[** AIM-54 Phoenix CFD Whitepaper! **]

Great read! It's always interesting to get more insight into the development process. :thumbup:

[[Poll] How do you primary play DCS? (Strawpoll)]

The time I spend offline is mostly just flying around without any hostiles, and/or practicing combat tactics and maneuvers. The few times I actually fly SP missions I only fly A-G mission, as I find the enemy AI to predictable and easy to beat in air combat. I remember back in F4: Allied Force when a Su-27 sent shivers down my spine as I knew I would have to fight tooth and nail to even have a shot at getting out of it alive. In DCS you only have to get close to the ground and the AI will do some stupid pull up and I can just shoot him right out of the sky. Just yesterday I was pondering whether to buy the M2000 or the F-5 so I pitted them against each other in a dogfight, both being the highest difficulty AI. They just flew vertical circles indefinitely. The Mirage didn't even use afterburners during the first half of the fight and after five minutes I just shut it off as nether party was either gaining or losing anything.

 

This might sound a bit like I'm just nagging about DCS but it was not intended that way, just trying to point out the flaws so our experience can be improved. The ground AI is a lot better which is why something like BlueFlag is perfect for me. PvE versus ground units, and PvP against aerial targets. The best of both worlds! :D

[F-16]

Su-33 that has been in the sim for like a decade using the Kuznetsov and is going to get a flight model update in foreseable future.

 

I know, I just find it a bit odd to create a full-fidelity carrier for a FC3 module, that's all.

 

Because they are cool fighter jets and you are trying to promote a combat flight sim to an audience that may be interested in combat aircraft, and you use the most popular ones in imagery?

 

Yeah sure, it just seems a bit deceptive to me if they were in fact only modeling the F/A-18C. Also, the F-18 is confirmed, the F-16 has been WIP for a couple of years now behind the scenes, and not making an F-16 would be the most questionable business decision ED's ever made. And why would they include a MiG-29 next to them? Just seems a bit fishy to me. Fishy in a good way. :D

 

Yup... this whole thread needs a huge X-Files banner over it :D

 

Hahaha, can someone ask Sith to add it to the top of the page? :lol:

[F-16]

Hold on a second..... I just did some next level brain exercises and realized that we're getting fully modeled Nimitz- and Kustnetzov-class carriers for DCS. The Nimitz to go with the F/A-18C, but the Kusnetzov for the.....? Now, I've always said that the MiG-29K/KR would be the perfect counterpart to the F/A-18C. It just hit me that they might actually be modelling it. The 29K/KR is an all-weather, carrier capable aircraft with an armament consisting of anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles, as well as TV/laser guided bombs and missiles. It has A-A, A-G, and terrain following radar. It's basically the F/A-18C's Russian step-brother. It'd also make sense to model it so the RedFor fanboys finally get their first modern full-fidelity fighter.

 

Now, I know how happy the Russian authorities are about handing out blueprints and flight manuals to sim-devs, not to mention licensing. But I don't see why you would include an F-16 and a MiG-29 in a teaser unless your modeling them. And come on, even though the F-16 hasn't been confirmed, we all know it's coming. Having a modern combat flight sim without the F-16 is like making a game depicting D-Day without M1 Garands.

 

It almost makes too much sense not to be true! Well well, I guess only time will tell... :D

[F-16]

If your far fetched prediction holds true, then I'd just like to point out that the last aircraft in the intro is a MiG-29..... So without jumping to any conclusions, full fidelity F-16 and MiG-29 confirmed. :D

[SHIPS]

In my opinion, it's really simple. Remove the collision models for all carriers and ships you don't own. Everyone can join the server. Everyone can see the carriers, as well as shoot at them. They just can't land on them. Win-win?

 

The asset packs however are a completely different issue. I'm 100% in favor of them being a part of the map and bumping the price up 10 bucks. The asset packs really have the potential to split the community if they keep being sold separately. Just imagine having a mission with SA-2's, SA-4's and SA-5's, all from different asset packs. That'd be a nightmare.

[Naval helicopter development]

Now, I'm not an S-70 expert, nor am I a simulator module developer, but I don't think it wouldn't be too daring of a task to develop multiple H-60 variants. I know for a fact that the UH-60A and the SH-60B share 83% part commonality, and the HH-60G's are upgraded UH-60A's. This leads me to believe that developing the UH-60A, SH-60B, and HH-60G wouldn't be too much work, compared to just developing one of them. They all have the same airframe, and all three of them share the same General Electric T700 engines (or T701's if later upgraded variants). So developing stuff like engine performance or flight models would only have to be done once. It's not like developing a F/A-18C and F/A-18E which have completely different engines and airframes, not to mention avionics. Once you have developed the UH-60A, all that's left (and I don't mean to imply this isn't a lot of work) is the specialized equipment for the remaining variants: FLIR, MAD/SAD, etc. for the SH-60B, and refueling probe, weather radar, etc. for the HH-60G. Both the SH-60B and the HH-60G have folding rotors, so both are able to perform shipboard operations. With all of these different abilities in the same airframe, this would allow us to fly all sorts of missions in all sorts of environments. I can't speak for everyone, but I'd be perfectly happy if all these modules were released separately at full price, even though it's less work per module, and then we, the users, buy the ones we want. Win-win in my book. For ED, or whomever might develop the H-60, it will be less time and money spent for greater revenue. But, then I've heard Sikorsky aren't to fond of handing out licenses to sim-devs so.... Yeah. :D

 

Here are the cockpits side by side. As you can see the cyclics, consoles, panels, etc. are pretty similar apart from a few of the avionics, especially between the SH-60B and HH-60G.

 

UH-60A:

 

SH-60B:

 

HH-60G:

[Pilot Sun Glare Visor]

Yes it is fully implemented in the M2000

 

The SA-342 has fully implemented visor as well.

[How to see "specks"...]

A quick tip: In DCS, the 'specks' become smaller the farther you zoom in. Therefore, at least from my own experiences (using my 2560x1080 monitor), it's a whole lot easier to spot distant aircraft when at a normal zoom level or even slightly zoomed out, which is pretty counter intuitive. Only when you've closed within visual range can you zoom in without loosing sight of your target.

[SH-60]

A SH-60 would be a first day pre-order, but until we have proper naval combat, whats the point? I'd much rather have something like a HH-60G, who is able to perform a whole slew of tasks that no other helicopter in DCS can do at the moment, and probably for a long time ahead.

 

The HH-60G is sort of an older, less capable MH-60M. It is a very capable multi-mission platform, performing everything from troop transport to recon, CSAR, long range missions with refueling, night missions, etc. It also has this beautiful blend of an old school cockpit and a glass cockpit. Here is a list i stole right off of wikipedia of its equipment:

 

INS/GPS/Doppler navigation

SATCOM satellite communications

Secure/anti-jam communications

LARS (Lightweight Airborne Recovery System) range/steering radio to compatible survivor radios

Automatic flight control

NVG night vision goggle lighting

FLIR forward looking infra-red radar

Color weather radar

Engine/rotor blade anti-ice system

Retractable In-flight refueling probe

Integral rescue hoist

RWR combat enhancement

IR infra-red jamming unit

Flare/chaff countermeasure dispensing system

 

The HH-60G 'Pave Hawk' has been in service for a long time, and saw combat during, among others, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Allied Force, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom, mainly flying combat search and rescue and medevac, but also insertion and extraction for ground troops. When not in combat, it has been very active flying humanitarian relief missions all over the world. Because of its age, it doesn't have too many classified systems, and it would be a blast to fly! :D

 

[Switches from L variant clickable in M cockpit.]

Seems like some of the switches from the weapon selector in the L variant is clickable in the M variant. You can't see my mouse pointer in the screencaps but the switches are right at the top left corner of the labels.

 

[F/A-18C Paint Schemes Wishlist / Requests Thread]

As long as we get that super sexy, black and white, VFC-12 aggressor splinter camouflage I'm all set. Maybe it's because I'm a swede, but splinter camos just look amazing! :D

[DCS: F/A-18C Screenshots and Videos (NO DISCUSSION)]

This is a little over two years old now so it definitely isn't representative of the final product, but for those of you who haven't seen it, here is a taste of the F/A-18C ground radar.

 

[No Negative Axis curves allowed in 2.1]

+1

 

I have to use negative curvature when setting up my G27 pedals as rudder. I'll still be able to fly, even though they're very sensitive, but I'd appreciate a fix. :helpsmilie:

 

[Curious about SAMs]

Surface-to-air systems whose missiles fly a lead pursuit trajectory towards a predicted impact point between itself and the target will most definitely impact the ground if the predicted impact point is below ground level. Missiles who fly a pure pursuit trajectory will only impact the ground if the target uses terrain masking. So this is indeed realistic behavior. A lot of unguided AAA and IFV's are quite op in-game though imo.

 

Also, SAMs aren't worthless even if the don't shoot you out of the sky. As long as you have to stay defensive and waste fuel and time on defensive maneuvers, they prevent you from completing your objective, which is their main purpose.

[[Suggestion] NTTR Map Area Increase]

Really? Nice! I did not know that, is it confirmed? What theatre is it?

 

That has not been revealed yet. But Cobra at Leatherneck/Heatblur described it as "Very oceany. Very cold".

[AV-8B Harrier Thread]

Looks like we're now getting APKWS for the BO-105 by Poly-Dynamics, since they seem to be developing the laser guided rocket, can RAZBAM use it for the Harrier?

 

What do you think Zeus?

 

 

IIRC Zeus said that APKWS was planned to be implemented somewhere a couple of hundred pages back. Don't know if it was set in stone though.

[Steam vs. ED Download Poll]

I used Steam until DCS World was released. Since then, I've exclusively used the ED downloader version. I do prefer Steam to ED's downloader though, but I'd rather have early access, so..... :D

[Yugoslavia/Balkans]

Well, aside all the real reasons (need F/16 etc) for this theater to be put aside in development, I believe this is one of the most positively voted polls in the history of these forums. Ignoring that fact would, in my humble opinion, be a big waste.

 

IMO, there's no point in asking "would you want this theatre". What you should do is create a poll which pits different theatres against each other. Would I want a balkan theatre? Yes, of course, but I'd rather have a Korea, Vietnam, or Kuwait/Iraq theatre.

[New Forrestal class carrier renders!]

I might've just wet myself with joy, those things look fantastic! Keep it up RAZBAM!

 

I just hope we get improvements to the naval environment to DCS from ED in the future to really give these things the environment they deserve

 

RAZBAM? :D

[OV-10D Bronco '21]

An OV-10A with Pave Nail or an OV-10D would be an instant buy for me. Amazing visibility, long endurance, and light armament. It was even capable of landing and taking off from carriers and LHA/LHD's without the need for arresting wires or catapults. And with the Pave Nail package it was able to buddy lase for friendly aircraft. All-in-all, great fun! :D

[My Dream - DCS Vietnam]

It would be awesome sauce if this theatre could be done.Also an OV10 Bronco my god i would drool at the thought.Also a C130 .This list could go on and on.

 

Nice to dream though :)

 

Yes! I'd do anything for a Vietnam theatre. The only reason I still fly Strike Fighters 2 is because there is no real alternative if you want to fly combat missions in Vietnam. Flying FAC in the Bronco would be a dream come true! Dodging enemy fire while searching for convoys down the Ho Chi Minh trail. Gawd! :D

[Operation "Blue Flag" - 24/7 PvP Campaign - ROUND 9]

Red need more incentives to attract people to choose The Red side just like 104th did to allow ER in some scenario

 

How about everyone on RED connect to simple radio? I'd love to fly the Su-27, but I won't because no one is on comms.

[No Playable Map Keys for NTTR/Normandy/Hormuz]

+1

 

It's worth noting that this wouldn't be an issue if we got dedicated servers. Just putting it out there..... :D

[Operation "Blue Flag" - 24/7 PvP Campaign - ROUND 9]

I think red doesn't need F15 and other BS (blue stuff). Just same communication/coordination like blue. Blue are a lot more because they play a lot better because they communicate better it seems. They like it more. Simple.

 

This! I chose REDFOR once and never even contemplated choosing them again because of exactly this reason. Usually no one was on comms except for at a few occasions, and then they rarely spoke English.

 

Only way and it happens in real life also is to put F-15 on blue and red, A10C blue and red Huey blue and red and su25t blue and red, Its the only way to balance the server

 

A better solution would be not to make western and eastern aircraft side specific. Red has Su-25, F-15, Huey, while blue has A-10, Su-27, Mi-8, etc. (just an example to illustrate my point.). And if you choose to do that, you should also swap colors for the teams (green vs orange for example), so there is no red vs blue divide. Even if you don't like this idea, it will probably have to happen sooner or later if you think about the amount of western aircrafts that are currently being done compared to their eastern counterparts. Hell, when the F/A-18C is released BLUEFOR is going to have an insane advantage in both A-A and A-G capabilities unless some form of balancing is done.

 

What I don't want is all aircraft on both sides because then it becomes a pain to ID friends and foes, not to mention trying to visually identify enemy aircrafts by the roundels alone (You'll be within gun parameters before you can spot the difference between an USAF and an IAF/Aggressor F-15). If you get a spike on your RWR you will never know whether you should be worried or if it's a buddy spike. Lastly neither team will have any strengths nor weaknesses since they're identical, which IMO makes for dull gameplay. I might as well play on the 104th then.