PL_Harpoon

Uhm... there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here. As I understand it, Fri is NOT claiming that the current implementation is wrong, so he doesn't need to prove that. He IS claiming that it doesn't make sense and at least in my opinion he did prove it. So, are you claiming that it is correct or that it makes sense? If the latter then I'm sorry, but you did not make a good case. You only explained why self-destruct mechanisms exist (which nobody disputed either). Look at it from another perspective. Why use altitude as a fail-safe at all? Why not set a timer? You know the burn time of your missile, you know how much energy it will have when the fuel is depleted. It would be easy to calculate when it should self-destruct. Couple it with a self-destruct when it loses contact with the launcher and your good to go. With altitude limit you create multiple problems for yourself. First, your target can fly just few dozen meters above 6km and you can't do anything to hurt it. Secondly, how does a missile know it has reached 6km? Every missile would need an altimeter and your crew would constantly have to set QNE for each missile. And even then a crew could set it to higher altitude by simply setting a wrong pressure. It just doesn't make sense.

I think the main problem here is not "why does the missile self destruct" but rather "why the maximum altitude is 6km?" I think what Fri13 is trying to say is that the missile can have enough energy to reach a target above 6km* and the radar is able to track a target above 6km*. If so, then why set an arbitrary limit and reduce your defensive capabilities if both the missile and the radar can surpass it? I've gotta say, I know very little about SAMs but it does seem strange to me. *provided that certain conditions are met

I agree with Odey here. There are no dogmas in dogfighting. The key in my opinion is to learn all the relevant techniques (1vs2 circle fight, lead/lag/straight pursuit, energy management, scissors, overshoots etc.) and learn to ability to decide when to use them. I think that while it is important to know your aircraft (and your enemy's) capabilities and limitations you may run the risk of being "too rigid" in your technique.

I wouldn't call one of the most difficult thing to do in a sim a "normal flying skill". As to answering this question as well as "Where does it stop?": because some people are asking for it and others think it's a good idea. Also because we're asking for something optional. If you don't want to use Easy AAR it would not change your experience at all. That's what baffles me the most. Why would you fight so much against something that doesn't affect you? As for your other answers... 1. Actually, I agree with you here and to be honest this topic turned into "a big fight over 5 cents". So yes, I don't thing Easy AAR is some "super important feature that must be included or the sim won't be complete". For me it's more of a nice thing to have for those who want it. I guess I dragged myself into this discussion because of how strongly some people are opposed to such a small feature request. It's like they felt threatened or something. 2/4. That still doesn't change the fact that with UF you can just start with 1% fuel, load up with weapons and use full afterburner during the whole flight. Again, I'm not saying AAR is super important, just that Unlimited Fuel is not a good substitute for it. 3. All valid arguments if you want to use DCS that way. I actually did just that, I've spent hours practicing AAR, carrier recoveries, or even simple traffic patterns until I got it. But who am I to force others to play the same way I do? After all, one of the great things about DCS is its versatility, also in allowing you to decide just how much realism you want. Easy AAR just expands that versatility. 5. Yeah, I did make that up and it is possible that they're not working on it. In that case it really would take resources from other projects. On the other hand as some here pointed out, LOMAC did have Easy AAR option and since MAC is something of a successor to LOMAC and it's on the same engine as DCS I wouldn't call my guess too far fetched. "AAR cheat is not a "FREE" option." In the end I understand your point. And I agree that there are more important things to do. A lot, actually. For me, Easy AAR would just be a nice thing to have, if possible.

Oh, I've read the entire thread and there are valid and stupid arguments on both sides. The thing is, even the only valid (IMHO) argument against Easy AAR can be countered. Here's the list of arguments I've seen so far (as I understand them). Please feel free to correct me if I missed one. 1. DCS is a sim not a game. That one is easy to counter because it's actually both. And we already have lots of other options to make it easier for those who want it (like rudder assists for WW2 planes) 2. Just use Unlimited Fuel. This one is also easy to counter as UF negates fuel management entirely while Easy AAR would not. 3. "Git gud!" This one is just plain stupid. 4. There's no need for AAR/ the maps are too small. While mostly this is true, there are many examples of missions that could include AAR (a fully loaded Harrier taking off from Tarawa is a very easy one). 5. Developing Easy AAR would take resources from other, more important tasks. They are probably already working on it, for their MAC, so it's just a matter of adding it to DCS once it's ready. 6. Changes like may be a sign of turning DCS into more arcade game. While I understand the fear it's not grounded in reality. There are absolutely no indications of DCS becoming more arcade, in fact it's quite the opposite.

Let's clear something out. While the title says "realistic" the OT states that the missile behaviour is illogical not wrong. So, instead of searching for documented evidence (which IMHO might be impossible for a system that's in active duty) let's find out if it really is illogical. First of all, we all agree that it totally makes sense for the missile to blow up if it cannot reach its target. I can think of only two reasons for that. 1. It doesn't have enough energy. In this case an arbitrary 6km limit would be stupid. 2. It doesn't receive guidance. In this case, if the radar can't effectively track the target above 6km it makes sense to blow up the missile. So, the most important question is: do we have any evidence that the Tor can track targets above 6km or not?

There are also easy and quick ways of distinguishing whether a target is detected by your radar or not. First of all, targets which aren't detected by your own radar have their symbol slightly smaller. Secondly, you can place the TDC over the target symbol. If additional data shows up (speed/altitude/shooting cue) you can lock it up. If not then your radar can't see it.

There may be a lot of reasons why the aircraft doesn't show up on your radar screen. The most obvious to me is that perhaps your radar isn't pointing at the target. Check your radar elevation first as this is the most common culprit.

Who would've known that so many would feel threatened by an option of easier refueling for those who need/want it... ... and if you're not threatened by it, why oppose it so strongly?

This might not be the correct procedure but this is what I do: Use the throttle to place the AOA brackets on the horizon and simultaneously use pitch to place the FPM on the AOA. Then slowly add trim to ease off the stick.

Also, how does the aircraft when taking off?

I think you derailed the topic a "little bit" here. :P

+1 I also think the kneeboard needs a lot more default pages. A mission page for example, with target data, TOT and detailed info about the waypoints would be great.

That is IMHO the only valid reason for not having this feature. Nevertheless, I think an "Easy AAR" is a good idea. First, if they're going to include it in MAC (which I'm 99% sure is on the same engine) than applying it to DCS shouldn't be that difficult. Second it would smooth out the learning curve for new players, possibly reducing their frustration and keeping them onboard for much longer. It allows AAR for those of us who are physically unable to do it. Apart from possibly taking resources from other features there is literally no other valid reason for not having it.

Well, judging by what saw yesterday (a WW2 server was among top 5 most populated servers with 30+ players) I'd say it's far from dead.

And obviously everyone has the same standards as you as to what a simulation is...

Actually a thought just occurred to me. I might be wrong but last time I heard ED is working on their new low-fidelity sim called Modern Air Combat. If so, then I'm sure they are already working on or perhaps already have an easy AAR mode. It's just a matter of implementing it into DCS when it's ready.

My take on the subject is that while I believe that free visual upgrade is in ED's best interest, if they decide that it was too much work and charge for it, I wouldn't hold it against them.

Since this thread is brought back from the dead... Does it break IC?

Wait, are you saying that you're entitled to free model upgrades for your modules?

What I can see is that he is just turning on everything. Anyway, this was not a serious post as I'm aware that MIDS/Link 16 isn't fully simulated.

Acutally, this is exactly what this pilot does. :D https://youtu.be/yeij-YX9MdY?t=625

I agree. 100% I didn't notice anyone demanding it though. If they decide to give us a free GFX update like with previous models I'd be very happy. If they decide to upgrade the Mi-8 to the modern standards and charge money for it - I'd be happy too. And I'll gladly pay.

Send us a track file or a video. I've just done that myself yesterday and it worked without any issues.

Yeah, judging by the upcoming release of MSFS 2020 I too would bet on the civ gear. Which is fine for me cause just recently I've bought a new Warthog setup and would be sad to be just a few weeks too early with my purchase ;)