Schmidtfire

Thanks. I have already seen that video In my opinion, it is not enough footage to jump into EA. I want to see "Petrovich AI" in action, how the guided missiles works, sounds, navigation, the multiseat functionality etc. A meaty presentation with few edits what to expect on Day 1. For all we know there might be 6-36 months of frustrations in store... Worst case scenario I can wait until there is a sale down the line. But I think it is a very reasonable to ask for a proper showcase before it is released.

What is perceived as realism is highly subjective. As I previously wrote, there is already many issues with the view system within DCS. Will it be more realistic because big canopy reflections and a gunsight you cannot see through? Replicating what a fighter pilot sees on current software and hardware is extremely difficult, if not impossible. We are already at a big disadvantage trying to pick up aicrafts and objects compared to real life. So that is why Im very doubtful that these big reflections gives the overall experience that a real fighter pilot would have. Instead it might push us further away from what is realistic. I really do like the new reflections, my objection is that they come on very strong in the current flat screen environment. It is what it is... not much to do about it. But the sight glass has to be fixed... that is extreme.

This is not entirely correct. This guy could see fighters at 24 miles. Extraordinary, but possible. In theory your arguments are very valid, but flying in DCS the reality is somewhat different. One of the biggest advantages since birth of aviation - height, doesen't work properly in DCS because of spotting mechanics. You also have to factor in the strange zoom/fov/lod behaviour, the dynamic range, contrast and color compared to real life. VR helps a great deal compared to a flat screen as fighters doesn't "blend" into the background as easily. Im currently using a 3440x1440 screen and honestly I don't see much. Not at long ranges, not at medium ranges, not at close ranges. Dotted labels help, but it ruins the immersion a bit. Back to the new reflections. They look fantastic, not questioning that. But the strenght of the reflections becomes sort of a problem dealing with all the current issues and limitations above. I guess we just have to deal with that for the time being. As MBot wrote above, the biggest issue right now is the gunsight glass, if that is fixed then I think we will be ok for the time being. At least Magnitude 3 is early adopters and that is a good sign

Did not know Marines deployed together with the Navy on carriers. Yes. Marines on carrier = ATFLIR Point of the original post is to pick whatever makes more sense for what you are simulating. Obviously, if only raw performance matter for a "generic" multiplayer mission, the Litening is hard to beat. Incredible zoom performance and ability to point laser marker during night missions. However, I really like the fast zoom levels on the ATFLIR. It also looks a bit sleeker mounted on the chin.

It really comes down to what you want to simulate. Performance is in the same ballpark, but might change in the future. NAVY - ATFLIR MARINES - LITENING (on centerline only) SPANISH AIR FORCE - LITENING That's it. Simple. Figure out what service you are flying for and load accordingly.

The RWR has not been fully implemented and is not working correctly. There are other threads about it. But yes, there should be a flashing LAUNCH light upon launch etc. I don't know if it is intended to be fixed and fully implemented or left on the F-5E module "as is".

I also suspect that R-27ET seen as the ultimate "stealth weapon" is a DCS thing, with the OLS-27 IRST overperforming a great deal. So using 4x R-27T/ET's on the jet in real life for BVR type of engagements would make very little sense.

I have to say, this is a growing trend. Problem starts when there is a technical discussion. Players who expect realism are getting mocked or hit with arguments like "im having a lots of fun, just play" or "it's good enough for me". Good for you, but it doesent help the developers further improve the product for your benefit.

Im sorry you got attached to an unfinished flight model for 2 years, but changes had to be made to make it more realistic. You should now be able to make a more realistic airshow, just need to plan and practice with the new flight model. It's a good thing.

They have removed the older LAU-3 FFAR (19 rockets, pods with front cover) The newer LAU-68 FFAR pods with 7 rockets are avalible. To use them in a ripple you can set it in the Mission Editor or via Kneeboard with engines off. It will unload the entire tube at one go for a better effect on target area. Ripple settings for rockets are something that is generally set on ground by manually configuring the pod. For Zunis I doubt that you can set exact ripple interval in flight.

This looks great!

The MiG-15bis module was released several years before GDR faction was added into DCS. Back then "Germany" was the natural choice for a GDR livery. Good that it got reported.

Pros are that it's great to have many options. Ability to reenact historical missions and scenarios. MiG-21bis is a great example they added some historical weapons and equipment not used and in some cases incompatible with the bis version. Cons are that flamboyant loadouts on Hornet, Viper and Warthog becomes the norm. Lots of players love to have the most destructive aircraft and wipe out base after base. 6x AGM65, 8x AGM-154 JSOW, 4x AGM-88... It doesn't reflect real life operations and learning the limitations and history of each aircraft. Min-Maxing is a thing even in a simulator like DCS, so it is a struggle for the devs to cater the "rivet counters" aswell as the "casuals". Today DCS attracts a very broad spectrum of players. Some like study simulators, others want a flight game with focus on the action. The compromise right now is "technically possible" loadouts. Back to the Mirage F1. Aerges has not ruled out other versions, but I expect them to mainly focus on the variants announced.

Im not going to buy it unseen, so hopefully there will be a few detailed videos (not only trailers) before the EA starts. That's how it was done for DCS back in the day, but seems like we get to see less and less content before release nowdays

At the end of the day we are squinting our eyes in front of a monitor, trying to deal with a bunch of other visibility limitations in the sim. Very important to strike a balance here as we are already hampered in our ability to see things on the screen (compared to a fighter pilot with 20/20 vision). Reflections looks really cool, but it is a bit much. I guess we have to wait and see how ED develops the tech...

I have noticed that the Zuni Rockets is not sticking out from the pods as per IRL. Tip of the rockets should be clearly visible and outside of the pod. Also referenced here in Object Bugs (posted in 2018):

This issue was reported 5 years ago. To put in perspective, we first got our hands on the DCS: F/A-18C two years later (in 2018). Not a small bug either... the sound stops

I agree, but this is with perfect timing of the launch 100% of the time, no matter skill level. We cannot have it like that. Why should I waste a missile at 30nm when Im totally sure that the bandit will "see" my missile coming of the rail and start to defeat it? Within a certain range and with me cranking after launch, I totally buy a defensive move in anticipation. So I agree that AI should not sit completely defenseless. Ideally, skill level and aircraft type would come more into play. Some older aircraft like the MIG-23 MLA and MIG-21 wouldn't have the SA to notice a post launch maneuver and and I doubt that the SPO-10 would be very helpful aginst the AIM-54 or AIM-120 until final phase of flight.

I guess it's difficult going by anything but the brochure. Everything else is just guesswork if we cannot get other data somehow. One interesting aspect. Has Deka stated if it is a KLJ-7V1 or V2? Just asking because there are some Block II features on the DCS: JF-17 KLJ-7V1 is Pulse Doppler, mechanically steered Array Radar & is equiped on first batch of 50 JF-17 Block 1. Its a Multimode Fire Control Radar (FCR) which operates at X-Band i.e (7GHz-11GHz). In A-A look up mode it have range of ~105KM for 5m^2 target & ~85KM for 3m^2 & 150KM for Sea-Surface threats. KLJ-7V2 is a modified version of KLJ-7 V1 having more power & hence providing more range. It is equiped on 60 JF-17 Block 2s. KLJ-7V2 can detect 40 targets, can track 12 & engange 2 simultaneously & provides A-A mode for 3m^2 targets, ~150KM for 5m^2 & 200KM for sea targets.

Yeah, I was a bit baffled by the shot range. The advantage of having a longer stick. Maybe trying to force them defensive early? Very low pk, but they did break and run. Also, several Su-30MKI and F-16 casualties would have been a very serious incident... "First look, first shot"

This article might not be correct. But according to one PAF pilot, JF-17 was getting a radar lock-on Su-30MKI at more than 100km-ranges. So it seems like it would match the KLJ-7 documentation. https://eurasiantimes.com/powerful-jets-with-one-weakness-pakistani-jf-17-pilot-recalls-clash-with-indian-su-30mkis/ The F-16's launched AIM-120 at roughly 100km (54nm). This proved to be advantageous because the max range of R-77 is less than 80km. If this article is correct it looks like both F-16/JF-17 radars should have no issues with detection and lock-on at 100km.

This really needs to be resolved. it's almost impossible to make long range BVR shots against the AI. At launch the AI will make a split-s pumping chaff (chaff = missile kryptonite in DCS). Obviously ED has many things under development, but this should be top priority. Not making the WWII AI do water ditching/landings. It's a cool feature, but AI behaviour that deeply affects gameplay mechanics and use of modules should be prioritized first.

And the F-15 radar is also underperforming. It's discussed in the FC3 section on the forums. Problem is that we are comparing against other modules that are not verified as having correct radar performance. We have to look at each radar first and make sure that the data is correct. My guess is that it is a sort of a global DCS issue. The MiG-29 recently had it's radar adjusted and I think it is just the tip of the iceberg. Changes are coming.

What "downgrade"? I have not heard of this... is it really something official? The F/A-18C radar needs to perform realisticly, so I think they will tweak it as they are finishing up the module. I don't think ED has deliberatley made it worse, but it has had a bunch of performance issues not only with range but with tws, lock and acm modes aswell... It should perform a lot better than the F-16C radar.

The C-101 is a fine and detailed module. But don't expect to get any type of speed out of this jet. Saw it in a demo a few years ago (think it was Patrulla Àugila). It sounded like a vacuum cleaner. Like watching birds flying against a high wind. The demo was impressive precision wise, but oh lord, it was a collective yawn when they did go around Nothing against the module, just how It felt watching the thing IRL.