FlankerKiller

Delays happen. Personally I would rather ED wait until all the features listed on the early access feature list are polished, and the FM is in a very good state. I don't mind testing for bugs, and waiting on a few hard to implement features to be ready. But I don't want it to feel like a totally different aircraft ether. The MI-24 has been really nice development so far. I hope ED keeps this trend up. Products that are more complete and more polished on release tend to be far better received.

Well you basically just agreed with my main point. "The EM diagrams are not publicly available". So no way to have an exact FM anywhere close to 1%. So it's not a simulation of a Hornet or a Viper. So why be a stickler about loadouts, exact wepons, exact pods. Etc etc etc. I don't disagree that the older products were of better quality. But again that also my point. We are almost four years into development on the Hornet, and Three in on the Viper. And they are not done within 1% or 2% in any way. And then what should have been a bad ass video pushing both these modules tums into "well it shouldn't do that". Again they are not the only voices saying that same thing. So still in development BS is kinda played out at this point. So yeah the older products were very fucking accurate. And the big name 4th gens not so much. So far the Mi-24 seems to be coming along. And I'm hoping the Apache is going to be up to the same old quality. As for the 4th gens. Maybe they are best left to a time when they can be properly simulated. Or enjoyed as the close approximation arcade games that they are. That was not what I was expecting when I put my money down. To me I don't see the point in pushing strict realism in one area of you are not adhering to it in every area. But it's kinda gotten to a point for me that it's past making it right. If the Apache is anything but butter and praise through it's development cycle then it will be the last module form ED that I buy. At least modern one anyway. You will not change my mind, and I will not change yours. So I'm done responding to this.

The A-4 is free. It should have some systems in common with the F-4E. It will get you used to a fully clickable cockpit. And with 2.0 the flight model feels good too. I can't speak to it's accuracy, but really who can on any of these. The F-5E is pretty cheap. And it's really simple to boot. The F-4E will sit somewhere between them and the F-14A in technology. If money is tight get the A-4, and save up for the F-4E. I suspect it'll be here quicker then most think. The A-4 will get you used to tactic and aircraft handling.

I get the excitement, but I've never understood this concept. Each jet is it's own beast. And the F-4E is going to be a unique one at that. It's like an analog Hornet. Lots of switches. It's from the same ear as the Viggin, Tiger, Fishbed, Tomcat A model, and Mi-24. It will be interesting.

As to commercial sims and DCS. I've flow a few comercal Sims and it's hard to compare. DCS was the closest at the time for sure. But at the time the gulf was wide. I would still say the atmosphereics in the comercal sims are far better, but it's definitely closer. As for FMs. Commercial sims don't really model the edges of the envelope. The edge of the envelope is where combat sims live. We literally only have EDs word that what they are putting out is accurate. Ever since the Viper released people from "the other sim" have been saying it's under performing in BFM. Then a video comes out of real Viper and Hornet driver's in VR. Guess what, it looks exactly like what the "other sim" guys have been saying for three years now. Add to that the recent FM changes in the Hornet, and a picture starts to form. It's a fun game for sure, but I think we can all take that most realistic combat flight simulator claim with giant heaps of salt. So yes I've moved from the total realism to the game play camp. Because it's really not all that realistic. Maybe some interested third party will come out and validate everything. Or maybe ED will fix the discrepancies. But after almost four years I kinda don't trust them on the whole realism thing anymore.

Yeah talk to text failed me on that one. I meant to say when totally independent SMEs verify a module the I will begin to believe that is anything more then a fancy arcade game.

Technically I'm questioning Eagle Dynamics competency and their integrity. One of the two big gen four modules is wrong. Or they both are, or they all are. And yes I am questioning the integrity of any who is paid by, affiliated with, or who benefits from Eagle Dynamics as an extension of my questioning of both Eagle Dynamics is competency and integrity when it comes to the fourth generation fighters. We as a community took way to much at face value. The scientific method requires peer review. So yeah, when a SME that is in not one single way affiliated with Eagle Dynamics independently verifies the flight model then I question if this is anything more then a shiny arcade game. I took an F-18C for a nice little spin around Groom lake today with no wings. Where dose that fit into they're international SME opinion on the flight model? I'm of the opinion that ED bit off way more then they could chew with both the Viper and the Hornet. I believe that inorder to keep the backlash down they cut corners thinking that few people would notice. And I believe that some people have noticed. Now with both the Viper and Hornet in unfinished inaccurate states the Apache is about to drop. And the 4th gens are about to get abandoned. So again when one or preferably more INDEPENDENT SMEs verify the Viper in particular, and any module in general I will consider them nothing more then a fun arcade game, and set my expectations appropriately.

So I did some testing. Aircraft used were the F-14B, F-16C, F-18C, and F-15C. All flights started from the runway at Groom Lake, it seemed an appropriate setting. All jets were fully fueled, and loaded with two heaters and two medium range missiles. All test were on the deck. I was able to make several 10+G excursions in the Tomcat with no damage at all. Flaps worked, no lose of gyros. I didn't try to rip the wings off. I was able to sustain 10+G until I ether ran out of energy, or was on the verge of GLOC. In the Hornet I was only able to get above 10G in brief pulses. I could I could however sustain 9+G until GLOC, or lose of sufficient energy. I then hit the Gain switch. The Wings separated from uncontrollabe porpoising at about 550KIAS. As long as I was above 300KIAS I could control the wingless bug. The F-15 had similar results to the Tomcat. I was however curious as to if the wings could brake so I broke them, twice. It seems to be a hard limit at 11G. No damage from sustained 10+G pulls as long as the 11G limit wasn't hit. And now the Viper. I was completely unable to get the Viper to 10G. Also I only loaded it with AIM-9Xs on the wing tips. I really had a difficult time getting 9G. 9.8G at 550KIAS was the best I could do. But again there were no ill affects to the airframe. My conclusion is overG can be exploited by all aircraft tested, and likely all aircraft in DCS. So if some kind of cumulative damage API can be modeled then sure. But real world experience tells me that even significant structural damage wouldn't be noticable from the cockpit. It's a game cheat to ride the paddle. But you However the Hornet's damage model is <profanity>. I can only assume that is because of the coming damage model. Even the FC3 jets have vastly more detailed damage modeling then the full fidelity Hornet after three years of development.

That all matches my experience with hunting for said damage. I'm definitely interested in GLOC mechanics in DCS. Different jets, different suits, and especially pilot fitness level are all factors in GLOC. It's a real world limiting factor, and a pilot killer. As for cumulative airframe damage over time. That would be really cool in the dynamic campaign that is scheduled to arrive right after commercial nuclear fusion and room temperature, at home quantum computers, that can run it become available. Until then it's not really a thing.

Mover is covering his ass. He has a relationship with ED and puting egg on their face isn't good for that. Also I definitely never saw any part where he defended the Vipers FM. He said the Hornet was close, though Gonky said it gains speed back too quickly. They did a pretty damn good job of casting doubt on the Viper. So at this point I don't really care what ED's paid SMEs say. Getting the FM correct seems like it should be number one priority. After that maybe get out and do some rest pilot <profanity> and actually show where you are in relation to the EM diagram. I believe the Viper enthusiasts deserve that. But yeah, since we will never have true realism in DCS there is a line of realistic enough.

They are not new no. But they also aren't quite "old" in the way you are thinking. Every few years they go to a depot facility for major inspection. They get basically disassembled and the structure checked for cracks and fatigue. This isn't just a visual check ether. Onec they come out they are basically refurbished. It's also at this point that alot of airframes get scraped, and they're parts put back into the system. Now to the Cat. Who said the Tomcat is unrealisticlly modeled? It has massive tail surfaces with massive authority. It has no FWB protection. It has no way to limit the amount of G the piolet can pull. Plus it's older technology. I doubt the "gyros" on the Cat and the Bug are anything close to the same. In that I suspect the Cat has true Gyros. So if you roll the <profanity> out of the Cat they get out of alignment. There are other modules that do this. The F-86 has really good over G and avionics degradation moddled. The Hornet is newer, particularly our Hornet. If it's anything like the newer jets I worked on its gyros aren't really gyros. So they're less susceptible to G forces or rolling. It has full FWB. So really you will only ever get it to do what the computer let's you do. That's a big deal too. You are not flying a Hornet. There is no direct control form your stick to the control surfaces. Your input gose into a computer, then the computer moves the control surfaces through the hydrologic system. I doubt you can really break the jet under normal circumstances. If the structure was already weakend then maybe. The greatest killer in over G is GLOC period. The complaint that the Hornet is somehow cheating by using the paddle is likely not from how unrealistic it is to use the paddle. But form how badly the F-16 is under performing in BFM. Because if it was coming around as it should the Hornet wouldn't have a chance in a rate fight paddle or no paddle.

Because that isn't the direction DCS went with. I, and other cold war lovers like me, are stuck with the ultra modern SPAMRAAM fight between two U.S. aircraft. It's that or just don't play flight sims at all. So here we are.

Yeah and having to hit the deck and notch isn't really staying in a fight. A clean Hornet loaded two by zero by two has ok Kinematics. But only two AMRAAMS is a real disadvantage. The double rack is really drag inducing. So now you aren't close to first shot at all. All the while the Viper is overspeeding by alot at 40K. So you are double disadvantaged ether way. Single rails are a compromise. Yes you can dump the double rail, but it already forced you to ground just by being there. Was it used IRL, I have no idea. There hasn't been a tone of air combat since Desert storm. And it what there has been has been pretty one sided.

Watch the recent mover and Gonky fight. Because an F-16 fighter pilot shows in Tachview and in the sim the F-16 massively over speeding. Not being able to pull the correct G in BFM, and pulling 30° AOA. Two fighter pilots getting a good laugh at your flight model isn't a great look. So since we have abandoned all realism with the Viper, and since in FOX3 fights pure Kinematics is actually very very important, and since both piolets have stated that the Hornet is pretty good, if a little over powered. And since those double racks do simulate a good bit of drag. I think leveling the playing field with a real option, although one not used on the U.S. Hornets is acceptable. Personally I'm absolutely disgusted with everything about EDs Viper. IRL I personally hate the Viper as a fighter, but damn make it realistic at least. Until that POS module gets a new FM, and it's reviewed by an independent Viper pilot I really don't give one <profanity> about "realism" in DCS.

I've done twenty years as aircraft maintenance in the Air Force. Six as an APG, and the rest as an electrician. I've actually done over G inspections, and found damage. It isn't like you think. One outside of training the air crew will do what they have to to win. Two the Jets are over built. You can jam the flaps on the cat because you can lower them at speeds that would jam them. Most over speed damage I've seen is small cracks, and delamination. I'm not a Hornet guy, but I suspect that FWB won't let you truly over speed the flaps on the Hornet. Also the paddle doesn't turn the FWB off it just moves the limits. For one fight you would probably have cracks, but those carrier jets are tough. If it was done over and over and over for several fights then you might have a problem. As for the avionics, well you don't want realism there. That <profanity> brakes regardless of how you fly. But fighter avionics are tough. They have to be. I doubt that pulling that paddle and wining the fight would break much in the short term. Long term for sure. But who gives a <profanity> if you lose the airframe next phase. If you break the enemy air force it's worth the trade. And no don't ask a hornet driver. They haven't done what we simulate in most of there carriers. And they don't burn up the airframe in training. For lots of reasons. GLOC being a big one. And honestly in DCS that will get you before you can really break the jet. It will also limit the "cheating". Doesn't matter if the jet hods 10G if you black out. Would it be cool if damage built up cmulitively? Sure, hell it might. But unrealisticlly making the jet more fragile then it is isn't really a good way. In Desert Storm F-15s recorded up to 13G. It's part of air combat. So is GLOC, and honestly that's a bigger part IRL.

Yes please.

Please take your time. The community will come out with pitch forks if this thing isn't in pretty good shape when it's released. The AH-64 is likely the biggest model you ever made. After the MI-24 I have no doubt you will bring the most accurate simulation of the Apache ever to market. Even I'm excited about it, and I'm not a fan at all of the direction DCS took. Plus if I understood your news letter you had people get sick with Covid 19. I hope they all feel better, and no one got too sick. Peoples health trump's any game. Make it right, and we will love it.

Of the SU-24? My understanding is if Russia is flying it then it's a no go. And god I wish. I hate anything after the end of the cold war. Personally I wish ED would focus on the 80s hard core. Maybe do a Fulda Gap map. Maybe a modernized channel map. Maybe a Germany map. I would love to fly both sides of that fictional conflict. Maybe a Southern Iraq map. So many cool and unique aircraft. What a wasted opportunity.

I don't want total superiority in BVR. I want a chance. Honestly I'm torn on the Erofighter. On the one hand I want to support Heatblure. But on the other I'll never even install it. I do think it's going break online play. But hay.

Mig-29A isn't in service either. So I was hopeful. But apparently it's stalled now. BS isn't getting the new systems that it was going to get. Apparently not even an RWR. That's in a news letter. The SU-24 is in service. So fat chance of Russian approval. I would buy an SU-24 day one. But there is zero chance of it happing.

My point is to play the F/A-18C in any way that I give one <profanity> about I'm already "breaking reality" hard core. So I don't care if the Swiss pylon was ever mounted on U.S. jets because it damn well could have been. I doubt McDonald Douglas made a whole new hard point. And because we do things in the sim that just didn't get done IRL. And having to eat that damn drag penalty sucks. Can't fly as fast, as high, or as far. And the main opponent has a make believe flight model so that hurts even more. So sense realistic is out the window, and the Hornet is already at a massive disadvantage, I don't really care if it's perfectly realistic or not to mount a single rail. Especially since it was done on a version of the Hornet. Doesn't matter want I want ED already did it. The Hornet has already made most of the sales it's ever going to make so there is no reason for them to care any way. Just sucked to get used to some air to air loadouts to loose them, and have to eat a completely ridiculous drag and weight penalty to use the same loadout. Kinda ruined the jet there. But hay that's the way the stupid ass U.S. DOD did it so that's the way it is. My other angle is I'm not just talking to all of you. ED reads this and I'm talking to them. Even though they modeled a 2005 Hornet it's really meant to be used as a generic Hornet. Anyone who wants to fly any kind of historical mission has to fly unrealistic loadouts. So why not let it have the Super Hornet or Swiss pylon. As it's just as realistic as our Hornet in the campaign they made for it.

It's not about the pylon, I don't really care as I wouldn't be carrying amrams anyway. I don't really give a <profanity> about air combat after the fall of the Soviet Union. Although the modern ear is heating up. At first the F/A-18C was going to be an earlier block. Then it changed. I would much much prefer a C model that was used in Desert Storm. Or maybe an A module from the 80's. Or both, I would gladly pay for both. So dropping walleyes, and performing SLAM attacks with our 21st century Hornet feels about as realistic to me as mounting a Swiss pylon would to you. I've raised to issue that our jet represents The Hornet long after its hay day ended. I don't give one s*** about representing OIF in a video game. I was involved in it, and I'm not very proud of that. What I would like to represent, is a cold word on hot scenario, desert Storm, a fictional late '80s early 90s war with Iran. But to do so I, and any other cold war lover is told to just "nurf" the Hornet we have. Which people who know the jet keeps saying isn't realistic anyway. Apparently it's nowhere near complete. Sooo, sense I already using an unrealistic Hornet in unrealistic scenarios I don't see the issue in using an unrealistic but real pylon. Sorry but DCS never really lived up to it's "design philosophy". So I see no reason to hold to that level of detail now. But it is what it is. I've seen enough of the Hornet to know I would love a late 80's and or early 90's block. But once the real cold warriors come out I'll shelve this ultra modern 21 century goat herder murder machine. If ED ever decides to give us a bird that actually ever got within a thousand miles of a bandit, at least one from this world, then I'll re-examine my position.

Well one fix would be for ED to do a Swiss Hornet. Yeah honestly I'm pretty unhappy with the Hornet we got, and the whole direction DCS took. So I'm not going to be a happy little consumer. And when the jet I didn't gets nurfed in the name of realism. All the while the it's only real in game opponent has a total advantage in BVR due to an unrealistic flight model. All in a game that started by simulating an amalgam of an aircraft that had something like 12 prototypes, and calling it realistic. I'm okay with some concessions that fit into real configurations that were really done with the real airplanes in the name of maxing the drag coefficient to even have a chance to be in the fight. You know maybe I won't buy the Apache after all, because I know that I'm going to hate it. Good news for me is in 3 to 5 years it looks like the cold war is going to be filled out and I will never touch this aircraft again. So ignore me not really a happy consumer.

What wires, what cannon plugs, what boxes? I'm asking as an actual military aircraft electrician. Pylons are usually wired to the aircraft. Yes new wiring would probably be nessasry for a new weapons but the AMRAMM is not a new weapon. That and just because some wires are changed IRL doesn't mean the any pilot interactions are changed. Personally I hate the Hornet we got so I'm a biased opinion. Add to that that our Hornet got completely nerfed against the totally unrealistic F-16, and I don't see the issue in one small very possible exception to loadouts realism. But again <profanity> it, Im board with this. As I said the day that ether an A-6, or A-7 drops will be the last day I fly the Hornet.

You know that paddle is there for a reason right. Also remember there is not one serving U.S.A piolet that has see actual air to air combat. The last real fights were in eastern Europe in the 90s. You don't pull the paddle in training, because you don't want to prematurely wear the jet out. But in combat, if it's pull the paddle or die, your gonna pull that paddle. If it's cause maintenance of bad night, but kill that bandit. You will pull that paddle. There are lots of things not done in training that would be done in combat.