Vampyre

All technology can be considered a crutch. Just like it can be considered a force multiplier. The JHMCS/HOBS is a fairly recent development for the F-15. The MiG-29 and Su-27 had these capabilities in the 80's. Why do you suppose the Soviets decided to include this feature on the MiG-29 and Su-27? Was it a crutch or a force multiplier or both? It took almost 30 years to get it on the premiere air superiority fighter in the world partly because it was not considered a required tool for the mission. Now it is a required tool due to the advent of near peer 5th generation threats and poor decision making of politicians that limited production of its replacement, which also did not have JHMCS/HOBS for the first 10-12 years of its service even though the technology was available. To further refine my statement, In the context of this discussion, this technology would mainly be a crutch because, in DCS, the only new threat is the F/A-18C. The JHMCS is needed to make The F/A-18C somewhat competitive in the game due to its poorer flight performance in the air to air arena. It is not needed for the F-15C. This is why I chose the word crutch vice force multiplier.

F99th Loki doing his Gazelle magic.

What is the purpose of technology? The answer is to make tasks easier and more effective. To give the pilot with the poorest skills a chance at survival technology was added to equalize the playing field with opposing pilots of a higher caliber who do not have access to these fielded technologies but the task is harder. In skilled hands a fighter without JHMCS can still be successful in an engagement with one that has JHMCS, the field is more level. The technology has to be designed to the lowest common denominator. 2nd Lt Schmuckatelli with the basic knowledge of how his airplane works and understands most of the systems straight out of the RAG is that lowest common denominator. JHMCS makes his job easier and therefore makes him more effective. Are they force multipliers? Yes. Is it a crutch? Yes. Is this the most nonsensical thing one can say? Should I ask if you even overhear other people talking about the news? There was a lot more nonsense put out by so called "professional" news agencies in the past hour than that little snippet.

You are missing the point. It's not about politics. It's about efficiency and personal improvement for the game aspect of DCS.

Yeah, I saw the Red Flag thing too. The A-10 is a terrible platform to use for this type of competition. Something a bit faster like a Harrier or Hornet would be much better suited for this. Well, I didn't intend to hit a nerve there. You don't know me, but if you did, you would realize my comment about the spamram was not "moaning" about this particular tactic. I was thinking more about long term stats that would be useful on dedicated mission based servers. It was more directed towards improving ones ability by using stats to see where one is deficient. Wasting eight missiles with no kill is not a good return for investment by any measure and if it was tracked one could use these numbers to try to improve how they fight. Regardless of what you think, the economy is quite important as a MiG-21 is not worth the same an F-15C yet in the game they are tracked the same. The current method where helicopters and WWII planes are worth 30 points, Jet fighters are worth 50 points, and big airplanes are worth 100 points is not very useful if you can't see what it took to actually kill them and you can't go back and review what it took to achieve your kills. This is where you are going to say Tacview... It does not consolidate the numbers for all of your missions. As for mission completion, I think a certain older WWII simulator did a decent job of rewarding mission completion by only giving you 10% of you total if you were shot down and killed or captured, 50% if you were shot down, survived and were not taken prisoner and 100% of the total if you survived and landed back at base... and 2x negative points for the target type for friendly fire incidents that do not change whether you live or die. That could be another way to go about it too but weapons expenditure should be incorporated as well to see where you are falling short. Still the F-14 should be worth big points. Refined stats would be a way to balance the game aspect of this simulator without having to nerf capability... like that is going to happen anyway.

Having been a server admin for the past 11 years or so, I dislike stats. In games/simulations it usually brings out the worst in people as they are trying to either pad them or trying to cheat others out of them. That being said, I do see a use for them in competitions and for personal use to evaluate where one needs focus their attention to improve their skills. People also really like stats as well and that has proven to be the one feature that brings in the most user numbers in multiplayer servers. I'd rather see a more refined points system based on the relative cost of the airframe, vehicle, structure, weapon or individual being destroyed. The Tomcat was expensive, had two crew members and had expensive weapons. A fully loaded Tomcat would be a juicy target. Weapons expenditure should be recorded as well with negative points included for all expenditure. That would be a way of reducing the "spamram" tactics that are so prevalent online. It is a sort of return for investment points model. I don't see anything like this happening at least until the multiplayer is fixed and we get an honest to god dedicated server software to support it.

I realize you were being facetious, but in my opinion, there is a lot more satisfaction to be had from killing your target up close and personal. There is no satisfaction quite like pouring gun and cannon fire into your opponent, watching the impacts and parts fall off at the conclusion of a vicious knife fight. The high tech systems are really just crutches for the modern fighter pilot to ensure that even the poorest of pilots have a higher chance to survive an engagement. That is their true purpose. The "magic" you speak of is not magical to everyone and the people who enjoy low tech are the same people who enjoy employing their weapons vice simply deploying them as is the case with the modern weapons. Not every module has to be the ultra modern cutting edge of technology to be enjoyable to learn especially when it comes to multiplayer. The F/A-18C is going to be a lot less of a threat in the air to air arena than everyone seems to think. I didn't vote... silly request for a FC3 plane and I'm actually surprised no one is also asking for a SNIPER, Talon HATE or Legion to go on their under modeled late 90's/2000 C Eagle we have in the game. Now, if ED or BST were to do a full fidelity Golden Eagle then by all means, include these systems although, if it has to be an F-15, I'd rather see a full fidelity F-15A or a mid 80's F-15C... I like the old school stuff.

Tornado F2 FTW!:megalol:

...and nothing for the flight deck crew first responders for the eight sailors with various broken bones and a possible TBI from the snapback? They are the actual heroes from that day.

The jets that served in the Falklands conflict are RN Sea Harrier FRS1's and RAF Harrier GR3's. The GR3 is differentiated from the GR1 by the Ferranti LRMTS on the nose. The GR1 had a pointy nose capped off by the pitot probe like the AV-8A/C. GR1 GR3

A Jaguar GR1A is fine for me as I like the 80's cold war birds much more than the 90's and later birds with the all of the latest updates. I wouldn't mind a Jaguar T2A as well but I doubt anyone would take a crack at that one.

Probably another three to six years down the road depending on how much RAZBAM already have done. Personally, I think we'll see the Jaguar GR1A, A-6E Intruder and A-7E Corsair II on the roadmap before we see the F-15E.

F99th Vampyre #14 USA F-5E Fighting 99th

If it were me and I was not trying to fragment the multiplayer experience, I would just sink the costs of the ships into the price of aircraft modules that use them. and include it in the base game for other users to interact with. It's not like a Tomcat or Hornet will be used on an LHA anyway. I'm not the flight sim professional here though.

I don't see an identity crisis. For anyone who doesn't realize what DCS's identity actually is, here you go: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480510&postcount=1 DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras, in different geographical locations and at different levels of fidelity. It is a true "sand box" simulation. DCS started with the Ka-50 and A-10C, but has recently grown to also include the P-51D Mustang and, with Combined Arms, a ground command and control tactical warfare component. Future products from The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics in the DCS line are in development and will includes partner products like the UH-1H "Huey", MiG-21bis "Fishbed", T-2 "Buckeye", BAE "Hawk", and Mi-8MT-V2 "Hip". The overall "simulation operating system" is termed DCS World and is a free program that includes a free Su-25T for the player to fly. All DCS products will plug into DCS World as unique modules within the same software installation. DCS products will not be limited to aircraft, but will include maps, missions, campaigns, environment objects, weapons, vehicles and ships. We even hope to look into a train simulation component in the future! Partner products to DCS are supported by ED and there are already several qualified 3rd party teams creating new aircraft that will plug into DCS World. In these cases we leave it up to the developer to decide the level of systems fidelity, but we do expect certain "DCS Standards" to be maintained such as detailed and accurate models and cockpits with 6 DOF view control. We are also developing "DCS Flaming Cliffs" titles as modules for DCS. These aircraft include highly detailed models, 6 DOF capable cockpits, and advanced flight models. However, they have the same level of cockpit functionality as our Lock On series (a less complex and shallower learning curve).

The version we are getting are the A-7E and hopefully the A-7D in the future. Both had the Allison TF41 engine. The earlier A-7's had the P&W TF30's. Which version were you flying in FSX?

The problem was with the comparison between the Viggen and F-22. The Viggen is not an F-22. The F-22 uses OBOGS (On Board Oxygen Generating System) which does indeed use engine bleed air to supply breathing oxygen to the pilot. The Viggen uses a LOX (Liquid Oxygen) bottle which has to be replaced when depleted. The advantage of OBOGS over LOX is that with OBOGS you do not have to worry about generating and handling volatile LOX. OBOGS is a system of the aircraft that actually requires a lot less attention than LOX from a maintenance standpoint.

Assumptions being what they are... I would assume so as both companies currently have active modules for DCS. Heatblur- Viggen Magnitude 3- MiG-21Bis

Not listed as a weapons option.

I'm fairly certain the Marines only ever used the AGM-65G with the 300lb blast frag warhead as their IIR Maverick. IIRC the anti-tank AGM-65D with the 125lb shaped charge warhead was USAF only. There is a possibility that they used the AGM-65F as well as the Navy had those in the inventory in the Harriers early years.

I've always wanted am MC-130H Combat Talon II for it's low level penetration abilities and tanking for helicopters. A C-23B Sherpa or Pilatus PC-6 Turbo Porter would be great to have. As for an actual tanker transport the KC-10A Extender would be the most useful for the kind of operations we will have in DCS as it has both probe/drogue and flying boom on the same airframe at the same time without having to utilize buddy stores on the wings.... which it can also carry. Of course a Victor K2 would be nice to have as well.

I'm not sure why you would think that. The variable incidence wing would be much simpler to implement than a variable geometry wing or even a rotor and both of those are either in DCS (rotors) or coming to DCS (VG for the Tomcat).

Pave Low is definitely not a E. The Pave Low modifications were made to the twin engine CH-53B's and C's the Air Force was using for CSAR. The modifications were enough to change the designation to MH-53H. These Helicopters have been further upgraded over time to MH-53J Pave Low III and MH-53M Pave Low IV standard. The Air Force has owned not a single H-53E helicopter. The CH-53E is a three engine version with seven main rotor blades (vice six of the twin engine models) and has a canted tail. It is a far more capable heavy lift helo than the standard twin engined H-53's. Then there is the MH-53E whose primary purpose is airborne MCM... Mine countermeasures. The MH-53E is also good at transporting lots of cargo to the ship.

...and when operating in non combat environments radar reflectors attached to the airframe were standard equipment.

The tailhook shank actually takes the majority of the force when the hook point grabs a wire. There is a lip that the point slides on to that creates contact between the hook shank and hook point all around the center of the hook point. The bolt mainly just holds the hook point to the shank.