pyromaniac4002

Awful lot of bellyaching here.. If you weren't going to buy the F-14A/B module for its air-to-air capability, you didn't deserve it to begin with. Anything on top of Sidewinders, Sparrows, Phoenixes, and guns is just gravy. Given the historical employment of F-14s throughout the reign of the A and B models, expecting a full LANTIRN model is very far-fetched unless HB specifically promised it, which they didn't.

Crew chiefs for the win. :thumbup:

Oh, that sounds like it could be a simple issue of an aging joystick failing to re-center perfectly. I passed that point a long time ago and I run a good 5 points of deadzone in my controls now. Give that a shot, bring up RCtrl + Enter to make sure your stick is truly centered, and see if the lights come on then. If the stick isn't at dead center or very close to it, the autopilot won't engage.

Absolutely, the throttles should already be fully advanced by the time the cable gives way. The pilot did well to not overreact and stall the aircraft, but at the end of the day he just followed proper procedure and they had a tiny bit of luck on hand to counteract the enormously bad luck they had with their trap.

I can't remember it working for a very, very long time. At least a year or a year and a half I'd say. I always get that same nose-down tendency, whether or not I'm dialing in any angle of bank and in both attitude and attitude + altitude hold modes. I've pretty much given up hope and gotten in the habit of doing it manually, which with the F-15 is admittedly not that hard, but it still sucks to be denied this simple little convenience.

Plenty of air forces throughout history have done it in real life, why not give it a go if our only consequence of losing in DCS is a death tally on the scoreboard? Granted, it didn't work out well for them either.

I have no military experience or other reason to think I'm not talking out of my ass here, but I would have to guess one of the gents or ladies flying in the nearest convenient AWACS would have a large role to play in that. EDIT: Although, you said "Warthog," so I don't know if you're talking about handing down a CAS mission or still sticking with the CAP idea because obviously a Warthog should never be assigned a CAP.

SARH-only did really turn out to be a lot of fun. Being swamped with AMRAAMs is no doubt an intimidating situation, but SARH really made it much more of a white-knuckled, personal fight. AMRAAMs are more "oh, I died," or "nope, still alive," SARH is like a knife fight to the death in a completely packed Coliseum. I'll definitely be on the lookout to sign up for the next one of those! :D Again, fantastic event. Rough starts come with the territory in this gig, but it was handled with classic 104th expertise. As a leader of a fellow squadron, I can identify with the pressure and frustration of putting something together and having it all go tits up several times before it goes right. I've got nothing but admiration for the job you guys do. Looking forward to that Tacview and the next news of any events you guys are looking to put together! :thumbup: Also let Manawar know I appreciated the kind words on the livestream, but of course I've gotta give credit to DCS's braindead Sparrows where credit is due. :P Should've just run for the damn border, but in the heat of the moment I had the stupid idea to try to force an overshoot.. I'll get it right in the next one!

F99th-pyromaniac4002 Fighting 99th Air Wing F-15C United States Will see if I can get any more F99th-ers on short notice, but for now I'll just count myself as a lone wolf. :D

The F-14 internal fuel load is a couple thousand pounds more than the F-15, so if you're familiar with F-15 burner time in DCS it should be a tiny bit more generous than that.

Regardless of the discussion of this thread, this implementation is completely up to the discretion of server owners. It's not "paranoia," it is an actual issue and more options to deal with it are always better. You should be glad for the possibility that this might give you an option for retrieving Tacviews from sessions on 104th because without it it's clear where they stand on allowing export. If there's a demand for a PvP environment with (immediate, if this option is persued) export enabled, someone just needs to start that server and the numbers of participants will speak for themself.

I don't think it's entirely reasonable to demand (relatively) immediate Tacview feedback when you're in a public arena. If you're looking to get in detail about what went wrong or right during a sortie, you should also be flying with and against people you are in close contact with and using a private, passworded server. Random encounters with random people are not a sound basis for training on a level commensurate with using Tacview. I think the best implementation would be a server-side recording of the tacview which could be automatically saved and offered for retrieval on a website or something, but I realize it's also a substantial bit more work than simply setting a delay. I think the delay could work, but anything over 10 minutes really makes it impractical with having to purposely idle in the server to ensure you get all the information of interest. And like Mav said, 10 minutes is airing on the short side if you're concerned with compromising a strike sortie that can easily take much longer to reach their target and whose flight path can be easily assumed once you can guess they're striking a particular target. Waiting until the end of a mission and making the Tacview available in its entirety is the only way to really address both sides of it, and then the Tacview could be archived for a length of time determined by the server operator.

I think it's a fair assumption that with the experience they've gained releasing the Fishbed that they'll be much better prepared for releasing the Viggen, but like IonicRipper I don't recall a big to-do with the copy protection for the MiG-21. If you're deciding on getting it or not, I'd definitely prioritize concerns over the copy protection lower than just about anything else.

Regardless of how the guidance system works, the requirement to stay within 500 meters of the deck pretty much excludes any meaningful range boost by lofting. But the thing that's getting overlooked here is that it doesn't need it. 9 km of standoff range flying NOE at high speed is plenty. Can't wait to try it out myself. And good idea to start the thread, as interesting as the ASM is the BK90 is what I foresee being my go-to in the Viggen as I'm sure it will be for many people. Was always interested to learn more about it.

Behold the inherent flaw in your thinking.. Stealth and aerodynamic considerations stopped being mutually exclusive design attributes in the mid-to-late 80s. For the Nighthawk, oh hell yes, stealth made that thing the ugliest object that air ever ran its fingers over. I'm pretty sure the F-117 is somewhere near the top of the list of the objects the atmosphere most begrudgingly lifted off of the ground. But if you can't take a look at an F-22 demo and implicitly understand that they didn't compromise on aerodynamics one bit to achieve stealth in that design, you'll never get it. The F-35's kinematic performance is not inherently compromised because it is a stealth aircraft.

I'd go for the 109, though both are completely worth the purchase price. The 190 is probably better "by the numbers," but the 109 is overall a better experience in my opinion. The cockpit is cramped, even with tha basic level of immersion you get with TrackIR you get the sense of struggling to find the right angle to track the guy you're dogfighting, the cockpit layout isn't nearly as clean and sensibly organized as the 190, and as the other guys mentioned you're left to estimate lead the old fashioned way with the fixed collimated sight. Granted, all of those are empirically negative attributes, but they make for a module with a lot of character. It feels right for a fighter of the period. The one way that the 109 is actually better is in the turning performance, which is nice. You get a definite sense that you're in a little bit sportier a fighter when you compare it with the 190. Besides being bested in the character department, the 190 also just feels kind of similar to the P-51 in how it flies and fights. If you've already got that, you should definitely go for the 109.

Would also appreciate an answer to that.. Now when you use it, it beeps at you and the horizontal stabilizers move for like 30 seconds, and when they stop it keeps beeping in exactly the same fashion. Definitely doesn't seem like this is how it should work.

I can't for the life of me understand ED's reluctance to make an F-16. I understand prioritizing the F/A-18 over it since there is no competing "sim-that-shall-not-be-named" to saturate the F/A-18 market, but from a business standpoint doing an F-16 is a no-brainer. If they won't pick up that project and the rewards that come with it, one of the 3rd party developers will. It's just a matter of time. Maybe ED will get in later on modeling a different Block F-16. If the right person/people wanted to make an F-22, they could do it. And they could do it up to the standard of a DCS-level module. You don't need to know the exact, classified intricacies of how everything works to model a reasonably realistic representation of the end product. People that complain about the realism are just trying avoid the reality that the F-22 exists and it kicks ass.

+1 Was very disappointed with how ineffective the scaling turned out to be in EDGE. These screenshots perfectly capture the issue. Visibility is as bad as ever, you just have the option to make your invisible smudge of a ground or air unit in to an obscenely large one that only stands out when you approach because of its blatant disregard for three-dimensional existence. I have better than 20/20 vision, I shelled out for a GTX 980 and i7 4790k, and DCS runs on my monitor's native 1920x1080 resolution with very high settings smoothly. If I'm having trouble seeing this stuff, I can only imagine nearly everyone is.

The data on the F-5 is inaccurate.

No, it's not. F-15's first flight was in '72, Flanker's was in '77, M2k's was in '78. It's firmly within the 4th-generation of fighters. It doesn't have an AMRAAM nor an R-27ER equivalent, but the aircraft itself is very much in the same league as the aircraft that do have those tools at their disposal.

Yesss please Mirage IIIC!

First couple flights with the Gazelle I was getting simultaneous pilot-induced oscillations in all three axes but after a day I'm starting to tame this beast. Some things like the yaw rate of that fenestron at maximum input feel like they're just operating outside the laws of physics, but if Polychop says that's accurate behavior I'll take them at their word. Everything else is done so well, they've definitely earned some benefit of the doubt from any flight model critics. By far this is the best, most polished beta release of any DCS module to date. Astoundingly well done, Polychop! Looking forward to your future work very much!

Nothing hits from 6 nm in a tail chase against a fighter. Obviously it should if we're talking about an ER or any of the medium range stuff, but ED has consistently vetoed that argument. At first I thought this thread was talking about a head-on engagement, and if that were the case and it wasn't something we already know then you would've had some useful information, but this is nothing.

It's always baffled me too. Anyone who's completely honest about wanting a top-notch realistic military flight sim with 4th-gen fighters is forced to acknowledge how essential an F-16 module is in accomplishing that. For the most part I think it's just that the people with a personal agenda that puts the F-16 as a lower priority are louder about it than the rest. edited. If we live long enough, I'm sure we'll see a DCS: F-16C. It's just an absolute necessity in the subject matter which DCS gives the most attention and whether it's ED or 3rd party, someone is going to do it. We know they have the information to make it, we know it will instantly be one of the most popular modules (if not the most popular outright), there's too much common sense involved that's supports the idea. My bet is once the F/A-18C is out with its A/G radar and the other basic foundations of multirole airflcraft, an F-16 announcement won't be too far behind. Everyone here who wants to tear down the F-16 in the hopes of a MiG-31 or something will just have to live with it.