Richrach

I have not flown either model in DCS, but I did fly the baby Hornet in real life and got time in the F-14A simulator. They were radically different in handling and performance, not even close. The Tomcat was a traditional fighter, flying on the edge of stability for the sake of maneuverability. It was like flying on the head of a pin trying to maintain directional control. The Hornet with its fly-by-wire systems was very much like the F-16 in most respects, with the exception of the side stick. I will say the F-16 was the hardest modern jet to fly I have experience with because its side stick had so little movement. You had no real sense of proportionality to your inputs. Traditional sticks with their large movement arcs are much easier to fly in real life, even the FBW birds. Most guys I flew with hated flying the F-16 in the goo (IFR) because of the lack of real feedback from the controls. This problem transfers over to simulators as well, with the minimal stick movement most have. The extensions made for some sticks are a real boon for realism, as is VR. One person's experience. Your mileage may vary - Richrach

The past week has shown some interesting things that should find their way into DCS regarding SAM systems. 1. Operator, operator, operator. Israeli Air Defenses had a 99% success rate against drones, ballistic and cruise missiles shot barrage style. Iran apparently had a very poor success rate, nearing zero. Operator, operator, operator. Application to DCS>>> The lower skill levels modeled in DCS need to be just that, LOWER = INEFFECTIVE at the lowest setting. 2. Newer systems have serious weaknesses. The vaunted SA-10 and SA-15 combination was incapable of stopping Israel's attack. Whether or not it included aircraft or just missiles, these systems appear to have a negligible ability to shoot down threats. Of course the other side is Israel's defenses, Iron Dome, David's Sling, etc. were quite successful. Application to DCS>>> These systems (FSU/Russia/China) have too high a probability of success in the game and should be toned down accordingly. See #1, this may be due to training but could be modeled in DCS. 3. Historical evidence (Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, and now Israel's back and forth with Iran) have shown SAMs have significant weaknesses not modeled in DCS. DCS has made SAMs ten feet tall when they are really just average height. SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 have clear weaknesses that have been exploited for decades and UNCLAS books and documents abound on these. In the game they can be show stoppers. AAA falls into the same category. The enhancement of capabilities for SAMs vs threats is genuinely laughable. If SAMs were as good as they are in the game, no country would bother with having an air force, they would just buy SAMs and call it a day. 4. As with the lack of an SA-7 equivalent threat these problems in DCS are significant oversights for such an otherwise incredible game. r, Richrach

I flew with women, petite women who could manage that. One of the best sticks I ever flew with was a gal in the TA-4J Skyhawk. She could outfly anyone 1v1 in that bird. It was amazing to experience. CDR Kimbell. Platinum blonde. Hot, in person and in a jet. Oh, the memories... Making me all nostalgic, Gunfreak.

That setting could be scraped altogether in DCS, for the sake of also easing and simplifying development. If a person cannot fly a Viper, there is no hope for them. The FBW system in that jet makes it so primitive a chimp could fly it in real life from BLK 25 on. Ditch the simplified model for this bird and save it for something that had analog flight controls.

Now that this goes all the way down to 12th Gen CPUs it sure would be great if it worked for DCS, IF it works for DCS. Sure could make life easier.

Tholozor, thank you for the clarification. Your answer demonstrates the problem perfectly and that I was right. These radars are significant enough historically to be included in the place-able unit category but are not found there. This is akin to the SA-7 being absent, which is also a significant oversight. Personal note: I have personally fought on and/or over three continents, and these radars were part of the EOB for all three. SA-7 was part of every pre-mission brief taking off from land bases. If people are serious enough to seek to fly MiG-21s, MiG-29s, SU-27s, F-4s, F-5s, Tomcats, and other aircraft of their era(s), this is an issue which should be addressed based on the fidelity of the experience they are clearly desiring. One old Warhorse's opinion.

just shutdown are restarted. No Barlock (Radar P-37) or Sidenet (Radar PRW_11) available for Syrian map. - What countries are they linked to? Should be USSR and Russia since they were designed in the Soviet. Screen shots of my game showing they do not appear in Air Defense for either Russia or USSR. If I am just flat missing it, point it out and I will sit in the corner with the "dunce" cap on. My scenarios are from 973, when Sidenet and Barlock were on the front lines everywhere. Have personal experience with both, operating and opposing. dcs.log

Both these radars need to actually be in the game. They are already modeled, obviously, since they are in the game's encyclopedia. As radars used throughout the world, even to this day, they are significant and worthy of the time to flesh out.

Flappie, this has not come up again in my missions. Must be a glitch in my system so I marked it solved. ???

Now, I do not know much about the sim world and people who enjoy flying in it. I do know about tactical aviation, specifically combat aviation, specifically carrier aviation. I can tell you from 25 years experience and nine combat deployments overseas there are NO GROWNUPS FLYING THERE. No grownup or even smart person would willingly do that in real life, and I include myself in that characterization. - Richrach

I have been through and done just about every combination of everything recommended on the forums and elsewhere to improve frame times and frame rate. What I have found that works best (i5-12600KF, RTX-4070, 64GB DDR4, Pimax 8KX set to large FOV, 1.3 render quality) is turning everything off in NVIDIA control panel except CUDA, Low latency, and Vertical sync to fast. DLAA, Antisotropic filtering 8x in DCS. No ghosting, solid frame rates at 50 (which I limit in DCS) and great playability. No OC on the GPU, my CPU is OC at 50 all cores, which is not as high as it can go (52P/41I), but going higher does nothing for VR and heats up the CPU too much for me. Done chasing the latest and greatest fad. Most are too specific to a particular setup. One fella's observations.

Flappie, it might be my system. I have not been able to reproduce the problem for a few days. I did have M-60's engaging and hitting targets as far as 4.138 Nautical Miles, not kilometers. Now, I will admit to personally having hit a tank at 4.5 NM with a 105mm... howitzer, but that was well within a howitzer's range. Oh, the good ol' days... I am working on a new mission in the same region that will use the M-60. If the problem comes up again I will bring it here, otherwise I will mark your last as the solution. THANK YOU for the support!

Silver Dragon, thank you for the clarifications.

Thank you for acknowledged the current "Persain Gulf" map should have been named The Straits of Hormuz or something akin to that. That this was the working name until it was actually put out tells me it was a political decision, not one based on the actual map. The historical conflicts in the region and the tensions there are not subjective at all. They are historical and real-world fact. If historical and actual geopolitical issues are not relevant to the maps offered, why offer WWII maps that are completely based on both? The reality is the Persain Gulf map offers the eye candy of Dubai (been there, too many times), but little else. The area of historical battles and probable future events all lie outside the confines of this map. Even the Straits themselves are not where the real fighting has been or will be. Look at where US Carriers have operated and will likely operate in the Gulf, none are found in the DCS map. Yes, I agree, a whole world map would be quite amazing. Until such is available, the smaller area maps should reflect history and actual spheres of conflict. To date in this region this has not been the case. I have been in or over almost all the countries we have been discussing, fought in most of them over multiple decades, and have many years of my life there in the cultures.

Okay, lets talk the title of the thread: Iran, Iraq, jordan, syria, and all of the middle east. Why is it none of the maps available cover enough area to actually have meaningful, historical, real-world, conflicts? Sinai does not cover all of Israel, not even to Jerusalem and the major air base at Ramat David. Same with Syria in the other direction and the major bases to the South, and again, Jerusalem. Jordan is not modeled on any of the maps in any meaningful way. Iraq is not modeled on any of the maps in any meaningful way. The Persian Gulf map does not cover the major areas and participants in historical conflicts. Qatar, Kuwait, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Southern Iraq and Bahrain are not modeled. Is it even realistic to call it the Persian Gulf... more like the Straits of Hormuz. Iran's wars with Iraq cannot be replicated, especially northern Iran-Iraq. Desert Storm? None of the maps available address the core issue which is this: What is available, either by accident or intentionally, prevents crafting meaningful campaigns over regions that have historically been contested, except in piecemeal fashion. Dude?