WinterH

I've been experiencing this since last 3-4 ish patches I think. So at least for a few months now. It seems to affect specific vehicles. BTRs, BMPs, Pz IVs seem to have no engine sound. But trucks etc seem to be fine. FWIW, I also have A-4 installed, but A-4 itself didn't get updated when this started occurring, DCS did however. It could still be the reason of course, perhaps...

Whatever you put into the mission editor meets each other, whatever you don't, don't. Simple as. "Why?! To pose an easier target for F-16 ?" is an entirely BS argument against anything. Answer to why would be: - To enjoy an old dog learning new tricks - Experience doing stuff in your favorite old birds in a modernized way - Novelty However, the answer should be preceded by another question, pertaining to "to pose an easier target for F-16", and that question would be "So what?" Normally, I'll also be against super modernized variants of a bird unless we get at least one proper version first. Well, we do already have MiG-21Bis, so that's just fine. I'd love a MiG-21F-13 too. But, I'd also love MiG-21LanceR, Bison, or especially a late J-7 a lot. Hell I'd love each one of them separately, all of them. PFM or any of the PF generation though, I couldn't care less about personally. Well funny you should say that, because AJS 37, unlike the AJ 37, is a mid 90s bird, so by your definition they don't meet in the air LanceR is too new, Bis is too old How come? Because, again, going by "only IRL things that can meet on the battlefield is valid", they are on the same side, so "they don't meet in the air". Oh, and, Viggen has never seen any conflict, ever. So it doesn't meet anything in the air, and shouldn't be in the sim I suppose. Which I call BS on, it is by far one of my most favorite things in DCS. As a bonus, a short list of things I'd prefer a modernized MiG-21 module instead of: - F/A-18E or F Super Hornet: "Less exciting than legacy Hornet for flying, more flat-screens tho". Yeah, I don't see this being much of an added value... - F-15C Eagle, FC3 is there for AA, Strike Eagle is coming as a full fidelity. - MiG-29A, imo the only thing about this particular bird is its flight characteristics, which are replicated in FC3 rendition anyway - Su-7: a total one trick pony, that isn't even a particularly interesting one at that - Bf-109G-6: lifelong 109 lover here, would buy almost all variants except this ugly middle child/mule. So it's the most produced variant? So what, I'm here to experience interesting aircraft done very realistically, not to reenact history. - Make-believe stuff like F-35 etc some people crave for whatever reason, on which there'll never be enough information this side of the century I can probably think more, but that provides the gist of it I'd say

Yeah, I've liked Strike Eagle a lot as a teen, but F-4E is a lot more down my alley.

F-15E has an excellent radar, very powerful engines, and AMRAAMs. It will be a very powerful contender in BVR, will be one of the best, probably THE overall best there until Eurofighter arrives. When it comes to dogfighting, it is both heavier and draggier than an F-15C, with some thrust. I don't know the exact number, but I'd say it is a safe assumtion that it's dogfighting performance should be less than F-15C. Also, at least initially, it won't have AIM-9X and JHMCS either, which could leave it vulnerable to aircraft with high off-boresight missiles paired with helmet sights in dogfight ranges. But, it should still be decent contender even there when flown well, and if the opponent makes a mistake.

Yeah, I'd most definitely love getting more red birds, helos/fixed wing alike. There's a few potentially coming though: - Either a Su-17M4 or Su-22M4 is potentially coming in (probably distant) future from Magnitude 3 or OctopusG - There is a new (not yet licensed from ED) studio working on a MiG-17F, hopefully they'll pull it off! - On the WWII side, a La-7 is apparently fairly close to release from OctopusG - And a semi Chinese, semi western avionics equipped J-8 II "Peace Pearl" is coming from Deka Ironworks - ED wants/hopes/teases to eventually make an early MiG-29A, or maybe G - Razbam is working on a MiG-23MLA which should hopefully be their next focus on new module development after F-15E Anything later seems like not very likely at all sadly. Now, that's not horrible for me, while I'd love some modern Flanker or Ka-52 etc, I actually like Cold War stuff way, way more myself, and anything past 2000s seems very hard to happen when it comes to Russian stuff. As for the Chinese, Deka seems not to be able to get permissions for anything fully domestic, so we get half-red birds like JF-17 and J-8II PP. I'd love more helicopters too. Mi-2URP, Mi-6 or even Mi-26 could all be really cool. ED keeps saying issues blocking them from making a Russian aircraft may not necessarily do the same for a 3rd party studio without developers who aren't Russian nationals/based in Russia. So there may be some hope perhaps, however none of the Su-30 customers seem any more likely to share information than Russia, so even then it'd be an early Flanker. Don't think it is too difference for Su-24 too. Still, there ARE lots of very cool Cold War era birds we can hopefully get sooner rather than later. As for more Chinese birds, I'm hoping Deka can make a late F-7 export model with double deltas and western avionics as that could hopefully be possible and fit with their theme so far.

If it is a feature, it seems to be a very strange one indeed. How and why, and according to what can we see it as a feature?

Looking forward to flying it!

I'd have long been done with DCS myself tbh.

Yeah, based on this I'd very much prefer -5 myself as long as water injection is possible to disable in mission editor like we have for P-47s it should be the best of both worlds for everyone. Not that I would bemoan -3, but if at all possible, I'd like my HVARs please, thank you very much However, the ideal scenario would be us getting both variants, and looks like the main module development differences would mostly be in cockpit and external art, and engine. Differences between the engines doesn't seem that big either. So it does seem having both variants may indeed be feasible as we have with P-47.

^Hype-fueled, assumption-driven pattern of thought (that leads to disappointment and raging) spotted

Not to mention that Phantom wasn't retired in many countries when most DCS players were born in all parts of the world, and in a few it still is actively flying. And frankly, I'd say popular culture appearances of the two are either same-ish or even a bit in favor of F-4. But this whole thread is an excersize in idle speculation. Strike Eagle and Phantom will both release when they will release... some of us will buy both, others will buy only one. I am personally A LOT more interested in Phantom, but will probably get F-15E too. I don't see the point of us discussing whether release of one will have an impact on the dates for the other.

Ah yes, these pre module release periods never ceases to be exquisitely amusing since late 2013 when I've started DCS. Clearly, people can never learn from experience and adapt accordingly when hype is involved.

Pretty sure I've said this before, but the only thing that equals my anticipation for a good Su-17M4 or at least Su-22M4 is the F-4E. One we're getting, the other I'd love to get confirmed

That almost certainly can't be it imo. Even if you wanted to have some reserve firepower that way, you'd still have the wwaiting guns trained at the intended target, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Unless, maybe you keep reserve for another target, but that seems like pushing it, leaving half your battery asleep just in case someone else shows up from some other direction, especially thinking you need as much saturation as possible with AAA. I highly doubt this is a "feature and not a bug".

I mean, just by looking at the screenshots, it is clear that they are, in practice, destroyed. This is a thing with most aircraft hit on ground in DCS, more apparent with relatively tougher ones like Mi-24, Su-25, A-10, P-47 etc. You'll shred them to bits, but they often won't register as a kill. I personally don't get hung up on it too much. If it's a single player mission, you have killed them, it's just arbitrary digital counter didn't tick up twice, if it's a multiplayer sortie, they ain't getting up, and you'll most likely get the kills awarded when they switch airframes, or you've denied them doing anything that matters. It isn't fully ideal, yes, but that's one of the remaining areas where handling of damage in DCS leaves something to be desired. But I don't think it is that critical unless the mission has triggers that revolve around those aircraft being registered as destroyed.

I also wonder about an actual answer to this. My impression has long been that; Russian units are named Igla-S, insurgents are named Igla, but in practice they seem to fire the exact same missile with same capabilities. As an aside, I really believe we need more MANPADS types in DCS that range from old to new and east to west. At the very least Strela-2 and Redeye would be nice. But ideally we'd have in addition to those older Stinger blocks, Strela-3, their Chinese equivalents, Igla-1, Igla, Igla-S, as well as maybe some more oddball stuff like blowpipe etc. Even during the Vietnam War, Strela-2 was a present threat for helicopters and prop aircraft. As it is, we are forced to either leave out any form of MANPADS for 60s-70s scenarios, or make it unfair for aircraft of that vintage by pitting them against a late-ish Stinger or Igla, both options are unrealistic in their own way. Besides, older MANPADS are arguably still an ever present threat all around the world even if modern aircraft are a lot less likely to catch one.

Bloody hell move on folks... This isn't nearly as big a deal as some of you make it to be. Nor is it unprecedented. If anything this thing will be more of a real thing than what we have in Black shark 3... And even Black shark 2 is essentially a prototype bird. So is Su-25T. Is it ideal, is it the variant I would have liked? No and no. Is it nearly as bad as some of you seem to think? Hell no it's not. Besides, ED shouldn't have allowed it? Sorry but that's just preposterous. This isn't like RAH-66 where most systems probably weren't even completed. This also isn't like F-35 or Su-30 etc where things are completed IRL, but we ain't getting know what they are and how they work. Personally I'd prefer a Q-5 or J-7 over this by far, but this is cool/different/unique enough. And why ED approved it? Well as Nine line said: because it clearly matches ED's now stricter than some years ago criteria for licensing a 3rd party dev for a module. Also there were discussion about uboats being a source or not, AFAIK he is one of the devs in Deka, not just a moderator, so there's that. This doesn't mean we're getting X-Wing or Tie Fighter next. This doesn't even mean next modules will be F-16XL or Ye-8.

Sigh... you know, I can write a pretty long post quoting and replying to multiple people from both sides but, what's the point? I'll just say that, DCS community has such a unique ability in that, they can make me vehemently disagree with BOTH sides of a heated debate on something. I've already stated that I'm somewhat disappointed, but also just mildly excited in an earlier post in this thread, so, there, I have some thought I share with both detractors and celebrators. But both sides' "black and white" look at many things is just frankly tiresome. I'll only make a few points: - Yes, expressing negative thoughts, grinding as it may be, is often at least as important as doing the same with positive thought. If anything, I'll readily say that it contributes a lot to the health of whatever is receiving that feedback. Random knee-jerk white-knighting however, doesn't. Only thing the latter serves is to rile up people into being even less reasonable. - This variant, from what I can find, was in fact has a couple prototype airframes built, and they were test flown in US. Yes, it was never operational. Yes, this is less than ideal. But every piece of avionic from either China or USA that was put on it are pretty well known things by now, and there is no reason to assume a prototype that was built and tested wasn't documented as the process went. If that is the case, I'll just go ahead and say that if anything this is going to be something grounded in reality more than what we have in Blackshark 3, which I have some reservations about as much as I like it. - Since Deka will apparently give us an AI J-8F, which is a completely domestic and in service variant of the bird, but give us an odd-ball prototype that was never in service and has US avionics, it appaers like this is probably the only one they can make at a DCS standard with info legally available to them. IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THEY COULD CLEARLY COMMUNICATE THIS OF COURSE. But hey ho... Otherwise we'll have to stick with getting samey aircraft from same few countries. Deka even said early on that they consider making a western jet as their second module years ago after the first release of JF-17, and we as a community said "please no". This is a compromise, one most of us from either side of blue/red aircraft lovers will have issues with, sure. But seems like one that was necessary to get us a different red(ish...) bird. - I for one, don't care too much about this country or that country. I like planes, for the most part. F-16, I've never liked, is the main fighter of my country forever, and I like some aircraft and liveries operated by the countries/regimes I don't care for. I want as many cool, obscure, interesting aircraft from as many places as possible. And I do like them red birds. Could be that "grass is greener on the other side" syndrome (even though that isn't quite how I feel), or because of the fact that we just rarely had them simulated throughout decades, and we still don't have many of them made. So if we can a cool obscure red bird that was actually made and documented as a prototype, as much as I'd prefer a domestic and full production variant, I'll still say YES. "Nobody asked for this", yeah, let's assume nobody did... so what? - I guess we (well mostly) all agree that we want aircraft DCS to be as realistic as possible, and we don't generally want made up, guesstimated, ufo things if at all possible. I am that way at least. Well, let's make it perfectly clear here: probably NONE of the existing modules fully fit that criteria. Including many, many of the blue birds. Mirage 2000 is one of the best modules now, after like 8ish years since its initial release... when they got a new programmer who was basically a Mirage 2000 nerd, and when they also got cooperation from AdA. Until that, it had a lot in it that was just plain and pure guesstimated, even its then devs admitted to it about a few things like symbology etc. I personally still don't have much faith in its flight model, but that's just me, and apart from that it is legitimately one of the best modules now. Yet it has always been one of the most popular modules before too... MiG-21Bis, used to be one of my favorites, was developed by a person who was actively flying that very type in Serbian air force at the time too. Yet, miraculosuly, it still has many systems that are just plain wrong, and throughout its existence in DCS, it went through like 6-8ish flight models with wildly different characteristics at the edges of envelope, where it's interesting to fly... and that's a bird as unclassified as it gets. What I'm getting is... a well documented prototype with mostly obsolete foreign tech may not be nearly as far off documentation and realism wise from our favorite existing modules... not nearly as much as many of you seem to think...

I'll say it honestly: I am at the very least somewhat disappointed. But it is still somewhat interesting, and I'll probably get it. Any Q-5, I'd have vastly preferred, a late J-7, I'd have vastly preferred. I know Su-30 is very unlikely, but even as someone who doesn't care much for later birds, I'd have vastly preferred. Even J-10 would be somewhat more unique. But, given the latest hints, I was ready to learn to like a J-8, but any other J-8 II variant over this, I'd have vastly preferred... Anyway, with that out of the way, it was probably more feasible to get information on this abortive variant with known-quantities for avionics, than the ones with Chinese avionics.

I'll preface my post with saying I don't personally care too much about maps, and I'm pretty happy with Syria and Caucasus, don't even use Marianas and Channel even though I have them installed. That said, there are a couple even I'd be looking forward to: one is the upcoming Kola Peninsula, but I have strong reservations as I really don't like satellite image based textures in flight simulation maps, as I personally think that they look awful at low altitude, where most of our time is spent in helicopters and strike jets, or eventually even in dogfights. But Orbx seems to have a reputation of doing it well, so we'll see. The other one I'd really like to see being made and isn't yet announced by anybody is Fulda Gap. Central Europe is beautiful and varied geographically, and is the quintessential area for "Cold War gone hot" nightmares of late Cold War era. Though, object density in a proper Fulda Gap map may be about as bad as a potential Vietnam map (which I don't care for), and the latter isn't feasible right now as far as we know.

I'd by far prefer -5 with more ground pounding options if we only ever get one variant. Hopefully we can get both though. But I don't have a lot of faith we'll get both, back when Fw-190A was in dev, devs were saying F and/or G models were also being considered as a future addition, and clearly that fell by the wayside.

Radar part I'm not entirely sure, it either had the same or a slightly upgraded version of the same radar I think, but don't exactly remember now. It will however have a more modern HUD, an ICP under it, and an MFD. It will also have CCIP and CCRP for its bombs. Don't know if MFD will include something like a map, or at least a display of waypoints on it. Should be interesting to find out EE will probably remain my favorite version however

I believe this is also somewhat map dependent. Caucasus map's trees are kinda insane yeah. I admit there can be trees of that size, but they'd be exceptions, rather than basically the entire population, especially for urban areas where you'd expect trees to be younger. Those on Syria are less insane I think. I don't fly other maps often enough to say anythin on the trees on those, infnact I only have Marianas and Channel other than Caucasus and Syria. Bigger trees to require less of them does make some sense to be honest though.

No, very much module, as great majority of existing DCS modules were made with teams consisting of mostly part timers and contractors, including programming side. I think even ED works with contractors sometimes, but I believe in their case it's more often on the art or other less critical sides. Working part time, or working with non-permanent contractors is pretty much an industry standard. Yes, it may come with a greater risk of burnout for devs, yes it may take longer overall, but it also makes things even possible at all in the first place. Well careful with that purchase! As far as I know, Razbam's flight model coder isn't a full time DCS dev either, it may damage your DCS meticulousness!