Temetre

I mean Aim-7s against enemies like Mig-21s are pretty great. Enemy has almost no ability to attack you head one

Yeah im joking now about, but it wouldnt be the most crazy thing. But gotta make sure not to get your hopes up to high^^

Last part was more of a joke^^

Theres a bunch of techniques, laser scanning, 360 photos, photogrammetry, etc. I think HB might already do a few of those things.

If that disappears, then hopefully by making it harder in general to shoot down munitions, especially maneuvering glide bombs! Sounds more like he made a minor mistake this time? Probably was overly cautious after the last time he got grilled for his vid.

The 2000-5 would absolutely bring a lot, mostly MICA-integration. Those are really interesting french active missiles, with R and IR version. And probably even more importantly, we'd go from 2+2 missile to 6+2. Only being able to use 2x S530D's is just a big limit in what you can do with the plane, even offline or in 80/90s servers. In more modern battles you get wrecked by active missiles, or at least forced to give up the lock for the S530. Which is kind of a shame, because this is an amazing little plane, and the module is so well done.

It seems clearly incomplete, I can accept that with an EA module. But its so strange this stuff isnt even on the roadmap. Still flying the F-14 currently, which seems to have a much more granular damage model, its a massive difference.

Afaik the cockpit language of those planes is all english. But im not 100% on that^^

I mean the release schedule is very obvious if you think about it. 1. We expected plane last year, didnt come that year. 2. We now expected plane this year, so it wont come this year. 3. The plane will always come next year, roughly on pace with fusion power. It might release before the F-15E, however.

I dont think the Hornets FBW actually changes maneuvrability, but yes, to my understanding its an inherent feature that it makes the plane control similarly when heavily loaded and clean. And the limiters probably make sure that youre unlikely to overstress the airframe, evne when pulling turns. Gonna be more difficult in a Phantom.

Of course, though I assume the same would be true for a Hornet^^

Oh really? I should look out for that, but the plane felt pretty good at high altitude imo. But maybe thats partially becuase im comparing it to an F-16.

I see, wasnt aware thats actually been a first. Probably helped a lot to have very reliable avionics and weapons at that point. Tho it would be interesting to see if we could replicate it with an F-4E in DCS. Gotta make sure to understand all the limitations, of course.

And apparently thats an A2G radar mode that can even slave the Pave Spike if equipped. Dang.

Hornets did that in first Desert Storm strike apparently, quad 2000lb bombs, and they shot down two Mig-21s with sparrows, before proceeding to their objective. But thats of course a quite different time, setting and plane.

blah blah blah cant put ter with tripple mk-82s below shoulder mounted aim-9 thats against the rules blah blah blah

Thx, thats a good reality check. The M2K felt amazing to me, smooth and reactive in almost every regimes I put it, with acceleration to rival the F-16. That was a surprised to me, considering how F-16/F-18 got the notoriety of being the best dogfighters ever made, and people often downplay the Mirage. But I dont wanna derail the thread, Im kinda ignorant about the F-16 (and its a capable plane anyway). Curious to see where this flight model discussion goes.

Sorry if its slightly OT, but this makes me wonder, why do people say the Mirage 2000 is a bad rate fighter, that its delta wing is too draggy in turning fights? Trialing the thing and seeing graphs like this make it look like a pretty damn good rate fighter, beside top tier nose authority.

Idk, I just ment that some aircraft are way easier to over-g than others. And that the F-14 mightve combined technical advances (in flight performance) but lagged behind in control logic (FBW, stability assist, etc) that could make it a more tricky to handle plane in some ways. But thats just a tought from me in a very specific context, I dont wanna argue about it if I cant really convey what yi mean^^

Of course, but the F-14 has a combination of engine power, lift and control authority that you see in very few, and mostly more modern aircraft? The F-15C is probably not far off, if at all, but I think its better ('analogue') FBW system should be much more powerful and make it it harder to over-g, have controls become less sensitive at high speed for example. I assume the same is true for SU-27? The F-4E likely has a more primitive flight control system than the F-14, but also wouldnt get that easy into super high-g situations, because it doesnt got the power of an F-14. Or am I just wrong about that?

Ah, so it might make a difference at higher altitude? Interesting, tho its probably quite niche and difficult to keep track off. Yeah, I think IRL the mistakes were usually up to ~12g, and the damage was more to engine or so. The airframe breaking at 15-20g seems pretty extreme, and speaks for the plane being quite sturdy. Its kinda funny, I suspect the F-14 is one of the very few planes that has enough power and control to get into situtaions like that by accident, without the FBW to protect you from the fallout. Im still quite green with the F-14, but I think 20g incursions are still difficult to make. The more realistic "alternate buffet" seems to make it easier to over-G, I think I prefer the visually slightly exaggerated version. Gives at least some feel about how brutal the shake must be. Dangit, USN getting into the way of fun and comfort :^)

IIRC the only reason KA-50 is fine is because its a prototype that was only procured in small numbers, and is not used anymore. And Im sure ED would do a Mig-29 if they could; they probably put a bunch of money into that planes development, until they had to cancel it.

Thx for the additions. Yup! Relevant thing is just that the dev is aware of those issues. Im reporting what I think is a bug, Im not telling ED how relevant the issue is. I even mentioned that im not sure whats their intentional preference, so I just list things that look out of place to me. So, with all due respect, can you take your own advice? Can you stop telling us about how relevant you think the problem is or isnt? This is going in circles and makes the bug report ever messier. Ive listed breaches in procedure and illogical setups. If you fly into combat, master arm on, with landing lights enabled... then that would be your preference. In reality, you'd also get quite an earful about what youve just done.

Yup, im pretty sure the behaviour changed over time, and there is clearly a configuraton set up by ED for air starts. Its just that it likely misses some switches, maybe just because systems were changed, but not the presets.

Sometimes small bugs get ignored because nobody posts them. Many just think "if this was an issue, it mustve been known", or "someone mustve reported it before". Or because most people are too lazy to report a problem. And just look at it: Now that someone posts it, we got two people even try to actively drown it. Frankly, that doesnt motivate me, or probably anyone looking at this, to write more reports. You wanna know how development/reports/QA actually works? With public reports, you got mods/community managers/QA/devs decide if its a relevant issue to elevate, and if so, then verify if the behaviour is intended. If its considered to be a bug, or at least an improvement, then it gets put on issues lists' which is sorted by priority. There is no use in random people, with no connection to the development, talking about how they "assume" the issue is unintended, or irrelevant. Thats just spamming whats supposed to be a cut and clear bug report with text, and frankly just feels toxic. Youre telling me im on a 'high horse', when youre trying to tell me me what bugs I should consider important and what not. Which couldnt be more irrelevant in a bug report.