mjmorrow

Thank you, JoJo! :thumbup: MJ

In the video, I noticed that near the end of the approach to the runway, when the closed box rested right in front of the runway, the pilot stopped chasing the closed box with the FPM. The sim pilot then placed the FPM toward the center of the runway. Should we continue to chase the closed box near the end of our approach or are we better off just following the closed box till near the end of the approach and then just placing the FPM somewhere on the runway? :thumbup: MJ

Personally, I see nothing Universally or inherently right or wrong with your personal preference. At the end of the day, you like the idea of a DCS F-15E. What is Universally or inherently wrong with that? For me, nothing. Your interest in a F-15E doesn't make you absolutely wrong or the root of all evil in my book. The way I see it, you and the other flight simmers advocating for the F-15E are a bunch of cool dudes and gals sharing my passion for flight simulation. It is just that you are into an awesome ride that I could happily live without. I would much rather see Razbam make a SARH only F-16, than make a F-15E, for a variety of reasons, but, at the end of the day, so what? How does that reflect on you, the validity of your preferences, the, so called, rightness and wrongness of your preference or the rightness or wrongness of anyone's preferences? I don't see how I or anyone else could reasonably hold out to the DCS community that we have the one and only true and worthwhile point of view on the matter of whether or not to make a DCS F-15E, without resting selfishly on our subjective opinion and personal preferences. I'm not advocating for the introduction of the F-15E, but at the end of the day, that doesn't make you right or wrong, doesn't make me right or wrong. There is no DCS World politically correct ride choice. :megalol: Some players are going to like the idea of a DCS F-15E and some players will not like the idea. It is an issue of preference, reasonable minds can and do differ. There is certainly no absolute undeniable truth coming out of my corner, here. :thumbup: MJ

Thank you and understood. It is a great good for me to be ever mindful of the distinctions in national modifications and requirements for the F-16, from nation to nation, block to block, etc. Our DCS Mirage 2000c is a great example of this. Our French Mirage 2000c won't have the capacity to launch the Exocet, but the Greek version of the Mirage 2000 does. Some 1990's F-16s may have had the SARH BVR capability, but not other 1990's F-16's. It would be important to model a version of the F-16 that would carry a SARH BVR capability, in order to best match a DCS F-16 to the DCS Mirage 2000c, future DCS Mig 29, and other future 4th Generation DCS rides. :thumbup: MJ

Were there F-16's, in US service or otherwise, in the 1990's carrying the AIM-7 and not the AIM-120? Bare in mind, this is not a gotcha question. Though I have seen sources stating that some F-16s during the Gulf War, and into the early to mid 1990's, did carry the AIM-7, these sources may be in error. Presently, I lack sufficient information to come to a well reasoned determination, one way or the other, on the matter of whether or not, at least some, F-16's carried the AIM-7 as a BVR missile, during the Persian Gulf War or in the early to mid 1990's, generally so. I do intend to research this issue, time permitting. :thumbup: MJ

I'm not obsessing over a particular date in time. A early 1990's Persian Gulf War F-16c would be a very solid competitive match for a SARH only Mirage 2000 and other such SARH only BVR missile carrying Western and Eastern 4th Generation DCS rides, a real complementary plane. A early 1990's F-16 would have all sorts of multi purpose air to air and air to ground functionality, including SARH BVR air to air capability, and best of all, would absolutely not carry the AIM-120. The F-16 is the real go to multipurpose NATO workhorse, with formidable air to air capabilities, particularly WVR. :thumbup: MJ

The difference is that the F-16 would be a better complement and match for the Mirage 2000, Mig-29, and other proposed DCS rides. 1980's F-16's certainly did exist, whatever the technical error you intend to allege or address in my earlier proposal not withstanding, and we can certainly find a historically accurate, realistic, highly competitive, non AIM-120 carrying F-16 to match against the Mirage, Mig-29, etc, for sure.

I originally wanted a f-15E, but now I am not so enthusiastic about the idea. A 1980's F-16, with Aim 7 SARH missiles, would better fit the DCS World multiplayer environment, overall, would be much more likely to have accurately modeled ASM, when compared to a 4.5 Generation plane, would present a much better competitive match up with other DCS rides, such as the Mirage 2000c or a possible future Mig-29. A multiplayer environment free from a single dominant AIM-120 chucking 4.5 Generation plane, with highly questionable ASM, is more important to me than getting the F-15E, right now. A F-16 is a popular ride, a realistic ally and opponent for the Mirage 2000, Mig-29, and other future DCS 4th Generation fighters, is not a category killer, able to dominate all other rides. A hghly accurate simulation of a 1980's F-16, featuring ASM & PFM or EFM that is like PFM, is hands down a super complement to the current and future DCS add-ons, when compared to a 4.5 Generation F-15E, with highly questionable ASM. :thumbup: MJ

Yeah, I would like to change my vote from F-15E to a F-16c Block 40, with the capability of carrying the AIM-7 Sparrow, so no AIM-120. The Mirage-2000c needs a really good historical competitive rival. The DCS Mirage 2000c has SARH 530D missiles. A Mirage 2000c rival using SARH missiles would best fit on a DCS World multiplayer map. Some persons suggest that Western planes are very popular, far more popular than Eastern planes. Well, surely the F-16 is a popular Western ride. The F-16c Block 40 would really complement the DCS Mirage 2000c, in ways that the F-15E would not. A F-16c Block 40, carrying AIM-7 missiles, will be a very realistic and highly competitive opponent for the Mirage 2000, not to mention a better competitor for future SARH only DCS contemporaries, such as the Mig-29. The F-15E, a 4.5 Generation plane, with the exclusive advantage of active homing radar guided medium range missiles and radar that can see you a zillion miles away, would lead to multiplayer maps featuring tons of F15E's and not too much of anything else. Also, how would a dev team accurately model ASM for a F15E? The plane is a 4.5 generation plane. I can't believe that info on the systems of a F-15E are more readily available than the systems of a 1980's F-16 Block 40. When possible, I want a highly accurate simulation of a plane, such that the ASM actually reflects a simulation of actual systems, not a pile of guesswork. I can understand that some guesswork is necessary, but why go out of the way to make something that is going to be nearly entirely guesswork? I would like to see DCS maps where there is a lot of diversity of high fidelity simulated ride types, actually being used by DCS players, instead of a map where players are almost all clustered in a particular 4.5 Generation AMRAAM uber ride with questionable ASM. It is better that players can use the Mirage-2000, F-18c, F-16c, Mig-29, and so on, without having a 4.5 Gen super plane dominating everything, chucking AMRAAM's to and fro. I don't think DCS should ever have a DCS ride so dominant that experienced DCS players can honestly tell potential buyers of DCS add-ons to forget about everything else and just buy the 4.5 Generation F15E AIM-120 spitting machine, if you want to be competitive on a DCS multiplayer server... :thumbup: MJ

Thank you for the video and the tips. I am really looking forward to the Mirage 2000c. I want to know as much as I can about this magnificent Chasseur, before I get to try her out and videos and tips, like you provided, really help me out, a whole lot. I will definitely be following this thread, closely. Thanks again! :thumbup: MJ

I would bet on the Mirage 2000c winning nearly all the time, except against the most highly experienced Mig-21 sim pilots. It can see the Mig first, shoot at the Mig first, BVR. In a fair dogfight, bring an F-16, and don't be shocked if a well flown Mirage 2000c walks all over the F-16 in a close in knife fight, either. :thumbup: MJ

The decision has already been made, but I would have put my vote toward the F-15E and adapting the IRIS/ Metal2Mesh F-15E 3D Model to a DCS level ASM and Razbam EFM FM. :thumbup: MJ

Oh, cool, we are getting a Corsair! The Corsair is an amazing ride. That is fantastic news. We need a Mitsubishi A6M Zero, now. :thumbup: MJ p.s. I am going to have to keep my eyes peeled for a Zero announcement, now. I will practice spotting the Zero on the forum, using this training video: [ame] [/ame]

I'm a big fan of French WWI Scout planes. The thought of a 1980's super sonic spiritual successor to the SPAD VII really intrigues me. Also, I watched a few Sky Fighter, "Les chevaliers du ciel," Movie tribute videos. One can only watch Sky Fighter, "Les chevaliers du ciel," Movie tribute videos, like this one, (below) for so long before breaking down and hitting the DCS Mirage 2000c pre- order button. I can't wait to try out my Mirage 2000c, after watching Matt's video explaining how to start her up, again. :thumbup: MJ [ame] [/ame]

The graphics for the NTTR map are just fantastic. I would definitely like to watch players racing one another, for sure. I do enjoy going by the Motor Speedway and I look at the race cars going around the track. I am surprised that no dev team has considered making Redbull Air Racing planes, such as the MXS-R (with Nigel Lamb style winglets!) for DCS. The Las Vegas Motor Speedway is literally a Redbull Air Racing location. :thumbup: MJ

The F-14 is just beautiful! Thank you so much for posting this video, Hueyman. :thumbup: MJ

Thank you, Elle! I appreciate it! :) :thumbup: MJ

Last night, I had a chance to sim fly with Giebby and Kayos, using DCS World 2.0 and the NTTR Map. They were together, sim flying a two seat Albatros and I was sim flying a Mig-15bis. The music is Made for Space, originally by Trust and performed here by Ari Mason and G. Note: Upon take off, I accidentally scraped the bottom of my Mig. You can see the plane shudder, for a second or two. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3gusz5_dcs-video-nevada-sim-flying-with-kayos-and-giebby_videogames

I think it is sporting, so long as all players have an equal opportunity to employ the same technique and the technique is not prohibited in the multiplayer event. So long as you play within the constraints of the rules and regulations of the given competition, any advantage you can obtain as a competitor, without breaking the rules and regulations of your sport, is fair play and sporting. Where there are no rules and regulations, I guess you have to look at norms of game play. Using reduced fuel loadouts is a common practice, accepted and endorsed by some of the most highly skilled and accomplished competitive flight simmers. Not all flight simmers use that approach or endorse that approach, but it is a well established and generally accepted practice in our hobby. There are alternative established accepted practices. For me, I prefer fuel load out locks and so do a number of flight simmers, but our preference for one approach over the other does not establish that an alternative generally accepted practice, certainly dating back many years before my time, and employed by many, if not all, of the most accomplished competitive flight simmers, is somehow wrong or unsportsmanlike. We have a number of ways of doing things. Since there are a number of well established generally accepted alternative approaches to how to handle fuel loads, it all comes down to a matter of personal preference and not sportsmanship, IMHO. :thumbup: MJ

If there is ever sufficient interest in flight simming, Josh could rake in crazy money playing for viewers. It is hard for some of us to accept the potential in gaming and simming as a profession, but consider this for a second, Crumpp... http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/06/pewdiepie-youtube-star-7-million-dollars/ Imagine that! If persons get into flight simulation, imagine the potential for flight simming as a profession! :thumbup: MJ P.S. Sorry to derail the thread. :megalol:

And Josh, that is quite an accomplishment, certainly ten more hours in a real plane than I have under my belt. You are a legend in flight simulation, with exceptional skill, which is a great accomplishment, in and of itself. Professional electronic sports are just in their infancy, but one day, I think flight simulation will eventually emerge as a very popular and lucrative professional electronic competitive sport. I tend to think you will be an inspiration to a number of the future great professional flight simmers. I would not be shocked to one day read about a champion professional flight simmer discussing how, back in the day, the real greats, like Josh Echo, did it all for the love of flight simulation and not for the money. :thumbup: MJ

I wasn't knocking ED in any way shape or form and I have nothing against having a game mode and sim mode. I did like what you wrote, though. Your comment made me imagine the angry flight sim villagers outside the ED castle, with torches and pitchforks. :megalol: Ok, what I meant is that I would be against classifying Josh's use of fuel load outs as an arcade mode or game mode. From my point of view, Josh is an exceptional flight sim pilot, highly accomplished in our hobby, with years of simulated and real World flying experience. i don't think that relatively low fuel load outs explain his success as a sim pilot, that his years of experience, practice, and talent, explains his success. I understand why he uses relatively lower fuel load outs. Even if I would tend to prefer a server operator to enforce some kind of fuel load out lock, and I do, I do not endorse the point of view that anyone doing otherwise is engaging in arcade mode or game mode game play. I could see how officially presenting Josh's load out approach as a kind of arcade or game mode would be potentially insulting, not only to Josh, but also to a number of competitive flight simmers using the same approach to fuel load out. I can understand why Josh and other competitive flight simmers would disagree with such a point of view. I feel that Josh and other competitive flight simmers, all flight simmers, should not be compelled, not in any way, to endorse the idea that low fuel load use is somehow a less prestigious approach to fuel load out, particularly during competitive multiplayer game play. The two approaches to fuel load out can be introduced in a way such that it is not suggested that one is more prestigious than the other, done so without passing judgement on one approach or the other. Allowing for both approaches, while not passing judgement on the relative merits of one or the other, seems to be a great approach to me. That is how I see the matter. :thumbup: MJ

+1 I like Josh's position. A mission editor option or a server-side game option, which does not rank the one approach to fuel load outs and the other approach to fuel load outs, as simulation level vs arcade level, would proactively address the desire for alternatives to the present situation, without attempting to shape flight simmer hobbyist opinions on which is more of an accurate simulator setting for multiplayer competitive game play. Attempting to rank one appoach over the other, as sim worthy or arcade worthy, would likely needlessly offend a number of competitive flight simmers, would divide the flight simmer community, and for no good reason, at the end of the day. :thumbup: MJ

Well, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Government wants to consider less expensive alternatives. He defines the primary mission for a future fighter being the defense of North America. He wants an open and competitive process, to help find an aircraft that is less expensive than the F-35, featuring bids with guaranteed industrial benefits to Canadian Companies and Canadian workers. Would the F-18 ASH be a good replacement for the F-35? It might be cheaper than the F-35, but would it guarantee industrial benefits to Canadian companies and Canadian workers? The F-35 program has benefited Canadian companies and Canadian workers, but at questionable cost to the Canadian taxpayer. The Trudeau Government seeks creating sustainable jobs in Canada, but without growing the Canadian defense budget. The sustainability of benefits to Canadian companies and Canadian jobs connected to the F-35 project has been called into question. Spending more on the F-35 may mean that Canada has to cut back in other ways that she currently contributes to the defense of North America or face spending more on defense. If Canada spends more on defense, it may mean that Canadians have to pay more in taxes, that Canada has to borrow money and that will inhibit private industry investment in jobs, infrastructure, innovation, and new commercial enterprise development. Higher defense spending could lead to cuts in Canadian social programs, too. So, the practical value of the F-35, given that her primary task is the defense of North America, has been called into question and will be addressed through an open competitive process. There will be a competition to find a lower cost alternative to The F-35. It will be interesting to see which plane Canada ends up purchasing. We shall see what comes of the competition. :thumbup: MJ