felixx75

It's almost naive to think that a little more drag would be ok, not to mention ED's claim to deliver the most accurate simulations possible (hence my doubts about the F-35). Besides, it's nice that it would be ok for you, but it wouldn't be for me. But it doesn't matter what anyone thinks is ok or not, ED has already decided.

So ED should create 2 different flight models for an almost non-existent in-game effect (still relatively small map sizes)? I don't think so. Especially as ED has already said "no".

The behavior of a missile after it has left the aircraft is the task of ED. So this should be reported to ED, not Aerges

Surely one reason why some are concerned is that there was no "end of the year report" (like the last two years).

The 2nd picture shows the value for a vertical landing, not the value for a vertical take-off (VTO and not VL should be boxed). By the way, a vertical take-off is almost never performed because you could take virtually nothing with you for weight reasons.

FI must have noticed that there are some who would like to get some feedback (it's not just here, but also on their Discord). So it would be easy to just confirm that they are still working on it and progressing. As I said, that would be one sentence and a matter of a minute or two. You can't be that busy that that wouldn't be possible.

There was already the same discussion about the F-15E, only the other way around (removable CFTs). The answer there was also no (among other things because of the 2 necessary flight models). Actually, that's almost laughable. With the F-15E people wanted removable CFT's to improve performance in air combat because it's not an F-15C and now people want CFT's because the F-15C we're getting doesn't have them... I can only repeat myself, we always want what we don't have or don't get.

And that's only one reason, why it won't happen.

I can absolutely understand the uncertainty and the fact that other developers don't talk to their community is no justification for FI not to do so. It would also be very easy to dispel these concerns. FI would just have to write or say "yes, we are still working on the A-7". A single, official sentence, no more. In my opinion, that is not too much to ask and would more or less dispel the concerns.

Sounds like “nose” is the time fuze and nose/tail is the height fuze. Edit: After a short test, it doesn't seem to make any difference in DCS for the F-4 whether you select nose, tail or nose/tail. In any case, the time fuse is not used.

Thank you for your answer. That's basically all I wanted to hear. So far it's just been “nobody knows”. That was of course not very satisfactory. But now I know more that it seems to be really difficult. So thank you very much and I'm sorry if I sounded a little indignant.

Thank you very much for your help. It's almost funny that even in the Heatblur Discord, the Heatblur team themselves don't know how to...

How can it be that no one can give an answer to this? As long as the bomb has not yet left the plane, and that is the case when I select the fuze option, that is Heatblur's responsibility. What happens after the weapon is dropped is, of course, ED's territory.

Hi, in the rearm & refuel menu for CBU's you can select a fuze time and/or a fuze height. I assume in the airplane I select one or the other option via the nose/tail arming switch. But which setting applies to which option?

How can it be that the Mi-24 still doesn't have a proper manual after around 4 years? And no, the excellent Chuck's Guide doesn't count. I find that rather unsatisfactory.

I don't see it that way. The newer F-15C certainly sells better in the long term than a single old F-15, so the expression “short terms return” is wrong. I also don't see that a large part of the DCS community would “break away” because of this, why should they? The possibilities that you have in the editor to create interesting scenarios are very large and it is up to the mission designer to create realistic and interesting missions (and that is definitely possible). Btw., we would now be having a discussion here about how much better a more modern F-15C would be if ED had announced an old F-15C (perhaps with different people, but the discussion would still exist). You always want what you don't have.

Obviously the answer is no. As always, we want what we don't get and are never satisfied with what we get, every time, with every new module.

Ich denke, Dir ist nicht wirklich bewußt, worum es den Leuten mit den Bedenken tatsächlich geht. Jedem ist bewußt, dass DCS nicht zu 100% ein reales Kampfflugzeug nachbilden kann. Aber es macht einen Unterschied, ob zu einem bestimmten Muster alle möglichen Daten offiziell verfügbar und bekannt sind, um eben möglichst nahe am Original bleiben zu können, oder ob man sich eben auf Videos von Flugvorführungen u.ä. stützt. Die DCS F-35 wird mit Sicherheit nicht denselben Stand erreichen können, wie z.B. die DCS F-4E, da schlicht die offiziellen Daten fehlen, die man eben bei einer F-4 hat. Am Ende wird sicher eine F-35 dabei rauskommen, die Spaß macht und sich wie blöd verkaufen wird, aber eben mit dem Wissen, dass es, was die Simulation anbelangt, sicher keine F-4 ist und das mag den ein oder anderen stören und darf das auch.

The F-15C once again shows how it always is with newly announced modules. You always want exactly what you don't get. If ED had announced an F-15A, there would be a thread saying that a new or newer F-15C would be much better, etc... It's always funny to read Actually, all these points are pretty irrelevant for DCS as a game... The fact that there would be no corresponding opponents would only be relevant in PvP, if at all. In all other scenarios, it's up to the mission builder to create interesting battles. Or did the USA complain that Iraq had no proper counterparts...

That was the problem, I had still chosen missiles. The master arm switch has no influence on the display of the flight path marker. Many thanks for the quick help

Das habe ich jetzt schon ein paar Mal gelesen. Ich verstehe ehrlich gesagt nicht, was man an diesem Muster für DCS so toll finden kann Der ganze Missionsverlauf ist vorher geplant, man hat 2 LGB's dabei und das wars. Das muß doch schlicht langweilig sein? Das macht man 5 oder 6 mal und dann ist doch die Luft raus.

After a long time away from F1, I've started flying F1 again. But somehow the flightpath marker is not displayed in aproach mode. Has something changed or is this a bug?

Modern fighters like an F-35 are designed to take as much as possible off the pilot's shoulders to reduce his workload. In terms of flying, this borders on boredom. Older models are far more interesting for me. I don't just have to fly into the vicinity and drop a JDAM or similar, I have to do something for success. Since the Eurofighter is already too modern for me, I probably won't buy the F-35.

Then we have to wait for ED, as that is their job.

I, for example, already have the Mig-21bis (which I hardly ever fly). So I wouldn't buy another variant of the Mig-21. There are enough other alternatives that are not yet represented in any variant in DCS. But that may also be because I generally have little to no interest in Soviet/Russian fighters.