Schmidtfire

Trying to figure out if the Flechette Rockets was used on Uh-1. From the looks of it - M255A1 flechette is part of the Hydra-70 Rocket System and should be compatible. With the upcoming multicrew it would be a good addition to the armament. Visually could make it close to how the cluster-munition looks. (without the explosions ofc.)

The one person to ask about stall, overspeed and flameouts is Novak (Dolphin887), developer aswell as former pilot of the MiG-21bis. I wish that Novak would post more about his time flying the MiG-21bis or do a Q/A. Seems like a really cool guy and he did an amazing job on the flight model.

AG radar: Real Beam Ground Map (MAP) Someone has more info on this? Does it allow for targeting ships with Harpoon?

You have to understand, most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. I took the red pill a long time ago.... maybe you are not ready yet ;)

I don't mind Early Access if it is updated in a steady pace and with clear and transparent timeline for each item. If you own any DCS Early Access product you know this has not happened before. Two-three months into launch the updates grind to a very slow pace, while new product developments take priority. Other than gaining access to the Eurofighter early, there are only negatives associated with the EA route. Anyways, it is up to TrueGrit. But I personally think that the "mostly complete" strategy like F-14 or JF-17 is the way to go. The fun of study simming and truly learning an aircraft disappear when only 25% of the systems are implemented. Plus, there is a chance that you are already bored of flying it when it is eventually feature completed later down the line.

Anyone knows if 802AKG works in multiplayer? Tried it yesterday but it was de-synced with the other clients. My friend said that my missile hit a hill on his computer but I was still tracking and flying fine on my end :huh: Tried 4 missiles and they were all de-synced between shooters computer and the other clinets on the server.

Does not matter if it is an old module, it is still being sold in the store today. 100+ on staff and no one can spend a few hours getting this module back on track? Same with Hornet or Viper, why only have a small team to update your two biggest products? Dragging EA out for 3+ years instead of being done within months. I guess it is good from a financial point but it is a disaster for us who spend our money on your products. Maybe Im slow or dumb, but I cannot understand why things cannot be ironed out at a faster pace. I cannot fully enjoy my F-5E and Im supposed to wait cause it might be revisited in the future? Only being worked on if there might be a chance to sell additional DLC update like Ka-50 or A-10C? Beyond dissapointed at these type of shenaningans :mad:

This is such a strange thread. Eurofighter has nothing to do with the JF-17. A simulator has no concept of balance between aircrafts. Sounds like a multiplayer concern, but it’s up to the mission makers to create a ”fair” environment. Im happy to still see the occasional MiG-21, F-5, MiG-29 etc. in AIM-120C environment. Simmers that enjoy the aircraft they are flying regardless of how ”effective” it is. The mentality of ”I need to dominate in multiplayer to feel good about myself” is slowly ruining DCS mp.

I think mostly feature complete is a better route. Like the JF-17 or Tomcat. Early Access + Study Sim has disaster written all over it. Trying to figure out what is implemented or not (or if it is a bug), people growing tired of the module before it gets feature complete etc. For regular games yes, for study simming it quickly turns into a mess for both devs and players.

When I go into A/A or A/G mode, the first thing I do is re-arrange the displays to my liking. For A/A intercept my preferred arrangement is HSD/RWR on the Left MFD. SMS on the Center MFD. Radar on the Right MFD. For A/G my preferred arrangement is SMS on the left MFD. HSD/RWR on Center MFD. WMD7 on the Right MFD. Is it possible to customize what should default be shown on L MFD. C MFD. R MFD when entering A/A or A/G modes? If not, is it a planned feature? Does the real jet allow pilots to have their custom MFD arrangement? Thanks :)

On the other hand, I always pack the older FFAR rockets. Two reasons. One, you can set the salvo to empty the entire tube faster :) Two, the pod has it’s front cover modeled. Still very much seen on modern Harriers. Flying around with Hydra pods without a front cover looks ugly (and should maybe create more drag aswell)

Isn’t Early Access a form of crowdfunding? We fund modules that we hope will be great and completed in the future. On subscription model: Worst idea ever. DCS is a study sim, every aircraft takes X amounts of hours to learn. In general, this is a sim that appeals to a more grown up audience. Grownups usually are dealing with life and has a small amount of hrs every week to spend on DCS. Plus a lot of simmers only fly 1-2 modules, their favourite aircrafts. Should they keep paying monthly for years on end? People will also cut subscriptions in order to get most value. ”I will sign up again for two months when the Typhoon is released” type of thing. Sounds like a total mess that I don’t want to be part of.

NATOPS accuracy is not the only thing that counts. My point is that it is a very important foundation. Documentation is key and then you add SME feedback to do the fine-tuning. Your statements are exaggerated. Sure, there can be false info in the NATOPS. But that is the documentation Razbam has to work with. If NATOPS is not accurate enough, where do they get their data from? :huh: The issue is not really the documentation, but how it is interpreted and implemented. Razbam did cut many corners with this bird. The bug section is not wrong. Issues like the AGM-122, the sight has been misaligned now for how long? And the bugged looping sound. And that does not even count the various modes and symbology that has not yet been implemented for it... and that is just one of the many systems that has issues. In hindsight. Harrier was released too early. Modules like Viggen, JF-17 or Tomcat had years of development before Early Access. Harrier was stressed out quite fast after the M2000C As much as I like both Razbam and the Harrier, sweeping long standing issues under the rug does not help anyone. There are a lot of issues. Question is if it will receive same kind of overhaul as the M2000C. Im still hopeful and will continue to support Razbam. Looking forward to the Falklands and MiG-23. But I will not have my head up the clouds and pretend that all is good with this module :)

Can Jester operate the TWS-Auto? Feels like Jester AI drop locks quite often and communicates poorly during BVR engagements. Maybe this feature can make him a little more reliable :)

This might be a bigger issue to tackle, but It would be nice to have Jester more independent operating the AWG-9. Feels very strange that the pilot should order PD STT, Scan Zones etc. Example: Jester is having trouble with keeping TWS lock. He should then (within a certain range) automatically try PD STT instead, saying something like "shit this ain't working, switching to PD STT". It would also be very helpful if Jester could give more feedback. Example: "I have bugged the first contact, at 26000 - 56 miles" .... "still got him. 34 miles." "IFF... he is a bandit." "Im about to loose him. Bank left." Obviously this is just suggestions. But a little more BVR help would be really useful. Also maybe a setting that let Jester shoot from the backseat within preset ranges or RnE.

A good start would be if the systems work as described in NATOPS manual. That is the bible when creating a study sim. Then you add pilot and SME feedback, further documentation, videos etc. to verify that what you are doing is correct. You cannot really do this type of advanced and highly detailed modules with guesswork. I can understand systems that are not implemented yet, development can be a long and difficult process. But Im not cutting Razbam any slack for systems that has not been correctly modeled. (simplified for sensitive stuff like RWR/ECM is understandable) The same situation is now seen on the M-2000C. With AdA help, it is getting a MAJOR overhaul. Turns out that many systems and hotas functionality was more or less guesswork for years. Now Im faced with re-learn a lot of the systems.

No, it is not close to even :lol: But it might also be a bit of simulation issue. The AN/APQ 159 has a few reported bugs and also the visuals are lacking, making it tougher to distinguish between clutter and contacts. F-5E has better RWR, but that is also bugged at the moment. And the FM. And the M39 cannon dispersion. And the radar textures... Such a cool little fighter. But flying the F-5E is very much an upphill battle right now :cry:

I have to disagree here. In DCS, the MiG-21bis radar is vastly better than the AN/APQ 159. Fairly easy to detect targets with, has IFF capability and interference buttons to remove cloud clutter and jamming. It is strong enough to keep lock in most situations. Even when using heaters like R60M, I use the radar most of the time. It also help with A/G rocket delivery and Kh-66. F5E's radar does not help with pinpointing your target or IFF. Like the F-86F, I only find it useful for gunnery.

That will most likely happen, yes. But thats because corners was cut during system development. I know a lot of DCS players are not the "sim-crowd" and will be pissed once bombs starts to miss. But is that a reason to lower the bar on fidelity? Isn't the point with DCS the deep simulation and challenges it brings? You step away from that and we're soon in the "Combat Flight Games" realm. As much as I like Razbam (and I will be the first in line for the MiG-23MLA and Sea Harrier)... It's healthy to call things like they are. The Av8b is lacking in the systems department, M2000C is going through a MAJOR overhaul (with a lot of systems that has previously been guesswork!), the MiG-19P... sort of works but the FM is still feeling like fly-by-wire compared to Tomcat, Viggen, MiG-21 and other cold war jets in DCS. Razbam is putting a lot of effort into the M2000C and Av8b right now, so Im slightly optimistic that they will sort the issues out.

What about ARBS Air-Air usage? Like in this video: Don't think that is implemented yet.

Here is a great interview with Jyrki Laukkanen comparing flying the MiG-21Bis to the MiG-21F-13. "But it was not as nice to fly. Because it's bulky. And it does not fly as nicely as F model, which was like a silver dart. It also had stabilization system in pitch and yaw, because it was not as stable in pitch and yaw like the F model. ...better weaponry but same performance. But not so nice to fly. And the visibility from the cockpit was worse than the F model." So there are some differences, different weights/distribution, different engines etc.

Can JTAC send coordinates and info directly to the CAS page?

I have to agree. And the new optimizations are great too! Loads much faster into cockpit now :)

Im convinced there are scaling issues. Try sitting in DCS: Su-27 on the ramp. In both 2D and VR the perception like you are sitting very close to the ground. Does the DCS map scale exactly to the DCS models? Feels like there is a disconnect between the two. Same at altitude, 30 000 feet in DCS does not come of as being up at high altitude. ps. Just for fun. Try placing infantry next to a fuel truck. That might be a model issue, but still pretty fun stuff :D

I have to agree with viper2097 and Harlikwin. There is a lot functionality that is missing or not implemented correctly. Missing NAVFLIR alignment, issues with AGM-122 sound, sight and missing modes, no SEAM functionality for AIM-9 sidewinder, no hotspot detection, TDC axis slew issues, TGP issues, alignment errors in hud etc.... I can go on and on. Reading NATOPS it is easy to find issues comparing it to the DCS Harrier. Issues that usually go overlooked by the gameplay crowd. Look it can still be a lot of fun, but if you compare attention to detail to other modules you will see that the Harrier is not comparable to, lets say the A-10C. We are all looking for different things, but for the price, I expect highest level of fidelity. The FM feels really nice, but the systems are not there yet. Still a very fun module, just don't expect everything to be on point. And no, this is not another "negative" view of Harrier or Razbam. It is only well founded criticism. The Harrier was released late 2017 and should be in a better state by now.