howie87

I can understand people's disappointment and agree that ED should have termed the F-15 and SU27 'FC3+' level. Using the DCS branding got a lot of people over excited.

Yesterday I was devastated by the news but today... I don't know. An advanced flight model is still better than what we have at the moment and as long as it's reasonably priced, I'll probably still buy it. At least we can learn how to fly the jet before we learn how to work all the switches. Things like flap and air brake settings, and differential wheel brakes will hopefully be added as well. We'll have to be patient and carry on waiting for the high fidelity stuff, but at least we're moving in the right direction.

Screw this, I'm fitting afterburners to my A-10C :smilewink:

I have faith in ED to produce a fantastic, high fidelity fighter like we've all been dreaming of. We know they're capable of it from what they've already achieved with Black Shark and A-10C. I'll keep supporting ED... despite how long and frustrating the road may be, because at the end of the day, there is no alternative. I reserve the right to occasionally throw my toys out the pram and complain that it's all taking too long though :music_whistling:

Ok, I appear to have been beaten here. If Wags says this will have very little impact on development of the high fidelity aircraft projects, I'm inclined to believe him. Thanks for the input.

While I appreciate the difference between FC3 and HAWX, I think a lot of people (myself included) are disappointed that by buying FC3 in support of ED, they have contributed to its popularity and in effect delayed the production a product they actually want (High fidelity fighter). Lets just say that in future I'm going to be much more careful with regards to where I put my money.

Here here! I absolutely 100% agree.

I have to admit that I am deeply disappointed with ED for knowingly building hype and releasing information that 'DCS' F15 and SU27 were being developed, knowing full well that long term fans of the series associate the DCS name with high fidelity study simulation. As stated in the Black Shark manual: "Rather than focus on several aircraft at a medium level of fidelity, we will release each DCS aircraft module individually and at a very high level of fidelity. Black Shark demonstrates the level of detail that will be the hallmark of the DCS series." Rather than staying true to this vision, ED seems to be moving away from its core fan base towards more arcade style gaming that is more commercially viable. I will not buy this.

Lol! Yeah, I doubt a real Huey could take an ATGM to the face and keep flying. Those things are supposed to take out tanks... I noticed the Huey seemed a little tough when flying against one in the hog. Poured a fair amount of 30mm into one and the damn thing kept going. Still beta though so hopefully they'll tweak the damage model before final release. Edit: According to wikipedia the Refleks missile (fired from the T-90) can penetrate 700-900mm of armour... so I imagine it would make quite a mess of the Huey IRL.

Just ordered the B+W, perfect bound A-10 manual. Can't wait!

Just ordered my B+W A-10 copy. Thanks for this!

Man oh man oh man... I knew they were gonna release the Eagle before the Hornet! Makes sense when you think about it. No carrier ops, no A/G radar, already got the cockpit modeled. While I'm disappointed about the lack of multirole, I think it will still be amazing and an absolute day one purchase for me. Throw in the Flanker and we can have realistic A/A combat and ground attack missions with dedicated CAP. Shame we still won't be able to unleash HARM's for a while though.

Hang on a minute... The Lightning could supercruise?! Talk about ahead of its time. Somebody make it happen! :joystick:

+100!

I guess now that the first wave of fighters has been revealed and with there being such a mix of aircraft still in the pipeline, it'll be a good long while before we might see it. Falcon BMS made that jet feel like home to me and I'd love to see it finally done justice in DCS one day. Honestly though, I'd love to fly the hornet, eagle, tomcat or tornado almost all as much anyway.

Seeing as we haven't heard a peep for 5 years, I'm going to go with dead. Seems it has been dropped in favour of the F/A-18C and F-15C. I can understand it to an extent. The F-15C being the 'better' fighter and the F/A-18C being carrier capable. To me though, the F-16 is a fantastic jack of all trades. More capable than the F/A-18C in terms of raw performance and far more versatile than the F-15C. It's just all the little things for me though, like the terrain following radar and the frameless canopy... Somebody please make it! :(

The F-16 is probably my favourite aircraft. Easy to fly, excellent performance, true multirole... Would love to see them in DCS and am gutted nobody has taken up the challenge yet.

Yeah, I'd love to fly the mudhen. Hope ED consider making an F/A-18D as well. The worst part is the waiting... I'm seriously considering cryostasis.

I'm not really interested in the Huey but from what I hear it's very well done. I do agree with you about the workload being unmanageable for certain aircraft. I'd like to see a compromise though, such as no AI for online play and a 'free' version of the module that anyone can download but only play as the guy in the back. That way you'd never be short of a WSO/GIB and it would also draw people into learning the systems and work as an advert for the module at the same time. I guess what I don't want is guys coming online with an AI advantage because they don't have to work their own radar/weapons systems. Getting downed by 2 guys working together, now that's fair enough.

Yeah, definitely noticed the F15 sounds more throaty. Looks like there have been a few tweaks to the F-15 model as well. Nice 'analogue' afterburner effects and resized drop tanks. Got a feeling this will be next official DCS module :) Edit - would love to see some dynamic fire spitting from the afterburners rather than the static shock cone effect we have now. I'm sure this will come with time though, like wing tip vortices. More pressing issues to sort out at the moment.

Yeah, sounds a bit funny. Seems like there are definitely still some kinks to be worked out with SAM behaviour and RWR detection.

A-10C - TAD ownship symbol disappearing randomly for unknown reason (moving map continues to track and all other TAD functions continue to work as intended). No damage to aircraft was sustained. Fuel flow test button still shows right tank as slightly empty and total fuel at 5900 instead of 6000lbs (bug introduced in 1.2.3) Regarding the RWR behaviour, I've noticed F-15 spikes are appearing again now after being broken in 1.2.3 and that the RWR seems to be functioning much more reliably overall. Is it possible that SAM behaviour has been tweaked to be more realistic? (i.e. not flooding the sky with search radar emissions)

Yeah, I do agree with that and think it would be fun to operate all the systems. According to Wikipedia "WSO mission duties in fighter aircraft were historically rigid because of the displays and controls in the front and aft seats of fighter cockpits. However modern fighter cockpits using programmable multi-function displays allow assigned roles to be more flexible than previous generation aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom II, A-6 Intruder, or F-14 Tomcat. In the latest fighters either aircrew can be responsible for detecting, targeting and engaging air-to-air targets or ground targets, performing communications, operating data-link or defensive systems based on the tactical situation. This provides the flexibility for pilot and WSO roles to be customized based on experience, expertise, workload, tactics, and weapons being employed. The pilot remains responsible for flying the aircraft in tactical situations. WSOs assigned to bomber aircraft typically have more rigidly defined roles." This makes it sound like it would be perfectly viable to fly solo, albeit with a higher workload. I personally would prefer a system without any AI controlled 'help' as I think it would encourage players to team up together and improve their combat effectiveness. A 'hotswap' option would also be an excellent idea as players could fly half the mission as pilot and half as WSO.

I suppose that makes sense. Would probably be more effective to fly a single seater still, but if you fancied a challenge it could be fun to do both roles. Not sure how that would work for larger aircraft though, where the guys in the back don't have a stick between their legs... Or windows...

I'm not sure how I feel about multi seat aircraft for a few reasons. The first, as others have already commented on, being network stability. Secondly, if the WSO position was not taken by another player and was controlled by AI, how would it be implemented in a way that was fair? (For example, not being superhumanly good or comparatively terrible). Finally there's the communication issue. To operate effectively together would require effective communication, which is not possible with AI. How do you know what he's doing in the back and how can you tell him to use different tactics without using a string of keyboard 'radio' commands (in which case you might as well be flying a single seater). VOIP would put even more strain on network stability but I imagine most people would use teamspeak, so I don't see that as a problem for human players.