Temetre

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.

AAA-publisher did quite a job on gamers :^)

The whole "historical version" seems like a fallacy. How is one existing plane version "more historical" than another? Why is a modern version less relevant? And specifically Phantoms, its not like they ever only flew in Vietnam. Were literally getting the most commonly produced variant of the aircraft, which most of the export models were originally based on. The F-4E variant clearly carries the most historical significance, if there is such a thing.

Thats definitely how it felt Very nice update!

I havent blacked out on my last launch, that was a quite welcome and nostalgic experience Idk if it was my imagination, but the F-14 also felt a bit more stable after launch. (then again I sometimes launches with parking break on because im a derp)

Looks dope. And the performance improvements are VERY welcome

TISEO will likely be only in the DMAS, and the DSCG is coming first. The 'feature creep' wasnt about a strobe RWR, Cobra said afterwards that they dont have one in the works.

Are you a fighter pilot? Or are you just assuming that its common to operatively remove the pilots humor?

Yeah, middle of the post I was like "wtf am i even doing here, im getting way too much into this". I was way overthinking the whole topic, halfway missing the point I wanted to make, and its no surprise my post was hard to follow, let alone seemed like a personal attack. Sorry for that!

You know what? That wasnt what I ment, and I probably couldve put it a lot better. I think the slippery slope argument was really stupid, but there was no personal attack intended. But theres really no point going on with that specific topic after that start, would be a waste of time for either of us.

Culture of soon? That was always a thing in game development, especially when developers want to deliver quality. Frankly, the will to delay is usually a sign of quality, compared to releasing it early.

Warning, Wikipedia stuff, so take it with a pinch of salt: My thought from that is, if true, then the missiles behaviour should be different even if the kinetmatic performance in itself is the same. After all, digital controls will likely change the function of the control logic, thats basically impossible to avoid. A different seeker and new proximity fuse might also change how the missile operates, and thus would also affect the sofware programing decisions. Youd also think that the makers/militaries just got smarter and more experienced at missile logic, so newer missiles should just be better. Aim-7M/MH are supposedly also the same missile, but got updated software.

Klarsnows bottomless pit of knowledge to the rescue Thanks, I knew I heard people talk about that but wasnt entirely sure what the source was.

There is a lot of different ways to use PN though. Even the most basic analogue PID controller can be tuned, and those missiles got pre-programmed flght profiles. So maybe theres differences, because the files look different? Idk. And as said, theres a possibility of updates around the F-4E release and beyond, especially for earlier Sparrows. Aim-7M uses exactly the same interface as Aim-7F, as far as I know? Im note sure if an F-4E would even require a software update to carry an Aim-7M. I was under the impression that the F-4E was even rated for the Aim-7M, but Ive not seen clear evidence for that. And as said lastly, if you got Aim-7Ms and F-4Es going up in A2A focussed missions against Mig-23s with R-24, its a no brainer to equip the planes with it. Thats just how war works, you dont throw away an advantage. That would be quite jarring. And if we just talk realism, the 7M had a bunch of upgrades over the 7F, even if DCS doesnt simulate it. I dont think its all or nothing, thats kinda my point: Theres a lot of arguments for adding it, and not having the 7M would be limiting in choice of scenario. Were not asking for something weird like R-27s to be added here.