statrekmike

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?

Well said, the M-2000C is not a bomber so its abilities in that arena are fairly basic, this makes sense, France has other planes that do the job better so naturally those aircraft would have more delivery options.

They chose to make the C version because that is what they wanted to do, there is no real need for any further explanation to be honest. Perhaps the C version was the only one that they could get solid information on. Perhaps it was simple personal preference on the part of the developers. Either way, it was their choice to make just as it is your choice to buy it. You don't have to like the variant they chose but you should at least respect their choice. We would all like a lot of things in DCS, I would like to see Leatherneck make a F-104G, I would like Belsimtek to make a MiG-19 or a F-100 Super Sabre. I would like to see a fully clickable A-10A but in the end, I know and understand that I am not the person making those decisions and while my wishes are important to me, they have no real impact on how ED and it's 3rd parties do business. I could make thread after thread and ask over and over for the things I want but I understand that it would not mean anything and nor should it. The M-2000C is what we have, that is what the developers made and I respect that. I know you want more missiles, I know you want it to be competitive but if we start fudging realism in order to give you more ammo (without any real, actual data to back it up), DCS starts losing its identity. Think of it this way. RAZBAM literally JUST released the M-2000C into open beta, it still needs a ton of work and team working on it is pretty darn small indeed, they need to get this plane from its current incomplete state to something resembling a final build as quick as they can manage in order to avoid consumer dissatisfaction. Now you come along and start telling them that you don't really like the M-2000C but instead what a M-2000E, in addition, you want extra missiles because you want it to be "more viable" in some way or another. Imagine how that looks to others, imagine how that looks to the developers who are trying to stay focused on the task at hand.

You know, even with "only" four missiles, I was still able to splash five enemy aircraft in a single flight (one was a gun kill), maybe I just don't see having four missiles as terribly limiting. Now, if there is compelling proof that the M-2000C could possibly carry a ARMAT in some way or another, I would be happy to see it but when you start adding missiles just for some odd sense of "balance" or just a desire for more ordinance, it stops being a simulation and just becomes wish fulfillment. Perhaps it really comes down to understanding both the mindset of the French air forces (and their specific needs and requirements) as well as the idea that some aircraft are just designed for very specific roles. The M-2000C is clearly a interceptor/fighter that fits into a much larger air power eco-system. Since we don't have the other aircraft that serve alongside it, we perhaps might feel it is a bit limited in isolation. If not having enough missiles is a issue for you, why not just grab a wingmate who you can count on? Why not design missions with a larger variety of allied aircraft that can help fill out the roles that the M-2000C is not suited for? Why must RAZBAM change the aircraft now? What compelling reason do they have to go out of their way to start a whole new set of projects just because you don't have the amount of missiles you want?

That was not only a fantastic update but also one that should really set the standard for other 3rd parties in terms of raw content. You and your team are truly top notch and have really raised the bar of DCS overall with the MiG-21. I have no doubt you will raise that bar even further with your next releases (especially the Tomcat!). Happy New Year!

The best option is to let RAZBAM finish what we have out already. They have already stated in the manual what ordinance the aircraft will have access to when all is said and done so asking for more is essentially asking them to produce a whole new variant. Such a venture is not a small job and would require months of data gathering and many months more of actual module production. If you want to mod your copy to shoot other weapons, fine, nobody will stop you. Just don't act like you speak for everyone when you make such demands of the developers.

There is no point in asking for equipment that was not actually mounted on the specific version of the Mirage that we have right now. The developers chose this specific model and it LITERALLY just came out in beta, it is not even done yet. Why not let the paint dry on this one before we start asking, begging, or demanding new stuff.

I would honestly love to see something like the F-104 or even a A-6. Something old enough and iconic enough that plenty of info would exist (to ensure the best level of simulation). Honestly, I just want planes that are not so modern that they can't be done to a DCS standard realistically.

While this may not sound helpful, I find that making your own profile is probably the best thing you can do for yourself. I know this may sound dismissive and I don't meant it to be but it is true. When I got my first HOTAS, I tried downloading profiles that others had made only to find that it often really only got me a profile that did not meet my personal needs. It made learning the aircraft harder since I had to memorize not only how to do stuff in the plane but also where someone else mapped controls to. On top of that, I also found that I was spending a lot of time trying to find someone else to do the work for me when I could have done my own in a fraction of of that time. Look, I know it looks intimidating but once you do it a couple of times, it becomes very simple and saves you a lot of time as opposed to trying to track down someone else's profile. Seriously, making your own is the best way, there is no better time to start than now.

first off, I gotta say that the plane is fantastic and I can already tell that it will be something special when all the features are in place. My compliments to RAZBAM for their hard work and their ability to get this aircraft out in a combat capable state on Christmas day. So, now that it is out, how is RAZBAM planning to handle updates? I am not asking for dates as much as a idea about the overall "big-picture" plan. Are some of the incomplete features going to be added during the beta itself? Are we looking at larger patches/updates less frequently or smaller but more frequent updates? Finally, most important, is there any sort of "priority list" of fixes and incomplete systems in place and if so, can you give us some insight on that? Again, this is not so much about specific dates of patch releases or anything, I just figure this thread could help communicate the plan to the community in a way that will (hopefully) prevent you from getting slammed with a ton of questions about what will be fixed and when. I look forward to seeing this module evolve as more features and fixes are put in place.

There is a manual, perhaps that would be a good place to start.

I would try just using the mission editor to place a single MiG-21Bis on the ramp to start up and fly, this would eliminate any variables.

To add to FishBike's post, I observed some very interesting things during our test flight. 1,) The oxygen control switches don't work. You can turn on the 100% oxygen switch and the oxygen gauge does not deplete any faster, the emergency oxygen seems to exhibit similar behavior since activating it seems to have no effect on anything. It is safe to conclude that these switches don't work at all. 2.) Flying below 20,000 feet seems to work fine but flying between around 20,000 and 40,000 feet will eventually lead to unexplained hypoxia symptoms. Once you get above 40,000 feet, the effects go away and everything returns to normal. At this point, it is safe to say that the oxygen system is either not providing enough in the 25,000 to 40,000 ft bracket or that there is some kind of bug in the hypoxia system itself (will need to test this with other aircraft). 3.) Turning on pitot heat switches, cockpit air conditioning, helmet vent and similar switches do nothing to remedy this. Over the past couple of days, I have tried a variety of switch combinations to see if one specific thing works or if all work together and none had any effect on the above phenomena. Whatever kicks in at 40,000 feet in terms of oxygen for the player seems to fix the problem, I don't know if that helps narrow down the issue but there it is none the less.

Okay, after doing a lot of searching in the cockpit and experimenting with different altitudes, I am still getting hypoxia effects even with good oxygen flow, good cabin pressure, the cockpit air conditioning set to "warm", and the helmet glass heating on. Ohgr mentioned turning "cockpit heat" on but I have ZERO idea where that is located, even after searching both the manual and the cockpit.

Thank for the answer, Is this something that won't be implemented until after the beta or can we expect to see this feature enabled in a patch (relatively) soon?

Does this only apply for the radar display itself? I will admit that I don't really know how much this will effect the actual use of the radar.

To be honest, I would like to see this as it gives the player a reason to use the LABS system that is already on the aircraft. I know that there is some discomfort surrounding the idea of modeling nuclear weapons in DCS but Leatherneck proved that you can "simulate" a nuclear weapon in a way that the LABS system would be useful with.

With some DCS module beta releases, we have seen non-functional or incomplete systems, it is not a big deal (they were beta releases) but it did make some types of missions difficult when drop tanks were not properly enabled or oxygen systems were out of whack. With the beta release of the Mirage incoming, I was hoping the developers could let us know what we can expect, what systems are currently not functional that are planned for the final release?

Do you mean the three position switch with the cold, warm, etc?

For some reason, I am having issues with getting ground power on in 1.5. I thrown down a aircraft on a runway in the mission editor (taking care to make sure the runway is red or blue depending on the nationality) and when I ask for ground power, nothing happens. Keep in mind, I have done this thousands of times in prior versions with no issues and I don't have the canopy closed when I make the request.

I voted no. I can see the novelty of such a thing and I can understand the surface level appeal but I can't really say I would want a poorly rendered world map over a more detailed map of a specific region. The ONLY way I would want a world map in DCS is if they could do EVERY area with the level of detail that we currently see with the Nevada map. since this is not going to happen in many, many years, I see no real purpose in wishing for it. My other consideration is just how useful a world map would be in terms of missions. A world map would be great for ferry flights, U2 spy flights and maybe for (modern) tactical and strategic bombing but when you think about it, that is really about all you would get out of it. Those are not elements that will sell a sim like DCS, it's the smaller dogfight and mission scale stuff that does. Think about it, I know that flying a SR-71 over the Soviet Union in the 70's would be cool but it would ultimately be something that only appeals to a niche of a niche. The same niche that fly's FSX airliners from New York to London. It is a valid niche but not one that would justify the massive resources needed for a planet scale DCS map of any meaningful detail. Honestly, if anything, I would like to see larger DCS maps. Perhaps a map that covers Russia or the Middle East. These are more feasible and also would allow for the level of detail required for a combat sim that something like FSX does not really need.

I think that it might be useful to put the spotlight on the fact that the Mi-8 has been in open beta for one year. We are not talking about consumers who are moaning about a product that has been in beta for a few months. We are talking about consumers who are looking at the calender and wondering when the final product will be available or even just some words from Belsimtek proper about the plan (even if exact dates can't be provided). This is made even worse when you notice that the MiG-15Bis has entered beta in a largely complete state while their older modules don't seem to be getting a whole lot of attention (at least from a consumers point of view). It's not really reasonable to say someone is being impatient or acting entitled (or whatever) when they ask about the final release of a product that has been in beta for more than a year. I mean, heck, they were able to deliver the MiG-15 in a largely complete state (or at least more complete than other Belsimtek modules on beta release) in the time that the Mi-8 has been in beta. I am sure there are reasons that things are moving so slowly for some of Belsimtek's modules, perhaps they are waiting for DCS 2.0 but without any sort of word from them on the subject, I am left in the dark and my faith in them is wavering. Hopefully they will comment not just on the beta/full release development plans not just on the Mi-8 but also on the Sabre. If that means slowing down the release of future modules until they catch up a bit, I can deal with that.

This is exactly what I was looking for, I had not even thought that it would be so simple. Thanks so much!

I know how to set aircraft to start/take off and whatnot with the radio but the ground units don't seem to have a "start" function in the "perform command" section. Can anyone explain how I can turn on the AI of a ground unit by using a radio command?