Pandacat

This is my humble opinion on the whole P51 controversy: 1. Game balance issue cannot be ignored. You may keep hammering the idea that authenticity is all what ED is famous of and cares about. But you cannot change the fact that DCS is first and foremost a game before it is a simulation regardless how authenticity it aspires to be. It is not built for military to train its pilot only; it is for military simulation gamers worldwide to get together and have fun. Your bottom line is dependent on how many modules you can sell. If you leave one side continuously advantaged then the losing side will either switch over or quit. Without an opponent, the winning side will also slowly wither on the vine. Regardless how much you love BF-109k4, would you like to go on a server and wait for hours to find someone to kill? Would you like to see the whole server to have 20-30+ 109’s while only 5 human piloted p51’s to kill? Given how steep the learning curve is for planes like P51, do you think the new pilots would be encouraged to spend time training on it when they know for the same amount of training they would be racking up far more kills in a 109? Why do you think Blizzard hires hundreds coders and spend hundreds of thousands dollars every quarter to tweak the game balance? True, it is totally a different game, but the logic is the same. Unbalanced games will eventually lose popularity and die. 2. Authenticity can only go so far. It is because no matter how authentic each module is, you still can’t be authentic enough. Can you model Germany’s late war crumpling war industries in DCS? Can you portrait receding maintenance standards of late war Luftwaffe in your game? Can you accurately depict the fuel supply issues of each warring nation? Or even better. Can you limit out of ten 109s flying online, only 5 can have MW50 boost? Can you limit only inexperienced pilots can fly 109s and experienced can only fly P51’s? You have to recognize every simulation has its limitations, regardless how real it wants to be. Therefore, you need make reasonable adjustments accordingly to redress the balance. 3. Game balance is ED’s responsibility. I mean yes, it is you, ED. You cannot say all I care about is to make authentic aircraft modules and nothing else. Each module of aircraft you sell contains not only the computer codes but also your reputation. If players lose faith or interest in you, it is your reputation that suffers, not the authenticity. What do you think the disadvantaged side that got frustrated would say? Would they say “oh sh**, our training sucks and we need practice more?” Would they say “we accept it we are just lousy and low skilled pilots.” The first thing that would come to their mind would probably be “F*** ED porked flight model again.” I am not saying they are right, but that’s human psychology and a fact you have to live with. However, I am not trying to say that authenticity and game balance are inherently incompatible. There are solutions to achieve both goals. Some possible solutions: 1. New modules. FW109A8 is a good start in the right direction, but we need more. 109G series is a must. Late marks of spitfire. You need more selections that servers can choose in order to customize their online battles. 2. Higher octane engined P51s (I would say even go up to 75” there were reports of people reaching that figure in combat over Europe). People may argue the historical availability or, once again, “authenticity”. But, in my opinion, for game balance, it is a tiny sacrifice worth taking. It is not like asking you to put a jet engine in P51. To be honest, not a single aircraft during the real life WWII is exactly the same. K4 is a great plane, but can you model all those built with crude materials and under relaxed factory standards in the late war environment? If you give a tip-top plane to one person, why not let everyone have tip-top version? 3. Build in an ability for players and servers to take away certain things such as MW50 boost or types of propeller. Don't get me wrong. My words may be critical, but I really do want ED and DCS to be successful. I have worked in game industry for years. I understand how importance game balance is to a developer's success.

I just found this interesting post. I heard some people say that high performance hardware can help you spot enemy aircraft in distance. If that's true, what kinda hardware performance should I go after: 1. High resolution? 2. High performance graphics card? 3. High computing performance (larger ram and faster cpu etc). Which one would help me see distance target better?

I kinda disagree with some being said here. I don't think making aircraft such as English Electric Lightning would be a great idea. It's not a very popular plane. I don't know how many people would buy it and fly it. I know, at least, I and many of my friends wouldn't. If I have money, why bother spend $30-50 on something like L-9 or Yak-52. Also, Heatblur's mission, as a company, is not to fill the DCS with anything that has wings. Its goal is to make money by serving the community with popular plane modules. As the rank of 3rd party developers grows thin, it is vital for good companies like Heatblur to concentrate resources and effort on things that would have a decent market. It's just a matter of sound business strategy.

Currently the F-18 doesn't have a fully modeled AG radar, correct? You can't really do a radar guided CCRP bombing, right?

This is only partially correct. You also need high thrust. B-2 bomber's wingloading is very low, its lift coefficient is probably greater than some of the fighters, but can they outturn the fighters?

It would be great if the DCS world can allow campaign builders to create and build a pilot career in their campaign. This would include pilot promotion, medal awards etc. A builder can pick which country and can input the medals and can script the logics on when and how the promotion and medals are awarded. I wouldn't imagine it is hard to do. Just some accounting system that can keep track of things. This would greatly improve the campaign experience. Right now a campaign is nothing more than a collection of individual single missions.

Thanks for clarifying. Btw, what models of AIM-7 are -A and -B equipping respectively? I know AIM-7M, which was widely used in Gulf War, was definitely on -B. But -A probably was still using AIM-7F. Also, -A was only equipped with 15 chaff and 15 flares according to some source. That low number of counter measures really chills my heart.

I checked out 2 walmarts near me. Didn't see it in store. You mean you can order online then pick up at store?

By replacing the base, you mean the whole gimbal assembly correct? That black round cylinder, correct?

Current AV-8B modeled is quite limited in its abilities. No true AA ability, pretty much just bounce a few mavericks around and show off the vertical landing stunts. Quite hard to make a decent campaign that's not boring. Just wonder if RAZBAM can get us AV-8B+ instead?

I am thinking to replace my old 52pro with warthog. But I read a lot of negative reviews on this Hotas. Many people complain switches and buttons start to fail after several months to 1 year. There is also the famous stiction issue. On top of that, the bad customer service is not helping much. On the other hand, it is rated the best Hotas out there. Just wonder if these issues are prevalent? How are people put up with it? Lastly, I am wondering what is the safest channel to buy them from? I live in the U.S. I know Amazon sells them, but I heard many people complain that they simply ship used products to them. Is there a store where I can check the hotas first? It's a pretty expensive item. I just want to do a full research before I make any decision.

:thumbup: Damn, ED knows how to keep fishing hard-earned dollars out of my pocket. :lol:

Wait. Is this real? We are truly getting an A-8? Or just some speculations?

Is this a canard wing that gets deployed when wings are at full sweep? Is this proposed modification on F-14D or all tomcat variants have that?

It is well known that f-14's radar can track up to 24 targets and engage 6 simultaneously. Just wonder this capability is only restricted to AIM-54 missiles? Can you engage multiple targets for AIM-7 at the same time? My guess is no since AIM-7 needs the radar to focus its energy to paint the target for terminal guidance, correct?

We definitely need more modern russian jets. There is too much emphasis on Western planes. We now have mirage, f-18, f-14, AV8b, a-10c. Would love to see Mig-29k or Su-27SM.

I was surprised by how tight Tomcat can turn. For such a massive fighter, it can practically turn on a dime. Feels like much more agile than F-18c.

You can accomplish almost all the missions with F-14 and F-18 only. There was only one mission, that I remember, you need F-22. But it's also doable with other planes. Now I have a question, how do I make a campaign that can allow the player to have multiple planes to choose from for a mission? I have made some mini ones that are based on a single aircraft only.

I watched some of the f-14 videos on youtube. The aircraft looks great. I'll buy it as soon as it's fully launched. I am thinking about remake the old Black Sea campaign from EA's "Navy Fighter". It will be fun.

I think Enterprise would be the best choice. Enterprise has participated in almost all early war and late war campaign and battles. If you do Essex, then you can't really use it for Battle of Midway, Coral Sea or Santa Cruz.

Hi, HQ-9 SAM on Chinese warships is buggy. After launch, the missile would go up then explodes in a self-destruction. It will NOT guide towards enemy.

If it is superbug, I'll definitely buy it. Even if it's $100.:thumbup:

1. I put 4 LAU115 racks onto F18 lot 20. 2 inner ones have 2X120c and 2 outer ones have 2XAIM9X. The interesting thing is AI never uses 120C's on the inner racks. They always try to close with enemy and use outer racks AIM9X 2. I put 2 LAU115 on regular F18C with 2XAIM9's on them. The AI never uses the AIM9 on the racks.

I don't think we even need model the whole seabed. Modern combat submarines (not those scientific submersibles that can dive down to 20k+ meters) can at best get down to 600-800 meters. For shallow waters, yes, put some barren sandy floor there. But for deep waters, just limit the view camera there. When ships sink below that threshold, just let it fade away.

Just wonder if there is any thought or it has been suggested before. Would it be possible for DCS world to expand into underwater realm. I am not talking about a full blown sub simulator. Simply underwater environment (we don't even need fishes or whales) and subs that can go underwater. Currently, the DCS world is all about dogfights and bombings. Having underwater realm would introduce another element of war, ASW. Current platforms such as Perry frigate, S-3 vikings and helos could find the real job they were designed for. With that, I am pretty sure people can push out new flyables such as P-3, ASW helos. It'll be a lot of fun. I think DCS has matured enough to perhaps just starting to think about that.