statrekmike

The Mirage generally meets the standard but that was most certainly not the case until the French AdA actively got involved in the project and provided data and feedback. Keep in mind, the Mirage came out in 2015 and the AdA informed overhaul didn't happen until 2018. That gap in time is important since before 2018, the Mirage module was in a pretty bad place in terms of meeting the existing DCS standard for attention to detail and the impression of realism. As I have said in the other thread. I think the big lesson that should be taken away from this controversy is that ED needs to put in place some tighter standards when it comes to third party module approval. Perhaps even a full outline of what data/documentation a third party has/can realistically get access to during the project, what SME's they can secure, and what their overall "feature complete" product will look like in terms of overall fidelity. That might help maintain a standard while still giving some wiggle room on a case by case basis.

If I were to put forward some modules that I feel represent good ways to handle the standard we expect from DCS as a whole, it would be the A-10C, the F-14B, and the JF-17. The A-10C is a obvious one. it is quite complete and while there are bugs and some performance inconsistencies, it has a massive amount of obvious systems depth and what is changed due to classification/secrecy issues makes sense and isn't obfuscated from the player. The F-14B acts as a good part of the standard because you could see the effort Heatblur put into research and getting all the data/SME support they could possibly get. They came into the process with a clear goal to model a specific set of aircraft with specific characteristics and did not deviate. On top of that, the F-14B (while only part of a larger upcoming package) released in a nearly complete state. The functionality it was missing was consistently talked about and those who wished to know more were never dismissed. Even now, the Tomcat is receiving obvious support from Heatblur. The JF-17 is on this list simply because it is a good example of a developer handling a aircraft that is still somewhat mired in secrecy issues in a open, straightfoward way. We know that some aspects of that module are kinda guesswork but Deka went out of their way to make sure that they still felt right to the player. What's more. Like Heatblur before them, Deka are very good about putting in "place-holder" features that are actually functional while they wait for ED to come in and fill the gaps with core functionality. What both Deka and Heatblur have in common is responsiveness when major DCS updates break functionality. When ED recently changed the ground radar EXP functionality, Deka already had their own "place-holder" setup that was broken. Instead of complaining about it and refusing to work on it until some unspecified time, Deka got with ED and worked out a fix very quickly. While all these different modules have varying degrees of realism and systems fidelity, they all feel consistent to the player overall and are properly supported without major fuss. This is the standard that I think a DCS player should reasonably be encouraged to expect and if a third party isn't meeting that standard, they are going to stand out and get a lot of attention they may not want as a result even if a subset of their customers think the aircraft is "still fun to fly".

I have full faith that you and everyone else at ED are trying very hard to find some kind of solution to all of this. Even then, I am concerned that this will result in perhaps a six month long burst of meaningful progress and communication and then we will end up right back where we are now. This cycle isn't a new one and that is the part that I think some of us are really concerned about. We know that you are in a tricky position because you are kinda stuck in the middle with all of this. To be bluntly honest, RAZBAM themselves should really be handling this and not you. The question I have is what happens if we end up in this situation again a handful of months from now? I know you can't speak for RAZBAM but maybe you could tell us where ED stands on this kind of thing. Is there a system in place that can help soften the blow of a worst case scenario? Again. I really don't like being negative here and I am choosing my words pretty carefully so that I don't step on anyone's toes but this isn't the first time this has happened and while I hope it will be the last time, I also hope that if it isn't, ED has some kind of plan or system in place to get people what they bought and payed for. I mean, as far as RAZBAM is concerned, the Harrier is out of early access and while I am aware that they have stated that they will continue to update and support the module through "product sustainment", I am still getting pretty worried that I have been waiting a long time for a complete module that will never happen. Hopefully I am wrong but if I am not, I would like to know that ED is willing to step in and have a stance on things.

There are some that keep coming into this thread with this same line of thinking and while it isn't outright correct, it is also not the whole picture. I have been playing DCS for going on a decade. I have bought just about every module with only a few specific exceptions. I know that when I buy a module, I am more than likely getting a early access product with the promise that it will eventually be a full, complete release. Obviously sometimes things go very bad (VEAO and the Hawk module is a good example) but for the most part, ED, Heatblur, and Deka have been good about (and this is key here) demonstrating their willingness to complete the modules they make via steady updates, (at least) decent enough communication, and generally positive, non-adversarial, usually professional behavior when faced with the occasional controversy. When I bought the F-16 module, I knew I was getting a extremely unfinished aircraft but I didn't freak out about it because I also know that ED is quite likely to finish it. I know that they went into the project with the information and SME support they need to get it up to standard. The same can be said of the F-14 and Viggen by Heatblur. Heck, even Deka has come in with not only a pretty solid module but also a strong amount of early access support that has meaningfully pushed the aircraft towards a complete state. The point I am making here is that for the most part, while it can be sometimes frustrating to wait, ED, Heatblur, and Deka have managed to release things into early access that one can be reasonably confident will get finished. They all seem to be shooting for a similar level of fidelity and sometimes they even go above and beyond what is in DCS's core (which is another very important detail in all this). It might take a while but buying in to early access with them isn't a obvious risk. RAZBAM is a different case. When they were gearing up to release the Mirage, they marketed it as if it were a full, DCS level simulation of a Mirage 2000C-RDI model but when it came out, it started to become pretty clear that RAZBAM's lack of support from Dassault, the French Air forces, and even SME's just wasn't where it needed to be. They filled in a lot of gaps themselves and we got something pretty similar to the "frankenviper" in the other combat sim. Heck, they even used performance charts from said other sim to build the Mirage module.) We didn't really get a full idea of how far off it was until the AdA actually stepped in and helped them out much, much later. Had RAZBAM not been approached, the Mirage would not have met the standards set by its own store-page. With the Harrier release, we saw a lot of this play out yet again. Its initial release had a lot of bugs but that was forgivable. The big issue was really that it didn't get as much post-release support as other modules from other developers regularly got. It would get a patch here and there but things that other DCS developers would handle without snark and complaint were often somewhat drama filled with RAZBAM. They (like VEAO before them) would often retreat behind "DCS updates will just break everything anyway so why bother fixing this or that". People would point out bugs or even incomplete or absent functionality and RAZBAM would give us a a line like "ED needs to do that" or something to that effect. When they released the MiG-19, even that involved some drama as the RAZBAM developers were pretty quick to complain about the standards that ED had set for something beyond a early access release. They seriously thought that the MiG-19 was a full release when it first came out. Let that roll around in one's mind for a while. It was horribly buggy and had some serious, obvious flight model problems but as far as RAZBAM was concerned, they felt it was feature complete and got offended publicly when told that was not the case. Alongside the MiG-19 itself, its release also heralded some community upset about the state of the Harrier. Keep in mind, this was last year. Pretty much the same upset we are seeing now is only a repeat of what has already happened last year. During the MiG-19 release, I can't be absolutely sure and won't assert that it is true but I strongly suspect that ED talked to them about the Harrier's state because they seemed to come back at the Harrier with some degree of renewed vigor and didn't seem so bitter about having to do so (At least publicly). Again. this is my theory so take it for what it is. Sadly, here we are again. Only now we have some statements on the Discord from RAZBAM that indicates that they genuinely consider the harrier "feature complete" even though it not only technically isn't but is (more importantly) quite incomplete with what is there. I am not so much talking about issues that could fall into secrecy territory. I am talking about just things like how the knobs and switches function and basic stuff like that. Looking at their discord, we are again starting to get a picture of what happened and it is looking like the Mirage all over again. It is my guess that they took on the module without having a plan to get all the information they would need. They did the best they could with what they could get their hands on but it clearly wasn't quite enough. Sadly, I don't see a scenario where the USMC or Boeing will come in and help them out like the AdA eventually did with the Mirage. What we have is probably about as much as they could do with the information they were willing and/or able to go out and get. So here we are. The cycle repeats itself and while folks who have (sometimes very patiently) been waiting for a complete module are still waiting for some pretty significant and long acknowledged issues to get fixed, we are also yet again being told to shut up because early access is what it is. Well, the Harrier isn't in early access anymore and we are still waiting for early access problems to get solved. What else should we do here? What other choice do we have but to speak up a bit (hopefully politely) and hope that ED puts them to task? I have said this before but I think the real thing at stake here is not the Harrier module but every other complex module that RAZBAM makes in the future. Knowing what we know from the release of the Mirage and the Harrier, isn't it about time we get a clear, unmistakable idea of what RAZBAM considers a complete module? Isn't it time they tell us before releasing a module what they were able to get in terms of information and how that will translate into a complete module? Perhaps it is time for ED to set firmer, stricter rules when it comes to third party project approval? This probably comes off in text as more hostile than it is in my head as I type it. Please note that I am not saying that RAZBAM is "scamming" us or that they are intentionally and maliciously misleading us. I think they genuinely have a standard they shoot for internally but perhaps that standard isn't what ED and other third parties have led us to expect. This current debacle is going to keep repeating (and probably for future RAZBAM modules as well) until they either make it clear that they are working towards a lower level of fidelity or they find some way to reach the standard set by their peers. I for one hope that this is the last time we need to (as long-time Harrier owners) ask why we have not seen significant, consistent updates.

Perhaps that was a aggressive word choice and for that, I apologize. I should also have made it clear that I am replying not just to your "what to expect next" list but also the post you made before it which I will quote below. Again. I am not trying to put you on tribunal here for issues that are out of your direct control. The larger issue here is not just communication from RAZBAM to us on the ED forum but also the module itself, it's overall quality based on time developed, and what its final form is to be (and how that final form compares to what other third parties and ED strive for). While I am not really blaming you for any of this, I do think that the reason things have gotten where they are is because RAZBAM doesn't really make it clear what they consider a complete, full fidelity module. This happened with the Mirage (before the AdA stepped in) as well. When RAZBAM first released the Mirage, it was not only incomplete but also incorrect. It took a long, long time for RAZBAM to even acknowledge that they didn't have all the information they really should have had before starting the project. Maybe this has worked for them thus far for sims like FSX but the community here will really dig into this stuff and will get vocal when something isn't right. The Harrier has had a very rough life so far. Maybe RAZBAM largely considers it feature complete but it does not currently match other DCS modules in terms of basic levels of detail and overall systems fidelity. Some of that can be explained away due to classification/secrecy issues but some of it just can't. So. I apologize for picking my words wrong but you can see how I might come to the conclusion (based second quoted post) that you spoke a lot about what the community is doing wrong without really tackling the root cause of that (sometimes too extreme) upset.

To be honest, I don't really worry myself about the other modules they tease or even officially announce. What worries me is the Harrier module and the fact that has been out for so long and so many bugs, incomplete systems, and outright missing systems haven't been dealt with even when RAZBAM actually acknowledges them on either this forum, facebook, or their Discord echo-chamber. I get that you got a bad deal. I didn't envy your position as a CM at all. Still, don't try to deflect this all on us when we are here because of the quality of RAZBAM's work and their business practices.

None of this helps and none of it actually confronts the real problem. Passing the blame to people who bought the modules doesn't really make sense when you consider that a good many don't even go on the forums, the discord, or anything and just buy the modules they are interested in. Are they also to blame in your eyes? Are they also responsible? It is true that the community tends to think about wishlists more than they should. It is true that some are probably too quick to defend a developer when they really, really push things to far. Still, that doesn't make this issue any less worthy to confront and all you are doing with posts like yours is to help maintain the status quo as it is instead of trying to find real, honest solutions. Right now, we are at a point where ED might be able to make RAZBAM see the problems we are talking about. It might not amount to much for the Harrier but maybe this will help clarify things for future modules they make. Perhaps it will help RAZBAM to understand what is expected of them. We gotta try to stay constructive about this. Sneering and pointing fingers isn't going to solve anything.

I would be more willing to get on board with this line of thinking if RAZBAM had made statements about flight modeling difficulties that supported it. So far, RAZBAM seems to maintain that the issue is more about secrecy and what they are and are not allowed to put into the module (or even complete if it is already there). If they could not afford to complete the rest of the systems after doing the flight model, that is on them and it is simply not appropriate at this juncture to give them more money on top of the original selling price to get the module that we were promised as part of that original selling price. Don't get me wrong. I get that making a DCS module is a tough, expensive, time intensive job. I think many of us in this thread are more than happy to acknowledge that it isn't easy. That being said, the harrier being VTOL/STOVL doesn't justify the state it is in now. From my point of view, this isn't so much a Harrier specific problem as it is a RAZBAM issue in general. After seeing how the Mirage development went, I am not surprised to see a very similar set of issues crop up with the Harrier. To be honest, I don't think RAZBAM was prepared for the level of detail that the DCS community (rightfully) expects. Nor does it look like they were prepared to meet the general standards set by ED and other third parties (both in terms of quality of work done and desired level of overall simulation/fidelity). Perhaps this is a case where RAZBAM has their own internal standard and that would honestly make sense considering they got their start as a third party developer for Microsoft Flight Simulator stuff. That title has many, many developers who all operate largely independently from Microsoft and can all set their own standards. In DCS, there is one general standard that everyone strives for and audiences expect, I don't think RAZBAM was prepared for this. I don't say this to be mean to them, I say this because it seems to be how they have operated thus far. My fear right now is that if we don't get this all clarified with the Harrier, it will become a even bigger, even nastier problem when they release the F-15E and it has a lot of the same issues. If they want to make modules that sit in their own realism/complexity/fidelity level separate from all other full fidelity modules, they really need to make that clear right now so we can all adjust our expectations for their future work.

My big concern right now is that the communication issue goes much, much deeper than not getting on the forums (which really should be a requirement in the contract if it is not already) or even the elevated emotions and rather rude statements. I think the big issue is that they really need to be more forthright about what they think a finished, realistic, full fidelity module looks like when it leaves early access. When ED or even other third parties announce a module, there is usually a understanding that there is a certain standard of fidelity/realism that should be met. Sometimes things need to get fudged for secrecy's sake but generally we know that when we buy a full fidelity module from ED, Heatblur, and Deka, we are going to get a simulation of a specific aircraft that has been heavily researched, sourced, and recreated to at least mostly match the standards set by ED. With RAZBAM, I get the impression that they are not willing to do that to the same level that other DCS developers are. It seems like they didn't really expect the expectations for detail to be so high. I mean, it kinda makes sense since they were coming from FSX where the standards are very different and they didn't really have to work on a still developing/evolving product (like DCS World as a whole). So maybe now is the time for ED to have a serious talk with them about the expectations they should prepare to work under and what kind of methods they should work on adopting to meet those expectations. Given their track record, I fear that the F-15E release will be a very controversial affair for the larger DCS community so it might be a good time for ED to nip some current behaviors and approaches in the bud before they become a much, much larger, much more visible problem.

When it comes to the public server regulars, I agree with others that this is the kind of time where some folks get a bit busy and may not be able to hang out on the servers as much. It is just how this kind of thing goes. On the other side of things, I think it isn't exactly a great idea to use the public servers as a meaningful yardstick for player retention overall. Many players (like myself) have no desire to go on public servers and instead focus on private groups and private servers. For a lot of players, single player is also a big deal (even if such a statement is controversial in some circles). The public server scene in DCS isn't really for everyone and will sometimes act as a pathway for players to eventually find isolated, private groups to spend their time on.

NineLine, I appreciate your replies and the time you have spent doing this thus far. I do have one question. When the internal bug tracker does start generating some results and all that information gets to where it needs to go, what should we (as the community) do if things don't really change for the module itself (via updates and the like)? What can we reasonably expect ED to be able to do? I don't ask to be a downer or anything. I guess I am just at a point where I struggle to even have cautious optimism about the module. I hope that there is a way to get everything on track again.

In pretty much every other case of early access in DCS, I would absolutely agree with you. Even ED's own projects are fine in that regard since there is obvious forward motion with every update. Sadly, we can't really say the same about the Harrier. It has seen some minor updates but considering the sheer amount of time that has passed since a major update, I think we are past the point where patiently waiting for early access to run its course is going to mean much. If there is a issue that is preventing them from making any more significant progress, we are at a stage where we kinda need to know. We have been waiting for years and while I am indeed patient, I am only so patient before I start to feel like I am getting taken advantage of. Perhaps my big concern isn't so much about the Harrier at this point. It is that the F-15E is a much more complex module and I think it is not unfair to ask if it might be a good time for ED to really have a straight talk with RAZBAM about their definition of a complete module and how that compares to the expectations/standards that ED and other third parties are setting as the norm. I think the big frustration here is that the Harrier module is a pretty decent foundation. It could be a great module but it needs serious commitment to get there. RAZBAM needs to demonstrate that commitment and thus far has not really done so. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be a downer here. I don't like being this negative on the forums if I can help it. Still. We have been waiting years for the Harrier to see significant progress but all we seem to get is either ignored outright or excuses that don't quite add up. If they want to sell more modules to those that already own the Harrier, they are going to need to put more effort into the process so we can have faith in them again.

At this point, I think a good step would be to have someone in the RAZBAM development team actually post a serious, meaningful update about where they feel the Harrier is as a module and where they expect it to go from here. As of right now, the module isn't really what we were advertised and as much as I would like to avoid being negative about this stuff on the forums, that is not okay. If they are happy with where it is at now, so be it. If not, it would be good to actually know where they want it to go and what they plan to actually do to get it there. Is there anything ED can do in this regard?

Unless I am testing stuff in the mission editor, I always do a full start because why would I not do so after paying a significant amount of money for the ability to do so. Additionally. I find doing autostarts and the like really boring. It is just more interesting to learn the start-up procedure and do it.

I do agree that users should always endeavor to be constructive and polite. That being said, since RAZBAM's communication about the Harrier module has been a issue for a good long time now, is ED in a position to comment officially? We all know that modules can take a long time to push out of early access but the Harrier hasn't seen major updates for a worryingly long time. I think that it is fair to say that a good number of us who bought the module are starting to wonder what its fate will actually be. Obviously this is a tricky situation but does Eagle Dynamics have a position on this? If the Harrier does eventually get the features and polish it needs, that would be great but what will happen if it doesn't?

Honestly? I am not even sure why the training missions are as convoluted as they are. It just makes more sense to hop into the editor, make extremely simple "training scenarios" that allow you to just open up the manual and go through the various procedures and checklists as you go. It would be faster and more efficient to do that than it is to mess with the training missions as they are. Whenever I help out new players, they always complain about the training missions and they are not wrong to do so. they are more complicated than they need to be and are not nearly comprehensive enough to really give you what you need. It is just better to use the editor as a training tool and simply create the scenarios you need to learn the various planes. The editor may seem a bit intimidating at first but it is shockingly straightforward and very easy to work with if you don't try to push it past its limits.

To be blunt, your entire process needs work. My advice is to break the carrier landing process into a few different major skills that you can learn one at a time and put together when you have gotten a handle on them separately. The first step is to get a handle on just flying the aircraft. From take-off to landing it was clear that you were always a few steps behind the jet. Spend some time doing by the book landings on a airbase. Spend some time just flying around to get a feel for more subtle, more precise stick inputs. Get yourself to a point where you are not struggling to keep the jet under control. Next, you need to learn how your navigation systems work. The airplane has all the tools you need to navigate to and land on the carrier without even seeing it. It falls on you to learn these systems and the best way to do it is by the book. Don't try to find shortcuts on youtube. Don't try to rush the process. Learn how to use TACAN (which will guide you to the carrier) and learn how to use ICLS (which will get you on the deck. It will take some work on your part but that is kinda what you signed up for when you got into DCS in the first place. Finally, you really, really, really need to understand what "on speed" means and why it is pretty much the most important thing in carrier landings. The only reason you landed in that video without destroying your plane is because DCS's damage model isn't there yet. If it were more realistic, you would have wrecked that plane by landing way, way, way too fast. Getting on speed means setting up your aircraft so that it can hold the desired angle of attack as you control your descent to the deck. It isn't going to be easy and will take a lot of practice but like I said before, you signed up for that when you got into DCS. Overall, I think your issue is that you are trying to do one of the more difficult things without seeming to understand all the parts of the process that go into it.

Considering that other modules have ECM to varying degrees (even ED's own), I don't think the issue is classification (since ECM in DCS will always be simplified anyway) or "game balance" since that makes no sense when you take everything else in DCS into account). What is more likely is that ED simply hasn't gotten to a point where they add the ECM elements. They will always be simplified but there is no reason to believe that there won't be some kind of ECM.

My impression has always been that ground radar (as it is implemented on multi-role jets like the Viper, Hornet, etc) is not really the "end all, be all" sensor but instead is just another useful tool in the toolbox. When I argue against the "ground radar is useless/wasted effort" crowd, I don't argue that it is something you should use as your sole sensor but instead as a option that will be more or less useful depending on the situation/context. It is probably safe to assume that your own viewpoint (and the viewpoint of your peers no doubt) is shaped by the "airpower ecosystem" (for lack of a better term) that you worked inside. You had access to a lot of tools that were far, far more effective than just the ground radar on a Hornet. Sadly, DCS doesn't model a lot of those tools at all so it can get tricky to apply current, real world views on ground radar usefulness/practicality without running into issues. At the risk of sounding like I am "theory crafting", in the real world, you probably had a JSTARS or something else on the radio that could tell you exactly where to go to find ground forces. You probably had a JTAC or some troops on the ground giving you (or someone who you might interact with) a good idea of where the targets are so that you can easily punch in where you want the pod to look. In real world conditions, the ground radar isn't going to be a super useful tool compared to the massive information structure that you had access to. As I said before, DCS doesn't have a good chunk of that. We don't have JSTARS, we don't have tightly connected command and control, and we don't have the kind of datalink that you had access to. Without all those tools, finding a set of vehicles moving across a open desert with just your targeting pod and a waypoint isn't really practical. Suddenly that ground radar that isn't super useful in real life (nowadays) becomes very useful since it can help you point that targeting pod in the right place without having to scan miles of desert through what essentially amounts to a soda straw. To be clear, I am not advocating for the ground radar to be given capabilities it doesn't have. I don't want it to be better than real life. That said, I don't think the dismissal I have seen in various DCS communities is a good idea either. Even your own statements in this thread will no doubt get twisted into something to the effect of "See, even this real world pilot thinks the AG radar is useless so why bother with it at all!" (even though that is not what you said).

I was one of those "nits" that was apparently "whinging about it" so I will go ahead and outline my reasoning behind wanting the ground radar prioritized. In real life modern air operations, we have a lot of highly networked assets that can build a shockingly decent picture of where ground forces are at any given time. We have JSTARS, we have ground assets with datalink setups that can talk to SADL and link 16. We have drones, and we have satellites. All of this stuff helps a pilot in a multi-role aircraft to point their targeting pod on the right stretch of ground to see the target. With all that put into consideration, said multi-role aircraft's ground radar is obviously less important. DCS doesn't have a lot of that. We don't have JSTARS. We don't have a massive command and control network tied into all kinds of different assets. We can certainly make missions where we can imply (via briefing text and such) how we know where fixed forces are but we don't really have the required assets or the complete datalink setup needed to do this kind of thing organically in the mission itself (at least not without some very artificial feeling scripting). This is where ground radar that is normally less useful in real life suddenly becomes more useful in the sim. It won't be a magic bullet that solves all the problems but it does allow aircraft like the F-16, F/A-18, and JF-17 to locate enemy forces more easily as long as they have a very, very rough idea of what direction to look. Let's put this into a practical example. In the past ten or so years of making missions for DCS, I have always run into a problem where I can't just have players hunt for enemy ground targets (especially moving ones) without pretty specifically guiding them to exactly where they need to be. The targeting pod is a great tool but only if you have a pretty good idea of where exactly you need to point it. The TGP isn't a search tool. It isn't something you would use to sweep large areas. Since we have not had access to modern multi-role level ground radar until the release of the JF-17, I have had to find sometimes rather convoluted ways to avoid mission types that require players to actually search for targets without knowing pretty much exactly where they are in advance. Now, you could argue that I could do some stuff via triggers or scripting but I tend to feel that such methods result in a artificial, "gamey" feel for the mission. I like using the sim's existing systems and structure whenever possible. When the JF-17 came out, I suddenly had the option to do missions where players actually have the means to search for ground units. Suddenly they can locate a group of three or four moving vehicles rather quickly even without being led directly to them via waypoints. Now they can use the targeting pod and ground radar together to quickly locate and target units without having to waste a ton of time trying to eyeball a few specks moving along a open field or desert. As I said before, if DCS were to get JSTARS and more fleshed out datalink setups, the ground radar on a individual Viper or Hornet would become less important (as it has in real life) but we don't have those things so ground radar becomes a important part of target acquisition. If you want to do a experiment that kinda highlights what I am talking about (assuming you own either the Hornet or Viper and the JF-17), make a simple scenario where you kinda haphazardly place a handful of BMP's (or something) in the open desert on the Persian Gulf map. don't pay too much attention to where you put them exactly (so you don't easily get to cheat) but make sure they are moving in a large, somewhat confusing pattern. Make sure you place a waypoint in the (very) general direction of the area these ground units are operating (because that would make sense). Now, hop in a Viper/Hornet and use your own eyes and the targeting pod to find this group without knowing exactly where they are. You might eventually find them but it will take a while. You will have to really use your eyes because the "soda straw" view from the targeting pod isn't going to give you a lot to work with. Next, hop in the JF-17 and enable GMT mode on the ground radar. It will not take long at all for a few blips to pop up that you can lock on to. From there, your targeting pod can be slaved directly to that point where you can do all the fine targeting you need to do to get weapons on target. That is the value of the ground radar. It isn't a end all, be all sensor that will tell you everything but it is a fantastic way to get a good general idea of where to point your pod without having to waste a lot of time.

In current real-life combat operations? Not a ton. While I know that some in the combat aircraft enthusiast scene have said that it is useless because of the targeting pod, it isn't quite that simple. The big reason why ground radar (at least in a target acquisition context) isn't as useful today is because we have other assets like JSTARS and different kinds of datalink all contributing information to a picture given to the pilot. When you have a JSTARS tracking ground targets, a datalink telling you that info, and people vectoring you to the right target, ground radar isn't as useful as a targeting pod since you already roughly know where to point that pod. In contrast, DCS players are going to be in a different situation. DCS doesn't have JSTARS and it doesn't currently have anything beyond SADL and the Black shark's system for ground target datalink information (and neither of those systems can talk to link 16 currently). For all intents and purposes, a DCS F-16 player is getting something like a Desert Storm experience where the lack of JSTARS and comprehensive ground target datalink made the use of individual ground radar systems necessary in some cases to find enemy positions and vehicles. If you want a good practical example of what I am talking about, try this experiment if you can. Set up a mission (or better yet, have a friend do it) where you have a choice to either spawn in a F-16 or a JF-17. Place some enemy vehicles in big open desert area on the Persian Gulf map and set them to follow a long, wide, erratic path. It doesn't need to be complex, just a handful of moving vehicles in a group and your aircraft. First, hop in the F-16 and try to find them at a altitude of about 20,000 feet. You will have a targeting pod so you can try to use that to help you but you can't use the F10 map and you won't have any JTAC or AFAC guiding you in. You have to find it yourself with only what the plane currently has in terms of sensor options. You will probably eventually find the vehicles but it will take a while and will probably not be a fast enough process to do in a more serious mission context. Now hop in the JF-17. Since the JF-17 not only has ground radar but also a working GMT (ground moving target) mode, you will have a vastly different experience. All you have to do is set the radar to GMT, watch the display for blips, and lock them up when you see them. From here, you can slave your targeting pod to that sensor point of interest and quickly engage them without a lot of wasted time or fuss. One could make the argument that ground radar is not as useful as a JTAC/AFAC or even some sort of scripted setup by the mission designer to deliver target locations to the player but a working ground radar gives you a level of versatility that you simply don't have otherwise. To be blunt. Anyone who argues that the ground radar isn't useful in DCS is doing so without considering the limitations we have in DCS versus the real world. If we had JSTARS and more agile JTAC/AFAC AI assets, it would be different but we don't. Without those things, ground radar suddenly becomes as useful as it was in Desert Storm.

I am fully aware that the maps, buildings, and trees are not terribly high resolution. That being said, let's dig into that a bit and see where it takes us. When I spawn on the Persian Gulf map at Dubai international, I am smack dab in the middle of one of the more demanding map areas of the entire sim. If it is just me, I get pretty much the same overall performance that I would get in any other airport. The framerate will be a touch lower but it won't be serious. To go one step further, I could also have a bunch of my buddies spawn in next to me with F-14's and even with some of the most visually demanding, performance intensive aircraft in DCS surrounding me, I would still not see a massive drop in frames. At this point, I am pushing more polygons and more higher-res textures than I would on the Supercarrier and I am still getting solid (if slightly decreased) performance. The hit I am getting is proportional to the visuals I am seeing. When I spawn on a the empty Supercarrier deck with no land nearby and only my plane and the deck crew to keep me company, I automatically get half my frames. I could turn off Vsync and get some frames back but now I am experiencing serious stutters. If I look away from the superstructure, I get some of those frames back (but not all) and if I look back at the Superstructure, I get performance problems again. Now, while I do think the Supercarrier looks pretty great, I am not really seeing texture resolutions or even mesh complexity that lines up with the performance hit I am seeing. Unlike the scenario I outlined above, I am not seeing where that performance is actually going. The performance hit isn't justified by what is happening in the sim. There are some interesting things to keep in mind. As you have hopefully gathered from all the posts in this thread, shadows seem to be a pretty big part of this. Running the sim without shadows isn't really a practical or acceptable option (especially when one meets/exceeds the recommended requirements for "high") but it does give us a hint that maybe there is a issue somewhere in the Supercarrier model that causes the shadows to have a particularly high impact on performance. Perhaps this is a bug that simply needs to be looked at by ED. Again, I could be wrong but it is at least something. As BigNewy said above, apparently ED has identified a bug with deck crew performance so maybe that is a big part of it. Perhaps this issue also extends to the crew in the superstructure as that would go a long way towards explaining why we are seeing a 50% cut in performance when looking at the Superstructure specifically.

Nobody has ever, ever said that they expect the Supercarrier to perform as well as the Stennis, that is a strawman argument of your own creation. What we want is to know why we are seeing a massive loss of performance when there isn't a obvious visual reason for it. We want ED to do some tests and figure out if there are some things that can be done to improve the situation.

I think you are completely mischaracterizing the issue and for the life of me, I can't figure out why you seem so aggressively committed to doing so. If this were simply a issue where a nicer looking thing runs a bit worse, I don't think this thread would be going as long as it has. Everyone here understands that you will see varying levels of performance depending on the visual complexity of a given module, map, etc. As you say, "It is obvious". The problem here is that we are suddenly seeing a huge performance hit on one specific thing and there isn't any real justification for it in the visuals that we are seeing. The Supercarrier looks nice but it doesn't look -30 FPS nice. I could load the Stennis's deck with F-14's (the heaviest weight module visually) and still get better performance than I would on a completely empty Supercarrier deck. Does that seem normal to you? Does that seem justified considering the visual complexity of the Supercarrier module itself? The core issue here is that out of everything you can do in DCS, the Supercarrier itself (again, to be VERY clear, with nothing on the deck but the player aircraft and the default deck crew) cuts the framerate in half without any real sign as to why in its basic visual design/complexity. As I have said often in this thread, I am running a system that exceeds the recommended requirements for "high settijngs" as listed for the Supercarrier module itself and I see a 50% drop in overall framerates. I go from a nearly rock solid 60 FPS for everything else in the sim to 30 FPS on a empty Supercarrier deck. It doesn't make sense. There is something going on beyond "You need a better computer" or something to that effect.

I still think the best solution here would be for ED to do some experiments for themselves and see where the greatest performance hits are with the Supercarrier. From there, figure out some kind of option that can go in the "special" settings that switches to a version that doesn't cause such a massive hit. I strongly suspect that the changes required to get the SC module to run roughly similar to the rest of the sim would not be so great that it would cause a major issue anyway.