sirscorpion

I am not technically sure about this one, But from what i understand is that its a program that uses your OWN aircraft data, its client side hence why server admins cant turn it off "same way tacview data can be turned off". Tacview uses server information and not client information, TacView can show you data from every one in the server, Leavu can only show you info from ur own team who is connected. The program as it stands uses information from the user, and links it with other users on your same net work. Did you even try the program? every opposition to this program sounds like a witch hunt. If the program right now operates as is a Link16 "a gimped one" in the f15c how is it a cheat. really point out the unfair advantage that a program like this provides when comparing it to other tools like track IR, Or sticks? Not ifs, and maybe and hypothesis, just some facts.

Explain to me cheat? how does LEAVU cheat in Blue flag. All data is from your own aircraft And other aircraft from your data link.

Some people i know do not have Track IR, Should that be banned as well?

They didn't call the mod cheating, they are only minding the hurt feelings of some people. While i Agree this mod should be limited to the F-15C as it did have Link16. I dont see this mod as any real harm to the Mplay state of DCS which favors realism over "feelings". But hey if Buddy spike wants to go down the hand holding of the feeling over fidelity, then that's a slippery slope. You know some one can feel that trackIR Is not fair, or having multi screens is not fair.

Pretty much this ends the argument.

Yeah if you want to lose life in no time fly the mirage, I lost 2 for friendly fire, 1 for losing radar lock and radar getting bugged, then the last time my radar simply stopped working. so yeah :mad: had to break it before blue flags

amazing program, really adds the missing part for the F-15c. Great work

Mig21, even the m2000 to some extent should not cost lives. "along with the hawk and L39" Mig21 does very well with enhanced models. but atm both the m2000 and the mig21 radars are broken.

Selling updated textures is over the top let alone for that price. Appreciate the effort and all but no, bad practice and bad reflection on the company and business model. Now if this was a map overhaul, new airbases, New building models, better terrain then yeah sure at that point you are offering something that might warrant a price tag. No hate intended, just some feedback from a potential customer. As a general rule, expand the consumer base, make the pot larger to push larger products, But this double and triple dipping into the ever shrinking pot is simply bad for the long term. Warthunder is doing it and they are eroding their customer base. And i hope i dont see that stuff here.

Now see thats more of a better answer to my argument. But i was using an example of the Aim120 b/c some one else used. my argument is more general concept of feasible weapon systems under combat scenarios are less likely to be cut Vs programs in peace time. If the aircraft was tested and certified to use it but it did not simply to the lack of budget then it should be in. If it was out side the scope as you stated, "AFIK Only F14D used the 120" or require a dramatic shift in scope of project then it should not get it in game. And before that, development time should first be allocated to the standard before the prototype. As you seem to know quite a bit on the F-14 subject, what do you think will the F-14 carry in an All out war scenario aside from the standard armament?

Am not sure how my argument is not clear its quite simple, but sure lets agree to disagree.

A Small update fix for a huge gain. Simply assign or create specific F-14 AMRAAMs, then you have control over them and restrictions on them. A non issue Nope I am arguing the process under war time conditions, the eco system which Digital "Combat" Simulator. If you follow the weaponizeation during world war 2 "AZON,FritzX etc" or Korean war, or the Vietnam war, or the gulf war "GBU-28". Vs programs during peace Time is vastly different. Armament trends in peace time Vs war time are pretty much public information and nearly every program or reduction in capability is simply due to politics, budget cuts. Now if the program was cut due to failure rates or other factors sure we can argue that in detail. But i have not seen any one arguing that aside from a "No"

I don't see this as a valid argument, i hear it all the time and its simply a restriction that can be made by the mission maker and not the people who are making the plane, if the option is cheep from a Dev time prospective then there is zero reasons the aircraft is not made capable of a full world war 3 scenario. But to expand on the "realism argument", Nearly every weapon system already in production usually gets qualified fast and standardized on all platforms. Comparing it to a peace time configuration where tons of politics, economics and budgeting comes into way. For example the AIM120 on the F14 was stopped due to the fact that the future of the F14 is uncertain during the testing, along with the F18 comming into play. now If the F14 saw full war combat and it was tested for Aim120, you bet it will have them. As waiting to full capability gap with platforms is much slower than armament. But that's only on a realistic argument, the major argument is how much dev time is needed, how much will it be used in Mplayer "it offers a wide scale for the aircraft to be used in early and late scenarios"

@IASGATG. Amazing stuff thank you

I always feel that aircraft in DCS should be configured for an all out war scenario. Many of those programs and possible missiles are cut in peace time. So if adding harpoons,slamers or HARMS on a F-14 is possible in tests, then it should be possible in game. priority should be set for the real standard load outs, but extra armament only enhances the game and not detract from it.

@nomdeplume, thing is we do not have a single ECM fighter that is DCS quality, only one on track for that is the M2000. so in terms of weird, its not but it is for sure setting a precedent. but the link provided is that no one knows how the ECM work so yeah, i get it. thank you for the explinaton though

@Azrayen,@Jarama, Thank you for the assistance. @nomdeplume, I dont see how making it for the m2000 is "weird". but hank you for the link.

Only issue is that a Mk82 in DCS landing 5m away from a URAL track wont kill it, heck make that a GBU24. I cant wait for the explosive fix which is desperately needed. At the moment for the attack pattern you are using try the MK20. It has the same effect as the Mk82 but covers a wider area, i would use 80 timer for the drops works really great.

Thanks for the info. In regards to the "PA/VA" switch, far left dial on the ECM panel, the manual says its an ECM so strong that it also jams your own radar. Any details on how it works? "In game" or is it even working? And what is the function of the far right "1-10" ECM power dial? I know the MWR for IR is not in game as well. Thank you once more

Any news on the A-7 is it still after the M2000? or was it pushed for the AV8?

Late to the party but AH-1W or Z "a man can dream" will be a day 1 buy for me. I have no use for rocket only stuff. And i think DCS should Fill the 1980+- range with as much models as possible from both sides.

Can some one please point me to what are the ECM capability on the M2000? What functions are working, what is the explanation to the ECM panel switches and RWR functions? the PDF is a bit light on details. are any of the functions working?

Amazing game mode, truly how DCS is ment to be played. Thank you for Xcom and Buddyspike for putting in the work. and allowing the public to play this one. I have to say ED needs to support this, I had no reason or interest before to buy some of the models and just simply due to this game mode i gout both the Mi-8 and Huey for blue flags. I would also like to thank the 104th guys for helping out and being in public channels along with =]H[= squadron for some amazing organized missions. And colt for being amazing GCI. Good fight Reds and congrats. Some small suggestions to Xcom. 1. the Ping limiter defiantly helped, warping was less than what it was before. ping is an added issue, not the entire one and i hope the whole thing gets fixed. 2. More lives to compensate for crashing, i was on average losing 2-3 per session simply to Mass DC. 3. Maybe 2 hours rounds as suggested would help as the last hour for cap was impossible. 4. No life use on the Mig21 can be an interesting Idea. 5. High end fighters can maybe start with 50% fuel. its enough for emergency scramble and not too punishing for full load, "refueling for x time just for the server to crash is hard mentally. 6. Reduce fuel requirements for taking off aircraft due to loss based on crashing. 7. No squadron slots, i have been on for a long amount of times and some air bases on blue where simply useless to cap as they where fully reserved for people who never showed up. 8. Better data center location, as we are playing on a global scale. Less internet hops means lower packet loss, Germany or London Are less hops for those in Asia and the US. Last one major suggestion from an ArmA mission maker and script maker, Be smart about scripts. you can reduce the need of scripts by reducing the need for actions by players. if you run a script twice for example for fuel, double the amount, the players will do that action less. Yes its true it wont help game play much or might make things easier. But It will give over all stability. Check what you can go with or without. sometimes extending a spawn time, or reducing number of spawns can enhance the game. Example, if spawning stuff every 30min causes script errors or server over load, the spawning stuff every 1 hour with 50% more targets can give roughly the same result but with lower effect, not claiming I know how it works in DCS, but just a prospective and example. Once more thank you to all amazing stuff. I hope you get all the support you need from ED. And i cant wait for the next round.

I have done that personally, But without every one doing it it will be hard to observe difference. Is there a possibility to get an official word from ED to how the net-code works? whats the good upper limit to ping and so on? should help a long way with trying to get stability. some updates on the new net code or dedicated severs will be highly appreciated from the community as well.

Networking is all the same, game engines difference is simply how they compensate. this internet protocol. If DCS uses a different internet protocol and some how then color me impressed.