Cotoi

When 2.5.0 was first released, I was getting 120-130 fps these days, I am getting 40 fps, and all that without AI improvements, no new mechanics like heat dissipation, fluid mechanics Was just in testing when I did the test, so again there was none of that, no new cockpit to blame it on the polygons and so on. I got quite a few modules, including ones that I know I will never use just to support this niche game, but I need to take a step back and look at what I am getting for my work. Sure I got a few modules, most of them unfinished even after years, and a platform with little noticeable improvements and huge performance drop. Furthermore far from making the world more realistic, rocket ballistics are subjected to balance not realism test. Wagner once said that you look at the list of problems and address those with most impact, and it does make a lot of sense, but Loosing 2/3 of fps does have a huge impact. On top of that we never get any help from the dev team, like "Look we just released this very smart AI, with very realistic detection condition, with realistic heat dissipation and so on, but it will take a masive performance hit. When upgrading aim for X cores because the most cores the game will use is Y hyper threading do/do not matter, single core performance do/do not matter... etc". Do you really expect use to get the latest hardware each year for no solid reason and no real data about how the platform performs on different hardware? I am realistic and I know how critics is handled here, but at the end of the day this is math, and as a long term customer I did let you know that your product is unplayable. In order to continue the business relations stuff needs to happen. p.s. Just to be very clear, when I say huge performance, I DO mean 1 single plane on the map flying around. so arguments like "each unit is slightly more complex and it does add up" no it does not.

yes it is realistic, BUT going with a plane like f-105 for bomber would be more versatile in DCS, plus we keep hearing about the Vietnam era, and if you want a heavy plane, we can go with A-130 and have it as cargo for the supply routes that are already implemented in DCS, or even create new game mechanics around transport units, AND a tanker variant,(I bet there are many of us that would love to fly tanker missions). Anyway, B52 does not make the most sense as a heavy aircraft. Maybe some AI at best. The argument that something is not suited for Multiplayer is one of the worst arguments I heard in a while. Less then 30% do PvP, many of us play Single player or PvE, where you play for immersion not to be the best.

Going for "blow shit up in 15 min" it is hard to find enjoyment in DCS. The key word is in the title; DCS - s stands for SIMULATION. If you do not look to simulate real world operation and see what can be done, you may as well use TCP to spot hot girls on Kobuleti Beach :D (you could also do aerobatics, but you like dropping bombs so that is not for you ether). I suggest(and no I am not ironic in any way shape or form) to take your favorite plane, look at a documentary on youtube about it, and try to creat a mission that will focus on one aspects, then expand the mission, and as hint, do something that would actually make sense in real world. Sure you can't span 500 tanks and 200 MIGs, but triggers are on your side, and with a random element you will be surprised.

dude you are on the wrong forum. try War thunder forum. on a more serious note, blowing shit up is just a small part of being a pilot. if all you enjoy is blow shit up you are clearly in the wrong game. You land, you take off, you calculate wind, speed rotation, high altitude mission, close support, 3 plane sells, different cells going in from different directions at the same time, you got a radar officer, pilot, co-pilot, and all that without even mention the bombs with all the types and guidance methods that B52 could use back in 70's.

While strategic bombers as well as somebody suggested, E-2D are out of the question for obvious reasons, I think we can use a military cargo plane like C-130 (a 60'-70' would be just fine), KC-135 or an S-3 to have more fun with carrier landings. As for bombers, tho most I would go with is F-105 Thunderchief. I really do think that a C-130 tanker and cargo, with F-105, and the upcoming F-8 would male a killer experience in a mission done right.

Damn I remember I got the A10C first of all and I was thinking that it would be so cool to have everything on the same platform. First time I just pushed random buttons just make the plane do anything at all :))

we got F16, most likely the carrier, and maybe the P47. I don't see anything else going live on beta this year, and may be f-16 will be pushed to stable before Christmas for obvious reasons.

F-4 is in active development

I think F-5N would be great as long we will still have the F-5E. I hope you will decide to make it.

yes wrong person. thnx to pointing it out mate.

sorry for late reply. I didn't fly it for over a year now, but since the bugs were kind of big, (one of the wheels would not come down, radar controls were not working and so on) my guess is they fixed it. Also since I don't see people talking about these or any big issues, makes me guess that is indeed the case. other then that, it is a simple and fun to fly, go for it.

Come on we were landing all kind of planes on carriers for a while now. I am sure the P47 will land on a DCS carrier with or without this feature, so why not make it compatible with a carrier catapult and be done with it? As for WW2 carrier, I am sure it will come at some point. There was some talk about making the F4U and that means an older carrier. WW2 or maybe Korea.

can you PLEASE make the P-47 compatible with the carrier's catapult? after all that is how planes were deliveredin real life, and it would make for a very interesting gameplay.

I was looking to this feature in order to use this bad boy: https://www.amazon.com/Realistic-Hardware-Simulators-Student-Navigation/dp/B07HCS3JVN/ref=pd_rhf_sc_p_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=VWNGXRG05YSGNWJME9Z0

Not sure if it really needs one.I use to love the F5, but at some point it got worse and worse and I just gave up. Seeing the history, I would say that they should ether a) fix the plane, or b) if they fixed it, not touching it again.