iLOVEwindmills

Because there is a better solution. I care about the dynamic nature of it, the deeper longer term positioning/strategy/planning that is offered by blue flag and no other server. An environment that enables making all machines viable, not just the ones that fling the most of the best missiles and encourages them to cooperate to achieve the best results. If penalties do not contribute to improving the gameplay/immersion in an observable, concrete way then I see no value in retaining it. As I explained I see these things as hurting variety and choice, actually detracting from the experience. The fuel issues with the mirage and the imbalance have little to do with realism, the fact that the FC3 planes can't fuel/arm while engines running/starting has nothing to do with realism. These are completely arbitrary mechanics but unfortunately they have an impact on the game. These are compensated with arbitrary mechanics to try and improve the situation. That airbases have limited slots, that different bases have different planes, that helis have more lives, that the live count is 4 and not 6 or 2. These are all gameplay factors that are not really realistic, but are there to guide things towards becoming more realistic even though they are wholly arbitrary numbers. Just saying that 'more' refuel/rearm time leads to things being more realistic is not really true. It's not real life and whether you want it or not we are working within tons of constrictions. For instance, would 2 life cap lead to people behaving more realistic and thus improving the experience? Or 1 life every 6 hours? Probably not. This is a long winded way of saying that you can't just look at 'is this realistic or not', you have judge these things by how they will actually play out in the game and what consequences they have. Often times a 'realistic' measure can lead less realism and worse gameplay to boot.

There is an issue, it's that the FC3 planes need to fuel for so long that you can be airborne and a good deal underway to the target in the m2k by the time they start taxiing. Not to mention staring at your fuel gauge going up for 7/8 mins is the definition of boring. If they don't have to do that, there will at least be a reason to take the 15 or the 27 over the m2k.

Turned out not to be a real issue with the m2k so might as well give the FC3 planes some more fuel so they don't have to wait so ridiculously long. At least to the point they can compare to the M2k time to get into the air.

It already doesn't really do this with the 27 at 20% something fuel and the 15C with externals. Only reason you need to take off that quick is when spamming point defense, and there the low fuel is actually an advantage.

Take it easy. And for the 100th time, removing fuel from the M2k will barely change anything as it can fuel during start up and needs way less than the FC3 planes. By the time start up is done you're almost good to go.

So you'd have about the same time it would take as the M2K for refuel/rearm? Refuelling is mostly relevant for forward captured airfields anyway, where you can't respawn even if you wanted to.

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?

Spent some time matching up pictures of NAs trying to find one from exactly the same angle as an ingame screenshot. Found one that is very close, and I think shows the difference pretty clearly. Maybe someone with some photoshop skills can try and put them on top of each other. Ingame NA Real NA And a GR9 for kicks

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?

We can try and find photos from the exact same angle I suppose. Is it possible that the nose/sensor housing was changed at any point during production in the real NA?