lmp

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!

Is 1960s Germany worse than 1940s Normandy in this regard though? 1950s-1960s Germany would be awesome because the early Cold War jets really, really need a map (and some period appropriate units). I adore my MiG-15 but it's difficult to do much with it except for dogfighting Sabres over not very appropriate terrain. The MiG-19P and a number of upcoming jets (MiG-17, F-100, G.91...) would also fit in great. 1980s Germany... I don't think I need to sell anyone on this idea.

I know how long EA can drag out and I'm not encouraging or discouraging anyone from buying into it. I'm personally waiting at least for Afghanistan East. But @Hotdognz asked for the release plan, which is a little buried in the wall of text on page 1, so I figured I'd help out. And now it seems I'm being ridiculed for being helpful. Go figure.

For honesty answering another poster's question?

Why ask the question then? You wanted a release plan. That's the release plan. Trust it or don't, but what's the point in asking for it again?

It's in the announcement: Regions will be released in approximately three-month intervals.

I'm wondering if ED wants to build the Iraqi map the same way they're doing Afghanistan. It would actually make a lot of sense in case of Iraq. Someone primarily interested in war with Iran may not be interested in, say, airfields in Saudi Arabia, which were critical for Desert Storm. And a version which would satisfy everyone would have to be huge. Besides, the way the initial announcement was worded suggests we will be getting the map in chunks. Also, if objects could be separated from geometry, this would allow multiple historic versions of the map. Say, modern and 80s/90s? I'm expecting to hear "nothing to announce just yet", but... Maybe?

Yes, this exact one .

Not all Polish MiGs were upgraded. Some are in museums, one is even in my old university. For photogrammetry, these museum pieces are probably more accessible than operational MiGs and for systems implementation, the documentation is the critical part, not access to a real, flying one. It's not like the air force will let you take one out for a spin to see how the radar works anyway.

Keep in mind that targets won't magically become invisible the second they go below the horizon: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/systems/radar/overview.html If you're not so low that sidelobe clutter becomes a serious issue and the mainlobe clutter is sufficiently far behind the target, you should be able to see and track it. Same is true in case of the other pulse radar planes we have, the MiG-21 and F-5 aren't completely blind when looking down either.

I mean initially we had an even more simplified system in place. Thus we shouldn't assume that this announcement means there's some major IFF overhaul in the works that will span the entire game. Perhaps just some of the IFF features will be missing initially (like the auto IFF was initially missing in the Hornet). I hope what ED wants to do here is an overhaul of the entire system, but the announcement doesn't explicitly state that.

The NS-430 I can understand since with only a very minor modification of the jet's electric system you can have a quasi realistic solution very similar to what's actually been done. Changing the repeater into, well, not a repeater is fantasy unless you're planning to fully simulate something like the Slovak or Polish upgrade and that's no longer a small job.

The Hornet also had a simplified IFF in the beginning and once it got its final (?) iteration, we didn't get a new system spanning all modules.

The datalink present on our version of the MiG-29 allowed a ground based navigator to guide the interceptor onto a target or group of targets. We're not going to get an airspace picture in the same sense we do in the Viper or Hornet, only flight directions to a target. The TAF in the Mirage is perhaps the closest analogue we have right now. I've no idea if the system will be able to execute any complex intercept geometries, or if it'll simply point as at the target, and what control, if any, we'll get over the target selection, but I recommend to temper your expectations.

Thank you very much for the newsletter. One nitpick though - the insignia on the wings of that Polish MiG shouldn't be mirrored.