Temetre

We know it'll be wrong, because ED doesnt know either. Ive seen that argument a bunch, but I dont really get it. Being so close to the actual plane is literally the selling point of DCS. Thats the reason people pay $70 to deal with an overly convoluted control scheme, spend hundreds of hours reading the manual and learning the jet inside and out, because its so close to the real thing. If its just all fake, then why bother with any of that? Its not fun in itself to read and learn 500 page manual, or spend hundreds of hours learning a jet. The idea of learning how a real jet operates is what made it worth.

On a general note, why would anyone even care about this overlap? Sinai cant do Israel vs Syria/Lebanon, Syria cant do Israel vs Egypt. Remove (or partially cut) Israel from either map and you remove the main combat scenario.

I only own Syria, love that map, dont care too much about Sinai (tho it looks cool with last update). Even then, if its true Ugra demanded a removal, then thats just gross. Its a hostile action against all ED customers that bought Sinai, and even beyond that it removes even more trust from EDs eco system. At this point im hardly even motivated to play DCS anymore. So much BS going on everywhere.

Aye but too expensive, would have to buy a new stick (and maybe seat) ^^ Running a VKB gladiator. Awesome, but cant take extensions really. Thats a very interesting point. I managed much better with clean takeoffs, but was using more trim for heavy loads, because it felt logical. So instead im now going to try less pitch trim then when im loaded. I wonder if its realistic for the pitch of trim being so finnicky and dangerous tho, or more of a weirdness of flight and control model?

I usually struggly a bit, because when I try to let off as soon as the nose gets up, I almost always overcorrect and the nose goes down right down to ground currently. Even when I try to be really soft. But yeh might be skill issue, and I dont think I damaged my plane yet (tho maybe the damage model is forgiving with tailstrikes, idk). (checked that FFB is off!)

I bought on steam FC3 and run standalone. For me I fixed the auth issue by reapplying the licenses via the "get licenses" thing.

Took a look myself, theyre still there for me too. Thanks for the awesome cockpit mod btw, made those soviet planes much nicer to use

Yeah Id love to have that feature for Singleplayer too!

So dropped two HOBOS' at a landed helicopter in a single run; about from ~12 miles away and 20-25k feet altitude. First HOBOS felt slightly short, so it got ignored by the S-8, while the second HOBOS was succesfully engaged and destroyed. Im not sure if this is "specifically" a bug, but this ability in a 60s SA-8 seems clearly out of place. To my knowledge defending against iron bombs was never part of this vehicles' design, and it wouldnt even make sense for a system that was developed before guided bombs became common. The ability to identify and engage munitions like HOBOS should be far out of the systems ability. Even the latest soviet and even russian systems, which were designed for anti munitions purposes, have shown difficulties to countering ballistic munitions in cases, which are more predictable in their flight path, with much longer engagement times and bigger radar signatures. Its just difficult to hit missiles/bombs. But thats kinda besides the point, because the SA-8 almost certainly shouldnt have the ability to shoot down dropped bombs like that.

R-60s, missiles exploding at distance, luck, AA hits, some 20mm hits. Theres quite a few situations where you take damage and might be able to recover, and I had plenty situations like that. Otherwise the aircrafts damage control/fault list/or so system is just a really cool and unique part of the F-16. Eg the BMS Viper is kinda amazing in that regard. And otherwise this is a combat sim, of course damage simulation is important. Even if planes are fragile.

Hm, reading up about soviet radars currently, am I seeing right that the Mig-29A doesnt actually got a 'real' Pulse Doppler radar? Mig-29A should have the N019 Sapfir 29 from what I see, which seems like its derived from the Mig-23ML. As in, its basically a pulse radar with MTI filter that mainly just removes some of the clutter. Similar principle, if different execution, as the Mirage F-1 radar. So if thats correct, it should be vastly inferior to true PD radars like in the Mirage 2000, F-14 and potentially even the F-4Ns AWG-10. Curious, is that correct, whats your thoughts on that?

On a basic level, you already need to extrapolate because you want bullets cross the enemies flight path in the future. And the enemies position isnt constant relative to the bullets that youre firing. Because the bullets fly in a straight line (+ ballistic arc), while both you and the enemy are turning. And the rate of turn/acceleration might be actively changing, so the enemies speed might be increasing/decreasing, which has to be estimated to be perfectly accurate in a turn fight. Admittedly I havent tested much with the F4s gunsight, but I found its lag alone makes it often hard to use in close combat.

Probably, but that depends on ED on adding the variant. Tbh the 45A can be quite powerful and reasonably far ranging (or be lofted from low altitude). Its just kinda buggy right now. AFAIK the only difference with the B will be a better rocket motor for more range, otherwise it uses the same sensor heads.

Tbf I dont really know the system, but it always kinda made sense to me: For the gun solution In a nose-to-tail turning fight not to fall short, the computer would need to know both the exact turning/roll/acceleration rate of your own aircraft and the enemy aircraft. AND, this is the tricky part, then extrapolate what happens if the planes keep turning. Which would be difficult to get accurate in the first place; but worse, if the enemies turn rate/speed/roll/acceleration isnt staying exactly the same, that extrapolation could be wildly off by itself. So for example if the enemy does a slight roll additional to its turn, the aim point would already be off again. So it would make sense for me when the interpolation then just doesnt extrapolate turning, or only to a limited degree. Sure its gonna be off in a turn fight, but if its consistently off in the same way, as someone noted, then an experienced pilot can account for the limitations of the computer aim. So that would make kinda sense to me. Mind older planes like the F-4 got much worse radar gunsights than the F-14. In the Phantom you really need to understand the sights limitations, and sometimes you might just not even bother with it. Im not sure, F16/18 might have really smart computers that can do some of that extrapolation, but that requires very accurate sensors and complex computer software with lots of calculations and predictive formulas.

Btw if you havent seen it, the Heatblur F4 manual got a ton of information about the Aim9 variants and their capabilities. null

MAC was supposed to be a different game. Its on ice now tho, probably for the better.

Sure, and Im truly enjoying the F-4E right now. The trouble didnt stop me. But I also think its not hard to find things that miss the mark, when its "marks" like ED/RB right now completely undermining the business models of the entire platform. Because, for example, if the next updates cause the RB modules to degrade - and updates on the scale of multithreading will wreck them - then that will absolutely stop people from enjoying Razbam modules. Theres other things than DCS to enjoy, but I think it would be a shame if DCS - and the flight sim community - take a hit as a whole.

I dont feel that way at all. Sure, some of the releases are amazing, like the F-4E is actually god tier. I think Kola is great if it keeps getting worked on. But what do early access releases matter, when we dont know if they get finished? Or if they are finished, maintained so we can keep them flying? I dont want to spend 30-60 bucks just to hope the devs stay mature and dont butt heads.

If the first sparrow doesnt work, try throwing a dozen more. Sounds about right

When I tested it, the SA-6 wasnt engaged by the -25 seeker, but by the -49 heads. Idk whats going on tbh. Mb some bug cuz the SA-6 technically has two radars? A search and a tracking radar.

I found plenty issues in the first 2 minutes of a mission tbh

edit: Tbh I think Shrike guidance just might be deeply and utterly bugged. No clue whats going on sometimes. -------------- Idk if that chart is correct. The Shrikes seekersays MK 49 is required for the SA-6 "straight flush" search radar: Im getting tone and (buggy) guidance on the SA-6 search radar. Frankly tho, my tests and others indicate that Shrike guidance is just deeply and utterly bugged. Sometimes they give tone and guide, but only sometimes, lofting Shrikes dont activate at all for me, search radars sometimes only get tracked during active engagement (and not during search). Sometimes they track only long range, or only short range. Idk if there is some hidden complexity to explain any of that.

Thank you @KlarSnow, this clears up a LOT of questions I had

I see, didnt know the USAF didnt use flare dispensers before. Thats funny. But yeh, if you wanna simulate that, gotta zero the flare/chaff in the editor.

Tbh, Im usually going with "make it dependant on the scenario". The integration is technically viable and even has been possibly done on some F-4Es, and at least on similar F-4Gs. And after all its a nuanced discussion without a clear answer, so by default Id say "add it". After all, even the difference between E1/2 and F is gonna be quite big, and same with the Aim-9. Allowing the 7M gives more flexibility for the scenario (fictional or export-craft), and doesnt really change the requirement of limiting equipment to the timeframe. Same can be said for weapons like the GBU-15, for example. Idk about the Aim-7P tho; at least the mid course guidance would be unusable on the F-4E, so it would be somewhat strange to have.