lmp

I don't think that implies anything. Being able to configure it in the editor would in fact let us simulate this limitation better - for example by keeping the same threat list throughout a campaign rather than having it auto adjust to whatever spawns in each mission.

Will this be editable or are we stuck with what the mission editor generated?

They said that based on existing Eastern and Western modules. Consider the MiG-15bis, F-86F, UH-1H and Mi-8MTV2. Two pairs of aircraft very similar in terms of capabilities and "iconicness". We don't have the sales numbers but we do have ED's statements and we do have forum numbers to judge which one garnered more interest. It's always the Western one. By a lot. Capabilities didn't matter. What matters is most of the audience is Western based and cares about Western aircraft and Western side of the story. There is a section of the player base which cares whether the aircraft will be capable on the dogfight server but it's a small minority (based on ED statements the great majority of players doesn't even play MP). There's nothing wrong with wanting that but it's not a factor for most customers. One thing that might hurt the sales is the limited multirole capability, but that's just not something the Soviets did much. And the MiG-29 is still a much more multirole platform than a Su-25. On the other hand, the 9.12A has a lot of advantages for players more interested in historical or quasi historical scenarios rather than being at the top of the server leaderboard. We're getting a Germany map. And the 9.12A isn't too different from the 9.12 and 9.12B, so it'll fit great on the Caucasus map, the PG map, the Syria map, the Iraq map... Even the Nevada map can be used to host a realistic scenario. A modern, Russian variant, like the SMT, wouldn't be that versatile.

What you can do is find and designate your target with the TPOD, roll in on the diamond and once you have visual, undesignate and continue in CCIP. At least that's how I remember doing it, it's been a while since I've flown the Hornet. You can place a mark point in case you need to reattack, so that you don't need to look for it again.

One thing to consider when discussing the merits of multirole platforms versus dedicated fleets of interceptors, strikers etc. is whether you can train your crews (and keep them proficient) in all the roles the aircraft can perform. Even in the rich air forces there's some level of specialisation among the crews. Not everyone does everything. If you're not that rich and can't give your pilots hundreds of hours every year, you may find that your multirole capability is an illusion, despite having the hardware. The Soviet system of having fleets of dedicated rather than multirole platforms and relying somewhat more on ground control has its problems but it also means that a pilot with a lot fewer hours can still be effective.

The in-game one doesn't seem to. I don't believe any of the radars we have in DCS currently see weather. As to whether it should, I'm no radar expert but I suspect the answer is yes.

I had good results when I commanded a 25nm narrow search and very poor results in a 50nm wide search. Against a MiG-21, Jester would find him at over 20nm in the first scenario and at around 4nm in the second. I haven't tested this very extensively though.

I wonder how the clutter modeling will change. Will we see proper, analog clutter like what we're getting in the Phantom?

This is really welcome news. I mean, I'll have my hands full with the Phantom for some time, but eventually I'll get back to the F-5. I always do :).

They absolutely will!

I asked in their Facebook post and the answer was, we're not getting any improvements at least for now.

There are significant differences in the interface, but FC3 does a decent job at representing the radar/irst features, albeit in a somewhat abstract way. The major modes (RADAR, IR, CC, helmet, optic...) are all there, the three PRF options (hi, med, int) are there, TWS mode is there. It all works slightly differently in FC3 than it will in FF, but I don't think the interface alone will make it harder to fight in the FF MiG. It will be different, but not really much harder. And having a panel I can look at and click rather than trying to remember if changing the PRF was alt+I or ctrl+I or win+I is actually a big advantage to me. I have all the 4th gen FF modules and I don't think the complexity of their radar interfaces is holding me back compared to the simplicity of the FC3 interface. If anything, I feel the added options more than make up for it. What I do feel will make a difference is the more modern, high fidelity simulation of the radar and irst themselves. Ground clutter, false contacts, radar dropping lock more easily or locking onto ground returns, unreliable IFF. All those things that we're beginning to see in newer modules that can cost valuable seconds in complex air to air scenarios. Of course, I've narrowed the problem down to just air to air combat. Outside of that, the fidelity of the FC3 MiG's system is so low that the new interface will make it more difficult to learn. But this is no longer a question of balance.

I don't think the added switchology will make the aircraft more difficult to fight in. Most of the "fighting" avionics is already there. It's not always modelled correctly, but it's there. The majority of the missing fidelity is in the "non fighting" systems: radios, engine controls, electrics. And all of that will require more from the player. But I don't really feel like I need to do a lot more to lock someone up and shoot a weapon at him in a FF jet than in an FC3 jet. The flight model, as said, will remain largely the same. What should make fighting harder though is a more realistic implementation of sensors in particular.

For the record, these aren't "regular" MiG-17/Lim-5s, but Lim-6 variants - with an extra pair of pylons for air to ground weapons and a drogue chute. These remained in service until the early 90s.

Something like that would probably have to be introduced gradually, one module at a time. An obvious candidate for me would be the F6F for a number of reasons. Simple, mostly mechanical controls and few systems mean that on one hand, this would be easier to implement and on the other, it would have a bigger impact on the player's experience. In addition, this feature should not only be tied to a wear and tear/maintenance system, but also to the damage model. The nature of damage WW2 planes receive means that again it would have the biggest impact on the player experience. In a modern jet damage is more often catastrophic straight away.

Isn't Heatblur advertising pretty much what you're asking for in the form of their component system? We'll see how that plays out... Little bits of variability are already sprinkled here or there, though for the most part they are minor enough to be ignored. The MiG-15 rolls in a random direction (randomised at spawn) when you exceed the Mach limit for example. I think the generator voltages are randomised (still "within reason") in the Mi-8 and you should tune them with the potentiometers? I may be wrong, I've never done this and never had problems. The obvious question is how serious do we want this variability to be? One engine running a little hotter? Needing to wiggle your wings a bit for the gear to lock? Radar out of tune giving you only 80% of the range? Bomb not coming off the rail at the end of a long sortie? All in all, a very good suggestion but far from trivial.

I'm explaining what I experienced. Imagining 3D based on a 2D image is based on your brain understanding the size and shape of the objects in the picture. It doesn't work perfectly, especially when the objects aren't familiar everyday things. Even if you've never experienced it I encourage you to be open minded enough to believe other people's perception may work differently than yours. Many people, including pilots who have performed AAR in real life, said this is one area where DCS is more difficult than real life.

Because of a lack of depth perception due to not having a VR headset. I have never sat in a Hornet, my brain doesn't have a reference for how far the probe is from my eyes and how big the basket is. That threw me off, I thought I was flying the probe into the basket, but I was off. Back in those days the S-3 tanker, and it's drogue, had a very low quality model which also fooled my brain. 3D graphics on a 2D screen are just a mind trick, it works on some people better than on others. That's why I consider it an accessibility feature. But does that mean we shouldn't want the game to become better? I learned AAR without any tutorials and aids. I could have learned it sooner if I had good information and a good feedback loop available to me. I want others to have a less frustrating time than I did. If we gatekeep this hobby of ours because "we had to put in the effort so others should too", it will die.

I couldn't see where I need to be in the Hornet until I found the right spot by trial and error and looking at videos that ED did not provide. The lack of depth perception played a big part in this. Once that happened, I saw it every time and practice commenced. Before it was fumbling in the dark. In order to practice any mechanical skill you need to do it right. Otherwise the only thing you're doing is creating bad habits. Which you will then have to unlearn. And in order to do it right, you need guidance and feedback. DCS provides very little of either and this shouldn't be something delegated to content creators. But why should people have to? This knowledge should come from the module creators, presented in an effective, easily digestible way. Customers should not have to sift through forums or YouTube. You can't cheat your way out of practice but you can waste a lot of practice if you practice the wrong thing. This issue of AAR comes up repeatedly on the forums even though it's not really more difficult than CASE 1s, warbird take offs and landing, and a lot of the helo stuff. I'm not saying tutorials, learning aids and maybe even videos - but coming directly from source - will fix this for everybody, but they will clearly help.

The probe on the Harrier is not in front of you and in other aircraft it's often hidden behind the canopy frame. Add to that the fact that most people don't use VR and have to deal with no 3D vision and compromise between field of view and resolution. It can be done, I suffered through it, but I don't see why others should have to. Constant pausing and switching to F2 view to understand what am I still doing wrong, because I don't have depth perception and no one will tell me "you're too far left" is an exercise in frustration that has nothing to do with realism. A video can also show me the absolutely wrong way to do it. The most popular youtubers aren't always the most knowledgeable. There is so much bad info out there on all aspects of flying it isn't even funny. It goes completely against ED's stated ambition "to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator of such complex weapons systems as the A-10C Warthog or the F/A-18C Hornet" (thanks @Tippis for finding this). I find it very curious that there is so much push back against even very development-light suggestions aiming to improve the AAR learning experience, such as better tutorials. It smells of gatekeeping.

While I'm not convinced we need an outright easy AAR mode, I think DCS could do a much better job at teaching AAR and making it somewhat more accessible. We have an overlay for the IFLOLS, why not for the PDL? We have an alignment overlay for sling loading, why not for probe and drogue refueling? Learning to hit the basket is a lot easier when you actually know what you're doing wrong. Why don't we have proper tutorials for all aircraft? Each and every module teaches you how to take off and land, why not how to refuel? We typically get one single mission or maybe an instant action mission (no consistency!) without any guidance. It should be a progression, from formation flying, through very simple AAR scenarios to refueling in challenging conditions (at night, in a heavy aircraft etc.). With the voice of Wags guiding you through the entire process, giving you good information. Right now the AAR learning process is digging through forums and YouTube for advice, half of which is dubious, and trying with practically no feedback until it somehow clicks. We can do better.

From what I once read, an unfortunately I don't have the source anymore, there was an idea for an interim variant using the N008 (or some derivative) that never went into production. By the time they sorted all the other issues with the airplane, the N019 was ready. To be fair to Vanir, he never said anything about 9-12 specifically, but to the best of my knowledge no production version ever had the N008.

It depends on the particular operator, but the very first F-16As were in service with the USAF and first European clients in 1979-1980. MiG-29s entered service with the Soviets in 1983 and export customers started receiving the plane in the end of the 80s and early 90s. The Eagle is older, by the time the MiGs started appearing, F-15Cs were already a few years old.

Keep in mind that you can try out the AV8B and the F-16 for free for 14 days before you pull the trigger. My takes: The F-16 is the jack of all trades. It will give you the most mission variety. I also feel it has the most logical and intuitive HOTAS. It's boring in a good way, like a Toyota Corolla. The F-15 carries a lot of bombs, a lot of fuel and has the performance and radar to be really scary in BVR as well. It feels a bit more oldschool than the Viper avionics wise. The reduced SA is an issue though I wouldn't overthink the clutter aspect just yet. The Viper and Hornet will get it as well once ED finishes the radar overhaul. It can do fewer missions but it can generally do them better. The Harrier trades a lot of performance for being a VTOL. It's slow, doesn't take a lot of weapons or fuel and it's very limited in air to air. It's difficult to justify it in terms of capabilities. If you specifically want a Harrier, get it, if you just want a modern western jet, get a different one.

Yeah, I figured we'd have to wait but thanks for responding!