to the Vietnam war, its just that Americands tend be kinda obsessed with that period (for obvious reasons).

If were just talking personal preference, then I totally get you. I just find it weird when its some times sounds like people try to make that objective statements, like "this is the more relevant version". Honestly, I can see both of it. In some scenarios I love modern tech and the complex battle field it creates, but also really enjoy the cold war stuff for its own reasons (hence im super excited for F-4). Or WW2, I loved IL2 sturmovik so much back in the day, and I was rarely flying the best version of those old planes. Personally I feel like the slats are a big and significant evolutionary step in the F-4s history, it would be a real shame to not have them. Especially considering this is gonna be the ultimative simulation of the F-4 for the foreseeable future. HB has said they would like to make the Navy F-4 the J and the S variant though, so both unslatted and slatted. So thats pretty cool!

Oh then I 100% agree with that, some comments just sounded like "this is objectively the more significant version" which was a bit strange to me. Maybe I misunderstood, thats why I was asking.