Schmidtfire

Honestly, get a plane you are interested in. That simple :) The full fidelity addons are great but require a fair bit of time and study to be enjoyed properly. So don’t run off and spend a lot of dollars on a plane because it does XYZ best. DCS is not an E-Sport game. Modern Air Combat is in development and will be a title more aimed towards fast combat and competitive multiplayer.

Any news on this? The thread states Reported but no progress?

:thumbup:

Flying online you regulary see Harrier with 12xGBU-12, Su-25T that looks like a hedgehog -filled to the brim with Vikhrs, missiles and bombs. F-16 with a max load of CBU-97 and A-10C with loadouts that would outright damage the aircraft IRL. So I guess 4x HARMS is a minor offense in that regard... Ideally the server (or mission) would have an option box to force operational loadouts. If this is enforced players can only select official presets in the rearm drop down menu.

AV-8B N/A uses the old Flaming Cliffs AIM-9M sound. For reference: Modules F/A-18C, A-10C and F-16C has a new and correct AIM-9M sound for search and lock. Don't know if this count as a bug or request :) Thx

On the ARBS/DMT DCS does not have contrast lock and there seems to be an issue with calculating the release. However there are quite easy ways to make it more believable and immersive. 1. Increase the calculation time. Keep it from being instant. 2. Don't make the lock a perfect snap on the targeted unit. 3. The DMT. Resolution is too good, but not only that. It lacks contrast. If you have a system that are locking on contrast, the video feed should be more "contrasty" like this (from actual ARBS) Not this! One way to create this "contrasty" effect might be to use the same principle as for BHOT TGP image and tweak the contrast a bit.

+1

Down the line we might see DCS: F-16C II Fighting Falcon DLC featuring Scorpion and APKWS. Not even kidding, with the success of A-10C II, I hope that we see new features added to our birds as DLC’s.

I don't care if it is fixed by Eagle Dynamics or Leatherneck. The radar is the primary sensor of MiG-21bis and it has been an ongoing issue for a long time now. This really needs to be solved.

A clear Suite number has not been given. It is probably a bit of a mix and match and not exact simulation of a certain suite. APKWS was not introduced on A-10C until 2016. So it is really doubtful that a 2012 version was interfaced, even for testing.

I have time to wait. Lots of other modules to fly while they work on the AI. Will not buy the module until AI copilot is at least partially implemented.

Might be wrong here, but I think they found that HARM actually uses a different cable from the AGM-65. Not the video cable.

MB-339C looks like a fun version for light attack. AGM-65 compatible, laser guided bombs, RWR etc. :)

Welcome RAZBAM_ELMO. Being the new CM cannot be an easy task, but cudos to you for stepping up. Hopefully this will be a new chapter in a better direction. I don’t know how this will be resolved, but perception of Early Access, ”Milestones”, ”Product sustainment” etc. is radically different between devs and it’s customers. To a lot of us it is just twisting of words and re-branding no matter the actual state of the product. It does not sit well and it is quite tragic that software customers need to argue a case for what Early Access means in 2020. Most of us has seen waves and waves of other games and sims in EA and know what to expect. Trying to make own definitions will not change that, but just add more fuel to the fire. But it is not all on you, I hold Eagle Dynamics equally responsible for the current situation. As partners and publishers they should be in control over and certify (through testing) what is Early Access or not. This will sadly affect my A-10C II and Mi-24P purchase as I will hold until I can see some change for the better. I like to know what Im buying and what the gameplan is. But above all... It is about delivering results. The latest update had some really good stuff for the Harrier. Keep that up and the perception will change for the better. Same with the new RWR for M2000C, no one asked for it but Razbam decided to do the work to make it more realistic. Keep going like that. There are no shortcuts really. A great product speaks for itself :)

The internets :D Seems like Irbis-E was at least flight tested on Su-27SM2. Other ”sources” claim SM2 and SM3 uses it: https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/capabilities-of-the-su-27sm2-sm3-the-enhanced-flanker-forming-the-backbone-of-russia-s-fighter-fleet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27 https://www.google.se/amp/s/nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-new-su-35s-fighter-really-better-old-su-27-81146%3famp

Su-27SM2 uses Irbis-E radar. N036. Don’t know about the SM3 radar. But yes, you are most likely right that it would be difficult to distinguish, at least comparing the Su-27S, MiG-29A/S and Su-33. Again secret tech... I would not be surprised if IRL Su-27SM2 and SM3 are detected as Sukhoi and older Su-27S identified as MiG ;)

Well there are small differences between the Su-27S and MiG-29A/S radars. Not a lot, but some. If that is enough to distinguish IRL with M2000C I don't know. Its sikrit ;) But, if this is based on the AdA input in 2020 I guess the radars on Su-27SM2 and Su-27SM3 would be very different beasts from old MiG-29A/S. Making it easier to distinguish between Su and MiG. Threat library tends to be upgraded with time and I guess that is also true for M2000C RWR.

What game? DCS World is about highly detailed and well simulated aircraft. It is a sandbox with cool toys. A game to you perhaps, a hobby for others. I do understand that they can't simulate every system in minute detail for XYZ reason, but I would not spend 79.99$ on anything less than stellar in terms of fidelity. As close as it can get. If some system has to be "dumbed down" thats ok too, but should be upfront on storepage or in manual so those who wants rivets to count can do that :)

There will be a lot of F-16C flying around with 6xAGM65 + 2xAGM88... While Im up for options, I think there should be an optional mission setting to only allow operational loadouts. Loadouts like that totally breaks immersion.

I also like to add NVG Position Adjustment in Game Options (like the HMS reticle on Ka-50) In order to actually ”peek under” on instruments and screens, the NVG goggles needs to be adjusted higher up on the screen. Currently, it is very difficult looking at instruments without tilting and twisting around. Position NVG goggles at HUD height would make a lot more sense than center of the screen.

From a multiplayer perspective it is quite boring that almost everyone and their mother are flying F/A-18C or F-16C. I guess flying Su-27 and MiG-29 could be more managable with better mission design where Redfor has sophisticated SAM coverage as their advantage. But yes, we need more types of Russian jets to keep this from being a F/A-18C vs F-16C sim.

AGM-122 Primary & Hot mode. Missing Cage/Uncage functionality. Missing HUD symbology for caged seeker. Missing symbology when uncaged seeker symbology is HUD limited. Sensitivity should increase when uncaged. TPOD - Laser Spot Search. Video does not freeze when in search mode.

I don’t really know how to report this. The HUD symbology for AGM-122 is not working properly. It locks below the target. Not only that, but according to NATOPS there are distinct behaviours and change of seekerhead movements and symbology not implemented. All we have is a static crosshair texture that resembles one of the example pictures in NATOPS. So in this case the system has a bug but is also under-modeled. How do we deal with these type of issues without getting into trouble for posting documentation that may or may not be posted on the forums?

I use the radar even if I only carry IR missiles. It will help with situational awareness and IFF. It can also help getting a good shooting position or stressing the opponent to make a mistake (when you have him hardlocked). The key is to know when you should switch the radar on or off and use it to your advantage. It can be a very helpful tool.

It is not perfect, but there is a lot of issues not listed on the official tracker aswell. And please, please stop calling valid critisism, reports or feedback for "negativity". You have to ask yourself this. Why was the community bugtracker created? If reported bugs are actually investigated and logged as they should, there would not be a need of a community bugtracker at all. This is nothing but a big help to Razbam as there seems to be a lot of information lost between the users that report issues and the official bugtracker. I guess it could work better if Razbam would actually be present on the official forums and not only on Discord and Facebook. And no, the TDC does not work properly. It has been reported by a lot of users who does not have any TDC issues in other modules.