statrekmike

Is this something we might see in a hotfix or is this something we could see next Friday?

If I were you, I would start looking into learning the basics of the mission editor, it is shockingly easy to handle once you watch a few tutorials on youtube. Keep in kind, I say this as a person who is not amazing with editors. The DCS editor is really intuitive and learning to make your own missions will save you the time and effort involved in trying to find ones that others have made that suit your needs.

It does not take long at all to learn RSBN, it is far quicker to do so than to wait for someone to make a mod for you.

This is the kind of thing I like to hear and it is why I play DCS. Keep up the good work!

If we go by that kind of thinking, there is zero reason to strive for any kind of realism in DCS, we can just throw out all those old standards and just kinda do whatever. It does not matter since it is all just simulated on our computers anyway. Seriously, the point of these DCS modules is to STRIVE for realism whenever it is possible.

learning the start-up for the P-51 literally takes just a few minutes.

The real aircraft is only able to handle one air to ground weapon type at a time, this is modeled accurately in the sim. If you want to do air to ground missions, you need to pick ONE weapon type since that is all the plane can handle. For example, you can carry a full load of Snakeeye's or a full load of Mk-82's, you just can't mix them.

I am getting the same, kinda hoping for some sort of hotfix for this of some sort as it is pretty significant.

Not really, the gun is entirely different and while it can take out the usual soft targets, lightly armored vehicles, and (obviously) aircraft, it is not a anti-tank weapon like the A-10's gun. Think of it this way, the M-2000C is pretty much a anti-air platform, it can do some light bombing but it was never really built to do that role as well as it does intercepts and general fighter work.

I am also getting the odd popping sounds, not sure what is causing it.

I also hope it gets fixed in the upcoming patch, this is one of those things that really needs to work to make the plane functional for a wider variety of mission types.

That is the best possible outcome, I am one of those players that like the alignment time being correct so having a option to do so is exactly what I wanted.

Honestly, if they are gonna add any new air to ground, I would like to see a "simulated nuclear bomb" in the same vain as the one for the MiG-21, it would actually give us a reason to use the fully modeled LABS system on the plane that is (as of now) serving no real purpose.

If that is indeed the case, I hope they don't make a habit of that kind of thing.

Is anyone getting some odd bugs after doing this mod? I noticed that after doing the mod, the alarm that goes off when you drop the centerline droptank no longer goes off, when you switch the FBW mode to A/A, it gives you the alarm. Not a big deal, you can just silence the alarm but I was wondering if i did something wrong here.

All the details were clearly outlined in the post he linked.

The early F-15E's were very capable, even by modern standards.

Hopefully it is a early E model since that may mean higher systems accuracy. I would rather not see a trend start where full DCS modules are made with a significant amount of guesswork.

If I were RAZBAM, I would just implement the full INS alignment time first and foremost, get the whole thing where it needs to be in order to be realistic and then start thinking about some sort of option for those that don't want to wait the full eight minutes. I would prefer that DCS modules continue doing what Eagle Dynamics started with the A-10C and try to keep everything as realistic as possible. To be blunt, I find that getting upset at long alignment times is a choice. I find that the alignment time gives me a chance to jot down any notes I need, make sure I am clear on the mission objectives and perhaps even brief other players on what is to come. I choose to not even really be bothered by the alignment time because I can always find something to fill that time with. let RAZBAM do it correctly and then start thinking about a option for those who can't live without it.

Well, as I said, I have nothing against server enforced options since this seems more like a multiplayer/PVP concern than a single player/co-op one. If it bothers you to wait the eight minutes, there should be a option you can enable to shorten it to your taste while not encroaching on the experience of those who do want the full alignment time.

I can understand that a eight minute alignment time may be off-putting to some but I really don't think we should start reducing it arbitrarily either. This is the kind of thing that may work well for the multiplayer crowd and I fully understand that, but in the end, if we start (as the community and not developers) picking and choosing what realistic elements we want and what we don't, we start setting a pattern where the players with the loudest voices on forums start setting up the baseline level of realism that EVERYONE will get. There have been many games that started with a eye towards realism only to go the entirely opposite way due to pressure from PVP/competitive centric players. Please note, I have no issues at all with a server enforceable option to reduce alignment times, this would allow the action packed dogfight centric servers to have their quick alignments while more realism focused servers can keep everything consistent (instead of having some players using a 2 minute option and others using a 8 minute option). I will personally stick with the realistic alignment times, I have no problem with waiting since if gives me a chance to go over all the mission info and make sure I have everything laid out for those flying with me.

Adding a globe module seems like a good solution but you end up with a couple of problems. The first is that we don't really know if the DCS terrain engine can handle that scale on a level that would satisfy VFR flying. Those who fly 747's at 40,000 feet may not mind rather basic textures or terrain modeling but we really don't know how well the DCS engine can handle a entire globe. The second issue is that you will have to find a way to support 3rd party improvements on a existing map since we all know that the civilian players will want to encourage the FSX terrain payware modders to make content for the DCS globe map. This would be a logistical nightmare with DCS in its current configuration. I don't have a issue with flying without shooting, it is not that I find civilian flying boring, it is that I don't really see how you can make DCS a "all in one" solution that will satisfy both the civil and military flyers equally. Everything about DCS (as it stands now and in the known future) is geared for combat flying in some form or another. If DCS were to push to become the "all in one" solution, I fear it would get bogged down with expectations from those who have been so used to the 3rd party content (of wildly varying quality) that they are used to on FSX or X-plane. I think this is where you could get a good compromise. C-130's, E-3's, KC-135's, and even militarized Piper Cubs and the like are the perfect compromise. You could still do civil style flights but also open up options that actually contribute to DCS's core intention as a product. DCS does have great flight dynamics, great weapons and systems modeling, and even great terrain modeling due to the smaller scale. What it does not have is any real provisions for FSX style gameplay and in order to get that stuff working, you are looking at a far more involved process than what we find with FSX and the like. The problem here is that every new airplane, every patch, every terrain choice, and any other addition you can think of has to go through ED directly. This would clash badly with the expectations of those coming from FSX since those third parties did not need to deal with such a thing, they could just release their content directly to the consumer without any sort of quality standards, without waiting for Microsoft to integrate needed features or systems, and without having to wait on Microsoft's patch schedule. With DCS, everything has to go through ED and while this is fine with military level stuff, it will really cause friction with the massive civil aviation crowd who are used to having a HUGE selection of addons that release direct. The other issue is cultural. FSX and the like have been around a long time and have their own cult followings. Those folks are very, very used to how things work for FSX and may find that the differences with DCS hard to live with (slower content releases, less third party freedom). You may also see some friction in the community. You would have some players on the civilian side demanding more attention without realizing that they are not the dominant playerbase for DCS. This could cause friction on the forums that simply does not need to be there. At the end of the day, I don't have a huge issue with civil aircraft in DCs, I just can't really find a good reason as to why it would be a good idea to push in that direction. DCS is a combat sim and the ONLY one that really does what it does. Why should it assume the responsibility of being a "all in one" solution when that invariably would lead to compromises on one level or another. DCS is just not a open enough platform to get the kind of content you might expect for something like FSX and the like and to be honest, that is what makes DCS kinda special, there are harsh standards that civil cims have yet to assume and probably could not without significant pushback from 3rd party developers who are used to a more lax system.

We are getting into pointless semantics, my point is that all of the inteceptors in DCS currently also can serve other roles. It is easy to make a mission for the MiG-21 where you only shoot down big slow bombers but a real challenge would be to make missions where you employ it for CAP against other fighters, ground attack, or even air superiority. The same goes for the MiG-15, sure, it is a interceptor on paper but it was the mainline fighter during the Korean war and used for anything from ground attack to basic fighter duty. The Mirage is the same case, you can say it is just a interceptor but it is very much a front line fighter, interceptor, and light ground attack fighter. Saying that DCS has too many interceptors misses the point. the interceptors we have all can do many roles, you as the player just need to be willing to challenge yourself. You need to be willing to play actual missions that put those aircraft in the roles they actually served, this kind of mission structure will not be found on servers like the 104th but instead on co-op missions and solo missions. To put it more directly, it is very rare that I use the interceptors in DCS for just shooting down bombers, I tend to look at what those planes actually did, what supporting aircraft worked with them and what their realistic opponents might have been and then I design missions around that. It sounds like you just need to branch out, explore what those aircraft are actually capable of doing and what roles they could do in real life (outside the basic bomber interceptor role).

As of right now, we have two interceptors for all intents and purposes, the MiG-21 and the M-2000C. Out of the box, the M-2000C is a capable light fighter that while limited in terms of engagement range, can still fit easily into a role where it takes out other light fighters or even fighters like the Su-27 and the like if tactics are applied and proper coordination with the AWACS/GCI is maintained. The MiG-21Bis that we have is simply a pure interceptor that was modified in order to accomplish other tasks. It can be effective against aircraft like the AI controlled F-4E or other even other MiG's (other 21's or 23's) but like the Mirage, your effectiveness will be based on how well you can work with GCI or a AWACS. When it all comes down to it, I think it is important to understand that at its core, DCS is not a PvP multiplayer centric title, you may treat it as such personally and others may do the same but in the end, the realistic combat simulator format lends itself better to co-op or single player far better and this is where the individual aircraft modules we have right now really come into their own and make sense. To put it another way, if you only ever hop on a public server where dogfighting and racking up kills is the only real goal (even if their are other goals listed), you will find that players are going to gravitate towards the best possible dogfight aircraft, it turns into something not unlike using the "dominant build" in MMO. In this kind of situation, it does not matter if the MiG-21Bis is good against the F-4E or the F-5E-3. It does not matter if the Mi-8MTV2 makes a great air artillery platform, nor does it matter if the Ka-50 can work fantastically when paired with another Ka-50 driver acting as a "commander" to spot ground targets and patch into the datalink with them. When it is all about dogfighting, it is easy to miss the real value some of these DCS modules actually have because their is no place for them in a competitive PvP environment. This is why the FC3 aircraft are still so popular, they have the best weapons and the easiest controls. Even if we were to get a real DCS F-15 or a real DCS Su-27 module, people on dogfight servers would still favor the advantages that the simple FC3 aircraft provide. When it all comes down to it, the players that move away from competitive dogfighting on public servers will start to see the value of the aircraft we have in a new way. I don't like at the MiG-21Bis and say "time to do another boring bomber intercept", I make missions where the aircraft is given roles it actually has in real life and I place the player in a realistic context where they are supported by ground, anti-air, and even other air assets. The same goes for all the other aircraft. Finally, as a side note, be careful about your expectations of the Tomcat, it is a amazing plane that will probably be my new favorite when it comes out but it is not going to be the dogfighting monster that you may think. It is fairly limited in terms of armament since the Phoenix missile is really not designed to take out maneuvering targets and it does not mount a AIM-120 and instead has Sparrows. It is going to be a good dogfighter but it will not be overwhelmingly good in the competitive dogfight scene alongside those that only fly the F-15 and the Su-27. The reason I defend the developers decision to stick to reality (as in no extra missiles or weapons it did not carry) is because I think those limitations are part of what makes a aircraft interesting and unique. If you fly the Mirage and find that you can't be effective with only four missiles, you need to re-evaluate your tactics and playstyle. If you find that you are getting bored of flying bomber intercept in the MiG-21, try using it for other mission types that it is used for in real life, some of them may take you out of your comfort zone but that is kinda the point.

In my entirely subjective opinion, I think DCS should stick with military aircraft, it makes sense to do so for a variety of reasons. 1.) The maps are a issue, FSX, X-Plane, and P3D all work well because they have the entire globe to work with. You can fly your long distance birds from one continent to another as they were designed to do and more importantly, the runways and airports all function relatively like they should. The scale of titles like FSX has costs, while the maps may be global in scale, they do lack the potential detail we see with the Nevada map, even after-market environment graphics for FSX tend to be resource hungry. 2.) Assuming they were to start releasing civilian aircraft right now, what exactly would they do in the DCS environment? How long can you fly around Nevada or the Black sea map in your 172 before it all seems kinda pointless? How many heavily abbreviated flights can you take in a 747 before you just go back to FSX where those planes are in their element? 3.) Why bother with civilian aircraft directly when you can simply fit that style of play into the military context? Would it not make more sense to give those civil aviation folks a AWACS to fly, a KC-135, or a AC-130? Heck, you could even put them in recon aircraft and the like. It would just make more sense to go that route than to just awkwardly throw a bunch of civil aircraft in a environment built around military action. 4.) I think this one is probably the most obvious and important. We already have FSX. We already have P3D, and X-Plane, what can DCS do for civil aviation that those products are not already purpose built for? Why not let DCS be the sole product that really goes after the hardcore combat aircraft niche instead of forcing another identity on to it that others already do better? What do we stand to gain? Seriously, think it about it. If you want to fly a 172 or a Airbus, you already have THREE options to choose from, why make DCS something it is not just so you can have a fourth?