FSKRipper

Same goes for ground units in CA. No collision model down to the ground but maybe this one is intended...

It seem's he used the AI FM of the Mirage as a data source if his test description in the Mirage forum is correct... I also can't confirm that the Mirage out accelerates the Eagle at high alt.

I'm such a fanatic who spend hundreds of dollars and owns each single DCS module (some of which I have flown no more then 5 minutes, others several hundred hours). If I will be shot down after T/O by an AIM-54 it will be my own mistake or the mistake of my team but has nothing to do with the sim. Introduce balance and I will be the first "all buying idiot" who is done with DCS since it would be not more than all these MMO wargames. RL has no balance and life isn't fair. If you think otherwise you haven't understood the philosophy of war and weapon research. And yeah, as we talking about a sim... Fun and simulation doesn't always exclude each other but a real sim is "played" serious, sober and like some people with SID's and STARS for airports without near to real ATC. I'm not one of these hardcore simmers but everyone can do on his server what he want's to. If you don't like the Phoenix, exclude it on your own server but leave others the fun to drink and fly or use unfair, realistic weapon systems. This means that for some people what you call fun is silly unrealistic stuff and for other people hardcore simming is dry and boring. Normally I would go by my rule live and let live... but since you don't want to leave it to server operators and influence the Devs to modify their product for balancing issues my opinion is simply that you are wrong in your game choice.

Not sure how much progression we will see actually but I remember a post from Zeus in the Razbam forum stating that even the M2000 (maybe all?) modules will benefit from the new F-18 AA radar model. So maybe we get a real beam detection sooner or later... The other points regarding material composition, detailed angle reflection mechanics... You are right! Sorry to say but this is something you won't see in a open commercial available product. Even engineer study simulations are dealing with only a part of your points. For reasons of computing power and a balance between secrecy and available data we will see nothing more than an educated guess on these mechanics. If you would go further into radar detection, you would have to take factors like weather conditions into account. If I remember correctly weather simulations are the main excuse for nations to install supercomputers :music_whistling:

I'm pretty sure this will happen sooner or later but you could not blame them if they wan't to earns some bucks with it. I have even heard enough people wishing for a flyable tanker so maybe in some years... :lol:

75mph. Before you say it's no plane, it was a solid motorblock. Nothing more to add...

Would be something like introducing a FC3 MiG-29 again. I'm pretty sure ED is really happy when all of this SFM's are gone (me too).

...which would be a mod and not part of the official DCS hangar. I would also have serious doubts that we will see a 707 model with KC-135 FM by the developers. Ten years earlier but with todays claim for maximum reality :music_whistling: I would expect to see more asset packs in the future when more maps become reality (see carriers e.g.)

A track please? They are created for every flight. You only need to save them. Without visual evidence this turns into an endless question/answer game until somebody gets it right. Btw: I would guess overspeed with no further information but I'm not 100% sure this is modeled in the M2000.

We have AI F16's with AGM-88 and get the flyable F-18 this year with the according munitions later on so I don't see a problem :music_whistling:

:thumbup: Great conclusion Eddie. Nothing more to add from the former WP/NATO border.

Ja das hab ich auch noch im Hinterkopf. Mir fällt nur auf das gewisse (auch nie offiziell bestätigte) Features wie Trägeroperationen nicht in der Modulbeschreibung enthalten sind. Mein Trost bleibt das von der neuen Radartechnik alle Module profitieren sollen...

So gekauft ist sie... Sieht so aus als wären wir am Beginn einer neuen Preispolitik. Naja, warum soll ED auch billiger sein als die ganzen Pro Module von FSX oder Xplane. :music_whistling:

You can find a training mission (with additional info) for every of the campaign missions plus a checklist (ramp start eg) for printing. This is the most basic form of training you will find. Most other A-10 campaigns will need the skills you develop during trainings. Btw pilots life including trainings are always test which will be scored...

Ok, I will try it the careful way. You are judging the whole DCS Mirage 2000C FM by one factor (G onset in this case) and draw the conclusion that it is nowhere to real (proven by a limited quality video of a possible M2000C - my opinion). As I implied earlier the FM consists of myriads of code where G-onset is a factor of 1% at best (educated guess). As you said earlier you are no expert in this plane nor FBW systems (as I). To get to the point: Telling the developers and the community (especially the ones who know what they talk about) that the whole FM is way off and nowhere to real by a factor which is only a minor fraction of the whole thing, (and a known issue btw - you didn't see it so let's forget this part) makes me realize how calm and relaxed this community can be sometimes - or in other words If it was my FM code I would be seriously offended... Edit: I have no idea if there is some kind of language barrier between us (I'm no native speaker) but it sounds very arrogant in my translation. I have no idea from where you are, but eventually it was meant another way. But I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who interpreted it this way. A good example of this is: "I found bug x. Please fix it tomorrow with a hotfix, Friday at latest. It's urgent for me!"

Happy Birthday Chizh! :holiday: Hope you got a day off

Maybe this citation gives you an idea why people are a bit suspicious :

I never called you an idiot nor I denied open issues with the FM. But taking a bad quality video of unknown origin showing a plane, maybe a M2000 and concluding that the complete FM is far from the original one based on this video deserves not more then :doh: But maybe we simply have different views of what an evidence is...

:doh: Great Mr. Expert. What of the thousands of code lines is wrong as well as the (atm possible) G-Buildup problem?

Laut Wags wird es sowohl eine 2.5 Stable als auch eine 2.5 Open Beta geben. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3327673&postcount=733

Ever thought about pedals? Is more close to the real one and saves you the waiting time at the hand surgeon :music_whistling: Sorry but regarding all your bug reports including the useless mirage it seems some kind of overacting... BTW... wrong forum section

Am I a software developer? No Do I deal with them? From time to time If you work with them regularly you should at least understand a part of ED's policy... That said I can understand your problems but there will be a reason why ED went back from the Wednesday patches (with 2 days for Hotfixes till weekend). If we are happy with it is written on another sheet of paper.

Must be some weird kind of Christmas joke :huh:

You have no idea..... As already said, somebody will always complain. For me the Beta is not a version to play with but to test and report bugs. Simply accept that with such a complex software from many different developers bugs will be included in each Version (even stable). It will keep your blood pressure down and prolong your life expectancy.

Hatte Chizh in einer Diskussion zur Yak-52 mal erwähnt. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3299292&postcount=435 Finde ich für eine Free to play jetzt nicht zu groß. Wie gesagt was nutzt mir als Interessierter Neuling ein 4GB Download wenn ich danach höchstens die Credits lesen kann. Ok, evtl noch ein Blick in die Enzyklopädie...