MiG21bisFishbedL

It's been a while since I've read anything on the minutia of the Farmer series. I seem to recall that, due to bad PIO in testing, the MiG-19 did have some kind of mechanical or passive means of dampening inputs. It could be part of the ARU-2V FCS.

From what I've found, a two ship formation is the minimum size of an air patrol. As to be expected. Nothing terribly strange to be found here.

There are some cases where I agree, like trigger covers. However, it's no different than any learning curve in any other genre. Simulators always present a challenge and require you to learn. It's no different than picking up on the nuances of a boomer shooter's physics or sussing out what units are your best in a strategy game.

Then why would a singular injection of cash or even subscription make a dent in that case? Keep tilting at that windmill, though.

Hiromachi can correct me on this. I suspect he has better materials than I. I'd imagine: You're looking at the very precipice of this more modern generation of MiG-21 which includes the bis. MiG-21S and MiG-21M come to mind. So, two pairs of R-3S's would be the load out I'd believe you'd run into if patrols bumped into each other. If it's a longer range patrol, it'd be of course the triple tank with a single pair of R-3S's. The bis' performance isn't too far above that kind of MiG-21, too. Provided you don't take into account the emergency reheat where you do get a significant boost of power. But, you're also using the Tiger II, so you've got a significant power bump over the wimpy little A. Balances out a bit? If your fictional scenario grows into a greater conflagration (more than one mission), I'd expect -21 operations to prefer rockets in ground attack as opposed to bombs as the Soviets seemed to love their rocketry from what I've read and found. I can try to find more about numbers of aircraft in a flight, if you'd like.

I did. Did you read mine? Did you read others? Did you read where others have stated that it would have a meaningless impact given the money the proposed charge would bring in? Or the part where the subscription would have to be quite a bit more? Did you read where ED has stated they've no plans for this and they prefer their current model? And the core hasn't changed since LOMAC? There sure is a lot of code left over that could definitely stand to be disposed of and assets that need be updated, but we're getting AI revamps. We've seen map updates, fixes, new systems, and quite a bit more. That's a negativity bias if I've ever seen one. Some of the things are frustrating, there's no denying that. There's absolutely no denying that ED has some really bad priorities on what gets developed and what gets backburnered. You'll not hear me deny that. That'd be absolutely crazy. But, this is not an issue of resources but more an issue of priorities. By that token, what will more money going in really accomplish? Not much. It also sets a bad precedent, it tells the company they can squeeze more money out of consumers. Given that ED tries to appeal to a global market in which it has to address very disparate levels of disposable income across its customer base, it says to consumers in markets with tighter margins on their hobby cash that they demand a premium that could very well be seen as way too much. A pro subscription is not a good idea. For anyone. Let's throw all of the nice new stuff on a new branch or as an option that non-subscribers can't use. Even ones like me who own most of the content which I was lead to believe pays for their development in addition to money coming in from their government contracts. So, the people forking over the cash can enjoy buggy, incomplete features. Features that could even break the game, for subscribers and non-subscribers alike since we all play on the beta branch anyways. And, that's more software management that have to do, more coding they have to do, more work they have to do, and all to get a few thousand more annually? That won't really get you more coders to make a dent in what is desired to be done and this is all done at the risk of alienating the majority of the player base since the majority has made it quite clear how they feel on the subject. All that's left is for this thread to get locked, tbh. Then wait 2 months for the next one and watch the literal same conclusion be arrived at. A conclusion that, honestly, doesn't really matter since ED's made it pretty clear their position.

I don't understand how serious this is? Bud, I'm playing the same game you are. I have the same frustrations as you do, but a subscription isn't the cure. By their own admission. If a company is refusing more money, there's a good reason. ED has not indicated they have serious money troubles. ED has even said they're not planning to adopt a subscription. Several times. And, again, a subscription model isn't going to change a thing. As stated in this thread, it'd have to cost a lot more than $50 a year. The potential reaction from their niche customers is why. And yes, there is no free lunch. It's a good thing we buy the modules, then! At least I hope I'm not the only one, I'd like to find out how everyone got theirs for free, evidently. Core changes are happening, slowly but they are. The kind of cash yielded by subscription isn't going to change that. ED needs better resource and time management, throwing more money at the problem isn't going to fix it. Because, once again, I've already put a lot of money into DCS. If they say they want to cordon off core updates behind a pay wall when I've already bought several products? They won't get much more from me and I have a feeling I will not be alone. There's not a lot of customers out there willing to put down that kind of yearly money. Never give up attitudes are good, but should be examined when they start to become Sisyphean.

No, it really isn't. In fact, that's a horrible solution. There's already complaints that maps divide the community, adding a yearly paywall that would place already paying customers behind it and declare them as 'secondary' to people who pay a yearly 50 bucks is going to drive away a lot of customers, me included. Because, again, as an owner of most modules, where do I actually get more value out of this additional expenditure? Instead of the $80 or so I spend yearly on modules, it's now going to be $130 to access features which had been freely accessible to everyone prior? This reads as nickel and diming the consumer. I now have to spend more money to access the things I've already paid for. I really, really don't get where this idea that throwing more money at a problem is going to magically solve it. It isn't. ED has stated that they aren't tight on cash. If you really, really feel like throwing more money at ED, they got merch and you can always buy modules for friends. They'd be farther ahead ceasing DCS as a free product at that point, they might as well charge a $30 for the base simulator. Quick math: According to the DCS website, there's over 3,100 people playing DCS right now. It's not the whole base obviously and this figure will fluctuate as the day progresses, but let's assume it's the chunk of the player base that'd buy this pro subscription. At $50 a pop, that's $155,000 in revenue before you start divvying that up into profits taken by the company, into pay toward workers, support costs, etc. That's nothing. That's peanuts. After it's all said and done, that might not even be enough to get another programmer. No, you're not going to dump all that money into hiring another programmer, there's a lot of overhead to address as well. It's also key to remember that this is a generous assumption of how many would get pro. I anticipate few would. No matter where you outsource this work too, no matter which poor populace you exploit, you're not going to get a substantial enough hiring boom that it would make a difference in the rate we get core updates. On top of that, it could actually harm income from modules as players upset with the pro subscription divide stop buying them. This would then hurt the third party developers the most. I'm not sure I'd like to give a financial middle finger to Heatblur right about now. Suddenly, module sales drop and are replaced by subscriptions, subscriptions that cost less than a module, they have a smaller take over all, and now those core issues are even slower to be fixed. Revenue streams have to be thought out. They have to give the consumer some perceived value. Otherwise they don't just fail, they can risk damaging rapport with the customer base. ED has stated no subscriptions and for a good reason; they understand they have a niche market and they understand how fragile it can be. They have a pretty appreciable grasp on how much stress their customer base will take before they stop playing, as they've been to that threshold before.

We've had this discussions a few times, OP. 1. ED has stated that they aren't hard-up for funds. 2. How does a subscription benefit me, someone who owns most modules? There's little value to be had there for me. The amount of money reaped from subscriptions would prove to be minor when weighed against the response from the customer base. Even if it were met with ambivalence, the time and resources spent setting up the methods and infrastructure to do this would be better spent on addressing the core issues we lament, ironically. This ship sailed almost 10 years ago. There's no feasible way of walking that back and not angering customers. I love me some DCS World, but it's just a video game. I have no real loyalty to it. It has to compete for my time with other video games and other hobbies.

Every South American hardware spotter is trying to keep their schedules as wide open as possible now!

Well, with individuals like Tyler Rogoway and other such dudes who barely do any legwork and just reblog stuff they 'feel' is right or muck-rake, I'll stick to Jane's and other associated media. Or even first hand reports, since we do have that capacity now.

The joys of internet blogging replacing actual subject matter journalism.

170, to be accurate. If GA aircraft are to make into DCS, it's best to include ones with actual military variants. 337s > O-2A/B, with such a push for Vietnam as a theatre and conflict, a 337 running FAC would be real nice to have. Covey running FAC missions for a SOG recon team declaring Prairie Fire would be outstanding.

Then that's a critique of either DCS as a software or of DCS mission makers.

So a supersonic dart that can't turn, limited capabilities, and is fairly obscure compared to other Eastern bloc designs? You son of a pup, I'm in.

Yeah, that's the AI. That's just how it goes, sadly. Hopefully we see an improvement of the AI damage model at some point.

Yeah, but it leaves a pair of hideous blank masses in your view. Being able to fold them away or have them disappear all together by hitting M would be nice.

Holy Christmas, does it at least buy you dinner first?

Like I said, they were using another model as a placeholder. Their new model does look quite good. The model the originally showed off had a much lower polycount than ED wants to see, apparently.

I have not seen a 1660ti go for that much, though I've seen them spike. My 2060 has retained its value. Kinda funny.

It's been made quite clear that ED demands a certain level of visual fidelity in addition to all around accuracy. Also, pulling a relatively low polygon count model off of Turbosquid or another similar storefront for use in a DCS commercial release isn't a habit ED might appreciate. I suspect it was a merely a placeholder and not meant to be representative of an end product. They don't want another VEAO in any semblance, primarily in FM programming but also in the art. When they have something more substantive, I'm certainly they'll get a forum.

It's a point of frustration for some and understandably so. But, from what I understand, the original MiG-17 model the presented was just taken from Turbosquid and no where near up to the sort of fidelity ED expects in the art department. It looks like they've made some big leaps since, however. The process can seem a little arbitrary and even unfair to some, but at the same time this was the same standard Deka had to meet with its JF-17. If this gets us more releases like the JF-17 and teams like Deka? I'm very okay with it.

Once they prove to ED they can deliver a product with the fidelity demanded and have a contractual obligation, we'll see a subforum.