OnlyforDCS

Oh look another thread derailed by the "we want balanced multiplayer" crowd. Although I do agree that most campaigns in DCS are nowhere close to realistic, so an early type Mig29A wouldn't really make much sense anyway. I mean if you can't use it with fully functional GCI (including proper GCI tactics, not just a BRA callout) then why use it at all?

Why do you feel you need to jump into every thread to express your opinion on the Hornets superlative abilities compared to every fighter plane in existence? @ the OP: The Mig21 is an absolute joy to fly and fight it. It's very hands on and one of the "scarier" modules in the game. By "scary" I mean it literally feels like it's gonna shake into pieces around you on takeoff or landing. Great flight model, it's nowhere near the capabilities of the more modern jets but in my opinion that makes it even more fun to master.

If we had 15 Ghz processors, then maybe, just maybe we could get those goodies Silver mentioned. More and more I'm convinced that the problem with the delays to all the features that were supposed to come after EDGE is not the implementation, but how to get them incorporated into DCS without turning out PCs into potatoes.

My 2c on how this will go in Early Access: 1) First I think they will release the Hind with a simple AI crewman sitting in the front with the promise to build on the AI in the future, but with no multicrew on EA. 2) Gradual improvements to AI and multicrew added at the very end of Early Access (This is my optimistic prediction)

Yeah, well I meant DCS World 3. In any case, the switch to EDGE was 2.5, however most of the promised upgrades that we were supposed to get with 2.X.X other than new maps never really materialized. It's pretty clear that there is a big problem with the complexity of this sim and that the legacy code can't really handle everything thrown at it, hence the huge and ever rising PC requirements. I shudder to think what will happen if Eagle Dynamics ever releases the long overdue weather and ATC upgrades.

You guys make it sound that the training missions in DCS are fine as it is. They are not. Many of them are even broken in the current Open Beta. Last time I tried the start-up training mission in the F14 for example it just didn't work. This has nothing to do with instant gratification, so while Ozmandi's request may be a little over the top, the fact remains that training missions, and missions in general in DCS are usually very bare-bones, they do not get updated between patches and many require more effort than should be necessary to even get them to work properly.

How does it capture the spirit of the idea? I mean these same kinds of competitions would then make NO sense, since anyone could yank as hard as they want on their sticks and their planes would magically hold the NATOPS max G limit. Everyone would be flying perfectly on the limit of the available MAX allowed G, all the time. No disqualifications, everyone flying perfectly within NATOPs limits. So please can you answer my question CAB? What exactly would be the point of this "cheat" or whatever you want to call it?

It's your joystick throw. That's all it is. Remember that in the REAL Spitfire the real flight-stick has a much, much longer handle, I.E. a much longer throw. So for the same type of response you would need a larger movement. The DCS Spitfire is made to be as close as possible to the real one as far as controllability is concerned. However this does not take into account our very short joysticks, which even with extensions do not come close to the real ones, hence we have a very twitchy plane until you develop muscle memory to compensate for it.

This pretty much. So if they are doing a total rewrite, they might as well call it DCS World 2 and be done with it.

Looks very interesting. If you ever release a "for sale" type I would be very interested in purchasing one. Especially if it featured a decent grip, and a floor mounted base.

I'm seriously considering getting this module? Is it hard to use and learn in VR?

What Cab doesn't seem to realize (if he gets his way) is that imposing these limits on the flight models is paramount to adding FLY BY WIRE computer instructions to planes, that do not have fly by wire computers or controls. It's basically cheating. So my question to CAB is this. Does cheating help players improve their skills? If this isn't his aim, then what is? Another cheat option, like invulnerability? or Infinite Fuel? What would be the point of this wish-list item is basically what I'm asking?

Doesn't it prevent IFF in the F14?

Take that with quite a few grains of salt. (Heatblur's comments) They were made in 2016.

I'd like the F-111. That's the version of the Tornado I would like Heatblur to make ;)

Yeah I would think they would be ideally positioned to make one. Has some comonalities with the F14A, they already have the engines developed they already have Jester, they already have the ground radar from the Viggen. I would prefer this airplane over the Tornado.

If there is no chance of getting an Su-24, is there a chance we could get the F-111?

Doesn't have to be mandatory. Just another cool thing you can do if you want to.

This would indeed be pretty cool.

First of all your post in this thread is off-topic, with that said I think it's reasonable to assume that bug-fixing is something that the team does regardless of development of a new model. A lot of people want the A, and with the introduction of new code into any software there is a large chance of an introduction of new bugs. So even if the B were completely bug free, there would probably be new bugs introduced with the A when it arrived. I for one think it's best for them to push as many features as possible into early access, and do bug-fixing parallel to that. You have to remember that both the A and the B comprise one full DCS module and that we are still in early access, so bugs are to be expected.

There is potentially another thing to consider. Once Eagle Dynamics develops their own version of an AI co-pilot, it is potentially possible for them to offer the codebase as part of their third party SDK to interested third parties. This would probably not be possible if they were to license the software from Heatblur.

Well things can and do change. Might be worth asking permission again, maybe for a less advanced model? The worst thing that could happen is that the answer is NO again.

Like Quigon already mentioned don't fire your AIM54s at fighters until you are at least 30nm away, and closing fast. Ideally I would fire between 20-25nm, even when flying high and fast. Once you get pitbull indication turn cold get some distance, and rinse and repeat if you need to or want to play it safe & have the missiles to spare. In a multiplayer environment I've had quite a bit of success flying low with the ACM cover up and just firing phoenixes within 10nm's, however you don't want to do that if you're definitely not sure you are firing at an enemy. These missiles become very scary at these kinds of ranges. For extra stealth, just use your eyes and the datalink and fire with the radar not emitting. (Radar ON but not emitting) It's a bit more tricky but well worth it against human opponents who have no idea you are even there. Against AI I wouldn't recommend this tactic.

+1 on this.

I know this is meant as a joke, but have you looked at planes at night in RL? Even from the ground they can be very, very bright especially on a really dark night with no light pollution. I'd rather have them at meteor levels than not visible at all.