USARStarkey

My gosh. Did you not see the difference in altitude? The F-16 was on the deck. That F-35 was way up there. You conveniently chose not to notice that. More evidence that you are incapable of more than highly generalized comparisons. Second. You also failed to notice the controlled flat spin it was doing at one point. Or listen to any of the pilot remarks. The F-16 can even come close to doing a controlled rotating spin like that. Every pilot I've seen has described the F-35 as flying similar to a F-16, yet when the F-35 is carry a full payload. Lastly: You said you'd change your opinion when it "flew like that." Well, its clearly maintaining high aoa for more than a mere moment in those videos, and demonstrated at least one maneuver the F-16 cannot do at all. ALSO: your video shows exactly nothing. It is practically impossible to tell what AoA those planes are at compared to each other. In a single shot the two in the foreground seem slightly juxtaposed but the ones in the back appear to virtually indistinguishable. We don't know what fuel loads or weapons they are carrying there either. For all you know that F-35 might be much more highly loaded than those falcons. And in every other frame their AoAs are practically indistinguishable.

I just want a server I can play it on :)

Here you go. Ill watch your opinion change now thank you.

I know its relative. I was doing what he did just to make that point.

I see your doing that thing again where you post assertions with absolute performance backed by generalizations and simplifications of aerodynamics. New List: F-35 Clean air frame when loaded---Check Advanced Fly by wire----Check Possible innovations that are not obvious or disclosed yet( as evinced by being able to hit a 50deg AoA.): Check Extremely high thrust engine combined with very low drag= extremely high thrust to drag ratio which I am told by some Aero eng friends of mine is even more important the T/W for sustained turns. : Check.

We do know for certain that it is rated for 50degs angle of attack. That is considerably more than the F-16 and in the same department as the super-hornet. Also from pilot accounts Ive seen it described as flying better than a clean F-16 when fully armed. It certainly wont be a slouch. Also I just now noticed that was just repeating GG's last post. Was not intentional, i didnt see his new post until after I posted mine. Anyhow I agree with his statements. Ill repeat what I said earlier: The F-35 will enter every fight clean and most likely undetected or from non-definite aspect. Even presuming a guns only fight where the F-35's are depleted of missiles, it wont go well for the Su-30s. If 30 odd Lightning II's bounce a pack of 30 odd Su-30 MKK's or Su-35s the massive difference in SA will most likely offset any theoretical kinematic advantage held by the flankers. Due to DAS and other sensors combined with stealth, the flankers might not even see the F-35s make their attack, and if they do they can only do it visually unless the F-35s are stupid enough to attack from the front where the IRST of the flankers might detect them. But they most likely wont, since after discharging their BVR missiles they chose a preferential engagement geometry allowed by their SA and Stealth advantages. Even if the flankers see them visually several things can be said for sure: 1. They will not have a complete picture of what is attacking them. But DAS means the lightnings will. Presuming a visual engagement, the flankers might spot them but wont know exact numbers, disposition etc. This limits their reaction to the threat. The F-35s will know exactly how many flankers there are, where they are, what they are doing, and who is friendly and who is not. This means that the commander of that unit can dispatch enemies with great efficiency, assigning targets and tactics better because he has the best picture of what he is attacking etc. 2. Even if some of the Flankers visually identify the F-35s( which they may not at all since they could attack from behind, below or any combination therin) not every member of that unit will see all the F-35s spotted. This means that many flankers will most likely go down to cannon fire before being able to effectively engage in maneuver fights. EVEN IF they spot the specific jet or jets that are bouncing them, they will most likely be in a poor kinematic and geometric position at the beginning of the fight which ill greatly offset any kinematic advantage they MAY have.

And here is why well never get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AIFX__cNKQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-345y7uo0M here is the trailer

so for the -220 I've seen several different performance marks, the most common being 23770lbs and 25,000lbs. Which is the correct figure? What is the reason for different figures?

You get a better FPS because it is using direct x 11 among other optimizations. It means that for with similar settings running like you have now, youll get a better FPS. If you start turning on the new features etc, you might run into problems, but overall you'd probably be able to turn the settings higher than you can now.

The mig 21 is irrelevant. It represents a totally different era just like the ww2 aircraft. As for the Eurofighter, it doesn't yet exist in game. Nor did I say that I support that idea of the Eurofighter, which was your own assumption. I will say that I find it as less of a big deal because it does not come from either of the two major nations who are juxtaposed in the sim. AS I recall, the F-18 being done is a C model. The Super Hornet is being done by a third party no? The superhornet also not really in the same class as a S-30---seeing as it doesn't feature SC or TV. If some third party wants to make a spaceship for the game then whatever. As for making the game to the "favor of the USA" I did not say that. I said that aircraft in game should be make to suit the general flavor of the parent airforces modeled in the sim. I dont care who that favors so long as we have a accurate representation of the general time period as a whole. I makes zero sense to make a game for aviation enthusiasts if your going to twist the theoretical engagement to suit some fantasy scenario where both factions had equal RnD and procurement histories. Part of a sims immersion is how it feels in context of what we know the real situation was. If your perception of the last 20 years is that it favors the USA, well then tough. As it has been said before by many people on here, DCS is about authenticity and accuracy not balance. Conversely, how would you feel if they stuck the F-22 in game but no Su30 or 35? Even a single F-22 in a server could wreak havoc. Not to mention, when would you get to fly these planes online? If either were introduced, even if not in a vacuum, they would be so polarizing that you'd have to limit there availability in a server. You could practically guarantee that the few Raptor or Su-35 slots in a server would almost always be taken. IF you put more in, then you'd have the problem of everyone flying only those planes and anyone who cant find a spot in one is dead meat. So in short yeah, I'd like DCS to generate a world that reflects the real balance of the primary powers in game as close as possible----and not some fantasy world where the Russians have 500 Su-30s in their OOB. Speaking of which who is trying to favor whom exactly? I could care less who it favors so long as it is accurate. You on the other hand want to implement aircraft whose role in the last 2 decades has been limited, and have only be a serious issue since about the mid 2000s (and still do not make up anywhere close to the majority of Russian flanker inventories). Sounds like an attempt to support Russian "favor" to me. That being said, Im done, because this is the wrong thread for this.

The amd cpu could absolutely be your bottleneck problem. I learned this the hard way back in 2012. I ordered a high end amd cpu and Xfire 6950s. Couldnt get past 32fps avg in BF3 despite what internet benchmarks said I should get. I upgraded to a GTX 680 to try and solve the issue, no dice. Finally after some research I found the Cpu was bottlenecking the cards. I switched to a i5 and suddenly started getting 60fps avg or better in every game including bf3. AMD cpus are shit. For their Ghz they have terrible architecture that uses the power very inefficiently. In DCS it would be more an issue because DCS is a more cpu centered game right now. I highly recommend going to a i5 4670k or better.

So I have a new monitor in the mail and I wanted to make my original into a instrument panel. Does anyone know how to make the second monitor display the F-15 radar full screen, or split the second monitor into radar RWR and weapons pages? Would the easy monitor configuration help do this or just the A-10?

For me it depends on how it affects general authenticity. Having something like a Su-25T isnt too big a deal because it isnt something that is plane vs plane. Throwing in all the Flanker variants is lopsided because there aren't ant direct production F-15 equivalents that could be added to balance it out. The Russians opted to further the Su-27, and Americans made a whole new airplane--the F-22. For most of the last 20 years the F-15C and Su-27S made up the bulk of the the respective air-forces inventory of those models. Su-30s were hardly even an issue until after the mid-2000's as they did not exist in any significant numbers (and still largely do not) before this. Adding planes like this in is like adding a Raptor without the stealth. You'd have the most powerful radar in the game, thrust vectoring, supercruise, and improved EOS, among other things. However, if you add the Raptor in it doesnt balance the game out, it just throws it back in the opposite direction several fold. That being said, im not opposed to newer models of these planes if both sides get new aircraft/weapons that are representative of the parallel developments in both nations. To me this is about the game possessing historical perspective. In short, aircraft should be added if they are representative of their parent air forces inventory as a whole, not just because they exist. If something on the fringe is modeled, if should be accompanied by something similar from the other side.

Only extremely recently, And I wouldn't consider them to be a likely US enemy either.

No, no we do not. The F-15 and Su-27 are historical equivalents--in spirit if not by time. If you start adding all the fringe versions of the Flanker---all of which exist in paltry numbers in any single air-force---your going to hear the Americans clamor for F-22's, since there are more of those in the US Air-force than any single non S version of the Flanker, and in most cases there are more Raptors than all the upgraded flanker variants combined in any single air-force. At a bare minimum, if you add Gen 4++ aircraft then your going to see 90deg+ aim9x's and AIM-120D's and perhaps APG63v2 or v3. The current aircraft selection is the most historical and the most balanced and should remain as such seeing as they haven't even finished modeling the systems of the aircraft we currently have, and there are still features left to add.

Given that this thread is nearly 200 pages long I'm sure what I'm going to say isnt new, but a few things to consider for the F-35. Two of its biggest criticisms are that its only got 4 120's max and cannot super-cruise in the mach 1.5 sense. However, consider the following: 1. none of the 4.5 gen fighters that are supposedly the bane of the F-35 can super-cruise in the mach 1.5 sense when carrying external stores(ie: weapons). Many of them cannot SC in the mach 1.5 sense at all. Given this, the F-35s limited SC is more than adequate since it can do it while carrying its full, albeit smaller weapons load. 2. While it only has 4 slammers, it can choose engagement geometry due to stealth. This means it can make much more efficient use of its weapons. I doubt many 35's will charge head on into a pack of Su30s. Instead, they fly around the Su-30s radar envelope(or above or below) and attack from the 3-9 line where they can close to retardedly close ranges with no chance of detection. I think more missile capacity would be better, but if you close to 10nm when you fire, you arent going to need as many.

So this is just a question/suggestion to moderators /devs regarding the new PFM planes. With the F-15 we got all kinds of cool performance charts showing the performance of the F-15 with the new PFM. I thought this was really cool. I was just wonder inf if there were plans to do the same when the Su-27PFM comes out. I also think it would be cool if the ww2 birds and mig 21 got these charts as well.

Inside of 8-10nm the missile tracks using its own radar. Until this, you must guide with your radar. However, in TWS mode, the missile guides inertially based on last known kinematics of your target, and then tracks on its own ones in radar range for its internal sensor. It is the opposite of ineffective. TWS is the most effective way to BVR kill a bandit. This is because your target gets no warning that you fired. If your going head to head, it is usually unlikely they will turn before the missile starts track on its own, and when it does its gotten alot closer than usual without them moving to dodge. Depends on who your fighting however. Every experienced eagle driver I know uses TWS almost exclusively.

Nobody has denied that LERX provide an advantage. You seem to think however that you can declare precise relative performance claims from aerodynamic generalizations. Like I said before, nobody is declaring the Eagle a better low speed turner, but declaring the difference is huge is just stupid. First of all what the heck does "huge" mean? Second, once defined, you arent using any math or performance tests to prove your point, your just screaming: hey look guys ---> "TECHNOLOGY" and expecting anyone to take that seriously.

The short answer is that you cant. There are all kinds of ways to sneak closer to a eagle and try to go WVR, or at least close enough to shoot a ET. However, all of them can be easily countered and if you are fighting a smart eagle pilot--especially with a wingman, you chances of getting close are next to nil. That being said, here are the best tactics for getting close: 1. Keep you radar off and track passively. 2. Stay low, preferably behind or near a mountain. 3. when detected, notch, or fly behind a mountain. 4. Once hidden, hope the eagle pilot is stupid enough to keep flying your direction without changing altitude or heading, keeps his radar on so you can track him passively, and eventually if you stay notched or obscured by terrain, he will eventually fly past your or over you. now your close enough to fight. Be careful about the following: 1. If eagle has wingman, you can notch all you want, and his wing will still see you if they are spread out right. 2. Once you disappear, the eagle can require you simply by adjusting his heading and approaching at a different aspect. You can try to notch again, but you wont win a game of cat and mouse like that. 3. He can always just back off or descend low enough so that your notch doesn't work. 4. Be wary of super-high eagles. some people will fly super high with radar off and you wont see them in most cases. They wait till some mig or flanker turns on his dar to have a look-see and then they dive down and pounce, using med PRF to keep your tracked. A smart flanker pilot can notch these people, but they usually work in packs, and it can be very hard to find them if they are hiding above the con and are smart enough to keep their radar off when not needing it and bug out when they cant find you.

If you have some or know exactly where to find them please post here

It is already the fastest thing in game. The Flanker at 40-30K is almost 200mph slower. At SL, you are faster by about 30mph.

Anyhow, did anyone find out what the actual deal with this is? I mean with the real plane. Those graphs show VMAX, but the throttle guage isnt indicating it if its possible. Is it already implemented or something just automatic? Right now you can break mach 1.22 clean at SL at 20C. According to graphs top speed should be mach 1.15 clean and 1.2 with VMAX(whilst carrying AIM7's) at 15C.