Schmidtfire

Have you ever seen the average loadout that people fly with on big multiplayer servers? Looks more like flying hedgehogs with very litte care for realism. Little to no communication with active missiles regulary going right into the furball, IFF optional - "let god sort em' out" . Airfields looks like a circus with wrecked planes everywhere. Carriers Ops even worse. Everyone doing their own thing, with close to zero regards for flying as a team. My point is, tactical nukes won't change much. Many servers would restict usage and it will still be as many clowns and trolls as usual. DCS draws many different type of players and I think the more hardcore/realistic servers can handle the B61 fine.

It is a great jet for a very particular type of mission - one pass, haul ass. A positive is that the module is very Mission oriented. You make a plan and stick to it! Following the waypoints one by one... the excitement when you see the target waypoint coming up, knowing there is only 1 chance (or 2 in some cases) to get it right. Very rewarding to follow through and get back to base (or roadbase) according to plan. I guess that is also a negative for some players who rather want to loiter around as they wish and "plinking" vehicles of opportunity.

I really hope Eagle Dynamics get going on that full fidelity MiG-29A...

Great video! One F-5E trick I have invented: FLARE JETTISON Bind the "Flare Jettison Switch" to a button and make sure that the protective cover is up. It's a great "panic tool" that will defeat most IR missiles. Also good for surviving the merge against bandit with all aspect IR like R60M, R73, 9L/M etc. Standard load of 15 flares or maximum load with 0 chaff is up to you. Yes, you will loose all flares really fast in one go. But it is worth it in many situations!

I would really like to see this in DCS.

For realism you should only take 2 HARMs. That is a fact. 4 HARM's ain't used on the Viper IRL, but might be technically possible. So there you go. Experimental loadout avalible aswell. It would be nice with an option to restrict all loadouts serverside. "Force Real Loadouts" or something like that. Players would then only be able to select verified loadouts that are used IRL, not what is technically possible. I understand that it is fun to fly with 12 GBU's on the Harrier or 8 JSOW's on the Hornet, but it's not for every server.

Well, one good thing that will come with the Apache is improved FLIR rendering in DCS. From a business and technology standpoint I understand why ED prioritize Apache over updated Ka-50. It might slip away even further as MIG-29 is in the pipe and there is always a WWII module being worked on. But thats ok, a full fidelity Fulcrum ain't too shabby...

How would you know that? I mean the missile comes slamming down at high Mach, so antenna placement is also a factor. SPO-15 had difficulties with ownship radar interference aswell. Not saying you are wrong, but from what I have read and heard, both SPO-10/15 had issues. Would they give pilot enough and correct warning to take evasive action in the case of AIM-54 going active? The story about the AWG-9 overpowering the SPO might actually be lore, but there are stories about STT lock overwhelming multiple antennas at the same time.

Also to note is that many of the kills was against Soviet aircraft. A MiG-29 pilot on the RU forums has stated that the SPO-15 version he used was unreliable and could not detect launches except Nike Hercules air defence missiles. It was also generally quite unrealiable as far as giving good information. The older SPO-10 was even worse. Both most likely went totally bonkers in the presence of the strong AWG-9 radar.

I agree that it is also a DCS issue, my point is that it CAN be mitigated and suppressed by careful artwork. Texture detailing has to be tuned to the DCS graphics engine to lessen the effect as much as possible. Why accentuate thin 3D-model lines by putting wear and tear texturing along the edges? The "lived in" Tomcat cockpit looks great, my only suggestion is to dampen or remove some texture detail around edges. If we had access to a "factory fresh" cockpit mod for F-14, it would be interesting to see the difference. Im pretty sure it would be a major improvement as far as removing shimmering and flicker.

My conclusion is that artwork tweaks might mitigate this issue. It's the really fine hand painted texture work around thin edges that starts to shimmer/flicker a lot when engines are running and cockpit is shaking. Again, this is most prominent in the F-14 and to some degree in the AJS-37 and C-101.

Textures set to High. MSAA has a really big impact on performance in DCS. It has to do with Deferred shading and cannot be compared to running MSAA in other games. ED in many cases recommends that it be turned off completely. Im pretty sure you have shimmering on your end aswell, you are just not noticing it for some reason. It's very visible in videos. Look at all the thin lines shimmering and flickering around the cockpit:

Ok, I think we need more realiable info. Max Range I have seen stated is 459. Wiki states "425 km (264 mi, 229 nmi) hi-lo-hi at Mach 0.75/0.88 with 14 × 250 kg (551 lb) bombs." I guess we will find out eventually. But I expect the F1 to be thirsty, like most other interceptors and fighters designed during the 1960's. F-16 on internal fuel won't get you very far in combat. So that's another factor. I can fly across Caucasus map in the MiG-21bis, high and straight ferry flight without loadout. But flying sorties and still get back home without running dry is another feat.

Depending on the profile you fly, I have read that the F1 has a range of 375-459 miles. It should be comparable to the MiG-21bis and maybe even a bit shorter. Edit. F1 should be pretty similar to MiG-21bis at higher altitudes. MiG-21bis carries a lot less fuel internally, but it seems that they are comparable in range. It's quite late here, so my calculations might be off

Need to read up more on this. But it seems like the F1 might have a little bit less range compared to MiG-21. I expect it to be thirsty.

Yes, it's should be possible. 1450km/h+ is stated for low level (783Kts). But I guess it depends on outside temperature, amount of fuel, loadouts etc... Still a bit surprised that Mirage F1 is that fast. Don't know much about it's performance but reading a little bit, it seems like a faster jet than I thought. Will be interesting to compare it to the MiG-21bis.

Quite impressive considering Viggen could do 783Kts on the deck (if memory serves me right) However, It was also built with high speed/treetop levels in mind.

Well, you can carry Sea Eagle but not launch without specific waypoints in Mission Editor. So in most situations they work just like captive carry test missiles

Im expecting this missile to be kind of worthless, unless intercepting a bomber. But it looks cool. Same with some of the weapons on MiG-21bis, not great but fun and a challenge to use.

From what I know Aerges are strictly doing the Spanish F1. And they are 100% for realism and simulation. So even if CE could technically support the R530, I doubt that they will implement it unless the Spanish Air Force used it. But I guess Aerges will clarify features in upcoming updates.

Thanks for the advice, set my AF to 16x. Looking at a few tutorials and gamplay videos online I see the same shimmering issues. Youtube compression hides it a bit, but it is there. So it is something that everyone suffer from (at least on 2xMSAA) After some investigation I think I have found the cause of the shimmering! Thin, brigther lines (wear and tear around VDI bezels, instrument buttons etc) together with cockpit shake. Amazing detail and artwork, but in motion it becomes an issue. So I guess it's hard to do anything about it without @Cobra847 changing the artwork to have less details around thin edges.

As the title suggests. I have issues with flickering/shimmering in the Tomcat cockpit. Worst offenders is the ACM panel and around many of the gauges. Love the textures and artwork, but compared to other modules it's very distracting and brings down the overall visual quality. Running at 3440x1440 with 2xMSAA and 4xAF, the level of shimmering is way above what I see in other modules. Hope that this can be improved in some way. Thx!

There should be more to the C than the smokeless engine. Digital components is a pretty big deal. A flying computer compared to a vaccum tv. AIM-54A should not be a choice over AIM-54C in DCS in any circumstance other than historical. Right now many players are using the AIM-54A MK60 in modern missions because it's engine performance, when it in reality should be outclassed by the newer C variant. How this is best implemented in DCS I don't know. But making the C a lot more resistant to chaff aswell as giving it a more efficient flight path and targeting is a good start. On the other hand, It might be the A models that are overperforming...

@Fri13 Please don't use the term "Asset Pack". Sends shivers down my spine Otherwise I agree, there is a shortage of AI representing different eras. Another sim (I won't mention it by name) has an interesting approach. You pay for maps (incl. AI units). It gives you access to Singleplayer and Mission Editing. But everyone can access the map in multiplayer. It's a great way to avoid splitting the playerbase into many fragments and also a great way for undecided singleplayers to try out the map.

Shouldn't this missile perfrom significally better than the AIM-54A? "The first real further development of the Phoenix began in 1977 . In the Aim-54C, analog components in the target search and flight control have been replaced by digital ones. An improved engine increased speed and range, and the target acquisition against small and low-flying objects as well as the electronic protective measures were improved. The first of initially 15 prototypes was delivered in August 1979. In 1981 the first launch of a C took place against a target 70 miles away, which tried to deflect the missile by means of electronic warfare, which did not succeed. The C version was finally produced from 1982 and reached operational status two years later. While the C was still in production, the warhead of the initial version was exchanged for a 20 to 25% more effective one." Back to DCS. I have trouble seeing these improvements. Other than for historical reasons, the AIM-54C should be the big daddy and the AIM-54A kind of obsolete in comparison. Besides being smokeless, I cannot see improved motor performance or better targeting characteristics. Lots of players still choose the AIM-54A MK60 for better kinematics, but it really makes very little sense as it in reality would be outperformed in every way by the much more advanced AIM-54C. I have not fact-checked article quote, but it aligns quite well with what I have read on several other places. REBIRTH OF A MISSILE