Schmidtfire

I don’t really understand the issue here. It’s well know that the NCTR and IFF process is not simulated in-depth in DCS. NCTR and IFF (in DCS) check if the aircraft belong to Red or Blue coalition. That’s it. No, it does not get any info from the intakes/fanblades etc. I think what Bignewy tried to state, is that with the new DTC implementation, there will be more variables. Not just a Red or Blue coalition check.

Since the J-8II is an interceptor. Does it feature systems and steering cues for GCI? Also interesting to know, did the Peace Pearl have IFF interrogator?

Found this very interesting bit on Fighter Pilot Podcast. https://youtu.be/9uKCnIdXKPQ?t=3543 The MiG-29G (A) could simulate R-27ER missile shots. With the correct symbology and expanded engagement envelope. Maybe it was not flown with that missile operationally, but the capability was certainly there and not restricted to the MiG-29S variant.

It is what it is. Im intrigued and will buy based on the work Deka did on JF-17. Unique and interesting for sure. And yes, everyone that plays DCS wants a Flanker (or Fulcrum). But that is really for ED to solve with a deluxe semi-full fidelity FC3 DLC or maybe requesting a 3rd party to do a Full Fidelity module. But Deka is well underway since years back with the J8PP development. They want to do it. So lets embrace their choice for what it is or let it go. If we want flyable ”Redfor” aircraft in DCS, we need to get comfortable with a little bit of creative liberty while keeping it as plausible as possible.

Prototype or not. It’s not really the main issue here (I think) This is really no different from the approach of the JF-17. West and East tech in the same airframe. Hardcore ”Redfor” fans don’t like it because it’s too close to Blufor jets. It was the same with the JF-17. It’s a bit niché that targets players who enjoy both East and West modules.

Interesting! Will Deka get the correct info and data on all this? From what I have read, only 2 (!) Peace Pearl prototypes was fitted with the western avionics. Incomplete and cancelled around 1989-1990. Im sure Deka can dig up info on individual systems, but maybe guesswork on how they are tied together? Anyways, interesting choice, will buy Day 1

Hmm... Is this maybe a bigger DCS World issue? Several modules calculate insufficient lead when using a radar gunsight. With bullets falling behind target even in a gentle turn.

Im a bit curious about this aswell. Reading instruments, MFD’s, spotting. Currently playing at 1440p on a 27”. But Im contemplating trying DCS on a reasonably good 1080p LED projector, without spending too much on it.

WWII... Korea... sure. But don't forget the 1969 Soccer War. Corsair vs Mustang https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-Soccer-War.pdf With the P-51D, TF-51, C-47 (AI), F4U, South Atlantic map.... could be reasonably close and a rather interesting scenario.

Technically, you could probably go low alt level release with HD bombs with a manual release. Put a waypoint over target and a final fix not too far away. Not a great solution but should be helpful for striking targets at night.

Exactly. Emphasis is on nearly. Why would pushing a button make a difference? It is a quality of life feature in the same way autostart/autostop and pre-aligned ins is. Or the ability to remove the radar glareshield. Never flown like that IRL. But that does not count as a type of cheat to get better visibility? Just asking for a quality of life option. Nothing more. Wouldn’t make much difference in terms of gameplay, except the need to manually declare every contact.

No. Not at all. Why would it be cheating? It’s just like auto start/stop, pre-aligned ins and other quality of life features. It saves a button on the joystick (or digging through the radio menu)) There is still a delay between asking for a Declare and getting the answer. The IFF still happens over the radio with EW or AWACS. No radio comms = no IFF

My wish is implementation of a new Special Options setting. If player locks contacts at BVR range it would automatically trigger a DECLARE radio call to the nearest EW or AWACS unit (if present in the mission)

Depends on point of view I guess. If you are just looking to add another module into your collection... Yes, it is on the expensive side. There are other modules with much more features and content. But if you really love MB339 the price is fair and you get a quality simulation of your favourite aircraft. I can only speak for myself but I would be more intrigued to get it at a lower pricepoint. On the other hand, developers needs to get paid for their work. It's not only getting a product out of the door, there are years of upkeep attached when new bugs emerge or graphics that needs to be updated as the DCS engine evolves.

The range of the WMD-7 is not great IRL. Just check the brochure. Target detection at around 20km (or 11nm) with identification at 15-17km (8-9nm). Also worth noting is that Pakistan bought ASEL pods from Turkey instead of integrating the WMD-7. From what I know, only Nigeria has bought WMD-7 for their JF-17's. Maybe Im wrong here, or maybe it's bad press.. But I wouldn't be surprised if our WMD-7 pod in DCS actually overperforms. Especially in terms of image quality and stabilization. Im pretty sure we can identify targets beyond 8-9nm... but need to test that before drawing a conclusion.

Im not sure you are correct. Weapons that concerns ED current (or upcoming modules) are developed by ED. Or do you actually think ED invests both time and money into developing something like the "Cold War" R530 or Super 530F specifically for the Mirage F1? Those missiles are not a concern for the Hornet/Viper playerbase, so Im not sure ED spends time developing them. My guess is 3rd party (maybe with input from ED)

Im ready for the F1M

But.. the propeller, or rather texturing of propeller is why this is a particular issue with DCS WWII in VR. While we can discuss origin of the issue back and forth, the solution is still making the propellers and their textures VR friendly. It works great on the P-51D compared to the other props. I think you might overthink this issue a bit. There are several mods out there to fix this issue. It shouldn't be difficult to add a Special Option for "VR friendly" propeller textures. If anyone could run DCS 90fps without reprojection, we would not have an issue in the first place But we can't and that's why there is a need for a fix. And while such textures might not be used anymore, why couldn't it be an option for VR?

+1

What I really miss at the moment is a Free Fire option for George AI. There are many situations when I am facing large formations of soldiers and vehicles. Sometimes under fire. Gun selected. IT MAKES ZERO SENSE in that situation to designate every single individual soldier, truck and btr. I want George to be able to fire and engage the entire group in rapid succession. It’s essential when using the Gun.

Looking at the little bit of real world footage and screenshots we do have... The monitor always has a very high contrast. Makes a lot of sense too since the system tracks on object contrast. Most likely vehicles and tanks would be very dark against the background, Much darker than even Hobel's screenshots. Just look at the contrast on those trees and fence. Like a silhouette.

Regarding Shkval color. It depends on what version of Television Monitor IT-23 is installed. I have only seen yellow/green-ish appearance from real life footage. Black & White on recorded footage (most likely recorded internally) but not from monitor in cockpit. @Chizh can probably share some more info as this subject has been discussed over the years, but I think ED originally modeled it black & white because they found that new black & white version IT-23VM (ИТ-23ВМ) was installed on the Ka-50 #24 and #25. Since we are dealing with a prototype helicopter, maybe a selection in Special Options for monitor color would be a nice touch?

Is there a way to declutter the IHADSS? On the Hornet, Warthog or Viper the JHMCS/HMCS is very customizable to the point where you can have only the crosshair visible.

Not being an expert but I expected the MK60 to be closer to the MK47. All sources I have seen point to them being rated at the same speed range and altitude. In DCS they have been very different. I have yet to come across a Pilot or RIO interview where they bring up motor differences. Only differences between A and C model. Also found some other interesting info: The AIM-54 can have varying active distances depending on the target size switch in the RIO's pit as this switch changes when the AWG-9's WCS sends the active command to the missile. Target size small sends the active signal at 6 nms Target size normal sends the active signal at 10 nms Target size large sends the active signal at 13 nms Much like the target size settings on the JF-17/SD-10, but I have not verified the source. AIM-54C Speed: Mach 5+ Propulsion: Rocketdyne (later Hercules) Mk47 Mod 1 Propellant type: HTPB Thrust: 13,595N for 27 seconds Aerojet Mk60 (some squadrons equipped their AIM-54Cs with their remaining Mk60 motors) Propellant type: CTPB Thrust: 17,793N for 20.6 seconds