Temetre

The older Mig-21 would then suffer from an even weaker engine without emergency-AB, and probably not the most amazing aerodynamics in turns. Also even less fuel than the 21Bis, which is severely hampering the ability to dogfight in any real mission. Maybe Ive got some misconceptions here, but to me it seems like eg the F-5E is much more like a dogfighter, and more capable than the 21Bis?

The load also seems to be like a much bigger fraction of the plane, or at least more impactful. The comparision Im coming from is mostly F-16/18, where the Hornet is just so much better when heavily packed. Of course, the SE is apparently insanely draggy because of its pylons or so. I also wonder if its overly stable when clean and has trouble turning because of that. But generally the most important limitation when doing a strike is when you still got full or partial bomb loads, I find. A clean F-15E is maybe not a dogfighter, but fast enough to get quickly out of trouble.

Id imagine at most thats only true for Mig-17/19 tho? The 21 isnt a dogfighter either, emergency afterburner or not. From what Ive read the F-4 has both a prett good wing-surface area for its weight (no surprise it inspired the F-15), and a higher thrust to weight ratio. And if the slatted wings allow you to keep higher AoAs, then Id assume itll be a capable dogfighter compared to other 3rd gen fighters. Probably better rather than worse compared to most.

Aye that sounds kinda nice The F-16 does get quite slow with loads too. Yeh i might get the F-15E, but im also waiting till its a it more complete^^

Btw, dont got the F-15E yet, but how does it compare in terms of agility with heavier loads? In CAS or so. The F-16 is ofc quite agile clean, but is wobbly and wing-limited when you put a bunch of bombs/fuel under the wings. I found that the F-18 is way better at doing attack runs, then pulling up and turning around for another strike, for example. Much more lift from the wings to keep it stable and make turns. How does the F-15E compare in that are? I imagine the planes size/weight/wings might help turning with payloads, kinda like with the F-14, but idk.

Tbh id be surprised if the Mig has a better 1 circle. Even id it can turn extremely hard, it bleeds so much energy and becomes unresponsive very quickly. Idk if the emergency afterburner at low dogfight altitudes makes up for that. Im really interested in how far we can push the F-4 in dogfights, in comparision.

Yes! Usually the manual is quite obvious in its explanation, but most of the time is spend searching the correct page. To have it ingame from the switch itself is amazing! Tbh yeah, its like you guys have taken all the feedback and put it into Jester 2. Im loving this; the F-14 convinced me that an AI backseater can be alright, but this is going a long way to fix the remaining minor issues, as well as adding new capabilities and make him a useful tool to work with

Ive never seen a screen glare that extremely. Not even early LCDs or CRTs. And I find it very hard to believe that IRL Apaches just have to abort attacks because the sun is shining on the displays. Not to mention, even if it was that bad in reality, you can position your body or hand to block the sunlight. Doesnt work in DCS.

Btw sounds like Dive Laydown. Not dive toss though, thats the really cool mode where you just point the nose.

Yeh maybe that was just the big mistake by the Bundeswehr. Aw thats a shame. Probably means its mostly for nukes and not conventional arms.

I know it was different for Americans, but did the german air force really just buy a fighter/bomber for nuclear weapons from the nuclear share program? I know that was a factor compared to mirage, but it seems a bit strange if conventional ordinance wasnt planned in from the beginning. The 104G was specifically built for german interest in a fighter bomber. Tbh I find it hard to find definitive edition on the 104G bombing computer. Ive read about labs, but also claims some got upgraded later with dive toss capability. Also mentions of early F-104Gs with a "Mergenthaler Linotype M-2 bombing computer". edit: This is a reprint from a "flight international" magazine apparently, so idk how good the info is. But here: Tbf idk if thats a more complex ballistic computer or a dive toss system.

Good thing is, the 104G is the most common and used variant, and also multirole. I feel like ground strikes in the 104 probably wont be very fun tho. The plane is very light and has very little lift, and the 15 AoA limit will probably force you to fly very flat trajectories with bombs. A silver lining could be the bombing computer of the 104G tho, I think it has a dive toss bombing computer similar to A4 and F4.

Of course FLIR pods IRL can be quite tricky to use, some of which arent represented in the game, but DCS' alsop has a ton of issue that are specific to its engine/coding. The whole "tank going somewhere, then shutting off, and it becomes invisible in no time" is a perfect example. Generally the lack of contrast between a vehicle and the ground, as long as its not actively driving for a while. IIRC I was also mostly talking about more modern pods, like the Sniper XR or Atflir. And frankly, the way we use the pod ingame isnt reflective of reality anyway, under most circumstances. You mention the basic JTAC, but just the way DCS works probably leaves very little room for realistic simulation. Outside of super heavy scripted and prepared missions maybe. I imagine theres way less searching for targets IRL, and more striking predetermined targets (or loitering till you get a strike request).

To be honest, I was surprised to learn this isnt already a thing. I just assumed the Steam and Standalone were treated as the same identity when linked.

And I agree that ED has a legitimate interest to stop that. But each copy of DCS runs on EDs DRM system servers. They should have an easy time to block simultaneous use at the same time. Netflix managed to do that too.

But we dont know what that means. "Exploit" and "breaking EULA" could mean a million different things. Someone even assumed its about cheaters. For example, if theres a security issue and this is just a temporary change till ED has fixed it, then im 100% fine with this. But were not told anything meaningful, we just lose a feature (which I btw didnt abuse).

I dont see it either, but I dont think we even know why exactly ED made this recen change. Bignew said "some people are breaking the EULA", but that doesnt really explain anything.

I have bought most (but not all) of my modules via steam, mainly because of issues with ED shop payment processors (eg weird conversion stuff). I run the game on standalone usually. But its sometimes its just useful to have another, seperate client to start a game from. Be it integration, server issues, or whatever. Idk why you think I need to justify disliking the sudden removal of a feature, especially one so integral as the distribution. And as said, half the problem is the way its been removed. How do we know ED wont change this stuff later?

Yes, but Ive been able to use the steam version with all steam modules. Now I cant even start steam anymore. And I cant unbind it without losing the steam planes on the standalone. So the steam version is just dead to me. Stopping people account sharing or whatever, thats legitimate interest of ED. I dont do that and I get it. Taking the steam version away from me is against my interest.

Basically, before I could use standalone and have all modules. Or I can use steam and got one or two planes less. Now I cannot even start Steam DCS anymore. Its just usefull to have another launcher, and thats the system I was sold the game under. Taking this away isnt the biggest deal, but it still removing functionality. And as said, if ED will just remove functionality from one day or the other, because they think it improves revenue... how can we know they wont do it again in the future?

Tbh I think you reading into this. Nobody was talking about cheaters. The problem is if you got both planes on steam and standalone. So you have to use standalone for the full package, and steam doesnt work at all anymore because its bound. If I understand the change correctly.

^ Thats the real problem im concerned about. We can do that currently, and I dont think ED has the plan to change that. But what in a year? In two years? They showed that they are willing to make changes overnight without even talking to the community about it beforehand.

Thats not true. You didnt "have" to do this, as long as ED doesnt get into financial trouble otherwise, you have the freedom of choice. You (if you wanna take responsibility for this change) did this because its the eaisest solution to make this our problem. Im sure they wouldve been other solutions, but this one was just easy. Its not cheaters, I imagine its people sharing a seperate steam and standalone account. And the steam account doesnt get the standalone planes, but the standalone also gets the steam planes. Someone at ED probably decided "this is theoretically lost income" and decided to do this. This is decision is almost certainly just motivated by greed. DCS is more succesfull than ever before currently, but someone just decided thats not enough, they want more money. And if that means taking away from average customers, then so be it.

I basically got one thing on the standalone. And yeah, now I just cannot use DCS steam at all anymore. Should be pretty obvious whats the issue. I get that. ED had a problem. But then ED decided to make it the communities problem instead. You know, the community that already puts up with all the game bugs and crowdfunding. And ED didnt even tell us, until people started asking why theres an issue. This kind of change takes weeks of testing, its not something you do from one day to the other. ED also didnt have plans to make impossible to use connected steam accounts. Until they had a plan to do so. Thats the thing, theyve changed the rules of usage, so why wouldnt they change it again in future?

Im aware you didnt make that decision, its the ED leadership, tho im gonna say "im sorry you feel that way" is a pretty bad thing to write. Coulda been sorry about ED making a change thats objectively punishes me without any doing of my own. Thats the problem, and not my feelings over it. And "someone broke the EULA and thats why we punish you too" is not a justification. ED just made a change limiting how I can access a game I put like 200-300 bucks into. ED just decided to push the problems onto players, rather than to deal with it. Maybe it wont change anything, because ED has more power than players, who also tend to have a short memory. For me I can say, I was planning to dive into helicopters and get the Hind or Apache on christmas sales, but now I have zero interest in giving ED money for them. And then I cannot use anything from Steam together with stuff I got on the Standalone. I basically just cannot use DCS World on Steam anymore. Also, whats next? Will the bind be removed, will we not be able to transfer licenses anymore? If ED makes a changes like this without telling us, theres no knowing whats their next step. Even if they dont intend to do anything currently, they might just change their mind in the future. ED has control over the platform, so it kinda matters if we can trust them. And with this we clearly cannot trust them to not make changes against our interest.