Temetre

I think the F-22 was more like 300 million dollar, which is why they shut down the production of the aircraft. Too expensive for America^^ Even something like the Eurofighter is painfully expensive. Idk tho, you talk like China has top of the world technology in literally every aspect, which just doesnt make any sense to me. That seems like wishful thinking. In reality, I think its more that we dont really know anything, because the chinese government is excessively secretive. And frankly, a lot of those extreme claims remind me of Russia, who also claimed to have those super advanced tech, and usually it turned out its like decades behind western tech, with the most shiny parts being derived from western consumer goods. Even something like the J-20, literally nobody knows if that thing is any good. It could be a completely unusable pile of garbage, or it could be on par with modern western fighters. But we dont know. And I kinda feel China wouldnt need to be so secretive if it actually was.

He knew

Also why devs learned that giving honest dates usually isnt worth it, because people take it like promises. I rather they take their time and have a reasonably functional aircraft to deliver; early access or not, you only get one release. And the F-4E is probably one of the most famous and capable early/mid cold war aircraft out there.

I had the impression that below 10k, the F-16 is just one of the best performing aircraft (>400 knots)? If thats a secondary ability, then the Typhoon is a monster. But then again, considering how non-stealth, modern and damn expensive that thing is, you would hope so.

Idk, I'd always be suspicious about extreme sounding numbers like that. Its not too long ago that China struggled to replicate Soviet engines, and now they already beat an F119 in a number of ways? Lets wait and see till we get some basic evidence at least.

If were just making wishes, how about this: RAZBAM, can we get a Rafale pretty please

Hm, WIkipedia says the Aim-120D got improved off boresight features and navigation. If that JHMCS cueing feature is a thing, then maybe its just not yet on our older 120C? Could be a followup to the Aim-9X improvements, bringing its features to AMRAAMs. (meanwhile 9X is becoming a BVR missile) edit: Also a "two way datalink" was introduced with that missile. Sounds fitting. Its strange that its not implemented though, most weapon systems allow you to use their own sensors. Mavericks or Heatseekers. But active radar missiles they dont allow it? Especially considering radars break a lot, and the Aim-120 being potent at WVR. If thats not a thing, maybe its a technical reason, like limited seeker life?

^Good stuff. Did some testing and double checked the manual after that. Possible I missed something ofc, but: Looks like everything written above seems to check out, except using the Aim-120s radar in bore mode, which seems to be completely missing as a feature. I couldnt find a way to lock targets with the Aim-120 without using the radar. JHMCS doesnt seem to have any ability to control Aim-120s seeker head either, let alone give off-bore cues to its computer.

No, I dont see any difference, also OpenTrack Only difference Ive noticed (idk if its still that way) is that the HMD cueing for sidewinders seems a bit quicker on the F-16 (maybe its updated faster). Im using OpenTrack, and there this is a software-feature specifically called "relative tracking", that is not actually part of DCS. Maybe check if you got a game profile where you have to specifically enable it? TrackIR has some whack relative tracking modes afaik. Personally I disabled it though, because it made it hard to keep the center and head movement is twitchier. Can improve that with stronger curves, but those bring new problems.

This sounds weird. The way I understand things is(someone please correct if otherwise): Under normal circumstances the boresight radar (dogfight mode, TMS up or so), definitely controls and locks the FCR, regardless of weapon equipped. Both Aim-120 and Aim-9x are slaved to the FCR target (after lock). I also dont really understand the point of just using Aim-120 for a lock before or instantly on firing. If its missile radar is used, then it creates an RWR contact anyway? If anything the FCR might be faster at locking and providing a good solution to the Aim-120? To me using the missile radar directly seems more like something youd do at most when the FCR is damaged. Maddog just happens when you shoot the missile without a lock. But I think the missile goes active almost instantly, and Ive never heard the JHMCS can actually cue a Maddog? I mean, that could be pretty funny, like an overly expensive cheap Aim-9x. Using Aim-120s in dogfights has potential for becoming a guilty pleasure.

AFAIK the Eurofighter is more designed for high altitude though, so I'd imagine they are not pulling 9g as much. Actually makes me wonder how the huge delta wings affect drag at low altitude. Probably super efficient turns, but wasteful at angle of attack (and high G)? People told me the F-16 has small wings because its better for sustained high speed 9G turns.

I wonder? My first plane was the F-18, and frankly, I wasnt overly interested in the plane itself. It was more about getting into DCS and the idea of fully simulating a modern multirole fighter aircraft. A lot of new people seem to go that way. Funny storry, I actually had the impression of the F-18 being a bit of a mediocre plane; like an underpowered, but cheap carrier aircraft that did the job because american avionics were ahead of competitors. Only when I learned and flew the plane, I really started to appreciate what it was, and got interested in its history. These days I almost feel like that plane was more like the F-35 of the 80s; not the most flashy fighter, but ahead of the curve in some pretty amazing ways. Im not really playing DCS in an "rp-heavy" way, but flying and learning planes in DCS is not just fun in itself, but also a history (and physics?) lesson for me. I wonder how other people treat this? Theres only so many "favorite planes" you can have as a first buying choice, after you got two planes or so, theres gotta be other motivations for people too. I mean, arguably some planes of the past were kinda bad? Like, F-16 was probably 60 bucks at EA release, but so incomplete it was hardly usable? What Ive read from the early EA sounds pretty barren, idk why anyone would want to fly a Sim plane in that state. And if its just crowdfunding, then the price seems kinda extreme.

Idk, you dont get what Im saying. But its not a big deal either.

Theres also a lot of overlap. Like, the F-18 was a no-brainer when it came out. Then the F-16 brought something very similar. Now we get the F-15E, which is certainly unique, but for how many people does it bring enough new stuff to the table to buy it? Maybe thats part of why, after the rush of more modern planes, many developers now make cold war aircraft, because theres a lot of variety. The F-4E is probably gonna be the biggest one, a kind of multirole-cold war plane. One positive aspect is that this might create some inter-DCS competition. DCS always had an issue with lack of competition, which is part of why everyone culd jack up prices so hard, while some devs delivered super early access and took extremely long time to complete aircraft. With more and more overlapping modules coming out, that might force some competition, even for ED.

Idk if I should even carry on this, but... yeh, it sounds backwards because you dont get what Im saying. Of course I didnt say that I like realism and thats why I dont want realism, that would be a stupid thing to say. And if I didnt like elements of realism, then I obviously wouldnt play DCS. I mean, you just need to apply that logic to yourself: So do you have >1 hour briefing and preperation phase every time you do a DCS flight? Do you play every aircraft from a custom made simulator cockpit directly replicating the aircraft model you fly? Did you stop playing flight sims ever again after crashing the first time? Because if you dont do those things, then you are playing unrealistically, and skip realism to get faster to the fun. How is that different from me not liking elements like overly long INS phases? Its not even perspective, its preference. Take a step back and look at the shortcuts you like to do, and then consider that Im doing the same.

I know what you mean, but I dont really enjoy the extensive testing of everything. Its also a matter of time; its hard enough to even understand and correctly use a lot of the normal use systems on certain aircraft. A lot of my flights are half about learning to use systems effectively, as much as its about just using them. When I fly a different aircraft, again theres a "getting used to" period. Stuff like that imo goes into roleplay territory (tbf maybe so does engine startup in general), and everyone wants different things. Or heck, people sometimes want heavier and sometimes lighter sessions. It gets even contradictory when you play VR; thats the most immersive way to play flight sims in some ways, but considering how tiring it cane be, you hardly even get to fly till you get headaches or dizzy and have to stop. Skipping some "RP-stuff" is what allows you to have a more immersive experience. But yeah, im kinda brabbling on. Sims like DCS are weird, because they never replace the experience of actually flying the plane. We all set ourselves rules as to how realistic we want to play or not. No matter how detailed the devs want to be, they just cant replicate that experience.

Sounds like a lot of aircraft earned the nickname flying pencil, even some WW2 fliers. Though I especially like the idea of Soviet Mig-21s (and 'successors' like J-8) being considered supersonic flying pencils. Originally I really didnt care about about the J-8, but considering how fun the Mig-21Bis was, and this being like a massively improved version, Im very curious now.

To be clear, I didnt say that jets are "wrong", Ive said that if every jet just gets worn down that quickly, then it would mean something is wrong. Thanks for the detailed explanation. The F-14 certainly has a strange history.

Thanks, that isnt too bad. Actually just seen that its actually in the DMAS manual!

Do you read my replies? Because, then theres questoins like, why doesnt any other aircraft look that way? This is literally the only aircraft looking like that in DCS. So if a plane looks like this after a few months, then every other plane is wrong. I also dont see any evidence for that actually being true. Even on images of other IRL fighter aircrafts ive seen they are rarely this worn down, as long as theyre in service. I havent touched on the details because the answer admitted that its hard to have exact information, but the comparision to other planes is the first thing thats relevant. Frankly, it sounds like youre just trying to swat down and downplay anyone questioning if its that simple. Im not even saying this is necessarily wrong, but theres some open questions then.

Fair, I probably overreacted to your comment. I thought it was kinda obivous what Ive been talking about, but maybe not? Because Im not saying that at all, its actually the opposite: INS is the only thing where I ever really want unrealism. Im fine with startups taking some effort, like its in most DCS aircraft. I like the level of simulation. When I fly a mission, even in liberation, I sometimes just like to do startup and shutdown procedures. Its immersive, it can be fun. I think the game would lose something if I only ever use hot start on an aircraft. So why dont I like INS align? Well, compared to any other thing, youre just stuck waiting for minutes doing nothing. This is actually pretty unique in DCS, because in almost every other situation im under a heavy workload. With INS alignment, it just forces me to do nothing. I mean its probably not hard to see why that can be boring? And worse, since im going from doing work (like starting the aircraft) to doing nothing for a bit, it takes me out of the immersion. Makes me feel like im sitting in front of a screen, rather than operating and aircraft. The alignment time isnt simulating anything the pilot does, except waiting. Its the same thing as how I dont want to wait 1 hour for a mission to start, which might be the case for a real pilot. It obviously depends on the aircraft; It doesnt really matter with an F18, where its 1.5 minutes and you can set up computers or whatever. F16 is fine, except when the stored alignment bugs out. But its already worse with the 3 mins or so on an F14, with nothing to do as the pilot. If the F-4 is worse than that, then that would suck a lot. And its not unprecedented for aircraft to have realism-options to account for certain things. Slavishly simulating everything isnt always the best thign to have, so an option can be quite useful (like everything about Jester is utterly unrealistic, but it is a good thing). You dont need to agree, but you get what Im saying?

Are you just trolling? Or do you think I dont know what a hot start is?

I dont think this is really about AI, its is just text to speech. And yup, there has been quite convincing TTS engines for quite a while now.

Both FCAS and Tempest are still early in development, all the pictures you see are just mockups or creative artists. NGAD has claims they already flew a tech demonstrator... but idk if I buy that they have anything remotely advanced. That would be incredibly quick, and from all I can tell, a lot about the designs acapabilities and features is still undetermined. And I doubt they do something like the F-35, start building the thing when its not even fully designed.

Man, I hope the alignment, using stored, isnt excessively long. The F4 is super interesting to me, but if its like >10m startups every time, then thats a reason not to get a plane. Complex startups can be fun and immersive to me, but waiting in front of a screen takes me out of it, so im just wasting time. Or where I wouldnt mind an unrealistic "fast alignment" (or fast gyro oil warmup lol?) option or so. Thats really the only thing that ever bothered me with DCS level of realism. Afaik the A-4E also has the bomb data entered as well, but its either skipped or done by engineers when the plane is loaded. The LABS computer is reliant on the radar for distancing too. Maybe the F-4 has the WSO (Rio?) enter the data correctly? Probably shouldnt be too complicated though, IIRC someone said it was 2 or 3 factors for each weapon. Im a bad pilot, but even then using LABS in the A-4E was super easy and quite accurate. Never even used it to toss, just for shallow dives (it does up to 30 degree tho).