Jarlerus

TLDR; It would be a hassle to add all that info into the game's database as it's not straightforward what era everything belong to. I thought about this, as a feature in game, but there's some problems: One is that some modules have features that could be disregarded, and if done so, the module could stand in for an older vintage one as the performance of systems and weapons would be perfectly equivalent. Example: The F/A-18C if, f.ex., the AIM-9X and AIM-120's are "blocked" you can fly it as a mid-90's F/A-18 without too much discrepancies. Also, just adding the ability to filter on a span of years would be better. Anyways, I've started building such a list, so we can check service spans on our own. Link in my signature. :) //Jarl.

Could you imagine that he meant the dude that did necro bump it? I can imagine he meant the dude that necro bumped it.

Huh. ok. Didn't know the ATFLIR could be slaved to the radar. Neat!

Moreover, the real reason the AIM-7 is in DCS is era compatibility. There where times when it was the best, or AIM-120s where scarce. Going "best of the best"-setting? Go 120's, as many have stated. (and yes, AIM-7's might be good against big targets, on a game-meta level - unfortunately)

Why have the ATFLIR on CAP?

Price. AIM-7 is about 1/3 of an 120. (Wikipedia prices :P )

I guess this would be part of optimizing the render distance of smoke. I would not like a slider for render time, but a better rendering system altogether that is more efficient. And then let the smoke stay realistic amount of time, depending on missile.

This spreadsheet includes my comprehensive wish-list. :P (DCS Aircraft and Weapons Service Span Spreadsheet) /Jarl

+1 to (basically) incorporating SRS into DCS - and add more features that become possible because of a closer link between comms-engine and game-engine.

I'm sure Heatblur will simulate it to a realistic effect. Stop mansplaining...

Wall of text though. I would suggest using some paragraphs. Just to give it a bit of structure.

Note on how to handle different resolutions: Keep the same ratio of render-sizes (on set FoV and Zoom-levels). If the ratio is kept across resolutions, it's equalized a bit. More than now. This, ofc, presumes that all models in game behave the same (Same LoD steps etc). Which they, unfortunately, don't do. :(

Haha, not for you to decide, unfortunately ;D

I'll fly both, thank you very much.

It looks great, I give it that ^^ I'd like one too, but I'd wait until we have a map in Southern EU or Balkans, where it would fit well. :)

"Miss in the list" What do you mean?

Here's one example of the Campaigns we fly: Trailer: First Sortie: Second: Third, and final:

Funnily enough, it's the guy with the better monitor and hardware that has it more difficult, in this case. Although I agree to a point, I do believe there should be an effort made to make it as similar across the board as possible. There will always be some outliers, but an effort should at least be made.

A.I. controlled multicrew? Obviously the next module is going to be a B-17 or Lancaster.

We'll probably get it in an asset pack, as soon as they can figure out how to brand it ;)

Yeah, momentary brain-lapse. Corrected.

Yes it is, if your speed is decreasing. (But once you are traveling along at a constant speed, you are not accelerating, nor decelerating anymore - and the G-meter should read ~1)

There's a difference between "negative G's" indicated in an aircraft (as in -2G when you pitch down hard), and negative acceleration though (a decrease in speed). The G-force in a stall are oriented in the same direction as G-forces in a turn.

In a stall, where the direction of travel of the aircraft is downward (pilots perspective) the aircraft is essentially a big air brake. So the aircraft decelerates, and that generates G-forces. A negative acceleration, but an acceleration nonetheless, and the G-meter will show this.

Are you arguing that an airplane in a stall can't have any G-forces acting on it? :huh: (G-forces are a result of accelerations - positive or negative)