MiG21bisFishbedL

MiG-21 has the Rn-24 and Rn-28 tactical nuclear weapons. The less said about them, the better. They're basically just FABs on crack. They were almost immediately restricted on missions because of what they did to the software's performance. They're still restricted because they're absolute garbage in terms how they're modeled and perform. Mag3 has stated they've no interest in going back to them and improving them. Conventional abilities are clearly the priority and the various teams involved seem to agree upon that.

Gentleman and a scholar.

Yeah, fullscreen is superior. It just runs better.

There's loads of missions and campaigns, both paid for and free. If none please, mission making in DCS is dummy easy so dive right in. I can understand that argument for a lot of games, I legit can, but at the same time? DCS is a sandbox and a lot of it is up to you. That said, more missions and such would always be a welcome thing.

Realistically, the most we can expect would be a full fidelity AFV of some kind. We're not getting player infantry. If you want that, ArmA's great and Squad also exists. I'd contend your first point vehemently. Just because it seems simple doesn't mean it actually is. Sure, it'd be easy to just copy code from CA and bam, now you have some janky infantry. With one weapon. Is that something anyone wants to part with their money for? I doubt it. We'd need better movement, endurance, weight impacting the prior two, injury simulation, recoil modeling, and that's all before you get into squad roles, platoon roles, interoperability with armor and airborne assets, there's a lot in there that would go into the development of infantry. You're going to need more than rifles and squad weapons, you'll need platoon level weapons, company assets, you need a lot. You need them to function in the manner they're meant to. That is *a lot* of work.

We never got told specifically what we needed, to be fair. But, I hope this is what we needed, legitimately. I'd love a Thud. Good work, OP.

1. It doesn't matter what "people" are commenting on, balance doesn't enter into DCS development if the end goal is to create realistic war fighting. Which is DCS's stated aim. That is up to the mission maker to determine if balance is important and, if so, how to make it. It'd be nice to see some updates done to the capabilities FC3 aircraft, but beyond the models and flight models, I doubt we will. These were made to model a specific time period of those aircraft. Further documentation may not be forthcoming on any expanded capabilities. 2. And guess what you still have to do in an FC3 level aircraft? You still need to model the avionics and radar to a high level of fidelity for DCS. That's the standard they have set forward. Just because it's more abstracted doesn't make a difference. The radar and avionics (given that avionics is quite a broad term when in regards to 4th gen fighters) still need to be modeled. Also, this is from ED's own statements. It doesn't matter what anyone else says. 3. So, you're going to put up a non-full fidelity module alongside full fidelity ones? Good luck, have fun. 4. There are, and again, developers have stated FC3 level modules don't require that much less work to do. These are not points I'm making from my own opinion, these are the facts of development that have been posted on these forums for a long time now.

Love me some Prairie Fire.

We have *some*, but more would be nice.

Unless they can fit reliable data to their claims, it's not of much use.

OP is a gentleman of taste.

Indeed, that isn't a balanced fight. So, why did the mission maker match up an Eagle with an Albatros? That's on them, specifically. Now, take a look at the MAC line-up: F-15C Eagle Su-27 Flanker B Su-33 Flanker D J-11A Flanker B+ MiG-29 Fulcrum A MiG-29S Fulcrum C A-10A Warthog Su-25A Frogfoot Su-25T Frogfoot F-86F Sabre MiG-15bis Fagot F-5E Tiger II MiG-21bis Fishbed L-39ZA All aircraft already modeled in DCS world, but simplified. There's a reason why that is: By ED's own statement, a FC3-level module takes almost as much time as a full fidelity one. Heatblur's Cobra corroborated this when the topic of an FC3 level JA-37D came up. They still have to do flight model, accurately. They still have to construct the external model and still have to make the cockpit. They still have to do a lion's share of the work and then they expect a fraction of the return because it'll be in a bundle of others like it? There's why you don't see more. I'm afraid the days of FC3 level modules may be over. Combined that with current global tensions, there's no way in hell we're seeing a Su-35 or later Fulcrum in the immediate future, even as an FC3-level add on.

He's got you guys, there.

Do it, Sandy. Do it, now. I'd do it for you.

You're welcome. In the end, it takes practice. That's always the secret.

You should try using the KC-135MPRS instead of the KC-130, for starters. And remember that slow is smooth and smooth is fast. So, I want you to think about air-to-air tanking as an advanced form of formation flight. So, practice flying in formation with an AI airplane. Just try and maintain the smallest spacing you're comfortable with. In addition, for your next few attempts? Stay aware of your arm muscles. Relaxed muscle is responsive muscle; you're probably holding your HOTAS with a white knuckle grip. I did, too, everyone does at first. Manage that throttle so that you're putting just a little bit of slack into the hose and gentle stick movements. Now, this might seem counterproductive, but for your first hook up? Wait five seconds. After you've held it for five seconds? Look at where the tanker's wing and such are relative to your canopy framing. It can provide some easy to pick up cues on where you need to be. Finally, don't chase the basket. It bounces, it bucks, it wiggles, it dances, and it can do it a lot better than your aircraft. If you get frustrated? Take a break, fly something else, or even put a gun burst into the tanker! I have.

Quick question since the update reminded me: As I understand, F-8s really required a hands-on approach by the deck crew to maneuver it around a carrier's flight deck. If this is the case, are you guys looking at ways to address that need or is it too early?

I wouldn't bet on it. I'd anticipate early '23.

I have a lot of fun in it. More hours in it than anything else in DCS. Some questions about the ASP and such, but the FM is pretty damn solid. Visually, the interior could use updating and that's in the cards. You just have to be patient; M3 is small and this isn't full time for them. This triggers a lot of angy-posting chock full of emotes and the like, so be prepared for that if you're searching through the forum for topics that could help. It's not at all hard to fly, but has a lot of character. Fly it like an idiot, it will snap back at you. Fly it as prescribed, and it's great.

Those Corsair shots are real sexy.

Oh, the lies students tell their instructors, sometimes. I swear, the ball was centered, I don't know why the airplane snap rolled! One thing being lost in this insistence is that you can't really design a fighter with the kind of performance expectations the F-14 had and see a hard structural limit of 6.5 G. They're made to not only be flown by 24 year olds but 24 year olds in a panic as their RWR screams about a launch. No doubt, that 6.5 figure was in place as a measure to ensure the airframe maintained its strength to deal with those sudden spikes of load factor in combat. The Tu-128 Fiddler had a pretty pathetic max loading and that's reflected in the fact that probably 70% of people posting here don't even know it existed or have completely forgotten about it.

Yeah, we're witnessing bad faith arguments learned from Youtube chicanery as opposed from actual discussion. OP has been proven incorrect. Time to move on.

291 was having a whole lot of fun.

I spent like $16 on a USB hub for my CH HOTAS and have completely forgotten it exists. Yeah, it's a pretty easy fix.