Fri13

Would be good to have some sense like enemy proximity, or being under attack (detection of explosion proximities etc). As a smart ATC would be at that moment issuing command to just get out of there in proper order so planes don't collide on runway.

Those radius values are fairly heavily understated to improve the capabilities. If you tell someone that lethal radius is 20 meters, then they expect everyone to die inside 20 meters, even if there is then only a 10% change to happen so. Why you give them the average aiming and hit probability and considering the cover and all, you give them a values that are closer to 80-90% than 30-50%. This cause the common problem in all kind games and such that values are taken as mathematical proof and middle finger is given for physics. We can take the normal inverse square law and have a very good understanding of the fragmentation spread in hypothetically perfect scenario (lets give a specific density of specific fragments sizes and velocity) and get a good estimation of the spread for various distances like 2-4-8-16-32 meters. We could implemented that with a mathematical value for target size that makes it probability based instead just "inside" or "outside" of specific simple mathematical ring.

"I am sorry that the engineers and workers built this airbase such way that only the paved areas are hardened and compacted, everything else is just a swap where your wheel will sink like after a heavy rainy week..."

I don't care about Blk 30, Blk 10 or who ever wants to draw the strawman arguments where ever wanted. The topic is about F-16CM Blk 50 and 3x fuel tanks to be carried. Question being "is it a good idea?" And what comes to any weapons loadouts, if some loadout is technically impossible - then it shouldn't be possible be loaded in the DCS, regardless of politics, religion or anything else. If the weapon is technically possible to be loaded in the station, pylon, adapter etc and launched functionally, then it should be possible in DCS, regardless of politics, religion or anything else. Leave the politics out as technical facts, as history doesn't tell anything that what is technically possible or not, the technical manuals does so. Not even pilot handbook tell the true things, you need to actually have the engineering manual that is something technically possible.

I think that ED has protection for infantry as they only stand, can't get in cover. So they simulate soldiers being crawling on ground by the low damage values across weapons. Those grenades are like hand grenades. Lethal from 5-15 meters and nicely wounds for 30-50 meters if hit. You can have fragments to fly far further but are they wounding or would they hit anyone is questionable. Because fragments ain't simulated, it is more like 3-5 meters effective radius. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGS-30 If I remeber correctly, those same grenades are used in it.

Exactly about the missiles. But the ECM, IFF and such are cases that ED should really go for educated guesses. There is so much public domain and classified as unclassified information about both that ED could make 100 times better simulation for those two. They don't get the encryption keys and such never, ever. But that is just situation for those who have ultimatum "if you can't do it perfectly, don't do it at all" opinion and doesn't accept educated guesses at all. Simulating a various different radars is not difficult (done that, been there). Simulating the interference for them is neither difficult. Making a IFF system that would actually be usable and realistic is not impossible task either. But when it comes to missiles, the whole thing drops to some odd circular status. "No information = No changes" and yet all was based to just some random decisions from some public sources. Now we have at least a calculation for the missile drag and such, but that is really the only part they can now at least do, but it needs to as well support various other evidences. How much data one really does need for a targeting pod? Many want to see proper OSD (On Screen Display) elements (labels, graphical lines etc), but even far more want to be successful with the pod. They want unrealistic ranges, they want their laser is perfection, they want that the pod is perfect. There are only few of us who want realistic very limited resolutions, blurry imagery, limited laser ranges, severely low gimbal turn rates, tracking capabilities etc. All kind things that makes targeting pods more of a "nice to have" than "amazing feature". In one another platform I read that one guy told that he approached the ED about Litening in back in the days when Hornet was out. He said that he was engineer working with the targeting pods and could explain the parts that are public information in them, like gimbal rates, stabilization errors and such by official route. Said that ED responded that they are not interested. A person is ready to invite someone from ED to have a access to official public information and they decline? Well, the guy was like "forget then, do what ever fantasy you want!" as current targeting pods are 100 times better than they should be. I think too many is giving too hard time for all those. Maybe the F-16 audience is just too demanding considering the alternative, that they couldn't just jump right away to "almost ready" module and ditch the alternative simulator, but for most parts F-16 has been good. Sure its not fast as could, it is no where excellent, but it is not so awful than people make it to be for Early Access. If it would have been pushed out from Early Access as such (a la Razbam AV-8B N/A Harrier.... That still is missing like 60% of the proper features and functions) then I could understand. But these small things like a targeting pod and their functionality etc has a lot of weight for summary. Have a thousand small cuts and everything looks bad. But so does the actions that something is declined clearly to be implemented or done simply because "We don't have the public data" and then you can't get that public data revealed to you to show that it is so. So users are required to provide the evidence, but ED can just say "Not based our sources". Well, if someone else here say "based to my sources this and that is so" then it is not enough and he gets attacked. When ED does that, it is just "ED said so, that is the word of authority so STFU". The question always remains that if someone would be able simulate Sniper XR by 80% of its features, is it always a reason not to do it because missing 20% or not directly just do educated guess with rest of it? It is better to try, than not try at all. Usually it is better to implement, than leave it completely out. And then be open and honest about what are the educated guessed parts, and if in future someone can give some evidence for changes then it can be always altered. Like if educated guess is that FOV is 2.25 degrees and it is shown with evidence that it should be 2.4 degrees, then no harm done, just change it. But not to implement it at all because unknown exact value means you never get things done. This is reason why we have those missiles, radars, targeting systems etc as well because otherwise we wouldn't have them at all.

As ED has stated clearly that they will never add gore to the cockpit for pilot wounded or dead status (too violant, increases the game year limit. Like it is fine to kill others will bombs, guns etc, but to see own body blood get all over the place etc is too much...) then at least that red screen effect would be proper. Render everything in red and blur the vision. At least previously you knew this by getting thrown out of the cockpit to outside view.

Well, ED is as well targeting to average gamers. Now they just do MAC for them and still want to provide DCS for them. It is good thing, but that should be opt-out and feature that those who want easier needs to enable those modes. So by default go for realism, hard, punishing mode. Did you crash and burn in any mission? Now your career pilot is dead! Did you forget to tick "Training" mode on before dying? Bad luck that your time invested pilot died. It is difficult to say what ED really wants, as in one hand they offer highest quality for accuracy in simulation, and then they allow some stupid simplified things for no reason! Like a IFF system. Well known how it works, what is it purpose. Yet the multiplayer is full of scenarios where players don't IFF and those who do get magical real information. Like how about implementing a proper IFF system that requires players to input proper codes to system and then simulate the IFF querying with proper accuracy and process. Just like M2000C seems to be now doing (or upcoming) where IFF is untrustworthy for resolution, but you do know that there is a friendly in the area, just don't know who or where exactly. Or another, how about realistic G force effects? Now the hypoxia is modeled more accurately and nicer effects even, but G forces is just same old. But if ED would limit example TrackIR camera movement based G forces, people would cry kerosine from not being able swing head around freely while pulling 9 G and having a perfect vision to keep tracking that enemy around them. The F-16 must be a challenge for the demand as it has such a dedicated user group. So you have so many claiming "it should be able do this and that!" and then need to explain why this specific model can't perform the X degree turn or carry Y weapon or fly at Z speed. It is interesting what the gaming setup really does. When I started with LOMAC it was desktop and TrackIR and all. Totally different mentality than today to fly with VR. Back then the realistic part not same, as now it is more about praising real world limitations than capabilities. So if something is not technically possible, so be it. The square doesn't fit through a circle when same surface area.

The TPM 2.0 requirement is interesting. Considering it should mainly be in Windows only for a Bitlocker drive encryption purpose as required feature, and if you don't use it then Windows 11 should work right. But as lot of new applications has been added to Windows like Teams (doesn't seem to come pre-installed although) that is communication element for it, it might be reason why TPM 2.0 is required so they can do encryption for it connection. As each application is responsible to have TPM support by itself, it would be sensible to just drop the application/feature and leave rest working. Good thing is that TPM earlier was possible be emulated, so you could just install a TPM authenticator for services/applications to connect to. Not the secure one but made possible get TPM everywhere. Something like this: https://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmswtpm2/ There was a good one as TPM 1.2 but I don't know for 2.0. So that might be one solution for someone, if one can get Winsows 11 installed (Win 10 -> Win 11 upgrade) as first and then get that kind running after that. But good thing is that Windows 10 will be supported long for DCS so...

Add the feature to the HC mode so system would detect the improper behaviors and corresponding penalty would be issued to the player. Be it first a warning for the player on server and later just more serious penalties, eventually leading to kick/ban if server owner so wants.

The Hornet should use the AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk pod, that would require to carry two pods. One that offers FLIR and Laser Designator itself and other AN/ASQ-173 that offers Laser Spot Tracker. http://cmano-db.com/pdf/weapon/63/ Because lack of better photos: It would make far more interesting missions as well when you would have proper awful FLIR quality and challenges and problems with self-designation etc as in reality. Yes, ED could keep the incorrect pods that has already developed for Hornet and Viper with time and money, but at least they should spend little more time to add the proper targeting pods and their characteristics in to them and make them default ones. What ever the F-16 should really carry should be for the same, a proper ones for the year that were available and primarily what was the most used one.

Short Answer: Yes. Long Answer: No, You shouldn't! Every single official information from any official first or third party should have presence in this Official DCS World Forum. They can as well be in all other places, but this should be #1 place. It would be even easy to post a message here and then link it to those other channels, this way everyone is directed to one place for news, information, statements etc.

That is what I would like to see, it would change a lot about the multiplayer how people fly, but only on servers that would activate a such "Hard Core" system mode (so all those who want to lose a plane due flameout, can keep doing so on servers that doesn't have such mode enabled). Of course many is always against the whole idea because their fun would be taken away, if they would need to fly to action from 200 M distance each time they die, they would just start to feel bad about the mission, and not because their habits to fly. The sad thing in "Air Quake" servers is that they are heavily DM oriented, instead at least TDM or more preferable CTF where teamwork matters far more than individual performance.

In the Windows Weekly (Twitch podcast) they mentioned that TPM 2.0 is required for Windows 11. That latest standard is from 2015, so very many PC will be out of Windows 11 update program, if it is so required, but any newer PC should be fine as long Windows 8 was running on it. Basically if your PC runs Windows 10, then it will run Windows 11, as since 2016 Microsoft has required TPM 2.0 from all new PC's.

I hope that new ED audio rework and AI and all, includes the proper separated AI for GCI. One that is actually many AI. Where you would have one AI to overwatch big picture, strategy. And then individual AI's for each flight/group. Something that is not to be requested what is picture, but one that actively guides you, even in dog fight it would be constantly talking to you for enemy position around you, it energy status and maneuvers. So that you would know without asking what to do. The AI should be "smart enough" to make tactics that helps to trap enemy by positioning own flight members to advantageous positions. So the GCI would be talking a chess to redair, while blue AWACS would be telling threat vector, range etc usual as now. This AI should then be used in AI flight/element leader tasking when player is a wingman. It would command player to fly wanted manner, take the control of tactics and engagements etc. In dogfight/BVR you would be hearing AI talking to you as what to do etc. It would be nice to be a wingman and hear one GCI telling air is clear and then another AI to command you to cover him as he is going to attack the ground target. The MiG-/Su- fighters lose so much because we don't have the proper TTS engine, no way to have dynamic AI for leading the flight etc. But when currently Su-27S doesn't even have proper datalink capability for multiplayer, what can be expected? We need proper flight group building in multiplayer, where they are connected, they get to input IFF codes to their systems, have flight plan drawn on map, radio frequencies set, and then datalinks based to proper groups.

So maneuverability and speed were limited, but it still was capable to perform the challenges it was required. That can be seen in couple ways, if not from the aerodynamical point where it managed to use its maneuver and speed to complete its challenges, or even with some electronic point like radar range, targeting system capabilities etc etc where it could easily find threats before becoming a prey to them etc. "on Top" doesn't yet say much. If there is 100 different participants and you belong to top 10, then you are in "always on top", but it doesn't make you best. If you have 10 participants and you reach always as 1-3 places, then it is still "always on top". If you are 80% of the time #1 but 20% of times just 2nd or 3rd, it still counts "always on top". If you are just only participant, then you are automatically on top, even if you are always the #1. Only thing that it is saying is that EF was not underdog, it didn't perform badly or was in severe problems. Again it depends that what were the tests and challenges. But we can't draw a conclusion that EF was better in BVR, or in WVR or anything. Just that in the non-disclosed challenges the EF was capable (regardless its artificial performance limitations) to win in the exercises. It doesn't mean that it is EF vs F-15E situation. It can be that they were "X vs Time" or "X vs mission goals". Unless every parameter in each challenge is known, those are not saying anything meaningful. Example simulate a 10 air targets as bombers that you need to shoot down. If A can carry 10 BVR missiles and B can carry 6 BVR missiles, then situation is bad for the B. If it is 2 fighters vs 10 bombers, then it is 20 missiles vs 12 missiles and there is much better change again that A wins because they can have 50% hit change when others need to basically hit on each missile. It would then be possible write "EF was always on top in air combat" in such BVR simulated exercise. This all unless I have missed something that it has been specifically stated that it has been 2x EF vs 2x F-15E starting at 50 nmi and simulate the combat shots, and then same for the WVR starting at the merge etc. But unless all those are specified and known, knowing the results doesn't tell anything about the competition why something was "better than other".

I don't get that That I could find as logical reason that "let's make a safety to the safety system" that some engineers might have for some reason. Considering that you anyways wouldn't be designating targets for JDAM and such using targeting pod but using a intelligence reports before flight, that you are sitting in the cockpit entering those things or you have them in the data cartridge for the weapons automatically set already in the mission planning. So you are not suppose to be there entering those things in first place, why it can be more complex thing. This now requires clarification from multiple sources first that what is the real thing. As ED "Correct As Is" can't be correct when logic doesn't exist.

Take that in consideration.

It said that it was among top in the whole exercise as overall performer. That can include all kind sorties, like long range strikes with attacking through enemy fighters patrol. And even if you would win the air combat, but if you run out of fuel or you need to engage them because you don't have endurance to go around, you don't win the task. It doesn't even say is it a F-15E vs EF. It can be very well that you have same tasks and it is checked who can perform it better against similar scenario. If you perform better in that, you win the another. So even in such scenarios EF can have a challenge as F-15E has speed and endurance with dedicated ground attack capabilities that can put EF to work harder. Or if it is a BVR combat with example 2 vs 4 scenario that how can systems handle targeting and such. Exactly. We can assume things but when you don't know tests or competition etc it is difficult to say anything.

The web page that rotates here is as well more about Mi-24D and V that has a rotating gun for ambushes and missiles with different launchers that tilts (2° upward for in-flight launches) and is turn inward.

It doesn't say either that EF beat others in combat, notice how example MiG-29 downside is given it endurance and not maneuverability, speed, BVR etc. So "short legs" that dramatically can change how badly you perform in combat when you can't reach areas or can't engage to long timed combat operations. Similar way others had their downsides. And this put EF to top because its overall performance and capabilities in various missions.

That is good hypothesis, but considering that one would need to operate very close to equator and meridian to have error for coordinates in release range so that you would get release authority, for coordinates that you just inputted. Like could someone enter anyways a such coordinates that only a E to W or N to S error would allow them to release the weapon? Shouldn't that happen around the Null Island itself by range of the weapon range for both to be high risk?

I think they utilize very small forward slip for couple reasons: 1) You can have better visual that where you are landing as you have meter or two forward to roll. 2) Main thing that you avoid possible CoG problems when you utilize your wheels to roll forward so you don't accidentally cause hazardous situation where you would have front wheel sideways or rear wheel touching first and it becomes pivot point to whole helicopter. In the first one you can see that pilot could very well just land after short perfect stop on landing, but decides to perform slight dip forward to make touchdown with that small forward motion. I have been doing that same thing since KA-50 as it just makes everything so much easier when you have it, as you have for some reason a more comfortable control to whole situation. When going for a perfect hover and then come down, there is major possibility that slight error happens.