Jarlerus

Have you tried flinging the GPU cooler and/or car cooler through the air at ~300 knots? I'm not saying the DCS cooling model is "proper". I am saying that you don't seem to actually know it isn't proper.

Resizing (or automatic resizing) of menu windows in general is due. Like the control settings menu. It would me grrrrreat if we could maximize the use of the horizontal screen space, so we don't have to scroll around so much (expecially when there's more than 1 controller connected) =)

For better effect, post this in the MiG-21Bis developers sub-forum. (Magnitude 3 LLC)

I raise your wishlist with my own 8) (check my sig) /Jarl

Hmm. Interesting idea. It would be quite easy to add another sheet, or just put SAM-weapon systems to the weapons list. I can start the structure in the document, but for service dates for land units, I'll need some help ^^ First: Will it be necessary to separate between "land units" and their weapon systems? It's mostly down to how they are represented in DCS I think. I'll start with a sheet for units, and I'll be happy if you post the service dates for any unit that is a personal favorite of yours (everyone is free to post, ofc! ^^ ) =) //Jarl

Just use my comprehensive list in the meantime 8)

Cool! So the 1962 intro date is confirmed. The exit date is more difficult, as it's hard to determine what version it really was/became during the years. I can't find my source again now, but I'm fairly happy with 1998 at the moment. /Jarl

Cool! Thanks, Fixed it =) /Jarl

Aaaaand the MiG-23 is off the "IN DEV" list. :( https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/posts/1201090019977634 But if I read between the lines, a MiG-23 is probably planned by someone already :)

So, does anyone know for how long the MiG-23MLA and/or MiG-19P where in service? =) I don't know what version of the MiG-19P they are going to make, so until then I will assume the worst, and just put the one that entered production in 1955. //Jarl

Ah! Yes, thanks for reminding me =) /Jarl

With "over modeled", do you perhaps mean 'over performing'? Harsh accusations. "French bias"? :P

It's not overrated :P It's designed for different purposes. In short, the F-14 was designed (performance wise) with fuel economy i mind. Something the designers of the F-15 (and probably Su-27) didn't have to. So yes, of course there's differences as they fill different roles.

If you like Retro Electro (the genre in question) you can check out my playlist: https://open.spotify.com/user/jarlerus/playlist/6CEdvb8ICQSAIlbDQZASTR I'd also like something like it. But I'm happy if it just conveys an 80's feeling ^^

For clouds, and for consistency over clients in multiplayer, procedurally generated ones would probably be a good solution. And it has the potential to generate some really realistic cloud effects, if done right.

I'd join, but my gear isn't ready yet :( I'll check in later, when it's done, and see if you still have a spot ^^

You make some interesting points. Although I don't think AAMs and SAMs with ballistic profiles (I use this term in it's broadest sense for missiles that "go up when launched to get more range") are comparable, as SAMs usually go for targets that are (much) higher than the launcher. As for the bleed numbers you cite, I can't assess their validity, but I do find them interesting and I'm curious to see how the AIM-54 will behave =) This will dictate so much of the "DCS meta", as far as mission building goes in the future.

AFAIK the AIM-54's max speed is Mach5 (at the top of the curve I guess) and yes, apparently at long ranges it has a high arc (ballistic) profile. It climbs to altitude, and dives down at the target. Exactly what speed will be retained after the dive and at what angle it will approach is, as I said before, "something we'll have to see how it'll work". To be more specific in my "not necessarily be slower" argument: The AIM-120 has a (apparent) max speed of Mach 4, and it's flight profile is flatter. The AIM-54 has a much higher ballistic profile, and reaches higher speeds (Mach 5). It dives from higher altitudes, and weighs more (Warhead: ~18kg vs ~61kg) so it will retain more of it's speed, at least at equivalent distances and if the speed loss for air resistance is similar(it isn't, but for the purposes for this comparison, as I can't do the math on it...), compared to the AIM-120. The conclusion I come to is that it's not obvious which one will have the highest impact speed. But yeah. I can also just type "I though this was trivial, but OK" and be a douche about it :P

The first "yes" is a useless answer. At least try to give some argument, even if it's short and simple. The second is weird. What do you mean? Who should avoid steep dives? The missile or the target? Would you care to explain what you mean with "radar discrimination"? Does the radar discriminate? :shifty:

The speed of the AIM-54 at long ranges would not necessarily be slower, as it dives down from high altitude. It will come in at a target loaded with energy. And potentially above the targets RWR coverage, but that is something we'll have to see how it'll work.

I'll correct it to 1967. As for the upgrades, I'll keep it at 1967, and leave the specific block version to an eventual developer to choose :) I know I picked a block fro the F-16, but I generally like to keep it a bit open for choice, and having multiple blocks in a module. It would benefit us users in the end ^^ //Jarl.

I'd like to have a player model that is (comfortably) controllable so that SAR-missions are more fun to play =)

Thanks! =)

Thanks, Kev2go! Pure gold. =) I've updated the list accordingly. //Jarl

Meh, that wasn't an official confirmation ;)