MrDieing

Its not going to be FC3 style, if they do, that would be a pretty big surprise (not a pleasant one)

You show me one picture of an F-5E with tip tanks and I will happily believe anything you say from now on

This is the first time they have been doing something like this on such a scale, probably running into problems with the old protection system (key-based system called Starforce) and now the newer DRM in combination with Steam. Cut them some slack, report your problems with as much detail as possible and they will fix it, I am sure of that :)

And while not relevant, highly recommend you get a HOTAS system of some sorts. Goes a long way for your enjoyment of the module.

You have some very weird logics and a maybe a slight obsession with FPS, no attack, just saying.

I have added them to the first post. They are also on the DCS website. Looking sexy!! :)

Go home, you are drunk

Welcome to the forums! Make sure to ask any questions you might have in this thread or the proper sub forum :)

This. Once again pitchforks and torches are being raised even before people know how it will actually work. Its not as simple as ''Add F-14B by Heatblur Simulations to the compatibility list''. This is all pretty understandable if you ask me, but if you think it is not, there is still no reason to really go all out before you get your hands on it. Its not all black and white.

I've seen much worse lighting. I disagree.

Who knows how complicated it was to implement for various reasons. Maybe it was less prioritized for whatever reason. We won't know. Quite a pointless question to ask.

Welcome! I second what fatboy said. Make sure you take advantage of the great sales that are on at this moment, they are really good deals and it might be a while before the next sale is. If you have any troubles make sure to just pop your question in this thread or somewhere else, there are plenty of people willing to help. It will be a hell of a ride :)

Get outta here. Yes, there are problems, but your statements are way overdone. Riddled with bugs and not being up to DCS standards was that one plane by that one developer that has gone, probably for the better. Looking at your join date I suspect you are an Hornet Boomer so you must not have been around those days, so I guess that makes yourself not an actual member of the true DCS community? Because a 'true' community must be the dumbest sh*t I have heard today :lol:

Uuh what? DCS tries to simulate missiles as realistic as possible. Due to their classified nature it is obvious that it is not possible to simulate them 1 to 1. I suggest you use some of your 'its essentially the same bomb so it can fit on the pylon logic' in this case aswell. And here is a definition of 'simulator' for you ''a device that enables the operator to reproduce or represent under test conditions phenomena likely to occur in actual performance'' While DCS is not really for testing and the above definition applies more to a hardware simulator, you can tell that a simulator usually means that it tries to simulate the actual conditions, in other words reality.

Thinking about it, the Tornado is actually a possibility. Its eagerly awaited (in other words, a wishlist for it pops up about once a week somewhere on the forums) and could represent a milestone in the way that all technologies developed over the past few years (multicrew, A/A or A/G code reuse from Hornet/Viper, FLIR rework etc.) come together in one module. They also have not spoken about it being developed previously and it is not overly classified for ED (assumption right here, it left UK service last year) to make an accurate model out of it. Or its the Apache.

I believe the hipster way of saying that you disagree with people asking for cheats because they cant do it is 'git gud'

Correct, Mode 6 in the JF-17 (and DCS) functions as Mode 4. In other words, it can only guarantee that an aircraft, with a valid reply (same Mode 6 code) is friendly. An aircraft with no or an invalid reply cannot guaranteed to be hostile by Mode 6. I suggest reading up on Chuck's Guide, he does a good job explaining how IFF works in the Jeff. Page 326. https://www.mudspike.com/wp-content/uploads/guides/DCS%20JF-17%20Thunder%20Guide.pdf

Why should it have to be mentioned by ED for us to eagerly await it? When the F-16 was not a thing yet there was a wishlist thread for it almost every other week, in other words it was eagerly awaited because so many people wished for it. There are always more then enough wishlisters in every single forum section, so you can easily base eagerly awaited on that. In other words, somebody count all the wishlists on this forum, the one with the most counts must be it :D

Too soon man, too soon.

There is. They actually have to negotiate terms and what not. RAZBAM has much on their plate so before they would enter this negotiation phase I guess we would be talking years from now. This is the part I am actually interested in. I would imagine ED just 'gave' it to FlyingIron on a first come, first serve basis. Curious if they discussed with RAZBAM.

I welcome any new dev to DCS, great news! But I do wonder what the deal is with RAZBAM. I suppose RAZBAM had it on its personal roadmap and announced it as something for the far future (I mean their roadmap is pretty full already), but FlyingIron basically called dibs on it with ED?

Could not agree more. Ofcourse the real keyboard warriors rate this thread one star rather then typing out their opinion; probably for the better, they would get skinned alive in this thread plus its a refreshing change to not have hate in every thread.

So do I. Major improvement. All the crybabies must not know what it looked like 'back in the day'. It was just outdated.

I need to wear my tinfoil hat for reading this thread. What is funny is that they dont trust ED but they do trust a semi controversial Russian cybersecurity company :megalol: