Temetre

True, I was actually considering to make a point about the F-16 (great dogfighter yet limited in one turn), but that would complicate the point. It was easier to limit it to the pre-80s fighters, where modern technology made it possible to fit more tech and optimization into smaller fliers. Maybe its a bit of a tangent, but I do think we can even strengthen the point when we look "why" the F-18 and Mig-29 can be so capable dogfighters. Theyre not one-turn agile for free, but rather because they made trade offs. For one, the Hornet and Mig-29 are surprisingly heavy I find; about 11 tons of empty weight. Thats closer to the F-15 with 13 tons, than the tiny Mig-21Bis with 6.3 tons. And the Mig-29 mainly sacrifices payload and fuel load (+poor avionics), its dogfighting performance comes partially from burning silly amounts of fuel. Meanwhile the Hornet sacrifices high speed performance and limits high-G maneuvering. Either got limited range compared to bigger fliers. Of course thats true for older fliers as well: Eg the Mig-21 is considered a better dogfighter in DCS than the Mirage F-1, but pays for that partially due to drawbacks like small fuel tanks, simpler avionics and overuse of its "emergency afterburner". Even that more limited dogfight performance came at a cost, being smaller didnt just make it easier to have agile birds.

Tbh, how much truth is there really in that light-weight fighters are better turners? After all, most of the time the best slow speed dogfighters seems to be giants like the F-14, 15 or SU-27. And they acchieve that via really big wings and powerful engines, which they have the capacity for due to their size. Now Migs do have pretty big wings compared to their weight, thats true. Even the Mig-21Bis can turn pretty hard in DCS. But what about the speed? Many planes can turn hard, stay stable, but dont benefit much from that. I think the US actually tested Mig-21s that are closer to northvietnamese fighters in a secret programs? Same one thats cited for Mig-23s being terrible turners but incredible fast (not MLA i know^^). They said Mig-21s could turn with the F-14(A?)s for about 90 degrees, but would just bleed so much speed they couldnt keep up. The high AoA stability is imo and open question, especially when you slow down. Thats one point where our 21Bis is likely unrealistic too. That combined with the speed loss Im really not sure Its necessarily "amazing" turn performance or aerodynamics? Its seems all a bit more rough and brute force. Mind im not trying to be contrarian here, its just whenever I try to learn about the topics, I just get so so many more questions than answers (cuz the topic is so complex)

Oh yeah, the use and tactics of the plane is quite relevant, probably more than technical charachteristics of the plane. Even beyond that, IRL Id imagine the higher range, better radar, better missiles of the F-4E would be a bigger factor fighting the Mig-21s than the difference in aerodynamic performance. To my understanding the nature of the aerial conflict was also a big factor benefitting the Migs. A2A action was quite rare, the US strategies were more concerned with the much bigger threat of SAM sites, which caused massive losses eg in the F-105 fleet. Meanwhile the Migs followed the concept of a "guerrilla war", which had them attempt to attack american formations (which again were more focussed on defending against air defense) in hit and run surprise attacks. Dogfighting likely wouldnt be smart either way, considering american superior numbers and the Migs lack of fuel/range. All of this would give Migs a big advantage in engagement, since it requires great difficulty to deal with this kind of warfare to just "even" the losses. But it also ment that the actual use and effect of north vietnamese aircraft would be quite limited, considering they couldnt openly oppose or deter attacks on their own. Even early in the war; and later the US adapted and took more decisive control of the skies, at least when it comes to air/air threats. Without trying to downplay the Vietnamese pilots acchievements, which were a thing, to me it seems a lot of the Migs' successes seems to lie in the narratives and stories we tell about their role in the war.

Aye, thanks! Tbh I find the Tomcat pretty well to fly as well, if the F-15E is like that or easier, then its probably quite comfortable indeed

More specifically, if you use it that way: How does it feel when you go somewhere, do a dive bombing run, then pull up and turn around for another turn? Does it feel heavy/floaty? Maybe compared to F14A/B when you got that module and experience.

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?