MiG21bisFishbedL

AWACS is going to be a sticking point. Getting accurate information on radar performance is going to be extremely difficult. Tanking is something that needs to be looked at. With Heatblur bringing us the A-6, flying the KA-6D was a part of any A-6 squadron experience. So, it's something that should be included.

We have two problems with the IL-76 in DCS: 1. The A-50. Probably not going to happen, AWACS are very guarded in terms of radar performance. 2. Scale. An IL-76 is quite a beast. It has some impressive distance on it. I'm unsure of DCS' maps are big enough for it to be utilized fully. I could be wrong, but if I'm not? There's still the An-26 or An-30, as well. That said, flying tankers would be awesome.

IMO, it's a must. A huge part of the A-6 squadron experience was KA-6D duty.

Only, it's not just a matter of 'more income.' Having a community gain total access under the hood is, at best, a recipe for unstable code. At worst? It's a security concern. On top of that, I inevitably see discussions about current MiG-21's FM is inaccuracies, then the references provided are figures involving MiG-21PFMs and F-13s as faced by Phantoms over Vietnam. Having the Fishbed's performance oscillate between performance variances and having multiple examples of an FM competing for inclusion would be a disaster. Community development is not the answer.

Deliver unto us KC-10. It'd also make for a good excuse to work on an AAR overhaul.

Yeah, some of the assets need to be fixed. If it's something from the LOMAC days? I don't even bother using it, it's too hideous. And, good God, we need better basket dynamics/boom dynamics for AAR.

Probably not even legally feasible for them to do so. It's not just a simple matter of "lmao here go nuts, guys" Not that I'd trust the community all that much since half the time I see citations of performance involving older and lighter Fishbeds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Agm3U4L12q8

Thanks for this, I've been needing some guidance on how to utilize the Shrikes.

In your defense, it seems perfectly reasonable to allow more information about the SU-25 be made public. It's not complicated, advanced etc. There's really not much to parse from it that you wouldn't want to get out (IFF etc. but that's always going to be the case for all airframes, you'd never let that get out and you just abstract it best you can), so it doesn't make sense to keep it so protected. But, we're not the ones making that call. Don't abandon hope, entirely. ED found the necessary materials for the MiG-29, after all.

That's an understatement. It really is. I'd love an 80s era Su-25 to go with A-stan, for sure. It'd be a day one buy for me. It's a bummer how Draconian the RuMoD is about this sort of thing. Unless the information is accessible and open source, that doesn't matter at all. That's the importance. Until they can find that information while meeting that standard? Well, that's that.

Not completely, but it can be a hurdle that might prove to be difficult to overcome. We need to remember these are pieces of national defense plans, not just supercars for us to enjoy in detail. Our entertainment isn't worth jailtime for developers. Yeah, Su-25s are as simple as combat aircraft get, but the simplicity, age, and lack of sophistication doesn't matter to the governments that operate them.

Ok, I'll give it a swing and report back to get another player's input in here. Update: there's an unexpected challenge to using the IR Mavs against targets on sand like that. I was launching from a respectable distance, but once in a while? I got close. I'll have to try it again at higher angles and lower angles to see if it helps. I found myself having to compensate. I set my sight to 35mils in A/G, place the pipper on the target, then glance down at my TV scope and kind of 'scan' the area with the Maverick's seekerhead by moving and letting go of the AAR button. I can force a lock that way. Messing with screen contrast can help, too.

You literally made my day by telling me that. Thanks, dude.

This one weird trick will give you infinite range.

Some do, but good luck figuring out which ones. They really need to add the ability for us to turn lights on or off in the editor.

Could you provide a track file so we can watch? I'm not having issues with the AGM-65Ds at all, personally, so I'm curious to see if I can reproduce this issue.

I will always buy light attackers.

Is it contradicted? Sure, but that just means ED's marketing is leading. I really wish ED wouldn't emphasize that the use of a mouse and keyboard is usable when it's going to offer the end user an experience that is subpar. After all, there are fighting games on PC that you can use your keyboard with. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, though. It's going to leave a bad taste in the occasional newcomer's mouth when they try M+KB, find it not to their likely, and then get further dissuaded when they seek out help and get told they really need to spend money on a stick. Sure, they are a business and the end goal of business is make more cash, but at the same time? DCS is still not going to see a huge player base. And that's perfectly fine. This isn't exclusionary at all, this is just the reality of our genre; it isn't 1999 anymore and Falcon 4.0 isn't pushing systems. I think we've all accepted that one. Still, more accessibility is a good thing when it's treated like how DCS (and the genre at large) does treat it: training wheels. Especially for those without good foundational skills, something like an auto AAR would be a godsend. It's not going to encourage people to join, but it could definitely help some delve deeper and stay. The only thing that'd hold it back are those who would insist on its use to not be included in events and activities they perform. I'd probably never use it, but I can think of a few in my group who probably would. And, of course, they'd storm to the forums to point out that this is 'Digital Combat Simulator' ad nauseum as per usual. One benefit of it's addition? Better basket physics and boom operations. That, alone, is a great reason to support its inclusion as it could demand an overhaul of those systems. That'd be my statement to anyone against it.

It's been like this for a while. Here's a MiG-15 reacting to a Sparrow launch. MiG15ReactsToSparrow.trk

That's some interesting stuff. I imagine, in the end, using an arresting cable would require another course that some conscripts would have to go through and another set of specialty equipment that could potentially be destroyed by an aggressor or (more likely) broken by 19 year old dimwits despite the best efforts of the manufacturer to idiot proof it. Thrust reverser makes sense.

I'm sure they can produce a Vietnam preview in a few weeks. I'm also positive I can outsling Mahomes.

I mean, the brand is kind of built around those core enthusiasts and to appeal to them. DCS isn't going to see a huge explosion in the player base. Even if it did add an automated AAR method or some kind of assist, which it really could use, let's not pretend it's going to really jump the player base significantly. Because, really? Automated AAR implies a mission that requires you to stay aloft for quite sometime. The kind of people turned away by the difficulties of AAR are also going to be turned away by the length of mission that'd require it. Again, to reiterate, it'd be an accessibility change that ED should consider. Just a simple key stroke to enable some form of automation or assist? It'd be a nice change for those looking to be a part of that core enthusiast market.

I wouldn't use it, but I wouldn't actually mind seeing it implemented. But, more than that? I want to see them bring realistic drogue physics in. That might make it easier, even.