Horns

I don't usually write love-in posts, but I just want to thank you guys for being true to your word about coming back to the M2K and adding promised features like the English cockpit as well as touching up some existing features as needed. You have given us a bird that is easy to love, and now that workarounds provided by the community can give way to actual fixes it's much easier to enjoy this module for it's positives. Thanks Razbam.

Probably hanging out with my M2000-5

Cool, thanks. There was a guy in another subforum asking about over g damage modelling in DCS. I was going to direct him to the M2K, but I’ve never reached that point (ie 11G+) so I thought I’d better check first.

As people have said, this module is not complete yet, so there are things that are missing now but will be added in the future. As far as complete DCS modules go: I think ED make their modules as detailed and close to real life as they can without violating any laws or straining corporate friendships. ED's brand is built on the idea that they are bringing the most realistic product they can to the entertainment market. Some systems or effects might not be simulated due to legal reasons. Sometimes there are minor effects and features that the developer believes will have little to no impact on user experience and would require a disproportionate amount of work, so those may not be simulated. ED appear to be very conscious of an aircraft's edge of envelope or out of envelope behavior, and I'm sure that is something that will be simulated as faithfully as it can be once the module is finished.

Has excess G-force damage been modeled in the M2K module? If so, would it start beyond 9G or beyond 11? Ta

I think the economic reality is that all of our devs need to start revenue flowing as soon as they can, so unless there was a major paradigm shift I think EA will remain part of the business plan.

This. The greater the range of modules the better imo

Ok, weird idea: maybe the store page for an EA module could give a "not before" type of date... eg "during or after 2020". That assumes good faith dealing on the devs behalf of course, but it might be worth distinguishing whether it's at least 1 year or at least 3 years in the best case scenario. I'm still pretty new to EAs so I came in without expectations, but letting buyers know that at least x amount of development time is expected can allow devs to set realistic expectations and customers to make a more informed choice.

ED are effectively the final decision maker here, this environment being their sim. As such ED retain the power here, so as anywhere the decision maker decides how things progress, regardless of whether they are more knowledgeable than another party.

I'd hope that would be the case, especially if that report was either about something they haven't reviewed previously, or if the documentation, data and info illuminates an issue in a way that hasn't been considered before. On the other hand, if that specific issue had already been evaluated and agreed by ED, M3 could communicate that and we would know it's effectively been judged as accurate, so at least we could move on rather than wasting more time on something ED considers solid ground. If ED were inclined to indicate that data was acceptable regardless of accuracy then yeah, we're already done. I'm making the assumption that ED are interested in seeing DCS simulations are demonstrably accurate. As -Rudel- acknowledges in the hyperlink in the OP (or here) this submission of data and explanations has already been mentioned in multiple places, and is being used as evidence that the flight model is sufficiently accurate and therefore will be staying as is. The characterisation of this exchange has been that ED requested data re the accuracy of the flight model, this data was collected and submitted, any variations from known data were explained, and ED did not raise any objections regarding the information submitted, implying ED's satisfaction with said data. If this implicit approval will be used as part of the justification for locking down a flight model many think needs work, it would be helpful to both sides if this approval was confirmed explicitly. If that were done M3 would never need to have the conversation again (instead they could just link to ED's statement), and we users would no there was no remaining mileage in it, no matter how compelling the case. However, if ED were not indicating agreement it would make it difficult for them to refuse to revisit the flight model if a strong enough case was made.

We've seen -Rudel- (others too, I think) refer to a request from ED in various places, such as here for data to verify the accuracy of the MiG-21's flight model, and ED being satisfied by what they submitted. While statements such as this help, ED could make this conclusive by simply confirming that, in the light of M3's submissions and answers, they are satisfied with the accuracy of the flight model. I definitely see why ED would not want to get into an ongoing conversation about the accuracy of 3rd Party Developers works, this situation is different because -Rudel- himself has informed the community at large about this process. ED wouldn't be telling us anything, simply confirming what the developer themselves have already said. In fact, if this was to occur in future, it may make sense to have a precedent that allows ED to confirm that they have certified a dev's work in future. Beyond satisfying the doubts of people who genuinely have questions about the flight model's accuracy, there is a good reason that this would end much of the conversation: if ED are satisfied with the accuracy of the flight model, there is no reason to think it will get changed, so the only worthwhile approach would be to accept the module will stay as is permanently, regardless of how convinced they might be that there are actually glaring inaccuracies. Request: I'm suggesting that ED could help end dispute by confirming and supporting what M3 have told us. Pull the idea apart, support it or do both, but please respond to this idea itself rather than making this into a complaint/anti complaint thread.

I agree that the list looks pretty complete, but the use of the words “featuring” and “including” suggest the list isn’t exhaustive, especially to someone who wants to believe a particular item might be included and isn’t clear on the variant and time period restrictions. I guess we can refer people to the store list and say “if it’s not on the list don’t expect it”, so if HB are prepared to answer the occasional question (and in my experience they always are) I agree nothing further is needed :)

I think it would be helpful to have a definitive list of sensors and weapons like the one ED did for the F/A-18. I know this question has been asked and answered a bunch of times but it would be great to be able to refer potential buyers to a single source for consistency and ease. Beyond that, I think it could save Heatblr, the mods, the people who frequent this sub forum and potential customers unnecessary time and effort. If such a list already exists, maybe it can be stickied so people are able to easily find it. Before I wrote this I searched the F-14 sub forum for “sensor list” (without the quotes) but no such list was returned. If there is a reason Heatblur are reluctant to do this that’s fine, just thought I’d put this out there.

Maybe the big reveal will be an “Anytime Baby” patch on the shoulder of the pilot body...

Thank you both, valuable learning for me, the instant action missions I fly often involve me winding up with a bogie on my tail, so I'll have to try the snap roll ... and perhaps it's a reason I should keep hitting up the VKB page until they get stock...

Pfft, you sound like my therapist :P Seriously though, I do see your point - fingers crossed that's the worst thing about this module, yeah?

Ah gotcha, cheers

Isn't that the plane talking? So it's not the plane being welcomed back, it's welcoming us back to it and we're the 'baby'... oh God, now I'm having flashbacks to my ex's bachelor of arts lectures...

Just curious: Have you used full pitch and roll at the same time in combat in DCS?

I can't believe the MiG is marked as early access! I believe it was the first 3rd party module released... I have both the MiG-21 and the M2K. The MiG is the only module I wish I'd never bought. As bkthunder suggested, maybe you should go to the subforum, and I suggest you check out the bug tracker to get some idea of the features that aren't as they should be. Even though this bird is marked as early access I wouldn't expect features to be added to it. By contrast the M2K is probably my favorite module, but the aspects I love might make you dislike it. The Mirage can feel like a very modern plane (I think someone said it's supposed to be circa 1987) with its full HUD, INS navigation, autopilot designed to minimize pilot workload, modernish radar and BVR capability - to me that's a good thing, but if you're looking for an older fighter it might not be right for you. If you're looking for a fun fighter with speed to burn and you're happy enough to learn and apply its modern systems, I'd definitely suggest you go with the Mirage. If you are more inclined to go for something older, before you buy the MiG I'd suggest you take a look at the F-5 Tiger II. In the little time I've spent flying it I haven't had the same impression of speed that I did in the MiG, but it's a beautifully simulated contemporary of the MiG 21 that was used to imitate it in Red Flag exercises. If you do want to go for the MiG-21 it's probably worth taking a look at the subforum so you're going into it knowing what to expect.

Wow, good to know! Any idea where I could get that app?

Ah ok, so it’s the effect of the maneuvering, not the g load itself. Thanks for explaining :)

It would be great to get a standalone DCS Encyclopedia app I could use on a tablet or phone before, during or after a mission without needing to get out to the in-game menu. While I and others fill this need through Wikipedia right now, I'd much rather use the game-relevant information provided by DCS itself than relying on the accuracy of both Wikipedia and the sim. I imagine making such an app could be resource intensive, but I'd happily pay for it and I think others would too.

When a pilot is deciding whether to launch a missile at a particular target, should that pilot take into account the number of G the target is pulling, or does that not matter provided the missile can remain within its own flight envelope? Reworded: Are there any constraints on the max number of G a target can pull and still be tracked, or is a missile bound only to its own max G? Either answer is fine (after all, you have to draw the line on detail somewhere), just trying to work out if pulling G alone could be a valid defensive tactic against some missiles.

Then if it's just a pilot body stuck to a hang glider you'll be the only satisfied one here :P