probad

are you even reading and processing what people are saying here? you seem absolutely hellbent on believing there exists in dcs some way to ping the enemy with your radar without the receiver's knowledge. there is none. give it up. you do not have a low probability intercept aesa radar, and so as long as the enemy has an rwr, you will be detected. radar, for our purpose here, is intrinsically active. you must emit. there is no way to disguise your emission. passive reception of radio waves gets you an rwr. you're shouting into a canyon and listening for the echo (radar) anyone with an ear can hear you (rwr) if you don't want people knowing you exist, don't shout (turn the radar off) if you want "passive" information gathering, use datalink capabilities where someone else does the emitting for you.

tomcat's hud is not a flight instrument, your scan doesnt need to go up

theres a certain type of audience that has that distinct saudi prince car dealership syndrome they're not there to buy a car, they're there to tick all the checkboxes

thank you, you have convinced me with such cogent logic despite this being a simulator the price of learning indeed runs too high a cost to be considered fun. apropos i think we should have an 'easy dogfight' option where we can, at a press of the button, win the engagement. not all of us have the desire to learn the esoteric art of bfm. as sweet brown would say: "aint nobody got time fo dat!"

no, i'm not at odds with myself. i suppose it escaped you that i could at once be both be dismissive of announcements yet confident of the actual product at the same time. what i did say was that cobra had ruined any semblance of credibility in naming dates. you made a leap of logic beyond that, by yourself, in your zealousness. topics like this one rankle me because i think the eagerness for updates ultimately point towards development into an unhealthy addiction. it's good to be passionate about the hobby but for both your (not aimed at anyone personally here) own sake and for the devs i think if you find yourself looking for the content dripfeed fix you should check yourself out for a while. addictions will only end up hurting both parties, there is a limit to how often devs can meet your desires. life goes on without the "dev gods" answering your prayers.

remember when flanker players were in disbelief and denial as well?

why is it so hard to accept things as they are

it's 'functional' but some major a2a functionality is still waiting on change. proper aim-54 guidance behavior and tws auto implementation will change engagement dynamics from current.

rest assured there is much desire for full fidelity russian aircraft however, obstructions exist between desire and reality the illfated tu-22m mod should give you some clues as to how serious things can be:

what you suggest isn't convincing, it's forcing. there are some people who simply cannot be convinced, and that's something we have to be at peace with, so long as they form part of the community. you can't save everyone. don't take it to mean that we should resign ourselves to perpetually appeasing the pressure to slide downhill into the lowest denominator, more just that there is no real "end" that can be achieved, and sometimes you have to give in a little to avoid nastier repercussions. i always was against the whole jester rio ai thing, especially in mp, but looking at it now, i'd say it was prudent. solo f-14s are still the unfortunate majority online, the causes running the gamut from "my buddy is offline", to "i have no friends", "i don't want to be judged", "im too good for everyone else", and "solo operation is faster and more reliable than what my communication skills allow for in a 2man crew", leading to the practice of binding rearseat controls to the frontseat slot for, practically, full solo functionality. if jester did not exist, i imagine the practice would only proliferate and be regarded as mandatory for everyone who ever entertained the possibility of not having a backseater. that would be an even more tragic result. so the path of least resistance must be respected even if the goal is warding it off.

lmao why bother shooting other planes when you can defeat them on the forums first anyways, patching out this functionality, while fine, doesn't take care of the real problem. if someone is too lazy to learn vfr, they're not going to learn vfr, and when you get rid of it, they'll sooner find some other loophole to exploit than sit down and do what they already made up their mind not to do. dcs's architecture will always leave it vulnerable to exploits. if you want to pursue the chimerical "level playing field" you will have to eliminate one by one features like mfd export, all the way until you realize you need to issue and somehow force everyone to use standardized simpit hardware. you simply cannot stop someone who chooses to be unsporting. the only solution here is to just encourage people to care about aviation.

looks like axis binding issue, a-10 stick should naturally center

yes, use the e-shop

it can be tough coming to grips with the fact that flying isn't all that "fun" -- not in the hollywood sense. it doesnt help that airshows, highlight reels, and veteran's accounts tend to be very good about cutting out all the 99.9% of the critically mundane busdriving that forms the bread and butter of combat aviation. but yeah tricks get you nowhere let me tell you about all those nice harrier players who would brake right into my guns because they were so damn eager to show off their viff...

why play the guessing game when you can just post a track for diagnosis

it's pretty at home against 3rdgens there's plenty of things to do if you're creative

the satisfaction of claiming the computer's success as their own?

the backseat handles chaff and flares, and can give additional control over chaff or flare (only one at a time) to the pilot really though it's the pilots job to keep the rio alive by managing engagements such that they dont wind up in a 4v1. you should learn to fight without relying on cm's first.

i never did find any indication the navy adopted tas afaik the way navy does sead, ea-6bs did all the targeting and hand them off to fa-18s, so an hts type solution wasnt really needed?

that's hella projecting. i enjoy the f-5 for its insight into aircraft development history, to see what aircraft of its timeperiod were like. you seem to only be able to think in terms of more-and-less and winning-and-losing, which really have nothing to do with the airplanes. when you're agnostic about the systems and operation of the aircraft, all you are left with is its outer mold line, that is it say, you're in it for the vanity, that you just like the aircraft for how it looks, because that is really all what different variants of the f-5 have in common in the end. that is again, not really about the airplane, because an airplane is more than a work of art, it is a functional tool. furthermore, you seem to have stopped at the notion that the only way to enjoy something is to have more of it. you don't appreciate the concept that contrast compliments enjoyment, that comparisons resulting from diverse experiences, both positive and negative, only serve to highlight each subject's unique qualities. is the f-5n different enough from the f-5e to create valuable juxtaposition? not really when set beside that of a mig-19, f-8, or ee lightning. as for the matter of flying the f-5e against other players, i'll have you know that for those of us who fly the f-5 against more advanced aircraft, do it precisely because it is so limited in capabilities. that is the whole point of working for an f-5 victory. you will gain no respect from your opponents for your desire to increase your odds of winning through more advanced piloting aids. in the end though, the deciding matter is one of reality. i never said i didnt want an f-5n, if one dropped off a tree, i'd pick it up. but modules don't grow on trees, the world doesnt run on votes, and consensus doesnt always go your way.

yeah pretty much this, op didnt see the results he wanted so resorts to slinging mud

when hooked in tws the iff return will show up in the center of the ddd, not at their corresponding azimuth like in rws. negative iffs may be small and hard to see behind the ddd crosshair.

you got plenty to do but its less about the airplane and more about you the f-5 has no computerized assistance so it will all be about you sharpening up your manual skills in flying and bombing if you dont care for that then the f-5 isnt for you maneuverable? it's more responsive, but it's less "maneuverable" than the fa-18 in a dogfight. if you just want to see things blow up and feel like a superhero just stand pat with the fa-18

ias though right? remember mission editor is groundspeed

i dont quite understand this, can you explain? the tanker is your frame of reference, it should always be in view even when you are approaching from below if you are familiar with helicopters then just think of throttle as collective, when you increase it, you go up. so what do you have to do? compensate at the same time with a bit of down pitch. you should not need much force, more like a gentle "suggestion" of pitch down. it is common when stressed to wield the stick with a death grip, but it only makes things worse because your muscle movements will be rough. release the stick and relax -- you trimmed correctly right? then letting go of the stick shouldnt be a big deal.