Temetre

Thx! Thats actually a crazy difference, those pylons must be extremely draggy. I feel like the conclusion is more, the airframe matters less, especially if you train a lot. Because skill is more important than some small differences. And in DCS a good pilot can beat technically or role-wise far superior aircraft.

Yeah I almost suspected that one. Though wasnt the Tornado or Viggen designed to for supersonic low strikes with bombs on the outside? I mean, wouldnt otherwise supersonic capabilities be kinda pointless for low flying bombers?

Interesting, I wasnt aware that it got so low. Would 330 be an almost empty fuel tank? Personally I found it risky to drop below 400, because its very easy to bleed a ton of speed by accident, and it can be hard to get back up to speed. Its like the plane starts to react differently to control inputs around that area. Which I would assume was OPs mistake.

Probably also helped that precision guidance allowed you to do more 'standoffy' stuff and could accurately hit targets from high altitudes and speeds. Even tornado was made when guided weapons were still in its very early phase, and you had to come close or fly low for precisition strikes. Desert Storm was IIRC where guided munitions were first time used in massive numbers? Our beloved Maverick became famous there. But yeh, I know the SE has TFR and can do the missions; even the F-15C turned out a lot more versatile in terms of flight regime than I expected. Just seems strange to take a high altitude fighter and make it do low attack run jobs from a specialized low altitude swept wing bomber. Made me wonder whats the drawbacks, theres gotta be some. Good point, high flying fighters seems like they can rely on their huge wings flying low with heavier payloads? Guess it might be more draggy, or the engines might not be as optimized for low altitude. Not that it should be that hard to beat TF-30s with upgraded 80s engines. I guess the trade-off really might just be range for the most part then? Could imagine that especially low flight profile missions have a much shorter radius. For most DCS maps its probably gonna be more than enough though. I actually just flew through a good chunk of Syria in a low level flight F-18 bombing mission (Viggens wouldve been proud). Probably couldve done >1 hour of flight at ~mach 0.7 with 8000lb of bombs and 1x CFT. F-15E should do even more. Actually, do we know if the F-15E can go supersonic at sea level with reasonable bomb loads? Looks like F-111 was rated up to mach 1.2 at low altitude. Or I guess the question would be "is rated to go supersonic at low altitude with bombs", im sure its capable to do so.

Btw, can you please expand on that? I know the F-15E replaced the F-111, but I had the impression that the low flying attacks became more of a secondary mission. That the F-15E was more about flying very high altitude and striking targets deeper in enemy territory with precision weaponry. Also, that this change in mission was basically a justification for using the F-15 chassis, which seems more like a flier optimized for high altitude? Maybe im wrong though, would love to hear.

Viper and Hornet got much more modern avionics and ergonomics controls, that makes things easier. But even then theres twin-seat Super Hornets for a reason. The french air foce (or navy?) actually increased their share of twin seat Rafales, specifically because they proved more effective in strike missions.

Idk if its finished, but the flight model should be pretty damn close to reality by all accounts. Youre probably doing something wrong or get confused by the planes intricacies, thats at least what happened to me. Though Im surprised you find it strange compared to a Tomcat of all things! General rule with F-16 seems to be, watch your speed. If you drop below 400 knots, the plane increasingly feels like a boat. Low speed manveuring is not impossible or even terrible in an F-16, but more difficult and less efficient as in F14/F18/Mig-29. Well, except maybe the F-14, handling that thing at the edges of its flight regime can be very difficult, even if AFAIK it should do a lot better at low speeds than the F-16, in theory. To get a better feel, try to keep the plane above 400 knots. Use the acceleration to get even more speed, then use that speed to do high g-turns or go vertical. Thats how you play to your strengths with the F-16.

Come on, its their private server lol. Cant cheat if its not against the rules.

Agreed. Training is more simulator-style anyway, and not simulating any realistic flight. And frankly, DCS lacks easy simulator fight options, so we have to do everything ourselves. We dont even got basic stuff like a training mode with respawning enemies. Better modding APIs and a less aggressive IC in a singelplayer-only mode would be nice too. One workaround btw would be to eject and respawn the plane.

Of course its not cheating, the feature is realistic. And frankly, who knows how much it would be used in more desperate conflicts, where the USN/USAF/NATO doesnt got aerial supremacy? Whole navy-logic with limited Gs is to keep down cost and maintenance, and in war priorities change. But eg when I play liberation and train dogfights vs AI, I generally try to fly the aircraft in its normal flight regime. Ofc still gonna pull it when im in danger of crashing into the ground or if the alternative is death. And if G-damage to stores is implemented, pulling that lever might actually damage gear like targeting pods. Maybe even the under-wing weapon stations with Aim-120s?

Of course, tho its only a 30% override. I feel like the realism-people here infected me and it feels like cheating when I use the paddle. So I try to fly without it (ofc not gonna judge anyone for using it either). One thing I noticed btw is, I feel like the 5.5 limit I sometimes hit is in relation to the wings bending? That makes it a bit less confusing why the limit would suddenly go down halfway into starting a turn. Funny thing is tho, this made me read into G-limits, and theres actually a lot more g-limitations, especially in air-to-ground missions, than I knew. Even having a targeting pod on the F-16 is only rated to 7.3g, even Mavericks only got 6.5-6.0. Most bombs got 5.5. Makes a bit more sense why the clean Hornet is just 7.5 to 6.5G, more isnt really useful for its primary strike roles. The F-18 then auto-limits you to those values depending on equipment, but the F-16 apparently doesnt g-limit you at all, even in CAT 3. But currently we dont have any G-damage implemented in relation to equipment. So over-g'ing your massive 3x bomb rack in an F-16 has little consequences, nor is it gonna hurt your TGPs functionality. I feel like air-to-ground missions are going to become a lot more difficult in the F-16, when g-damage for stores is implemented. Probably gonna cement the idea that the F-16 has a bit of a general edge in A2A, but the Hornet has very useful qualities in A2G. Oh, and apparently at least the older ECM-pod got a 6G limit in itself? Thats gonna hurt the F-16, that thing is so useful in contested space. The Hornets internal jammer does as much G as the rest of the plane.

To be honest, I dont really get whats your point? I havent questioned if the F-14B cockpit is realistic, that it couldve flown that way. But it sounds like youre argueing that literally every example of a plan looking better and with more readable text is just fake, misleading or not realistic? That seems a bit ridiculous. I cannot give you a perfect and sourced example, sure, but I dont think anyone can do that. Like, look at this A-7 Skyraider cockpit below, do you really think this is the best sustained kit they couldve thrown together? I dont even know why it would matter if its from different aircraft, assuming all if them were in service. Despite all the wear, the text survived all of the torture. Its a pretty big elephant in the room that a) almost no aircraft anywhere has text this badly worn, and b) no aircraft in DCS comes close, not carrier either. So logically it seems to imply our F-4 cockpit is one of the worst ever been in service this way. Which again, theres nothing wrong with that. I just want people to see/agree that our F-14 is an extremely worn example, or prove me wrong, thats fine too. Personally, the only place where I got problems reading stuff is the gauges though. The altitude and speed gauge especially are hard to read, but idk if its a screen/render-thing or too low contrast. Might be a video game thing that cant really be fixed.

Oh yeh theres been a number of original plans, just stuff like "all big systems are completed" (or was it under completion?) made it sound like it was further. Tbf as said, Im generally happy if Devs arent afraid of giving imperfect but honest estimates. Yeah, if anything Im actually surprised how short the span from F-4 announcement to release will likely be. Especially if Heatblur releases a mostly feature-complete version of the plane, like they apparently did with the F-14. I love my F-18 and F-16, so no hate on ED, but the Hornets blurry A2G radar and F-16s lack of PFL/store g-damage does feel like big systems are still incomplete or missing. Those features will fundamentally change how we use the planes in some missions. IMO the best way to not get disappointed with that is to adjust your own expectations and see things from a more grounded perspective. Factually, HB hasnt really made a promise that the aircraft will release early and not be delayed. And realistically, theyre probably taking their time to release a mostly finished product to us, like with the F-14, which I personally prefer a lot to the really unfinished plane release we had in the past. And its not like with the F-15E and Corsair, where the lack of information is probably a lot more frustrating. Where it seems RAZBAM didnt do much at all with the F-15E for 5 years but just didnt tell people. Thats the point where the lack of information becomes problematic imo.

Yeh, for now it seems likes it best not to make assumptions or get hyped for potential release. Looks like 4-6 months away even with optimistic estimates. Just weird because it sounded like early this year was the original plan? Maybe that was a misunderstanding tho. Either way I hope HB deliver a good product from the getgo, like theyve apparently done with the F-14. If that means delays, its perfectly alright with me.

Btw, this seems like a solid dive into 6th gen plans and then sense and nonsense of it:

I mean, if Heatblur (+Grit) does a good Eurofighter, then they can probably do everything. That gotta be the most challenging to create aircraft announced for DCS, by a wide margin. Id expect at least 2 years or more. Maybe the project will even be cancelled because its just too difficult to develope the thing? At least im gonna keep my expectations low, its too far away to get excited. And if they actually do a good EF, it would be a dream come true.

Thats fair, I guess theres a lot of higher risk developments as well? Guess we can be happy that F-4E and Eurofighter are being done by a rather reliable 3rd party developer though. Honestly, I would have no trust at all in the idea of simulating an aircraft as modern as the EF, if it wasnt Heatblur.

You can also tell jester to set the range to a specific scale. So eg lock it to 100 or 200 miles or so, if that makes it easier.

Tbh I dont really see why some points here are so hotly contested? 1. Okay, theres an argument in service that an aircraft can look like this. Point taken. 2. But that doesnt defeat the point that this doesnt mean every F-14 looks like this. That in every scenario its realistic for the plane to look like this. 3. And theres a pretty big disconnect between this every other aircraft in the game. It doesnt seem that convincing that the F-14 is just by default the worst maintained fighter aircraft simulated in DCS. Ive seen pics of naval phantoms in museums have much clearer text. Obviously that doesnt mean that the aircraft textures are badly done, in contrary, they are extremely detailed. Nor does it mean it has to change, weve got more than enough free additional features that Heatblur just added. But its still an interesting discussion imo, and it does feel like some people just dont wanna accept point 2+3 though? Those are almost self-evident arguments. edit: Just to note on the latter point, someone posted this wonderfull site: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Virtual-Tour/Cockpit360/ Doesnt have a Naval Phantom, but how about an A-1 Skyraider, look how wonderfully clean the lettering is on this ancient carrier plane: http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/SEAW_tour/SEAW-1.html And here a A-7 Corsair. The only thing that doesnt look post-apocalyptic is, in fact, the text: http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/SEAW_tour/SEAW-2.html Like, its legit difficult to find any example of a plane that looks as rough as the text in our F-14. This is a pretty interesting rabbithole to be honest. edit: Also why not a random video from youtube from a museum F-14. Its actually an A apparently, 3:40 is cockpit:

Btw, Im really surprised how many DCS planes there are in development currently. What happened, did everyone just start to make sim planes during Corona?

To be fair, I cant say its harder than in real life, I dont know myself. And sure its more comfortable. But that also doesnt really change that im missing sense that I'd have in real life, and that makes tanking frustrating. In VR its easier because I get some sense back, tho I cant really play DCS in VR for performance reasons. Its like, the skill to solve that problem in DCS is to find geometric patterns on a 2D screen... thats just not the real deal, thats an arbitrary video game challenge created by technical limitations. Thanks, thats exactly what I hear from pilots. A lot of flying-stuff is a lot easier because you get a lot more sensory input. Both visual and feeling. Playing 2D you get only visual, and an inferior visual version of that! Even VR isnt perfect. I would also hope that refueling IRL is easier, considering how much eg NATO air forces rely on that stuff. Like, you get tired, dehydrated pilots that need to pee after hour long missions, and then they need to refuel before they can do a carrier landing xD Yeah I ment this kinda sims in general. Youve got a TON of experience, played sims for a long time, and apparently do a lot of training, including VR. Probably puts you in the <5% of sim pilots or so, even in DCS (obviously made up number, but Id bet on it^^). I like doing stuff like aerial refueling myself, but with the level of difficulty and artificial challenge I also wouldnt mind some workarounds till one got it down.

So youre saying its harder when you got no feeling for the aircraft? No depths perception or peripheral vision to tell distance? Ive heard pilots consistently saying that precision maneuvers are way easier in real planes. And frankly, even just in VR refueling is easier, because at least you get some depths perception. Why would reality then be harder?

T16000 isnt really smooth, its just not as bad as most other cheap sticks. Which is a pretty low bar. The kinda milimeter precise controls I have to do with a VKB would be near impossible on that stick. As long as you arent a god at flightsims I suppose? Someone always did the crazy stuff. Looks like the CH stick has at least seperate axises, that would be a big plus. Tbh from pure guess you sound like someone thats been playing flight sim for 10+ years and has refueled hundreds of times^^ Its mostly training after all. But refueling has such a high bar its a lot less accessible. I would bet its actually easier in real life.

If you find air-refueling easy, then you must be crazy xD I think an expensive stick is basically required. I got a VKB Gladiator, so that helps, but I wouldnt even want to try it with my old T16000 or so, thats prolly way worse than even the CH stick. Ive actually done my first F-18 refueling without a dedicated throttle, but that was pretty rough. Im going to try to get better, but IMO it would be very valuable to have an AI that can help with air-refueling, at least the post-contact stuff. Not everyone can afford the hardware, and personally I dont even feel very immersed trying to refuel. Thats one of the scenarios where the lack of perception and feedback just really hurts my experience.

Huh, thats interesting. From a lot of peoples talk I wouldve expected it to be planned for first half of the year or so. Now that almost makes me wonder if the module will even come this year. Or maybe just as as pre-christmas date.