Katmandu

Which is my whole point - it's all down to server rules :)

Good job you didn't buy that Mustang P-51, it must really suck. All those switches to flick and still have no chance against "Shift+Home and away" FC3 Mig-29 :) PS I did buy the P-51 and have no regrets. Come on, man! :)

Touche! :) Yeah, flight performance charts would probably have to be generated in some similar fashion to this : https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?129077-A-quot-Rough-quot-F-35-Kinematics-Analysis There are some high level descriptions like this 1.5hour lecture by the designer of F-35 https://youtu.be/u-cfy-k_8ew (not far off the similarly high level publicly available descriptions of F-15C FCS e.g. http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm. Although I still do not know if ED-BST had access to something better than this. Maybe I'll ask in the Russian forums as its a genuinely interesting question) The only technical doc that I have seen people refer to was some "F-35 240-4.2 configuration report" https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?140845-Proof-F-35A-can-out-accelerate-Su-27-35-in-subsonic-region There is some info, e.g. this article suggests that F-35's EOTS is basically a Lightning pod that is compromised by constrained space and stealth requirements. https://www.thedailybeast.com/newest-us-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets Isn't that some 1980 (1981?) version of the thing? :)

Yep, that question - unlike the fear of overpowered FC4 planes - is a good one. Open source info can provide with geometry for simulated wind tunnels (that ED is now using), but not(?) code for the fly-by-wire systems. So the leading question is: did ED have access to F-15C, Su-27 and Su-33 fly-by-wire algorithms for their PFM models? Missiles too - how much bigger are the gaps in knowledge on the newest gen missiles vs current gaps on the still classified AIM120, R77 etc? So the size of the leap - or even if it is a leap - would depend on answers to questions like these.

What do you think will be different by the time we get to FC5? Neither of these craft will ever be fully modelled so the "problem" of them being overpowered compared to the rest of the planes will persist in FC5, FC6 or FC10. Imho this is only a problem as much as FC3 F-15C/J-11/Mig-29S are a problem to a fully clickable Mig-21, Mig-15, F-5, Viggen and soon to be out F-4... Different generations and all that. Server rules will save us, just like they do now. In single player the issue is nonexistent and even in multiplayer very limited slots for gen4.5/5 planes (reflecting their scarcity) could lead to interesting team play. Or just keep them to separate servers etc.

Sounds good to me! By default we could have TACAN set to the final destination in the flight plan so that players did not have to mess with this every single flight, useful in single player for example.

+1, although not top priority +1 Memorising shortcuts should be optional - you may use the keyboard shortcut if you want, or you could click the corresponding button in the pit. Other buttons in the pit would remain "dead". With the ongoing VR revolution this makes complete sense as keyboards are not really usable in VR. Not sure what you meant here... -1 sorry:) Simple radios only in FC imho. :D

Yep, can confirm that mission 2 is bugged, f-16s do die from Tunguskas. I had MadDog mod installed but not sure if it was seen by the game as some mods in saved games folder work and others do not. To finish on a constructive note, I'd recommend another F-15 campaign that is definitely working in 2.5 - Eye for an Eye https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140628 It has voiceovers, good setups and gradual difficulty curve. Oh, and its fun! :)# With the Bear Trap, I guess the solution is either to wait for a mission2 fix, or edit flight book and skip mission 2. From mission 4 (? the one where you defend against bombers) onwards Bear Trap does work all the way to the end - I've completed it myself last week, having skipped earlier missions.

Взрывы НАРов в 2.5 отличные, но вот взрывы после попадания в-в ракеты в 2.5.1 стали наоборот хуже пмсм. Невыразительны сизые облачка, даже не понятно было ли попадание иногда. Надеюсь что результат не конечный пока :) Было и стало:

I've downloaded MadDog's patch and installed it via JGSME to "SavedGames/DCS" path, but not sure if it was "seen" by the game. Some of the activated mods work fine (like aircraft label mods), but other mods are ignored by DCS (e.g. mod to change title music is ignored even though it is activated with all paths triple checked). Also I did not know about what MadDog has posted above - that many of his fixes were taken up by ED themselves. Try running the game without his patch and, if you spot a malfunction in mission logic, you could install the mod afterwards and it should not affect your saves/progression.

Thinking about megastar planeset, maybe Su-34 could also rub shoulders with the elites and join the FC4. Gorgeous, relevant to the outsiders of this forum, sufficiently different from Su-27 in terms of aesthetics and function to be interesting to owners of FC3, plus fewer gaps to fill compared to PAK-FA :) Very well put sir, couldn't have said it any better! :thumbup:

@Vampyre Remember that AFM was also an experiment that started in FC, why not experiment more with the other stuff for FC4. Safe is boring :) And like you say, once radars based on ray tracing are developed for F/A-18 full sim, why not reuse the code module for FC4? You still have the same radar controls as in FC4, but the sensor is more AFMish, no- ARMish (Advanced Radar Modelling:)) ED did not give indications that they intend to do so, but they als did not indicate the opposite. Indeed, AFM for FC3 is as good as it gets in DCS, better than some of the (non ED) fully clickable modules in fact, so FC4 should also not be some "any old rubbish will suffice" kind of attempt :) The F-117 reference was tongue in cheek. Radar Cross Section model can be simple and still effective, quite realistic and fun. At the end of the day it is either small or large - depending on the angle at which the plane is seen by the radar. Of course there are many more nuances, but like with SFM it is best to start with something that works, reasonably realistic and then the model can be enriched further. Even this kind of approach would be unprecedented as stealth is not modelled anywhere. Anyway, my main point is that I hope FC4 doesn't drop the bar and treats us and the public at large to another plane set of legendary megastars. Su-17 et al would be underwhelming :P

No problem here , 100% on mission 1 runnign latest 2.5.1. Maybe try running the default version of the Campaign? Some of MadDog fixes were natively integrated and the campaign may be working without external mods. Do you hear Wags voicover as you go through the waypoints? Are you flying at 25K as instructed?

We do have this in DCS :P Ground radar will be done very soon for F/A-18C, helmet sights and datalinks are already there with Su-27 and soon F/A-18C. All aspects -from stealth to datalinks could be improved of course, but some foundation is there already for all of the above. Thinking about LockOn Modern air Combat and what it brought to the table -those were 5 absolutely legendary craft (the only exception being Su-25, with all due respect to this sweet bird:)) FC1-FC3 were only adding extra polish to the existing craft. F-16 (any block and variant) would certainly belong in that group, but then (if we are not talking about reusing full sim F/A-18, F-14, Mig-21 and F-4 for this FC package) almost no other plane would be able to match the status and pulling power of the existing FC3 planeset and such FC4 would feel like a downgrade (not talking about the combat performance)... With the exception of the "bleeding edge" craft above :) Yes, having F-22, EF2000 and PAK-FA would feel almost weird, but when Lock on was released, its craft were pretty "bleeding edge" too. And info was missing and gaps had to be filled (and gaps are still filled in DCS to this day, in all sorts of currently modelled systems in FC3 and beyond)... It's doable and I know that ED could absolutely nail this, blow it out of the water, hit it out of the park, etc etc One recent example of what ED has in its arsenal nowadays is the "simulated wind tunnel" that they've used to fill gaps in info on P-47... Just saying :)

In 2.5.1 the sound auto switched to Rift headphones. If you don't want to use them and prefer speakers, disable rift headphones in windows audio settings or wait for the next update.

The more I think about it, the better the "F-22 vs PAK-FA vs EF2000 vs F-35" is beginning to sound. 1.We are unlikely to ever see any of these craft fully modelled. 2. Of all the devs in the world I would trust ED - with all of their wealth of experience and know how - to model these craft on the available info and fill the gaps where this info is not available. Nobody could do this job better. 3. This would bring in the new blood, no doubt about it. Yeah, I love Tornados as well, but come on :)

@1:28:28

And this labor is massively, HUGELY appreciated - many thanks, MadDogIC! DCS is itself "a labor of love" I feel, it is so at odds with so much that is going on with the gamedev today and over the past ten years... :v: That's a good point! Bear Trap and other fighter campaigns are certainly less affected by the new Caucasus map (F-15's Bear Trap seems to run flawless to me), groundpounders may be quite different in that regard. EDIT: Completed the Bear Trap today -hooray me and many thanks again, MadDog-IC!

FC4 planes need to appeal to a broader audience so no AMX, BAC, Su-15/17, F-15A etc. FC planes with AFM require a lot of research to make and stopping short of making a full module may not make sense - unless "delicate" regulations, like in Nick Gray's response about modern Russian craft. Mig-23/27 are old enough to be declassified probably and if that's the case I'd rather see them as full modules (with optional FC control scheme :D). Same with Century fighters. Therefore, there are two ways in which FC4 can take shape: Option 1 would be conversions from full sim modules united into a single standalone and then we could have Mig-23/27, F/A-18C, F-16C, F-4E/F-14 (ED-Belsimtek collaborating with Heatblur - I'm allowed to dream:)). The other would be creation of unique planes that are too "delicate" to be made into full sim and then we could see something like F-35, F-22, Pak-Fa, EF2000/Rafale. Possibly Mig-25/31 but it would be a boring module as gameplay would be all beyond visual range and eject if somebody got close. Both have their pluses, I personally hope for FC controls to be included with every full sim anyway, so unique "delicate" planes would be great. On the other hand, if full modules do not get FC options, I'd rather have option 1.

I am playing through the Bear Trap right now, using patch from here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/index.php?CREATED_BY=MadDog-IC&set_filter=Y&sphrase_id=8347897 (many thanks, MadDog-IC). I skipped the earlier missions as I played them before, but the missions starting from "Defend base against Bombers" have worked perfectly well. Even the infamously difficult for the AI "Attack on Nalchik" and "Attack on Mozdok" - the SEAD flights have moved in when I called them and killed SAMs as they they were supposed to. Bottom line: not sure how it is with the vanilla version, but the fixes above work great in 2.5.1 - in Bear Trap at very least.

Да, так звук в колонки вернулся. Спасибо!

Awesome news! https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3465510&postcount=1 Both in terms of direct implications (FC4 sounds great!) and possible side effects concerning the likes of this thread (no more "no more FC" :D) .

Да, я еще не ковырял эту проблему, но в релизе звук шел в колонки, а теперь он автоматом вдруг переключился на наушники Окулуса. Пока еще не понятно, легко ли это исправить или нет, пока только в настройках Окулус Хоум посмотрел -там ничего нет для звука.

It is part of the default FC3 now in 2.5.1, no separate download needed. If you have FC3 installed choose Create Fast mission and you'll see it available.

Yeah, would be interesting to hear from OP again, not sure what he meant. AFM/PFM is fun as the plane feels alive at the edge of flight envelope (and su25 had AFM in FC1), without crazy scripted departures. I wouldn't say F15 is significantly harder to fly now compared to FC1, certainly not to the extent where you can fly FC1 no problem and then crash and burn with AFM. I thought he meant he was getting shot down... We'll see if he replies.