IASGATG

Regarding "balancing" Blueflag, the biggest problem you run into is player base beyond anything else; not even so much in "what the player base wants" but rather population. In early rounds of BF before a lot of the aircraft that are in the game weren't, and it had unrestricted payloads, the biggest gripes were "120's are too hard to play against" and "Blue outnumbers Red". The first problem is actually an extension of the second problem, and this will get compounded as you'll see as we go on. We stripped out the 120's and the 77's and we did ER's vs 7M's which didn't last long before we fell to R's vs 7M's. We moved the Frogfoot and Kamov around trying to get a decent balance for the A2G side of things, but it still boiled down to player base. You still got big swings when one team outnumbered the other. If you strip the "heavy fighters" back even more, limiting the Eagles and Flankers and even limiting the Mirages, and increase the "light fighters" 21's/F-5's, you compound the problem further. How many people fly F-5 or -21 vs 27 or F-15? In each of these cases, the problem of balance would be resolved if 10x as many people played MP DCS. In the early days when slammers ruled the skies, the number of Eagle's or slammers could be limited and you could have a 6v10 sort of set up, because you could reliably pull from the player base the extra flankers. As you limit the popular jets more and more to try and get this more "real world" 100 MiG-21's vs 15 F-15's with slammers, you run into the wall of bums on seats. The other misconception is the idea of "joining the team with the most people", which is pretty much nonsense. Everyone gets a huge boner for being the underdog. People fly what they like to fly, it could be red, blue, green or pink. Flankerbros will fly Flankers, Eagledrivers drive Eagles and the French fly Mirage's. This all stems from the fact you have higher ratio of people that like F-15's to Su-27's and because we have only 200-300 online players that it shows. Sorry for the long ramble but until DCS becomes "Main Stream", which it won't, this problem is always going to exist.

server down. :(

Does the Gadget no longer show what's on SRS?

Okay, kinda hoped for an answer like that. :)

Hey LF, out of curiosity, how did you get the CLmax for the f-15?

If you have a question about how it performs, just ask. I know what the missile does. :)

I don't quite follow what you're asking. The missile follows the same guidance logic as the AIM-120 does in the game, with a slightly modified loft variables to smooth the loft parabola.

This is where the problem comes in. The coders can't do anything as it's all DCS engine hardcode. It's pointless doing 2 weeks of high cost work that then cannot be used. Whilst I would love to have the drag force for different AoA's at different airspeeds at different altitudes, the fact remains that from a third party dev's perspective, the most they can change is the max Cl at <M1 and max Cl at >M4, the game engine calculates the rest.

Ideally, but the time/cost of such an exercise is pretty massive for something like this. Also you have to consider the limitations in the game engine, making such an exercise likely pointless. It'd would help justify the g-limit, but beyond that you wouldn't get much out of it.

I am speaking for ignorance here, so feel free to correct me. Most (Apart from very modern) SARH's don't have rear receivers, so they have no "M-link" "Missile Message" "Data-link" guidance. They fly purely on the returns on the (typically) HPRF track of the radar into their radar receiver. As far as I'm aware, the R-27 has no rear receiver, nor do any other weapons launched by the MiG-29/Su-27. So the question comes, does the MiG-29/Su-27 radar possess the ability to transmit messages to missiles with a rear receiver? Even in the radar is able to TWS a target, it doesn't mean it is able to communicate that information to a launched weapon. Looking at the AWG-9 in the F-14, it can TWS targets, however it cannot communicate to the AIM-7 via missile message. In fact it cannot communicate to the AIM-54 via missile message if its locking a target STT. Presumably a radar upgrade would be needed?

It's the lighting in the previous picture that makes it look fake. Everything is so well lit that the terrain has no detailing, the water has no detailing. The aircraft body looks almost airbrushed. The latter two look real because it doesn't have such perfect lighting.

Crap, if Frostie is agreeing with me, I better go in the other direction... Maybe it is real after all!

... I'm not sure if I'm being trolled. Look at it. It's clearly a rendered image. It's missing all the tiny details that you see in real life photographs.

This is a video game image...

Considering how well the AIM-7M performs, I can see why F-14 drivers would want a high phoenix count.

I assume both sides get AWACS in this? Because the F-14 also has fighter-fighter and fighter-AWACS datalink. The biggest problem for the F-14 will be dealing with how everyone already flies, at 2000 feet in the mountains. The AIM-54 will have a real hard time dealing with this because of the super thick air and the messy background noise. It depends on the mission type. In Air-Quake which is 80% of multiplayer, the Flanker will still probably do about as well as it does at the moment, hiding until it can fire it's ET's before rtb. If the mission is more dynamic and flankers actually have to push through a line of of BARCAP F-14 with AWACS support, that's going to get really messy for the flankers.

The current aim-54 is a poor indicator of actual performance. In game it can easy hit Mach7 and I've pushed it to Mach9 before.

There is a big maybe attached to all of you sentences.

The AIM54 is 21g rated, the AIM7 is 25.

AIM-7E, F, P would be fun too.

All his mod does is change one probability variable for countermeasures on the 3/9 line. At current, countermeasures are more effective on the 3/9 line and less effective fore/aft. His mod keeps the probability for the fore/aft the same, but makes the 3/9 line significantly less likely than a fore/aft shot. Basically it makes chaffing on the notch close to pointless.

1:04 white smoke because ground/hill background - The smoke is pooling in the ground, which is fair enough. However when launched in the air with an airspeed in the hundreds of knots, you wont get that pooling. 1:15 white smoke bacause blue sky background - A small plume is visible although again a ground launch, the missile is directly in front of the camera and is still pretty close, so this makes spotting it much easier than if you were even a few miles away, let alone at a 180deg aspect. 1:24 white smoke bacause blue sky background - A repeat of the one above, although a slightly better argument for you as the missile is about 2 seconds into its flight and you can still just about make out the plume. 1:29 white smoke because ground/hill background - Same as my first point. 1:33 we can not see launcher because of the smoke - Same as my first point. less sarcasm and more sincerity - Who is being sarcastic? I'd love to have Flankers and MiG's lose EOS because of clouds!

Your video shows that the only time you see a trail is when it flies through a cloud. Clouds are client side and so you cannot model that. Same reason why the EOS works through clouds. ;)

Laser.

Well i mean there is a Vmax switch in the f-15 pit but if i increased the thrust of my eagle by 15% i feel like I'd get a stern question asked...