blkspade

I think his point is that its a non-issue in reference to realistic behavior. The contact in memory causing overlap between scans. It seems logical to me in how I unlock a target and see old targets at different ranges that aren't actually there anymore.

Nothing could be further from the truth there. I've flown against many good Russian drivers. Many of them I can identify by their tactics, and adjust mine accordingly. I know when someone is firing at me at or near Rmax, and approach without panic. Obviously that's when I can be absolutely sure the guy I have on Radar is the one engaging me. Of the few mistakes I end up making in BVR, flying face first into an ER fired Rmax is never one of them.

The ER in game is already slightly faster than the 120C. The catch is they have to launched in near equal parameters (airspeed & altitude). This is however not an advantageous method of attack against an F-15, since in most cases the 120 will be going active with enough time to the F-15 to go completely defensive. The F-15 was designed to be advantageous at BVR, yet Russian pilots what to try and play the F-15s game. Any time I see a SU or MiG coming at me at angels 18+ or climbing at me, I'm like "Thank you and good night". On the hand I realize I'm in a sketchy position if one gets inside of 13nm with my speed and altitude below a certain point, because then I have to start to play their game. The ET is a real threat as a medium range IR missile, and will get the novice eagle pilot all of the time. I'm only gonna merge with a Russian for 1 of 3 reasons: I get jumped, I made mistakes in BVR, or I'm feeling particularly bold that day.

Navigation is non-issue regardless of fidelity level, since all the systems are modern. If anything navigation in the A-10C is actually slightly easier. It would only be a challenge in the modules that lack a nav computer, but thats really independent of it being FC or DCS. Many of us have been staring at this map so long, we can probably just pick a patch of sky to fly at and get where we need to.

Well now that wouldn't work, as his presence would alter the flight characteristic and lead to inaccurate data...

Yeah I'm sure I wouldn't have been the first to ask. I was most curious of what the furthest distance between 2 airfields would be, in hopes that opposing sides aren't basically right on top of each other. Also was interested in the Groom lake area. It was also in relation to time he posted in relation to my searches

Who needs barbed wire fences anyway, with all signs warning of trespassing, authorized use of lethal force and motion detectors well outside of that point. If someone made it that far in, they wouldn't be there and standing for long.

I think Matt is spying on me now. Like 30-45 minutes ago I was doing a search of airfields in Nevada and looking at Groom lake and Nellis AFB in google maps. All preparing to post a question on the total area to be included in the map. Then he posts this http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1902741&postcount=4

There is a huge lack of clarity about what Edge is and isn't going to provide to DCS as whole. Its an upgrade to the the engine and API which DCS:W desperately needs, but then most info thats come up would suggest that its directly tied to Nevada and other new maps. Which causes a whole sub-set of logic errors in my brain. Its not the graphical improvements that matter most to me but the 'potential' performance improvements. Graphics aside, there are features to DX11 geared toward making better use of today's hardware like SMP/MT and multi-gpu configs. DCS World is still Georgia/Russia, which will provide the largest combat area until more map areas are released. Without further information to indicate otherwise, it would seem like the core game will continue to run sub-optimally except for those who are getting/buying Nevada.

This being FC3 doesn't make my point any less valid. As it has been mentioned in the forums before, the seeker behavior code is largely unchanged from FC2 to FC3. The largest changes have been around aerodynamics and kinematics, AFM code. They changed the chaff itself, which has an an effect on seeking. Would I personally buy something with a 60% failure rate, probably not. Doesn't mean military organizations have always had the benefit of options. Lots of early version of missiles were quite poor starting off but still had to be fielded. I've mentioned before interviews of USAF pilots regularly salvoing AIM-7s in pairs cause they expected and experience a 50% failure rates. I don't think the laws of physics have changed much since WW2, still working as intended.

The point you make about all shots being look up really doesn't guarantee tracking. Missiles aren't perfect even in real life, why would you expect them to be in game. Back in FC2 I figured out a technique where I could evade an R-77 at 8nm head-on while supporting an AIM-7. The R-77 was fired looking up. AIM-7s and AIM-120s seem to miss sometimes where it would seem nonsensical, without the bandit going defensive. I don't believe the ERs are any more flawed than the rest because none of them are realistically perfect. "Optimum conditions" are still not perfection as it would unrealistic to expect such. I still get smacked by ERs from time to time, when trying my hardest to evade, while in advantageous position.

Part of the problem with the zoom level is the fact the game automatically zooms all the way out when you get into the jet. The default zoom keys are the / * keys on the num pad, the numpad enter key sets the zoom to the normal default. Hud visibility issues due to the sun are usually do to HDR being on in the graphics options. If you turn that off, its much easier to see.

I'm glad to see that this is apparently an issue. I've been trying out the A10-C campaign, and on one mission I had the jtac 'sparkle' and couldn't find his IR pointer anywhere. When I eventually managed to find the target there was no beam in sight.

Stop looking at the grass and blow some stuff up.

You can always just ride down the streets in the jet of your choosing. Works well enough with the current map as long as you don't come up to any bridges, or tunnels.

AWCAS is fixed as of 1.2.6. Picture works quite well if you know how to interpret the info it provides.

I remember my saitek pro flight pedal came with 2 long velcro strips.

You can actually bank into your own maverick after launch, taking off a wing.

I was going to suggest the analog ASI gauge, but from what I remember it doesn't really give you a clear mach indication at sub-sonic speeds. I hadn't considered the idea of you wanting to use autopilot as it seems somewhat conflicting with your initial idea of controlling speed since that AP mode take over that function. I don't know of many who use more than altitude hold in the F-15, and thats kind of broken right now.

I am not sure if its an accurate representation or not, and level of modelling may not really allow for this to be as accurate as you'd like. The only way to see it as of now is just to switch to any weapons mode, since you still get NAV info anyway.

I believe the term you intended to use was SDK as opposed to engine.

The problem with thinking this would draw in civilian simmers, is that if they only fly civilian sims thats all they are gonna be interested in. They'd likely have little to no interest in flying in a combat zone, particularly one of limited size like DCS. In the flight sim world you have people that are mostly on one side or the other, those with the interest in both are probably already flying DCS or are already looking into it.

Yes there are many things that aren't quite optimal in DCS right now, and understand there are certain difficulties with trying to work around stabiliy issues. You can blame me for F-15 EWR gunning, as i shared the fact that it was possible after being force to try it in the F-15 campaign due to faulty AI. My statements aren't made as a personal attack to your character or anything, just based on observations. We're all only human, and thus flawed. At no point am I insinuating mischief, clearly stated that it could have been an oversight or a matter bias. Not saying that you are biased, just stating that its possible because you are only human. Now if you're some kind of sentient cybernetic oganism, then I do sincerely apologize for mis-categorizing you. I look at things from multiple sides, I have no personal issue with you or your server. Like the stormy variant was great, but anyone who flew Russian fighters immediately hated it. Aside from it removing the ability to stay low and hide in valleys like they prefer, I found it quite exhilarating trying to land the F-15 at Sochi and not die. Maybe it was removed for stability reasons, maybe it was the whining that likely took place. At least one person that was flying that mission on Red said they weren't gonna fly until stormy mission was gone. I fly regardless of the circumstances, but I'll state if the deck appears to be stacked. Not really whining about anything, but you are the mission designer and probably have descent amount of experience in doing such by now. My statement about Sochi sam coverage compared to Maykop is just my observation. It just happens to look like a higher degree effort went into covering it. Its fun for me trying to scramble out of Sochi to engage Flankers basically circling the airfield. Its not like I go 'this is BS' and rage quit over it. All's fair in love and war simulation. I thought it was 'funny' that the 90's (no 120C) mission variant sprang up after all of Teks whining about the 120C being unfair. Don't get all butt-hurt, its just a statement based on the observation of a series of events which may or may not have any direct correlation. We're all only human, aren't we.

See I'm not one of those pilots that just loads up on slammers and spams them, and most of the time I have sparrows on board. Sometimes I'll swap out the Aim-9s, but find that every time I do I end up in a situation where I wish I had them. I fight effectively with the F-15 and all its weapons. Many of those changes end up lending the Red side a certain advantage whether you intended to or care to admit. Like for instance most of the revisions for Black Sea Redemption lack AWACS on the blue side, while there was quite consistently EWR on the RED. Many red strikers go off mission to attack blue airfields, Sochi in particular, which is covered by a single hawk, and some avengers. When the blue side figured out where the EWR was and how to engage it, you moved it and probably gave it better sam coverage. Its already SAMs galore covering Maykop. More often than not I'll provide CAP for the strikers, but that means trying to cover the target area, the hawk site and Sochi itself either solo or as a 2-ship. Public server being what they are leaves much to be desired in terms of team coordination. So flying 62nm away just to R&R, leaves a huge window of opportunity to the red side. I'll take the AIM-7s at Sochi since I know how to make the most out of them.

Ignoring the fact that a sim based on warplanes, and thus war itself, neither side intends to fight on a level playing field. With the US basically spending a gross amount funds on military advancements, specifically to be ahead of the enemy as much as it can. You whine a lot about the 120C, but you and most of your squad still make out alright on your server. Sure from time to time F-15s are on the top of the board, but none of them are noobs that are there just by being in an F-15 with the 120C. Realistically more Russian hardware has likely been against the 120C than the American counter-parts have had to face the R-77 in actual combat. You still have a decisive advantage with IR weapons and WVR combat, but it still takes an effective pilot to make any of it work as desired (barring server lag). For example, I flew on your server last night where F-15 could only get 120B, and only from one airfield, and AIM-7 and 9s from the rest. I don't particularly mind being limited to 120B, though I call 'shenanigans' on them being in a single location, but made it work. Finished like 13-4 before the server crashed.