Top Jockey

Hardest to land, for me: MiG-21 first and MiG-29 second. Although when the MiG-29 PFM first came out, I do recognize it could be a nightmare for everyone not used to.

The only way I managed to have a symetrical release sequence, was NOT leaving the stations boxed at the QTY (quantiy) JSOW page.

Yeah... it could also not work. ... as I can imagine a lot of currently loyal costumers leaving, by totaly disagree with a susbcription model to be able to access their hobby. For new / recent / not fidelized costumers (nowadays mostly young people prone to app / subscriptions / quick services), my guess is they can tend to see DCS as another "Ace Combat" after some time, and eventually leave it.

Now I'm curious: did you manage to get the INS alligned and the engine running with Shimmergloom667's procedure list ?

Well, never was on my list of absolute favourites, but as it was part of my country's Air Force ( Força Aérea Portuguesa ) here it goes : It had its path at our Air Force, as a trainer, recognition, and light air-to-ground attacker (in close air support) from 1965 to 1993. I believe the Fiat G-91 saw some action at the Portuguese Colonial War in 1960s / 1970s in African continent. (Because our main jet at the time - the F-86 Sabre could not be "officially" employed with the USA support on that conflict.) Hope you like the pictures.

By the way Hummingbird, I've re-edited your diagram from thread below, post #608 (remember?), to put the last merge in the same colours. Thank you again, as "a picture is worth a thousand words". http://forums.eagle.ru:8080/showthread.php?t=140030&page=61

Hello, Threads regarding aircraft performance, like turn-rate, turn radius, thrust to weight ratio, acceleration, wingloading, etc. are one of my favorites. And indeed I've been learning even more stuf about this with several of you here... however, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly you turn these threads into hostile conversations between you.

You nailed somed point there, but: 1. The 3$ - 7$ a month (as 1/12th of the purchase price value), I'll admit could be very attractive for a lot of people, but that to financialy work for ED: - one subscription fan would have to pay the montly fee for at the least roughly 12 months total... and speculating that this type of cosutemer being recent / youth / not harcore niche user, it might probably get tired of DCS before that time; - or, there would have to be at the least, 12 times more people to pay 1 month subscription, than the current amount of ED's purchasing costumers... 2. Regarding the "I just want to OWN it" crowd - that's precisely my case. As I HIGHLY praise the F-14 the F/A-18 and even the low fidelity MiG-29, it is out of the question having to repeatedly pay some fee to gain temporary access to them. How can I tell you - it's not mandatorily a money issue; it's the unambiguous sense of ownership of an aircraft module you highly praise.

@Yurgon, Thank you for your reply. I understand you like subscriptions, well I don't - because of the reasons I mentioned. One reason is mainly, I do not like the fact that: one is only allowed to play his hobby during limited time periods, and upon continuously paying fees. (After a while, I feel that starts being financial exploitation.) For instance, if you buy the Hornet today, it will cost you 79.99 $. But instead you prefeer to sign a subscription for, let's say 15.00 $ a month... well: - when you subscribe for the 6th. month, you are already spending more than if you had bought the module; - if you do not whish to spend the money on a given month's fee, you don't play at all... because the Hornet isn't yours - you were only renting it. (Obviously very bad business model, for the costumer who intends to stay with a module years in a row.) So, via subscription service: how many times do you want to pay for your Hornet ?

Care to comment posts #140 and #168 ? ... yeah I didn't think so.

From what I'm reading here, a lot of costumers (where I'm included), don't like not even one bit of the condition : only being allowed to access our hobby for a limited time period, and upon paying some frequent fee. To be perfectly honest - that's what would ruin it all for me. Already were mentioned other ways of helping ED if needed be, along this thread. Eitherway, and again highlighting my position regarding subscriptions of any kind: The suggestion you mention as "Tier 4", can also have ambiguous results for ED finantialy speaking. Imagine for instance an amount of people (new players / youngs / not realy niche and hardcore fans) that start spend 1 or even 2 months subscription. During that period they'll try to get the most of it while they can, only superficialy experimenting every aircraft and terrain, and when that monthly subscription ends many of them probably will call it a day. Because to keep learning the full fidelity systems an F/A-18 Hornet or A-10 Warthog do have, it takes time; and after a while that eventualy sends the message: "Yeah to keep learning more about this Aircraft you have to keep paying." So I'm afraid that could drive people to the mindset: Ok "I've seen one, I've seen them all", much like Ace Combat arcade style, and that could end up being a invitation to leave the DCS sim aside after some time.

This ^ I'm not against other forms of supporting ED; if needed be. What I'm completely against is, some kind of subscription plan. As I do not agree with the condition of: only being allowed to access my hobby for a limited time period, and upon paying some frequent fee. Either the module is mine or it isn't.

Obviously you and everyone are intitled to his opinion, that's only fair. Some inconsistencies here, which seem more like exagerated "prophecies of doom" to me: - What's the problem exactly with Su-25T time and FC3 level systems ? Are the other options on the market generaly as good as DCS ? Are you aware that even today, many people still playing older sims than DCS, light sims also and with the corresponding low fidelity sytems (can't name them but are very well know) ? - Where is it written that every module will have a minimum 80 $ price ? Also, does everybody intend to buy ALL modules, maps, campaigns, etc, available, so they would have to spend high amounts ? - How can the A-10C (or anyother aircraft) be "old", for a recently arrived owner that as just bought it recently ? Even more, from what I read here, MANY people say it does have an astonishing amount of technical data to read and know about in order to fully use the aircraft ?? Again, isn't the present A-10C features and realism, high above many other sims on the market ? Well I got news for you: DCS is not : Netflix, Uber Eats, Spotify, etc, or some sort of pay-per-view, or monthly rental crap - so don't treat it like such. Therefore DCS is NOT a "service", as for many fans it's not a disposable / expendable item that people put aside if they don't feel like paying the next month subscription fee. If you don't praise DCS to the same high level of many other fans around the world do - that's your right, no problem whatsoever; but also don't try to devaluate it by classifying it as something ephemeral, superficial and futile like " a subscription service "... that's somewhat detrimental and doesn't suit well. One of the KEY aspects that keeps a business alive - availability of product. Can you imagine the many new / recent / experimenting / uncertain costumers, that will turn off from DCS, because on the next month they didn't feel like paying the subscription, as the money already went for something else ? Nonsense because of the reasons I mentioned already. Monthly subscribe fees and such - that is a WALL, and it can kill a PC sim.

Some points: The HUD in the F-14B isn't "current", it is what that particular model used at its time. How is it a step back, if it is a completely different aircraft, from a different time ? The F-4 Phantom II only had a moving gunsight reticle at the HUD when first appeared, does that makes its HUD a step back ? No it's only specific characteristics, for that aircraft at that time.

Agree. Although the minimum value for a given module is debatable, indeed I do prefeer that possibility 1000 times more, than any type of subscription.

For me it's the above ^ Already said NO in another thread, and already voted NO in this one. Either I buy a module and it's mine, or then it isn't.

My opinion, Neither the Viper, neither the Hornet: choose the Fighting Falcon instead. Ok, just kidding - but for me that name always suited better the plane, and was its initial one. I do not have the DCS F-16 yet. However these 2 aircraft are very close to each other in terms of mission / role (i.e. we are not comparing fighters with interceptors, but 2 multi-role fighters). So I guess the choice comes down to subjective aspects, like cockpit / avionics ergonomics; aesthetics; several performance differences; etc. which in the end is: owner preference.

I fully understand. F/A-18C: - bought it about an year ago, at the time what got me to the Hornet (instead of the Mirage), was the JHMCS and all the weapons and Pods to be implemented, etc; - even today I'm experimenting new stuf - several kinds of A-G ordnance, mostly against naval vessels, sensor employment / integration, just amazing; - (didn't spend the time yet to read and employ JDAM and JSOW, but look forward to it.) Su-25T: - when I bought the Hornet, some features (Litening T-Pod for instance) were not yet implemented, and neither did I study everything about this full fidelity module at the time; no problem, took the Su-25T and went to do some anti-shipping with more ease; - even the Su-25T being a low fidelity aircraft from FC3, it also allows for some cool A-G employment procedures; - I mean: this beast does have several types of TV or Laser guided bombs and missiles... interesting. F-15C: - well it's not an F-14... neither a MiG-29, but it its however a peculiar and very highly regarded air-superiority machine, with its own interesting aspects; - also spent a lot of time in it... until the F-14 arrived. MiG-29: - when the Professional Flight Model came out, it was like sort of a personal realisation to me; - one of my main "sadness" with LOMAC was that the Fulcrum really didn't turn / maneuver as in real life, (or at the least as reported in almost everywhere); - thanks to the PFM, I do spend so many time on it that I've got an exclusive russian pilot logbook for the MiG-29 and other aircraft. Also on third party modules, I would be here all day... So, from here: thank you ED.

I agree! The Litening T-Pod does make a difference for better, as it allows target acquisition much sooner and far away than Dataling Pod and the Walleye TV itself. However even when slaved by the T-Pod, sometimes the Walleye only gets allowed to release (WE without X cross at the HUD), when relatively near to target... I find I can't release them from so high and far away like a GBU, is this supposed to be like that ?

I see... also the link below explains some doubts: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4081837 And I've just tried to emply the Walleye not with the Datalink POD, but with the T-POD ( FLIR ), and let me tell you... GOOD BLESS such different sensors integration !!!

But when you say "recognise" it means that in some angles it might lock a ship (Molniya for instance), whereas on other angles it might not ? Also, the crosshairs (sight) are supposed to not stay on a fixed position until it locks / recognise the target ? Thank you.

Hello, Thank you for your attention, indeed I've been reading (here) several threads about the Walleye. And although I've read that it is somewhat "old-school" tech, I wasn't aware that the possibilty of it not recognizing exist... is that such a possibility ?

Anyone ?

I've been trying several A-G weapons with the Hornet form yesterday... very good indeed. Regarding the AGM-84 Harpoon: - never tried against the Moskva, seeing how easy a Neutrashimy class ship, can destroy any Harpoon, Harm, or other guided missile; - I believe even the Grisha class can intercept Harpoons with its somewhat limited anti missile systems if in certain conditions... but when the 4 Harpoons hit, the Grisha will sink; - other than that, although they are relatively easy to defend against, comparing to other sort of anti-ship ordnance they are relatively easy to employ and accurate.

No, only single player. Also with the datalink pod the initial lock / aiming on target seems to be much easier, but even then after releasing the walleye the sight seems to stray off target, needing constant adjustment... Isn't it supposed to stay locked / still (like FLIR T-Pod) after being slewed to target position ?