BeastyBaiter

That was one of the first things I tried. I set it to 6km and then set it to 60km, had no discernable effect. The problem is clearly with terrain since it is aircraft independent and doesn't happen when looking at water. Hopefully this gets solved quickly. Also, it doesn't have anything to do with Nvidia control panel, I'm using an AMD RX480 and have the same issue.

I too have had serious issues with screen freezing. It happens upon loading a new terrain block. It is most noticeable when viewing a distant object for the first time and panning around it, but also occurs after flying out of the initial spawn area. What appears to be going on is the low resolution terrain textures aren't loading as they should. Instead the game freezes completely until the high resolution ones are fully loaded. This can take several seconds even for an SSD. Additionally, it only loads the blocks in view at that moment, thus every few degrees of panning results in another freeze while the disk/SSD is accessed again. The terrain around the player unit is fully loaded prior to spawn, so it isn't obvious from your own cockpit until you fly off 50km+. The problem also appears to ignore graphics settings. I'm running a clean copy of beta and do not have the Viggen. This issue has nothing to do with the new plane as far as I can tell. System specs are as follows: I5-4690, RX480 8GB, 16GB DDR3, Win10. Latest drivers for all of course.

No issues here either with RX480

The AIM-7E fits well in DCS's core time period and was carried by several aircraft already in game. It should be added for that reason alone.

The Viggen is not iconic, in truth it's terribly obscure outside Sweden. It is somewhat interesting from a technical standpoint, but is certainly not iconic. A truly iconic aircraft is one that most random people in any country on Earth would at least recognize, even if they can't identify it.

I normally just do tutorials but there seems to be a lot of interest in DCS/BoS/P3D reviews of GPU's. So here is mine of the RX480 by MSI. It's a 3 part review covering DCS 2, BoS and the card's features.

From Santa (Newegg):

While I agree that BST makes slightly better flight models, LNS has done very well too. I really don't get this whole broken module claim. There has never been a point where the fishbed didn't work fine for me. I'm hoping the reason RAZBAM had their flogger rejected is because LNS is doing one already. If no one is making it, then that is truly disappointing. As for competition being good, it would not be for DCS at this time. There are too few aircraft and people to buy them at this time for doubling up on aircraft to be good for us or the developers.

MiG-25?

LNS has long stated they'd like to do a MiG-23. It isn't among their current public plans, but they may have reserved it with ED and started preliminary work. That part is purely speculation on my part, but it seems likely. I don't think the doom and gloom of the old thread or this one are justified for that reason.

It's my understanding the main differences between the MiG-23MLA and MLD are the RWR, FCS and the addition of vortex generators. It would not be unreasonable to get both as a package.

The F-15C and E are radically different, but the F-15E is a bit redundant with the upcoming F-18C. The oft requested F-16C is the same way. Not saying I don't think they should be added, but it isn't nearly as exciting to me as getting something truly new and different like the MiG-23, Mi-24 or AV-8B.

It shouldn't matter too much tbh. If anything, it might be safer. Don't have to worry about ED fine tuning the F-18 radar and suddenly have the viggen's CTD the game.

They will make something though, and that's why I voted no. The choice is never X or nothing, there is always an implied Y that could be made instead. I would like an opposing pair of heavy lift choppers, but they are a lower priority to me than the A-6, AT-29, AV-8B, Mirage III, and a ton of other 1970's to present combat machines. Razbam already has years worth of projects at various stages of development, adding more is counterproductive.

Voted yes but it really depends. It would have to be relatively cheap (under $10) and needs to have a free version for MP use. This is an area where great care would need to be taken in the concept phase.

I have all the choppers (ka-50 is my favorite module by a huge margin) and plan to buy the two in development, but I'm going to pass on a pure cargo chopper. They are about as interesting as a C-5, which is something you'd have to pay me to bother with. I'm not interested in any module that has zero combat ability. Voted no even as a chopper fan. Stick with the harrier, that I'll buy in a heartbeat. I'm on the fence with the mirage III and the AT-27 is a no buy because I already have the L-39 which is basically the same thing.

Lots of responses but I'll add my 2¢. UH-1: Pro's: Simple systems, easy to start, docile handling Cons: weak armament, no autopilot, basic navigation system Mi-8: Pro's: Big payload, better navigation system, faster and better armed than huey Cons: hugely complex startup and systems, very unforgiving flight characteristics Ka-50: Pro's: easiest to fly, well armed, excellent autopilot, modern navigation system Cons: intermediate systems complexity (was my first DCS module, it's learnable) Sa-342: Pro's: simple systems, has a few models in one module Cons: hard to fly but easier than mi-8

I don't see a balance problem arising when it faces F-15/18's, Su-27's, MiG-29's and other F-14's. The F-14 is a little anemic in engine power, has a poor roll rate and the AIM-54 isn't going to be as amazing as some think. I expect it will end up being sort of like an R-27ER/ET. But we'll have to wait and see. It also has the massive disadvantage of being a two seater. The constant jumping back and fourth between seats will degrade its effectiveness for anyone without a human RIO. I expect having a human RIO to be relatively rare since it's always been that way in mp flight sims. With that said, some eastern fighters would be nice. It's a little having to rely exclusively on FC3 for the forceable future in unrestricted servers for eastern aircraft. Even a lowly MiG-29A or MiG-23MLD would go a long ways. The MiG-21-97 is also a nice option.

My k/d ratio against human players is pretty good while flying the f5, so yeah, I can comment on it in a useful manner. The point I'm trying to get across is that air combat is far too fluid to put much stock in any given performance stat. And since the f-5 is more disadvantaged by lost energy than its main opponent, doing things that maximize energy retention or gain while also shifting position in your favor are critically important. Simply flying in circles at your listed corner speed does not achieve that. Even doing so for short periods is often counterproductive.

I haven't been able to play in a couple weeks, but BASIS had been the main MiG-21 vs F-5 server from release until at least then. Normally it has 20+ players, though sometimes it's empty until those first 2-3 players join, then it fills up quickly. No one ever wants to be first. The server had been running only a single scenario, don't know if that's still the case. ACG was popular too until they added the Korean missions back, it died instantly after that.

I think you're over analyzing this a bit, as others have said, keep your energy up as much as possible. The F-5E is a plane that once in combat, you keep the burner on and airbrake in no matter what. If you are going to overshoot, do a wide barrel roll or pull high and then drop back down to keep speed up without covering as much horizontal distance. You do not throttle back or pop the airbrake. Turning is the same way, keep her as fast as you can at all times. Use high yoyos to tighten the turn when needed without sacrificing E. Until it's time to shoot, lag pursuit is the name of the game. You do not have the engine power to regain energy in the middle of a fight, the MiG-21 does, the 4th gens do but the F-5E does not. Corner speed as a concept is not relevant to the F-5E. That said, I'm not sure it's relevant to any fighter since no one is going to look at a chart and then try to match the virage time (max turn rate with no loss of E). If you do ever encounter someone trying to do that, do a hard turn and give them a taste of 20mm. That should teach them.:smilewink:

It would be interesting but asking for that is asking that they skip the Mi-24 and AH-1 again, and that I absolutely won't do. However, after those two, I would be open to them properly tackling the 1950's. But I'm only interested if they do it properly, and that means no more orphans. They would have to include period AI ground, naval and air units so that proper missions can be made. BST has shown zero interest in developing such additional content. But if they are willing to do it, then yeah, I'm interested after we get an opposing pair of 1970's+ mainstream attack helicopters. Short version: No, not at this time.

...another wishlist plane now being confused with something actually hinted at. My thoughts, old F-16A = F-5E, more modern F-16C = F/A-18C. I'd like to see it at some point still, but it should be at a much lower priority than representing roles that currently aren't in game (such as a mainstream attack helicopter, supersonic attacker or BVR capable eastern fighter). More of the same just doesn't rate imho.

Great, thanks.

I have my fov on a rotary and the new middle position is so zoomed out into fisheye territory that it's basically unplayable. I know it was changed to accomadate the 3 people on earth with super wide monitors, but can we please have an option to make it better suited to normal monitors too? The old default was perfect.