Top Jockey

Hello again everyone. My curisosity regarding MiG-29 vs other types in DACM continues, everyone feel free to share your opinion. The current doubt is very simple, searching data from the web, I've been comparing the MiG-29A vs F-15C. In the parameters below, the F-15C seems so be better than the MiG : - T/W ratio - wing loading - CL max (lift coefficient) In DCS I do find the Eagle to be pretty maneuverable, regarding nose pointing ability, turn rate, slow speed AoA controlability, etc... those aspects in which IRL the Fulcrum is known to excel. So I would appreciate your opinion on, in real life which one of the two has the best: - Sustained Turn Rate (maximum DPS) - Instantaneous Turn Rate - Smallest turn radius - Corner speeds Throughout the web, even keeping in mind the Fulcrum always got much more 'hype' than the Eagle regarding its pure dogfight abilities, some say the Eagle is capable of out-turning the Fulcrum, others say the contrary is true, so where do we stay ? Thak you.

Are you also activating the DLC system ?

Very good. At first sight for less knowledgeable guy, the more pronounced differences between the C and E variants airframe wise, are the conformal fuel tanks and the double seat cockpit ... but as you explained there's much more to it. Thank you.

Hello, Allow my curiosity, is that because some sort of fly-by-wire limitation or something ?

There you go: Second post as explained per @near_blind. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/238704-hud-pitch-ladder/

I can confirm the mirror artifacts were (in my case), due to a cockpit labels sharpness mod I had installed. After erasing that mod's folder from the Saved Games folder, the mirrors instantly got working correctly again.

What ? Didn't you read it's coming ? You should be more patient.

I didn't say it wasn't, I've read it the first time IronMike wrote it. Personally never felt the need to 'refresh' the aircraft just because of those dynamic cockpit features - was merely sharing my point of view here about them.

Sure, I fully understand. On the bold, I didn't express myself right, I'm not questioning that, of course people know stuff eventually do fail, break, etc. What I meant was, that several Tomcat fans / simmers, might find much more preferable visually wise to look at a not so 'disfigured' panel / cockpit. It's merely personal preference, and they are also on their own right - just that.

Yeah, but that might not be everyone's cup of tea. Different people do buy modules and get their enjoyment out of them, for effectively different reasons: - some buy the F-14 because they want to feel as a real life jet fighter as most as possible, and therefore they seek the utmost realism ; - others buy this module, because they highly appreciate the legendary F-14 Tomcat as the pure machine it is ... and want to enjoy its flight, its capabilities, its looks (cockpit and airframe), etc. And in this last case, flying something that is supposed to be powerful, hi-tech in its time, legendary like the Tomcat, doesn't quite match with broken, cheap patch, badly kept parts in the ACM panel - in terms of personal preference speaking. On the second bold, you're probably right, but one can't exactly guess there would be metal plates patched to the ACM panel and the such.

Hello again @IronMike, I've already shared my 2 cents today regarding the ACM panel wires, metal plates, etc, but I believe this issue does have its share of importance : - i would say Kula66 doesn't necessarily 'disapprove' those "dynamic cockpit patches" ; it is instead a matter of personal preference ; - preference on an aspect that for many of us is of paramount importance: the F-14 Tomcat's own image, looks ... and obviously this also includes its cockpit architectural style ; - and for those of us who highly appreciate the many specific and particular details of the F-14 cockpit ... patch wires and metal plates do not exactly favour the 'visual experience', 'eye candy', etc, we highly praise. ( Nothing wrong with them / the feature in itself, it's just that some of us would prefer the option for them not being there all the time. ) I fully understand the merits of realism in a flight sim, but it doesn't invalidate some key aspects : - it is also realistic that the quick repair patches weren't there 100 % of the time of the Tomcat's life ; - fans who buy modules, don't always buy them merely because of the realism factor ; - many times they buy them, because they also find a given airframe (and its systems) visually appealing, its combat capabilities, etc. Hence the importance of, like you already mentioned, when 'FORGE' is complete to have an option to not have the cockpit repair patches. Best regards!

Regarding the bold : - it really was the cockpit labels sharpness mod i had installed - removed it and the mirrors are alright now; - it was with the last open beta with MT.

Thank you @IronMike. Sure, although I very much praise realism, I also appreciate a lot the Tomcat's cockpit original architecture - it's big part of the "eye candy" factor for me. Very good to know about it, I'll be waiting for the "put together your own jet" feature. Best regards. edit Now that you mention it - not for the mirrors, but I do have a sharpness mod for better reading the cockpit labels ... Artifacts on the mirrors as images below.

I've seen the wire and also the metal plate in the ACM panel ... personally don't like it, looks like some patches old machine. Also my mirrors are showing artifacts. @IronMike, is there a way to disable these "dynamic cockpit (FORGE) elements" ? Thank you.

Hello, Glad to know it, i have the same CPU. Did you took any additional steps, as deleting FXO and metashaders folders, or anything ? How did you measured performance ? Thank you.

My 2 cents: 1. No, I didn't buy modules / got to be a client of ED, DCS because of the free TP-51 or the Su-25T. Although I think they are a pleasant complement / additional bonus, and indeed i've spent some hours using the Su-25T sights / TV screen to use its several different guided munitions... but that's the kind of stuf I like. 2. About the 2nd question, I believe it can simultaneously happen more than just 1 of your options, so I didn't vote. I got to be a client because: - first I bought the MiG-21bis and got very well impressed ( already knew LOMAC and highly appreciated it - the best graphics so far in any combat flight sim ) - then after a while, wanted to fly the F-15 and MiG-29 again, so I bought FC3 - then the Hornet came out ... with JHMCS and all the bells and wistles, and couldn't let that pass - the rest is history ...

Hello, What quantity ( percentage % ) of internal fuel are you starting with, at mission editor ? Bear in mind that the Su-27 is a very big and heavy jet fighter, and also has a very big internal fuel capacity... which if at high percentage, equals to being VERY heavy and not that much suited to dogfight situations. So, if you are only dogfighting, I would suggest you would start with: - no more than roughly 30 % internal fuel - full gun ammo - 2 x R-73 Archer missiles It's ACM capability specifics are also talked about on several threads, as example: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/281302-thrust-to-weight-ratio-confused/page/6/ Good luck !

Hello, Same experience here (with some games / tapes, not all of them), in the long gone '80s, with my father's ZX Spectrum 48k ! I believe the most common message was: "tape loading error" or something, but when it worked it were hours of pure enjoyment.

Very good post. But that bold might upset the comunist party errand kids (although sometimes they feign it doesn't). - they get their egos hurt, if anyone says they copied something - but when they say the F-15 is a MiG-25 copy, it's all right You're absolutely right about being calm and respectful ... but quite frankly, I feel the 'modus operandi' in this specific sub-forum is : - when it comes to chinese aircraft, I sometimes notice a bit of unhealthy fanaticism - when facing a different opinion, they falsely act as if highly offended or insulted - feign offended, to try 'justify' an hostile (disrespectful) tone of speech - the bad manners come up, and a somewhat visible dislike for free speech too Quoting @Torbernite : " Our forum has too much tolerance to ill-considered rumors and too little to those against them. " First, this isn't your forum, it's ED's forum. Second, by that kind of posture, where are you ? North Korea ?? I've also praised the JF-17 and J-20 airframe designs, but the errand boys ignored that. ... because the priority is, trying to dismiss other not so praising different opinions. There sure are interesting aircraft in DEKA, but more people don't come to this sub-forum, because sometimes it can be difficult to exchange honest opinions. No ill intent whatsoever against anyone, have a nice weekend !

Come on, don't get so upset over this. I didn't say it was an attempt, I said it was a consumated fact. Let me guess what you're going to insinuate next: " J-11's airframe design is in no way, shape or form related to the russian Su-27, it's 100 % purely indigenous production design. " (If you believe it strongly, it becomes true.) All the best !

No, sorry but calling things as one see's them is not "despising" anyone ; I assure you that's not me. Now, don't ask me to "sweep the dust under the rug", when I feel some credits start to get discreetly exaggerated. ( Also didn't see you intervene at the: "F-15 was an attempt to copy the MiG-25" either... ) If you had read my comments from the previous page, you wouldn't be saying that ... if I well recal, I also wrote: - for instance, JF-17 and J-20, being highly original / inovative airframe designs. - Not being a surprise, that some variants airframes are indeed highly similar to russian aircraft, as some of these airframes were licenced production from Russia. Yeah all those other jets were taken into account into the J-8II's development - sure, great ; but does that by itself invalidate the totally striking resemblances with the Su-15 ?

Trolling ? Rest assured I'm not the one frustrated over a mere difference of opinions. - please stop trying to change people's attention to the 1st J-8 variant (with nose air intake); - you understood very well I'm talking about J-8II (or J-8B)... and this one's airframe couldn't be more identical to an Su-15. "F-15 was an attempt to copy the MiG-25" ... what is this ? Joke of the year ? The F-15 was an attempt to surpass it, and they succeded. Sure, let's put a bubble canopy here and a ventral fin there and pretend it's a 100 % indigenous production design.

Oh they said that ? ... and I thought they instead noticed : When replacing the Su-9 and Su-11 with the Su-15, the russians abandoned the nose air intake design and replaced it with a conventional radome and side air intakes. ... to create room for a modern (and bigger) fire-control radar, and also use more powerful engines. Lo and behold, the new J-8II emerges, and its 'convergent evolution' airframe design looks like a print copy of the Su-15.

Yes, you mean the first J-8 variants airframe, sure they do. But I was refering specifically to the J-8II, and airframe wise there is nothing more similar to an Su-15 Flagon than a J-8II.

It's explained in my previous post.