iLOVEwindmills

530 is still superior to AIM7. Also the M2K has plenty of edges over the FC3 planes, the fuel issue does not need to be stacked on top of this. Right, that's why I advocated for 70% of fuel to make the start up times about similar. This should actually nerf the FC3 ability to do instant vertical take off that the 27 can do with 20% fuel and 15 with fuel tanks only. It doesn't bother me that you can be airborne quick, it bothers me that the FC3 planes need to sit and snore for 7 some minutes for no reason. While there is no real gameplay or balance reason for it.

Or we can conclude that in the eternity the Mirage has been in blue flag, its ability to take off very quickly caused no real issues. Considering it can't be 'fixed', why not extend the same option to the FC3 planes. The M2K still has the advantage in the 530 and rearming, which the FC3 planes still need to wait ages for, but at least they can take off in about the same timeframe.

The Mirage does have an advantage because of this, that's not opinion that's fact. And you can't make it go away by changing the Mirage, you need to change the FC3 planes. That why I and quite a few others fly barely anything else. The advantage of being up in a few minutes, and do rearm/refuel in a few minutes is extremely advantageous. It would be nice to have a reason to fly the 15 and the 27 again, but maybe you don't care about that.

Considering it can fuel while starting up and needs to take on only half of what the 15C needs, it cannot be made 'even' by starting empty. It's the 15C and 27 that need to start all fuelled up to make it balanced.

Is the plus capable of loading amraams on the outboard wing stations?

yis

thanks man, it looks better and better. The skin was still a placeholder right? Oh and something else, is there a plan to model MK80 bomb variants with the fire retardant coating? I would guess ED might make them for the Hornet, but the Av8 would use those as well right?

Oh I'm not asking you to do it, but I guess FB makes more sense for raz to post on then here.

It would be very useful if there are a few binds available that set limits for the nozzle axis at key positions. That seems like the most straightforward way of modelling the stop.

Would be nice to have the pics linked in other place as well. FB is a complete pain for viewing pictures.

Sure, though these are FC3 planes. I strongly doubt any dev is going to invest time, money and long term support to make a module that is a straight downgrade from an already existing plane. There's no way they'll make money back on that. Especially when this same time can be used to make a novel plane.

We will never have a different version of the Mig21, or of any other module for that matter. So we will have to make do with just limiting the armament. It's more than close enough to be believable, plus the alternative is not playing the scenario at all.

Did they say it will be free with the Harrier?

Wasn't the thing that the game would only draw a single pixel at long distances, giving the advantage to whatever monitor would produce the largest pixels? I also know certain comp players still use CRT monitors, though that doesn't directly relate to DCS.

Afaik that is not the case, you want pixels to be as large as possible. A top of the line 4k monitor would be much worse for that compared to a cheaper big 1080p monitor

Yeah by the looks of it there is just more options, no capabilities were removed compared to the F or D. Though I guess you're still dealing with the extra weight.

Did the G retain the capability of using bombs/rockets etc like the regular 105?

Sure, but this does not make clear what the implications of this message really are. Would a new player know what the difference is between the Steam version and the E-shop version? Would they know about how beta/early access works in DCS and how long modules stay in beta? Would they know what beta modules are coming up that they might be interested in buying, and are consequently locked out of such content until they are out of beta? Sure the message is there, but it requires an inordinate amount of research to be done on part of a potential new customer in order to make the right choice. The fact that there are essentially no upsides to being on Steam, only massive drawbacks, is not clear at all from just this message.

Will there be an effort to make beta modules available on Steam after these changes? If the system stays as it is, ie modules can be unavailable to Steam for 1+ year, why keep selling copies on Steam in the first place? It seems like you are going to get a never ending stream of people who buy a module only to realize later that the Steam version is the 'wrong' version.

The guy working on the Bo105 also showed a 3d model of the APKWS, so depending on who releases first that might make implementing it easier for Razbam.

All the normal weapons you'd expect, laser Mavs and sidearm as the 'new' stuff. There was a post somewhere, but basically they are just modelling everything it used in rl.

Few more from Seaforces VMA542

So I get it's 'better', but does anyone have an idea how they actually changed it? Is this a further tweaking of the system we already know or is there some new tech at work here? Any changes on how resolution and screen size affects visibility? What about ground unit visibility? Long distance plane visibility? How do contrast and viewing angles influence things now?

Has that been stated? I haven't heard a single word about the ground radar since they showed that coast/aicraft carrier test image of it. That must've been like 2 years ago now.

It would also be undesirable for RB to release close before or after the Hornet release I'd imagine.