statrekmike

I have found that the best way to get info on how a specific platform is handled is to find pilot memoirs and hope that the writer included some detail into how they went about their job. This is going to be a hit or miss affair as some memoirs (even very popular ones) don't really say much or get too bogged down in ego related nonsense to really get much out of. The other avenue (and one you probably already know about) is the various declassified military documents that you can find online. There are some pretty good ones out there that will lay out doctrine pretty well (or at least enough for you to fill in some blanks yourself). The big issue here is that you are not likely to find platform specific documents since (as others have already stated) doctrine is the framework that everything gets plugged into. I have always felt that when attempting to make realistic missions in DCS, I should first consider the overall doctrine at play on a operational level and then try to figure out what aircraft would be doing what standardized roles. For example. If I were making a mission where player controlled F-16's and A-10C's are operating, I would try to read up on who would be doing what and stick to that pretty rigidly. This might not seem like it helps answer your employment question but it kinda does. In order to understand how to fully employ a aircraft, you need to understand what it would actually do in real life (and not just on paper or in the fanciful theories of internet aviation enthusiasts). Focus on practical, real-world use and you will get a good idea of how things should be done. As far as multiplayer goes, this is where things might get complicated for you. This may be a unpopular thing to say but many of the larger public servers use scenarios that don't really allow for realistic employment of aircraft and their weapons. This is a side-effect of making dynamic, accessible scenarios that players can jump in and out of at will and generally fly whatever they like. In real life, many missions are carefully pre-planned and those plans are often rigidly adhered to. In larger public server scenarios, this isn't really practical and as such, certain tactics and methods simply won't work due to the structure of the mission and how everyone chooses to play. In more carefully controlled co-op scenarios, this isn't such a large issue as missions can be structured fairly realistically. Still, at that point, you are talking about getting into a isolated group that plays on their own servers and uses their own scenarios. My point isn't to turn you off from online play on public servers. I just want to warn you that some of your time spent working out how to accurately do stuff won't always pay off in spaces like that.

One thing you will want to keep firmly in mind is that while the JESTER AI is really, really impressive, it is still not quite going to give you the experience you can get from flying multi-crew with a friend. Some mission types (at the moment) are not possible or at least less feasible/realistic without a person in the back seat. The other thing to keep in mind is that while it is a utterly fantastic plane to fly, it does have its limitations. It is a great fleet defense fighter that can easily take on bombers and even most fighters. Likewise, it is a solid precision strike platform using the LANTIRN and the LGB's. That being said, it doesn't do a whole lot beyond that. It is a old plane with old avionics. It just can't bring a lot to the air to ground table when compared to the Hornet or Viper (when both are complete). Before anyone gets defensive. The F-14 module is my favorite. I love flying it. I love flying missions in it. It is a great aircraft and one that I will always have a soft spot for. That said, I have to be honest when talking about capability in comparison to other aircraft modules and when push comes to shove, the Hornet and Viper modules (again, when complete) will fit very well into a very wide variety of mission types that the Tomcat would struggle or be outright inappropriate for. If you love the Tomcat as a plane and have a buddy to do co-op with, the Tomcat is fantastic fun. If you want to enjoy a iconic, beautiful, interesting aircraft, the Tomcat is perfect. If you want something that offers a lot of different mission types to learn and a lot of versatility, the Tomcat may not stand up well against other modules like the Hornet/Viper. As far as the Viper module goes, I would hold off for quite a while before buying it. At the moment, it is INCREDIBLY incomplete and won't really offer much for those that really want to dig in until it is much, much further along. A person who is willing to learn a module will probably blow through what the Viper current has in a couple of hours at most. It needs a lot more time in the oven before I can suggest it.

I think that we would find that the old truism about the customer not really knowing what they want until they get it would very much be the case. People would say that they would rather something like the F-16's early access release but in reality, they would (at least on average) rather not even know about such a module until it is much further along in early access. The Hornet was just kinda barely on that line which is why it was not met with such a relatively cool reception.

While I have no inherent problems with the idea of paid "student licenses" or even free ones if possible, I don't really think that it will be the solution that some might think it would be. The trainers in DCS are in a odd place in that they are not really used as trainers by what is probably the majority of the players who buy them. I suspect that many who buy the trainers are doing so because they have very specific interest in a given trainer (like the L-39, C-101, Yak, or even the F-5 in some ways). Those that buy them are probably already experienced with other modules and probably already have a background in flight simming. For new players who are just getting into the hobby, the trainers are not going to be (typically) the thing that draws them in. It will be the flashy, sexy aircraft like the F-16, F/A-18, or F-14. It will be the aircraft that can do missions, hold up in a fight, and generally offer a lot of "bang for the buck". Trainers don't really offer any of that. They are the kind of thing that someone gets as their third or fourth module, not their first. There is another thing to consider. For the newest of new players (the ones who have no prior sim experience and don't know a lot about airplanes), a trainer in DCS isn't going to offer anything that another module can't do. This is something that always comes to mind when the trainer discussion comes up. A new player who wants to learn the basics of flying in DCS can do it just as well in a A-10C or a MiG-21. After that, such aircraft actually have something meaningful to offer in the mission variety/versatility department that the trainers simply can't compete with.

Even if ED were to suddenly decide to do even a low fidelity FC3 style modern redfor aircraft, it would still end up on a list behind a lot of stuff they are currently working on. It would be a long time before they could even get around to it. They have made it clear that they are not in a position where they want to do a modern redfor (especially Russian) aircraft. They didn't rule it out for third parties but any forum thread asking ED to do it is not really going to change anything regardless of how much "easier" some might think they would be to make or how profitable some might think it would be for ED to do so. This is the kind of thing that really should be directed towards third parties and even then, you are still asking for a aircraft that will get put on a list of already planned or active development projects.

There is never, ever going to be a consumer level military aircraft simulation that doesn't omit something. Even military grade training simulations will obviously have some concessions that are necessary for the medium. As far as consumer level combat flight sims go, it is not incorrect to call DCS a study sim. This is especially going to be the case for those that really do genuinely treat it like a study sim. This is probably not going to be as apparent if one confines themselves to the larger DCS public server scene but for those that get into small co-op servers with carefully built scenarios, you can very easily see the "study sim" part of DCS in action.

To be honest, I am not seeing a lot of harsh negativity in this thread. There is obviously some slipping through the cracks but as a whole, this thread has been noticeably polite (especially when compared to the norm in other flight sim forums/communities). That being said, I do feel that there is a middle ground here that is getting dismissed. Those of us (myself included) who are chiming in here with no so positive sentiments are not doing so because we are entitled, kicking and screaming children. We are doing so because we have two massively anticipated modules and neither of them are really in a state that could even be called close to complete. This is understandable but that doesn't mean that it is not also a little frustrating. As I have already said a couple of times. I am not going to freak out about this. I have other (more complete) modules to focus on for the time being but even a developer serving a extremely niche audience can't reasonably expect infinite patience. Especially when there is a significant price tag involved and year long or more early access cycles with no real idea of when things will be finished. While I know that this is certainly subjective (at least to a point), it is a absolute fact that even more than a year after early access release, the Hornet is still not really "mission capable". I mean, sure, you can kinda do some missions and you can certainly mess around with it but as far as putting it in realistic missions built around the capabilities of the aircraft being modeled, it will very quickly show its functionality gaps. This is more than a year later. For those of us who are experienced with ED's development cycle and have plenty of other modules to work with, that may seem somewhat "normal" but that doesn't make it ideal and it does not mean that we shouldn't have serious (and hopefully polite) discussions about where things are at and how long they will take to get done. The F-16's release at this early a stage in its development will probably be remembered as a misstep on ED's part. I know that sounds harsh but it really should have stayed in the oven for another few months at least. The Hornet's development was slowed because of its early release and it isn't reasonable to expect those who have been waiting more than a year for a complete Hornet to not notice or not to give it a second thought. Again. I don't regret giving ED money. I don't regret buying the Hornet or the Viper. That said, I am starting to find myself asking some serious questions about how I will regard their next major release if things continue down the road they are on. Th Viper release wasn't very good and it is my deepest hope that it doesn't take as long for the Viper to get finished as it has for the Hornet to even get to the incomplete state it is at now. Let's not go down the road where we are either with ED or against them. I think all of us here are with ED. It is just that things have gotten complicated and some serious questions do need to start getting asked.

The switches on the lighting panel do indeed work. That being said, the HOTAS has a switch that acts as a sort of "master control" that you also need to use in order for the lights to work. In practical terms. You would set the lights the way you want on the panel and use the correct pinky switch position to activate them.

As with the Hornet (when it first released), it is not so much that it is not worth the investment money-wise. It is that it is so bare-bones that it is not quite worth the investment in time and attention at this particular time due to the sheer number of functionality gaps that one will encounter in even "casual" use. For those that just want to fly a F-16 in any state, it is fine. You can take-off, fly around, and do some VERY simple combat stuff but its functionality gaps are huge and any attempt at a mission built around the real life F-16C Block 50's capability would quickly fall apart. The other issue (at least for me) is that I tend to really get into learning systems and as I learned when the Harrier first released as well as the Hornet, it was kinda frustrating to settle down for a evening of learning procedures only to find that there is only a hour or so worth of actually learning to do before you hit systems that just aren't there or are not in a state where they can be meaningfully learned. In the end, I don't regret buying the F-16 in the same way that I don't regret buying the Hornet. I know what early access means and I know that I am setting myself up for a year+ wait before I can do anything with the module that will be interesting to me. Still, I do hope that in the case of the F-16, it doesn't take a year or more to get it to a state where even the (still incomplete) Hornet is at. I am pretty patient but like everyone else, there are limits.

I can understand your overall sentiment and in regards to keeping constructive criticism genuinely constructive (as opposed to overly emotional and the like), I agree. Even online, one should feel obligated to be at least civil. It isn't difficult and civility doesn't cost anything. That being said, it is important to not dismiss a very important element at play here. Like the Hornet, the Viper is a massively iconic and very popular aircraft and while Eagle Dynamics is not misleading anyone and are very open about the early access status of these modules, they are also marketing them pretty aggressively and are charging not a small sum for their purchase. It is not unreasonable for those that bought them to at least show some interest (hopefully politely) in the overall plan to get those modules to a complete or at least a state where they are near enough completion to "feel" complete (where you don't hit major functionality gaps when flying realistic missions in authentic ways). As I said before, the Hornet and the Viper are both collecting virtual dust in my virtual hanger until they are further along. This doesn't really upset me but I do hope that the wait isn't so long that it seems unreasonable. I think folks have been rather patient with the Hornet but I hope that ED doesn't take this to mean that we are willing to go through a equally long wait for a project running largely in parallel. Again, civility is important. That said, for many of us, a Viper that can only do very, very basic things isn't really worth actively engaging with yet. That doesn't mean that many of us regret our purchase but it does mean that people will have different views about how fun it is right now and all of those views hold a meaningful amount of water.

Obviously this is going to just be my personal opinion and others will inevitably have different feelings. In its current state, the F-16 module is simply not "mission capable" in the sense that it lacks a lot of the core functionality required to fly semi-realistic/plausible F-16C Block 50 missions with it. It is very bare-bones at the moment and while that is fine for some to get started with, for me, it just means that I will very quickly hit functionality gaps that derail my learning process. It makes more sense to me to learn a more complete module since you won't have to relearn as things get added or even undo bad habits as more realistic (and sometimes less "convenient") procedures become required. When the Hornet came out, I really, really tried to get on board with the whole "you can learn it one step at a time like in real life!" thing but the rate of system/functionality additions was so slow that it just made more sense to store it in the virtual hanger while I put time into complete modules. The same happened with the Harrier and the same can be said for the Viper. Now that the Harrier is at a point where it is mission capable (as in, able to complete a mission in a realistic fashion with all the tools it has at its disposal), I have blown off the virtual dust it has gained from sitting in the virtual hanger and have put quite a bit of time into it. When the Hornet is in a similar place, the same will happen there. Hopefully the wait to get full(ish) functionality on the Viper isn't so long as I really am eager to start flying it. Your mileage may obviously vary. Some folks will have different outlooks on what is "mission capable" in DCS and what isn't but this is just my take.

Hopefully another third party or ED themselves eventually make a real A-4 module. As it stands, as much as I respect the modders who made the A-4 mod, it most certainly is not a full module in terms of systems fidelity and never really will. It is a shame that RAZBAM feels that a official module would have to compete because (to be blunt) it really wouldn't be much of a competition. The A-4 mod is great as far as mods go but it isn't a module and can't really replace the experience one would get from a full A-4 module release.

Here are the big ones that come to mind for me. 1.) The ability to enable random system failure with aircraft set as "client". Right now, only aircraft set as "player" can use random system failures that can be configured in the random system failure tab of the unit properties. Having this as a option for multiplayer would allow interested mission makers and especially more "milsim" minded groups to really drive home the importance of the system tests that are often so well modeled on the various modules. 2.) Having a sort of "neutral" option. Right now, you can only really do redfor and bluefor and while that works most of the time, it also severely hampers creating missions that model a more complex, more nuanced battlefield. Lacking a neutral faction makes setting strict/realistic ROE difficult to justify and for a sim as capable as DCS, that is a noticeable shortcoming. 3.) While I am not sure what can meaningfully be done without huge amounts of work, having a option to change weather on a entire map basis (as opposed to dynamic weather system) via triggers or timing as set in the editor would be really helpful. For example. It would be really useful to be able to set a mission up so it starts on a cloudy day but escalates (again, map-wide) to severe overcast or even rain/snow and then a storm would be pretty nice and would allow for more dynamic feeling missions without the need for complex weather system manipulation. 4.) Have the model viewer in the editor (in the loadout tab of the unit properties) reflect the time of day settings more accurately/usefully. This would help mission makers set the time of day for their mission and know what it will kinda look like more effectively while not requiring the mission maker to fully hop into the mission to check.

If I could set random failures in multiplayer missions, I absolutely would every time. I like the idea of using the failures as a incentive to do the proper checks and learn the emergency procedures.

A finger-lift option does make a lot of sense. Others have pointed out correctly that it helps offset the lack of a real detent that any afterburner equipped aircraft would have in real life but there is another benefit as well. Pretty much every throttle unit on the market has a different overall travel so the person who owns a early Virpil throttle is going to have a tougher time with extremely precise throttle management when compared to someone who owns a Warthog and its slightly longer travel. Having a finger-lift option would allow everyone to use their entire throttle travel for precise control and would be able to engage afterburners only when needed without having that afterburner portion cut into precious throttle travel distance.

Hopefully getting that implemented is a priority. Having the ability to jettison tanks is a pretty important aspect of the plane's normal operation. Without it, longer, somewhat realistically structured missions are pretty much impossible without constant mid-air refueling.

Aside from the emergency jettison button (that doesn't currently work), is there a way to jettison the external tanks currently?

I like the idea but I think it is pretty safe to say that a very, very vocal and quite easily roused subset of the community would ALWAYS see that as part of the "microtransaction slippery slope" or a "cash grab" regardless of how it is handled. It is a good idea but ED seems rather busy and I don't see this kind of thing happening any time in the near future. It could happen as more modules reach Blackshark or A-10C age but time will tell.

When the Hornet has all its weapons/sensors and the Viper is out and complete, I suspect you will see a lot of weapons that could be regarded as "OP" from a certain point of view. The problem that you seem to be talking about is not a "OP" problem but a mission design issue. Like it or not, as we get more advanced, more capable platforms/weapons in DCS, the standard issue multiplayer scenarios will need to adapt to keep up. If air defenses are getting defeated by JSOW's then it falls on the mission designers to lay out better, more effective air defense. If Hornets are getting close enough to enemy airfields to deploy the JSOW effectively then maybe the airfields that each team are using need to be spaced out further. There are a lot of ways that mission designers and even players can adapt to these weapons but they need to be willing to do so in the first place.

With the upcoming release of the 190-A8 and the inevitable attention that will fall on the WWII stuff as a result, where do we stand on this bug? I mean, it may not be a HUGE deal but it is one of those things that can certainly get in the way (especially when rearming/refueling). Any update on where we are at on this?

When posting about these crashes, Heatblur is going to need more than "It crashed again". While it is true that these CTD's seldom (if ever) produce logs, it is useful for us to provide them with the circumstances of the crash. What we you doing? Were you on a big multiplayer server? Were you playing single player? If so, was it a custom mission or one of the pre-made ones? Going into as much detail as possible will help them duplicate the crash and thus solve it.

There is also a checkbox for offset that does exactly what you need it to do.

Now that we are getting some more sophisticated multi-role platforms like the F/A-18, the F-14 (to a different degree), and even the upcoming F-16, I can't help but notice that while DCS World does have the infrastructure to deal with air to air engagements (via AWACS and GCI), it doesn't really have a air to ground infrastructure that can facilitate a realistic range of air to ground scenarios. When you read pilot memoirs (at least those that focus on more modern 90's+ conflicts), the JSTARS is a recurring element that often helps said pilots know where to go to start looking for targets. This kinda gets into a big issue we have with DCS right now. When dealing with air to air missions, you have a AWACS to tell you where to point your radar. You can go "on station" and fly realistic patrols since the AWACS or GCI can always tell you where to look when something enters its (large) detection radius. For air to ground, we can't really do "on station" style missions without carefully handcrafting triggers, scripts, and the like and while that can achieve good results, it can also mean stepping outside the sim's built-in structure to make things work. My suggestion. Take the basic idea of the current AI AWACS and put it in a air to ground context. It doesn't need to be super-detailed and doesn't need to be highly interactive. We just need something that can tell us where a enemy group is and perhaps datalink with appropriate playable aircraft (like the Harrier, A-10C, and F/A-18) in the way that JTAC units can (or will be able to do in the future). There is one issue that I can see. a JSTARS can see all vehicles but may not know if they are enemy or ally. This is probably just something that will need to be abstracted for the sake of functionality. Perhaps you could have it where the system runs a check to see if there are nearby allied units that can reasonably "see" if a unit is friendly or not. Perhaps you could simply assume that Bluefor is networked in such a way that the JSTARS can sort enemy from ally before making a call to the player or vectoring said player to ground units. Building air to air patrol missions is pretty convenient right now because the AWACS is a pretty simple, pretty effective, and generally realistic tool that can get players where they need to be without convoluted design. We need that kind of functionality for ground operations as well and having a simple JSTARS would be the solution that could work well inside DCS's existing structure and without intense levels of simulation required.

Just came across this topic and I kinda want to chime in about the original idea of even having a F-117 in DCS. While I don't know if it is really possible in terms of both secrecy and outright licensing/agreements with the USAF, I don't think that it is correct to dismiss it because of its specific role. It seems that a lot of the arguments against it are coming from the multiplayer/public server/sandbox scenario side of things while forgetting that DCS is also a interesting single player platform that can be used to explore a much, much wider variety of mission types and the scenarios where such mission types are actually appropriate. Getting past the technical issues of stealth (something that DCS need only develop on a somewhat limited level for it to be functionally adequate for the Nighthawk), the role of the F-117 is not entirely different from the role of the AJS-37. Both require fairly detailed flight planning, both require rigid adherence to attack plans/procedures, and both are pretty focused on striking fixed targets (though the Viggen also has a anti-ship function). Heck, you could even argue that while the Viggen carries more bombs, it is similar to the F-117 in that it drops them all at once so you really only have a single attack and then you head home. When the Viggen first came out for DCS, it was pretty clear that it was not a great fit for the standard issue sandbox multiplayer server scenarios. Suddenly players needed pre-planned targets. They needed structured sorties with details that simply were not required for pilots flying A-10C's (in a unrealistic strike capacity) and F-5's. It was not until Heatblur added some additional data cartridge/F10 map functions that it actually became useful in those scenarios. The whole thing showed the limits of the sandbox public server scenario when talking about dedicated "one pass, haul ass" strike platforms that need planned targets. Fortunately, DCS is not all about those big sandbox public server scenarios. We have a editor that allows interested players to make scenarios that can realistically explore the role of ANY aircraft in DCS without the need to worry about how it will fit in the overall multiplayer ecosystem. Flying the Viggen in a big sandbox scenario online might be okay nowadays but when you really dig into its role and build scenarios to model that role and put the aircraft in its proper context, you really get to see how tense and how difficult even a "simple" strike against a static target can be. The F-117 is no different. It might not fit into large sandbox scenarios online but that is not a prerequisite for its existence as a module and should NEVER be a rigid prerequisite for any potential module. For players who value DCS as a platform to explore mission roles, doctrine, and precise mission procedure/execution, aircraft like the F-117 offer a interesting opportunity in the same way the Viggen currently does. Granted. I don't really think that DCS will get a F-117 but mostly because I don't think ED could get the required agreements in order to do such a thing without potential trouble. I know that it is not exactly highly classified anymore (at least not parts of it) but there is more to it than that when it comes to making a module. Still, I think this argument goes beyond the F-117 itself and gets into the divide between those that want DCS to focus on the big multiplayer server thing and those that see DCS as a platform for everything from focused single player/co-op to big multiplayer. DCS is not just about what is fun but also what is interesting. For many (including myself), the idea of planning and flying a good strike mission with a aircraft that can only carry two bombs and makes a single attack pass is very, very interesting in the same way that the Viggen (when used realistically) is also very interesting.

Having a third (neutral) coalition would really help with mission design. We need something that can add a level of uncertainty to missions and really justify strong ROE. Having the potential for neutral aircraft (maybe civilian, maybe not) would be quite nice.