Temetre

Okay fair on that then, I wasnt aware that an F-111 had that much more range and payload, and was considered that effective. Sounds like its a way bigger aircraft than I thought. Makes me wonder if I confused the F-111 with a different aircraft, or the problems were specific to fighter or naval variant. That actually sounds pretty fun, like an earlier Tornado or Viggen on steroids. Only thing that looks like a limitation is the lack of A2A missiles, not even sidewinders.

I havent said the current offer is inferior, and it has gotten a lot better with the last updates. Ive said so, I gicredit for that. But it took a long way to even fix massive bugs like the "cold at start" issue, which, together with other issues, made the FLIR experience extremely frustrating, in a way that had nothing to do with realism. So in at least a few aspect the big FLIR update made things worse, aka inferior. Id say thats self-evident. But how can a cold metal vehicle have the same temperature as a grassy field? The surface of a tank is clearly completely different than... grass. Eg in the sun, a tank might get very hot, while at night, its probably colder than the ground. This difference in temperature has to count for something. I might give a track later, but what Im talking about seems so obvious... like, were literally talking about spawning "cold at start" vehicles that dont move. They always look like that, almost invisible above grass. My track could literally be five seconds long.

Oh wow! That explains why theres always a lot of talk about american weapon development. I wasnt aware there was this big of a level of transparency. Thx tho, that helps a bit to understand the direction of development. Makes the wikipedia claims also believable.

Yeh I made that assumption too, but I was just quoting wikipedia tbf^^ It sounded like Skywalker has some source or so. (pls dont do a discord if its classfied tho)

Thx for clearing it up then, in that case everyhing works like its supposed to be. Where did you get the stuff about the JHMCS/off bore cueing from then? It certainly sounded interesting.

Ah thanks, that explains a lot!

Hm, ive recently tried mavericks again, and at ~5-10 miles or so the handoff was very accurate, didnt even need boresighting despite closely packed soviet tanks (target practice). Or are they auto-boresighted when you start in flight?

Yeah, I think CPL is also for autopilot CCRP. People said it was bugged in the past. Its brillant tho, dont need guided weapons if you got guided plane :^)

Honestly yeah, I really wouldnt mind if devs shared a bit more about the development process. Game development always seems very opaque. Like we know more about hollywood movies with hundreds of millions of dollars of budget, then we know about most games in development. I think that might be more a niche audience thing though. Oh, actually reminds me: Star Citizen is actually a pretty good example for transparent development. Ive never seen a dev share this much of the development with the community. For the longest time they even shared their internal feature database with the public, idk if they are still doing it.

Considering it doesnt seem to be mentioned in the manual, I dont think its implemented.

More in a general sense, is the F-18 radar just broken in general? Ive heard that IRL its so precise that you sometimes can make out vehicle/aircraft type, but in the game its resolution is attrocious, especially past 5-10 miles everything is a blurry mess. The EXP modes (not just 3) mostly seem to expand the blur, rather than increase detection. Kinda got used to just never using the AG-radar, because it seems just kinda useless in DCS. To then go and try the F-16 ground radar is night and day. Way more detail and less bluriness, even at higher range, and the EXP mode improves image quite a bit. Its certainly not flawless, but its actually usable and sometimes even useful. edit: Reading up a bit, people have been talking about how IRL in Gulf War they used the radar to look for ground targets (not just GMT). Thats something you cant even do in an F-16 in DCS, and the 18 is way worse. I mean, its not like the 16 can really identify ground targets either.

Thx, makes sense!

Hm, maybe were talking about different things? I was talking about these points you listed: 1. The main difference between BORE and SLAVE guidance modes when using JHMCS with the AIM-120C missile is the source of guidance information. In both modes, the pilot can use JHMCS to cue the missile towards a specific target [...] 2. However, when the pilot is using the JHMCS, the pilot can use the helmet-mounted display to cue the missile towards a specific target, regardless of whether it is within the radar's FOV or not. The pilot can designate the target by looking at it through the helmet-mounted display, and the missile's guidance system will direct it towards the designated target. My current understanding is: This isnt implemented in DCS, the JHMCS doesnt seem to do anything for the Aim-120 in bore mode. And in slave mode the JHMCS controls the fire radar, not the aim-120 (which is slaved to the radar). Ive also not really seen anything indicating the missile should be able to do that (and IIRC someone else said the same). So I wondered if youre sure that this is even in the Aim-120C version of the missile?

Of course you dont want to ruin the game, we all want DCS to be the best it can be. But if you replace an older feature, that was inferior but works, with a new one, that doesnt fully work because its incomplete, then that kinda feels like you broke that part of the game. It improved, but after the IR-update, I had so many cases where it was nearly impossible to make out targets via the pod using IR mode.

Yeah, I think Aim-120 is supposed to have 60 degrees? Doesnt feel that way. Tbh im using the boresight so little, I dont even know if they fixed the missles locking onto other missiles yet^^ From the limited info I could find, Skywalker might well have been talking about more modern Aim-120 variants, apparently they got off-boresight features and two way datalink.

More substantially, hot start works well now. See bottom of picture, variety of soviet vehicles. But cold start, top 5 tanks, still seems weird. Even if we chose cold start, it doesnt seem to make any sense for a tank having the same temperature and level of IR radiation than the ground? Or is the issue that temperature of the tanks takes a while to change, and problem comes fom the sim assuming ground/vehicle having the same temperature at launch?

Im sure China has surpassed Russia in a lot of ways. Obviously they also had access to much more modern tech and computers than the Soviets, etc. And China probably has top tier abilities when it comes to reverse-engineering and understand foreign technology. But the ability to build a world class engine is still a different thing. RnD is way more involved and requires established structures, they dont come out of nowhere. I actually ment to write F-135 from the start, because it would even surpass that engine by a margin^^

Even then, the F-119 seems to be more advanced than anything the soviets put out, including the russian upgrades on them? Idk if theres clear evidence that the chinese industry even has the RnD capability of developing fighter engines better than the soviets? The material science problem was mostly about struggles to replicate them. That doesnt mean its not possible, but even that this very basic capability doesnt seem to be fully proven. And the WS-15 claims are just ridiculous, not just compared to the F-119. If the numbers are true, then the WS-15 would have a substantially higher thrust to weight ration than even the F-135. If I see it correctly, then the WS-15s dry T/W would be close to the F-135s afterburner thrust, it would literally be the most powerful jet engine, in terms of T/W, to be ever developed?

Idk about the other stuff, but the pilots g-limit does seem extreme concerned to everything I read about G-forces on pilots and the capabilities of the F-16. Apparently the F-16 is supposed to do be able to do a 9G 180 degree turn? I dont think that works in DCS.

I dont get why developers do this sometimes. They litterally and intentionally broke a major part of the game, and tell us "well its unfinished". Thats... really bad. Like they must understand that they are destroying a central part of the games experience and simulation? They intentionally degraded their product, untl they at some point in the future fix everything. Games have enough bugs without intentionally breaking them, and thats clearly true for DCS. And its not like this is an unsolvable problem. Either only have the breaking update on an experimental, or have a backup bandaid to cover the unfinished parts (eg not updated vehicles get default textures or so). Im sure the QA team mustve instantly understood how much damage this did to the experience.

Jesus christ, how do you not get the irony of saying that. But no, mod is right, it would be stupid, off topic and against the rules to delve into that.

I dont wanna be 'that' contrarian guy, but I genuinely wonder: How much interest would there really be for an F-111? From what Ive read, it seems like a rather flawed aircraft. Forwardthinking, but unreliable, and the wing-sweep didnt add nearly as much versatility as it did to the F-14. Using TF-30 engines apparently was one of the biggest issues of the early 14. It also feels to me like it wouldnt add much capability as a twin seat bomb truck, compared to the F-4E? Its mostly unguided weapons, and the F-4s seems to have capable enough navigation and bombing computers, especially in the DMAS. Or am I mistaken, and just underestimate the Aardvark, is there something to be excited about beside the historic significance?

Yeah, I dont intend to continue this. Theres little point in talking to people that just assume motive where they dont understand the argument; especially not when its apparently degraded to prejudices about "racist westerners".

Tbf didnt they revert that because it was too difficult to use? IIRC its more of a combined system, where force matters, but the stick still moves a bit. No clue how exactly it works though, its an interesting system.

Fair, you didnt say "in every way", but pretty close to that. You said it about materials, that the chinese engine tech is way beyond russia, that China could make stuff on the level of F-22, but it would just be much more expensive. And i didnt want to go into the Tokamak thing, but I think you might misunderstand what that was about. No material can withstand the "heat of the sun", thats why they use magnetic fields to contain the material. Nor does it imply any of the material is actually useful for aircraft. So to derive knowledge about chinese material technology from that is a bit questionable. Even the idea that the only thing holding chinese engine technology back being materials seems liek a narrative thats not backed up by accessible facts. It might be true, but it certainly would unusually quick to catch this quickly. No matter how outdated, soviet had some advanced tech and a lot of experience. Of course not. Im just saying that Russia is a reminder that governments really love to lie. And there is some parallels between the russian and chinese governments, without trying to become political. They are both much more restrictive in freedom of speech and military secrecy. Thats the main reason we have F-16Cs and F-15Es in DCS, but not even Mig-29As and the only chinese J8 is the peace pearl. You know, the "once bitten, twice shy" thing. The F-22 is the most secretive western plane, actually moreso than the F-35. We never saw a shot of the cockpit IIRC. And thats why im not making big claims about that aircraft, and why I would remind people of that, same way im saying it about the J-20. But even then, weve seen the F-22 fly a lot more, including in combat scenarios. It was eg used in Syria, although more as a "network/sensor node" and limited precision ground attack role. Compare that eg to the russian Su-57, which is supposed to have flown in a lot of places, but we never see any evidence. For the F-22 theres also a lot more pilots talking about it on podcasts, with limited from Red Flag exercises, etc. Thats way more than we got for many russian (and chinese) weapons. Like the SU-35 is likely outdated in many ways, relies on western tech, and offered for exports, but theres very little solid info on it despite that. And Chinese weapons like the J-20 are just a mistery box, nobody knows whats really going on inside that plane. Again, historically think of the Mig-25? Looked amazing to westerners, featured heavily in soviet propagnada, thats why US concluded the F-15 was incredibly important as a counter. And in the end, the Mig-25 was actually an extremely limited, fundamentally flawed plane cobbled together from other tech. And heck, we dont even know too much about the avoinics of modernized 4th gen aircraft. For example, Russia put the most modern AA-systems they got in Syria. So why are Israeli F-16s just freely striking away on iranian targets in Syria? They mustve done some pretty interesting things with those aircraft.