tsb47

Oh right... cos' you said so...

This is a discussion forum. People come here to debate!

I don't think the decision about back seat licensing should have anything to do with selfishness, morality, who deserves what or how much blood sweat and tears the developers have shed etc. It's should be about what makes long term business sense. Ultimately, what everyone - developers and community alike - want is a thriving vibrant DCS community. The decision about back seat licensing should be made with that goal in mind.

I would like to announce I killed an Su-27 on the 104th tonight. For 0 human kills on me. Boo-ya-kah-shah-ma-leka, rooood-BOI!

F-5E Tiger II!!! Also Mirage IIIE, IAF Kfir and Mirage F1. Phantom is, of course, top of the list however...

OH yeah baby, nice work!

So you shoot in non-locked on mode and track the missile onto target? Rather than locking the pipper to the target and shooting? Dive angle and IAS?

What dive angle + IAS do you use the Grom ? I'm usually at 5 - 10 degrees and 600 IAS. But I suspect that's too slow and shallow. I usually can't get the pipper accurately on the target and undershoot. I'm also usually too close when I release... Any tips on getting eyes on target at range?

Yes. It's very #difficult because you need to see your target with the Mk1 eyeball before you can engage, by then you're well within range of SAMs, AAA and you don't have much time to line up because #themig21issodamnfast. Also, dropping bombs accurately with the ASP is hard, cluster munitions don't give a decent spread and the nukes are usually not available for balance reasons. The only time I've had any success is after SAMs and AAA have been taken out and I can do a low level pass to recce targets before engaging. Grom, S-23/24 + rocket pods usually give best results. P.S. FAC marking targets with smoke would make it much easier but I've never had this online. P.P.S. to avoid #difficultygate2.0 I would like to make it clear my comments are about my personal in game experiences. I am not making any comment as to whether flying a computer simulation from my home office on a relaxing weekend while sipping a coffee at a constant 1.0G has any bearing to flying an RL combat sortie.

Repped for a thoughtful mature reply. The issue seems to be whether players will buy a module to play in the back seat. Perhaps it would be worth doing a poll to see if someone has the choice between the front and the back seat which they would choose? PS, i think you missed quote braces around "The working assumption, of course, is that to play in the back for free you need someone in the front who has bought the module." ~S tsb47

I've looked at the forum plenty, thank you. Because playing in back is a supporting role, not a starring one and so if a person has a choice between front or back, they'll choose the front. This means 1) developers make $0 extra dollars by charging for the back seat 2) online, two seaters will always have an empty/AI back seat. However, if the back seat is free 1) players can get a taste of module, on which basis they might buy it, generating sales and 2) real players will actually fly in the back online. This benefits the developers, the online experience and therefore DCS as a whole. The working assumption, of course, is that to play in the back for free you need someone in the front who has bought the module. Yes, I agree. To be clear, I'm not saying consumers have some kind of moral entitlement to play back seat for free - of course they don't. I'm just saying it makes business sense from Eagle Dynamics / 3rd party developer standpoint and that it would benefit the online experience and DCS community as a whole. That is why I'm lobbying for it - not because I want a free plane.

No, actually it's going to work the other way, cos' that's how I would have it!

Ummm, yes. You shouldn't need to buy the module to play support in the back seat.

#jesuishadwell

Bump!!

Personally, I think if you play in the back seat, you should play for free. No-one would pay to be someone else's support person.

I have the same problem. Apparently Steam doesn't take timezones into account.

Wait! Wait! Wait! Is that it? (looks disappointed, kicks pebbles). ...at least they wrote a newsstory about us: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/internet-argument-resolved-2014030584268

I love a good internet argument! I don't have my Oxford Dictionary of Gaming Slang on me. But surely OP can mean both? Let's move this point to the semantics thread. So what? Either way, it's hard to kill FC3 planes with the Mig21, and people who do deserve credit. GGTharos saying they don't is mean and misses the point. "GGTharos thinks the R-3R is improperly modeled" =/= "tsb47 thinks the R-3R is properly modeled"... But the issue is irrelevant anyway. Regardless of whether the R-3R is properly modeled, it's still hard to kill FC3 planes with the Mig21 and so the point still stands. ... but you took it so seriously? Please also nerf the rebel blasters. WAY too OP.

Isn't it more like former Olympians racing current ones?

Ah, no. GGTharos did say the Mig-21 was OP: Then you say: GGTharos proves this correct: You also say: I don't recall anyone claiming the R3R was properly modelled. I think we said using the Mig-21 to kill F-15s etc was hard. Perhaps check the thread before commanding people to 'just do some research'? EDIT: My original comment about the Spad was tongue in cheek, obviously. But if you don't want to take it in that vein, then you can eat sonic death rays from the nuclear powered vulcan cannon strapped to my DCS X-Wing (which is the next plane to be announced by Leatherneck BTW).

It was a very good thread about getting Mig-21Bis kills against modern fighters in DCS multiplayer. Then it got hi-jacked, perhaps by someone who got shot down by a Mig-21bis, saying the Mig-21Bis was OP (lol!) because one of its weapons did not, in that person's opinion, correctly model the flaws that person considered it should. You think the Mig-21Bis is OP? Wait till I get my Spad. Multiplayer is going to get REAL. Although the performance of the Vickers Machine Gun in DCS will be completely unrealistic - it's going to shoot lightning bolts that explode into nuclear-tipped mutant velociraptors... You heard it here first.

It's clearly the Spad.

I gotta back Hadwell on this. He's all sense. Mig-21bis is hard to fly and harder to get kills in. Props to him for doing it. No-one is saying we're better than others for flying an ASM aircraft (although I would suggest it is more 'fun' if you are technically inclined and a better 'simulation' in the flight sim nerd sense of the word). We are just saying you have to respect the skills of any pilot that can get kills in a DCS Mig-21bis against a DCS F-15C, Su-27 or Su-33 because it is really, really, really hard. That is true regardless of how 'realistic' the DCS simulation is. And who are we to judge how realistic the simulation is anyway? I have certainly never flown a fighter aircraft, let alone on a combat sortie. Has anyone here?

When you've been AIM-120C'd as many times as I have, you'll claim all the credit you can get for that one kill... and more.