pyromaniac4002

Nope. It's not only outside the scope of the module, this Maverick rail for the BRU-55 is not an operational piece of equipment on any military aircraft. It's just a fun idea that Raytheon has offered up, like defense contractors so often do. I'm sure we'll see a DCS: Su-47 module before ED throws this in.

The ATC you should prepare yourself for is the ATC you get currently at land bases and the basic-functionality carriers. That's the state of ATC in the base game. There's no reason to expect better just because another team is developing a paid improvement on ATC among other functions associated with carrier operations. There's a lot of work going in to ED's carrier ops effort, that's why they're charging for it. I could see some very, very slight chance that owning ED's carrier ops module might allow Heatblur to kind of jerry-rig that functionality in to their Forrestal (if ED was super cool and the stars aligned just right), but what's absolutely clear is that we're not going to get anywhere near the level of that functionality for free.

From all the footage I've seen of other, luckier people flying this DCS: F-14 I've already seen many dozens of hours worth of stuff to learn and practice, most of it appearing totally bug-free. She's ready for early access guys.. Please don't get too caught up making a statement against run-of-the-mill early access practices, the base game your module fits in to is itself going to hamstring it one way or another I'm sure. There's more value in getting the F-14 out for the holidays than waiting another month or 3 to put in the last few layers of polish.

The wandering Shkval is an issue no doubt, but air-to-air kills with Vikhrs are the way to go if the subject is whether or not a dedicated missile needs to be added. For starters they're awesome, some of the most satisfying air-to-air kills you can get in DCS; but for the Shkval issue, they're also highly effective. For my money, the Ka-50 really isn't missing out on anything in terms of air-to-air capability. I feel throwing some EZ-mode Iglas on it is not only a misrepresentation of how they're equipped in real life, being a niche weapon integrated in to an even more niche helicopter which itself was adopted in few numbers, but it detracts from the spirit of the helicopter as an A-G hunter-killer and the experience of such. Taking off even one of those 6-pack Vikhr pylons to replace it with an air-to-air missile is taking away a sizeable portion of the Ka-50's soul. Everything is centered around that Shkval display and the Vikhrs guided to target on it, surely the less Vikhrs equipped equates to "less Ka-50" in some measure. I hope the wandering Shkval is remedied soon, but it's not a good reason to abandon otherwise-effective, multipurpose Vikhrs for another boring A-A heatseeker.

:bye_2: I heard there was some sort of head count going on, suggesting that because there were only so many people vocalizing their distress over the state of DCS the problem wasn't so bad, something like that.. Add my name to the list please. Over the years I've been playing it, multiplayer in DCS has ranged from occasionally frustrating to continuous, unrelenting misery. I'm sad to say I'd estimate we've spent most of our time somewhere in the bottom 2/3rds of that scale. If it weren't for the fact that the subject matter of DCS is a lifelong passion of mine (as it is for so many others here), based purely on the performance issues I'm sure I wouldn't have stuck with it half as long as I have. It's my sincere hope that ED focus the appropriate resources they need to make the improvements we desperately need in a reasonable amount of time. Solidifying the base game may not immediately bring cash in and help keep the lights on, but it's the most important job ED has if DCS is to thrive in the future. I look forward to seeing what the newsletter offers on multiplayer developments. Forgive me, I'm not familiar with any "designed by Zhukov TM" multiplayer missions, but I've tried my hand with building a number of them by now and I'm in daily contact with a lot of people who build a lot more and a lot better than I do. We're not the weak link in the chain. If anything, the community is the strongest link ED has at their disposal. It's fairly outrageous how much time and effort I've personally seen spent exploring the limits of what DCS will support and fixing what issues we're able to. We do a very good job of making things work with a very limited degree of control over what's actually going wrong inside DCS. Very few software developers can say they benefit from similar generosity. But since you know better and you're apparently contented to live in a 16 player, minor asset presence DCS: World, maybe you're done with the :chair:? We're just expressing our experiences and wishes that they might be improved. Was your objective to push for less stability in multiplayer and no dedicated server?

Yeah, I'm in exactly the same position. If they're totally limiting it to only being things that were already in DCS and things I already paid to get in full modules, they might need to offer a very compelling price point for me to consider buying it. I definitely don't object to paying something for it because there is some degree of new development work still. But I don't object to the idea outright, like they're not allowed to re-use things that were made for other modules I already own.. That's just being thrifty and no matter how much the nutjobs like us who already sunk several hundred dollars in to the products might kick and scream about it, it's very sound thinking when you're concerned with how to help keep the lights on at ED & Co.

You're saying you paid for DCS: M2000C and MiG-21Bis, or what's your point? You got the modules you paid for same as anyone else. I paid for M2000C and MiG-21Bis. But we didn't buy our copies of those modules and the right to dictate how the materials involved in those modules might be used to create other products in the future. Whatever you bought previously, if you don't want a simplified avionics model Mirage no one is forcing you to pay for it now. Who are you to say someone else couldn't appreciate it? Completely besides the point. None of this is to say ED and its partners are absolved for neglecting to support their products with the fixes that are necessary and proper. They have an established track record and it's been clearly demonstrated that no matter what they're doing with new developments we can expect roughly the same level of support or incremental improvement at best. I'm just as upset with bugs or poor performance as anybody but I've seen enough to know it frankly doesn't matter what new material they're working on, and I don't see any reasonable likelihood that it's going to change any time soon. FC4, like any new addition to the DCS lineup, is something that has to be judged on its own merit. To say they shouldn't do anything until they fix all the broken stuff is a total non-starter.

No problem whatsoever with taking existing modules and turning them in to FC-level aircraft so long as they aren't going to inherently perform "better" than the full realism counterpart. Money makes the DCS: World go 'round and this is a good quick & easy way to capitalize on existing time and money investments ED & its partners have already made. More money in the DCS: Coffers --> more resources for DCS: World --> more and better development of the product. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Everyone lives to fly another day. Compared to some of the other things people have gotten out the pitchforks for, this is even more harmless being that there is comparatively very little new work involved in bringing this to market. It's very hard to see where anyone is getting hurt here.

F-14D would be fantastic and I'm optimistic that it would be done in the long run. As more of these modern full DCS level modules come out it's only going to become easier to do it as more and better infrastructure in weapons and avionics are built in to the base game. Once the Hornet is polished up and we've got an F-16, and maybe even that Strike Eagle that's been floating around "on the list" for years, it sure seems to make more sense that Heatblur rolls out a Super Tomcat than not. Either way, we've got multiple years worth of engaging flight sim material just in the upcoming 18 and 14. I think we'll manage in the meantime.

Merged with 5 bandits with superior maneuverability and saved his aircraft and the carrier battle group after his wingman ate it in the first 2 minutes.. What more does the poor bastard have to go through to earn your respect? He does come up short in the shirtless beach volleyball games though, I'll give you that.

FC forgoes the realistic depth of systems modeling, not realism in its entirety. The "end goal" of combat is meant to be relatively realistic and the datalink plays a big role in combat. It's not hypocritical at all to discuss it when it has that capacity to affect the combat experience, especially if the aircraft that's being most closely modeled doesn't have the capability. Even compared with the massive, realism-shattering anachronism that is the D2M on the M2kC this datalink has much greater capacity to affect combat on a fundamental level while the D2M is kind of a creature comfort for people who are too lazy to watch for IR missile launches. And of course being able to disable it at the mission designer's discretion makes the whole thing a non-issue. I'd bet the current state of the J-11 having the datalink is more a result of convenience than anything, being one more thing to be modified from the original Su-27, but that's not a reason for it to stay as it is. Should be removed or at least made an option to disable like D2M.

This is the infinitely more useful topic. The "other WWII sim that shall not be named" was the other guy's deal, I just want to know what specification I need to build a mission to so that it isn't going to crash on 16 GB of RAM every 40 minutes with 10-20 people on it. So if it's unit count, how many hundreds of units is it? Does AI on/off state have any effect? Do late-activated units count towards it? Instead of just chalking it up to crazed mission designers and moving the goalposts by upping the recommended RAM spec, can we get some guidance on making it work with what we have now? Don't know when you might've last looked at the market, but it's about as bad a time as any to be telling anyone they need to double the amount of RAM in their machine.

The question is at what unit count, file size, or whatever arbitrary measurement of a mission file is it considered a "heavy mission?" As a multiplayer mission designer who is now apparently responsible for crashing everyone's DCS.exe, I'm going to need some more descriptive text than "heavy." For all the time I've spent in the mission editor I've never seen a gauge off in the corner that gradually worked its way up to indicating "heavy" by the time I had finished a mission. We've jumped through all the hoops these many years, so if we can just get an actual quantifiable mission "heaviness" to aim for we'll do it and we'll see if we can cut down on a few crashes. And no, Il-2 never had the same problem. No game has a recommended RAM requirement of 32 GB, "heavy mission-optimized" or not. People don't put 32 GB of RAM in to their gaming-oriented computer unless they're just looking to waste money.

The point is to not put on 3 bags. Sometimes you wanna have extra flight time but don't want to give your F-15 the aerodynamic drag characteristics of the broad side of a barn. Would obviously be a nice thing to have as an option and CFT-equipped F-15Cs do exist out there in the world, so putting it on a "wish list" is totally appropriate. If there's ever a full-fidelity F-15C module I would be more insistent that they are included, but the generally dumbed-down state of FC3 modules definitely makes it justifiable to leave out.

It's just a matter of learning how to use the snake sight as opposed to others. What you want to do is maintain lag pursuit until you can pull up and bring the target down through the sight along the snake, when the ranging circle is passing through the enemy you shoot. Works just fine and it actually makes a lot of sense to have this type of sight in the Mirage because its high instantaneous turn rate means you can usually count on being able to easily out-pull the other guy at the right moment. It's a faster process than using a regular lead-computing sight so it's actually harder for the guy in the sight to jink his way out of harm, but if you don't set up the engagement right it's definitely a fairly useless way to aim. Also best suited for fighter vs. fighter engagements, if you're hunting helicopters or slow fixed-wing it's a bit of a pain but not impossible.

The behavior is intended. As stated previously, the G-limit is 6 or 7 G. Since the Viggen has no fancy fly-by-wire setup to proactively inhibit your tendencies to destroy the airframe, you can easily maneuver to induce G well outside the intended limit. At supersonic speeds, especially at low altitude, the G-onset is particularly violent and can surpass the limit much faster than you might be used to in high-subsonic. Just have to learn to tame your pitch inputs at high speed. Keep an eye on the G-meter while your maneuver around and try to keep it at 6 G or lower.

No joy on the livestream, been bouncing around Youtube looking for it over the last hour.. Was there something I missed? EDIT: Never mind, went up a little late. Blue put up a good fight, very well done considering the circumstances! But Red won the day this round.. Congrats guys! Very entertaining livestream you all put together for us.

Are Sundays the new standard for events now? Always liked Saturdays because I usually have to work on Sundays. Will be watching the livestream at least, I'm sure it'll be a good show!

F99th-pyromaniac4002 United States AV-8B

F99th-pyromaniac4002 USA Spitfire Mk IX

Ok, here goes: 5x blue slots for F99th, 2x F-15C 2x AJS-37 1x A-10C USA: F99th-pyromaniac4002 - AJS-37 F99th-JINX - F-15C F99th-Doktormarg - F-15C F99th-Ultraking - A-10C Israel: F99th-Esonub - AJS-37 Thanks IronMike! Sorry for the confusion. :P

I have two additions to make to JINX's post, please make it: F99th-JINX F99th-pyromaniac 4002 F99th-Doktromarg F99th-Esonub Red F-15C Israel for Esonub, USA for the rest For the blue alternative, F-15C for JINX and Doktormarg AJS-37 for Esonub and Pyro. Thank you sirs.

F99th-pyromaniac4002 F-86F

I've taken part in a fair few Red Flag events by now and have been one of a few to experience it from both Challenger and Aggressor perspectives; this was far and away the most ambitious and impressive of all the Red Flag efforts to date. Of course, the added complexity is a double-edged sword and the biggest detractor was the constant struggle to get everyone on the same page and keep them there. SRS would remedy some of the comms problem, but overall cooperation I think may be best addressed by some changes in how command and control (C2) is done. If it is to remain an event open to public participation, which I'm sure it is, it could be a big help to add a second or third guy alongside IronMike (or whoever his replacement may be if he has no wish to risk a repeat of a surely torturous experience) and give each of them different areas of responsibility while they communicate with each other to maintain awareness of the overall situation. But if there were a squadron-only version with people who are familiar with one another and already able to effectively cooperate I could see the "one man show" style of C2 being much more feasible. For the time that I was alive and flying at least, there was a lot of confusion on comms and some packages in particular needed a lot of C2 hand-holding while others understood their function better and were able to operate more autonomously as the "one man show" C2 style rather requires. Basically, if there are more bodies in C2 they can more easily accommodate the necessary hand holding or we can aim for less hand holding to begin with. I very much liked the inclusion of Rules of Engagement, but in future versions I think it could use some more detail and a greater focus in the pre-mission brief. It would have been helpful if it outlined the appropriate responses for provocations a little better like using STT lock to drive Aggressors back over the FEBA or flying across their nose and dropping flares if the Aggressors ever get some non-fighter component added to their force. It may also be a little more immersive if the Aggressors don't know the exact details of the Challengers' tasking beforehand, which may end up being a matter of using an "honor system" by virtue of the Challenger side being open to the public, but maybe only general objectives can be laid out and the exact details aren't revealed until the pre-mission brief. Just something to add a bit of the uncertainty factor that we had on the Challenger side. And vice-versa, if the Aggressors get some tasking beyond simple CAP it would be great for the Challengers to have to intercept and establish their intentions before having to decide how to respond given the ROE in effect. ATC would be a very welcome addition. Perhaps if the extra C2 personnel idea is something you take up, one of them could switch to the role as needed for takeoff/landing ops. Overall, again this was a tremendous effort and I think it really paid off.. Aside from raising IronMike's blood pressure to dangerous levels, of course. That was much less desirable, but hopefully it won't be a feature of future RFR events with some changes implemented. Thank you 104th and thank you specifically to IronMike! I'm sure no one envied you your task and you did very well to reign in and organize such a massive hodgepodge group. Can't wait for the next one and I'll definitely be claiming a full 4 slots for my F99th buddies! :thumbup:

F99th-pyromaniac4002 Fighting 99th USA F-15C