Erdem

Then what about the RIO mirror? Is it meant to show whether if the paint is chipped off or if there's bugs stuck in air vents? Those mirrors are meant to show what's behind you without breaking your neck, not your own aircraft. The mirror angle can be adjusted IRL,they should give us a way to adjust them. If you want to stare at your wings, that's fine. But I want to check my six.

The center mirror angle is off, which causes it to show inside the cockpit and not the rear view like it's supposed to. Default view: How it's supposed to be, if you can tuck your head under VDI.

32 Gbs of RAM and 11 Gbs of VRAM (1080 Ti)and I'm still stuttering online on this map. I set the textures to medium and it still stutters while Persian Gulf flows beautifully at maximum settings. This map badly needs optimization.

What I don't get is the radar was much more stable online at launch. Its performance rapidly detoriated over the year. Last year I could hop on Blue Flag on a busy day and guide 2 phoenixes at two different contacts all the way and actually kill them both. I even got the occasional triple kill. When launched at 30-35nm the missile was very scary. Right now I feel lucky if I get a kill every 5-6 phoenixes. Ghost contacts, contacts that keep popping in and out going in the same direction. I know this is not helping but I'm a bit frustrated.

I've been seeing erratic radar and missile behaviour for the past two months or so. I only play online with Jester and a human pilot and the issues I've been seeing are mostly; Contacts in TWS dropping and reappearing the moment I fire at them, wasting the Phoenix immediately. Contacts constantly appearing and disappearing on TWS screen, even though there's no reason for them to do it. I think if the server is slightly unstable and there's warping(happens on bigs servers), it confuses the radar somehow. Phoenixes seem to have trouble tracking targets, this might be linked to the radar issues. It just feels like at module launch date Phoenix/AWG9 was a much potent platform, while right now it's crippled by these issues.

I keep crashing on Blue Flag server with no logs provided. Happens pretty much every time I'm being engaged by bandits, low altitude with Jester. I invest 30-40 minutes into flying and it just crashes, wasting my whole free time. Getting really frustrated here.

I wasted 45 minutes trying to find out what was causing this online . . . it didn't even go away when I restarted the game and rejoined the server.

So a plane lands at an airport? Does it really need its own thread?

As it stands, the 530D is a terrible missile against anything capable of defensive maneuvers and releasing chaff. Combined with how easy the Mirage loses radar lock in BVR, getting a kill with it is very rare. It doesn't matter how you use it, fire at max range, fire at TIR, fire at 6NM . . . there's no reliable way of making it work. Either the radar or the missile will let you down. This is especially true when playing online. I'd say my PK with the 530D is about 10-20%. I get most of my kills with the Magics or guns. 530D are just for forcing bandits to go defensive.

ABS should reduce braking distance since it reduces skidding allowing for more energy dissipation.

I'm disappointed that we're only getting a measly aerobatics biplane. I think what DCS needs is more common stuff like sailplanes and powered hang gliders. Throw in a Cessna and Cub right in there along with F-14s and we're golden. Judging from the positive responses, the potential is here. Just imagine a squadron of Su-27s pulling gliders and dropping them right in the middle of the fight! Perhaps we can have multiplayer missions where you can chase player controlled Cessnas pretending to be drug smugglers and blowing them up before they make it to the border! Now that's the real stuff we need in Digital Combat Simulator. I applaud M3 for making this easy tough decision and bring variety to DCS.

Amazing.

This is how I feel ever since we've gotten the A-10. The WWII stuff, the trainer stuff are all very niche and feel like unnecessary diversions for ED. I understand the third party trying to get a foothold with simpler aircraft, but ED has been puzzling me.

Eagle too stronk.

Well, McDonnel Douglas beat them to it in 1995: wv9n9Casp1o From what I know, the technology for this type of landings already exists. The rocket climbs straight up without trying to achieve orbit (not orbit height) and then comes down again slowly. You need considerable less energy to go straight up and down. What SpaceX is trying to do is actually bring down the first stage from an orbital flight path, which takes much more energy to do and is more complex.

So he's pretty much saying the new AESA is not as good as Irbis?

I really hope ED keeps the standards they set with the A-10C and Ka-50 modules in the future. There are lots of third party developers right now and I imagine keeping the same fidelity will be difficult with them.

Clearly the DCS gods are punishing you for abandoning DCS for CS.

I think what makes people mad is this "we" and "you" mentality. On each side there's this incredibly "dedicated" people who won't even stain their national pride by touching Russian/American aircraft in the game. So whenever one "side" complains about performance/modeling, people from each side rush in to lobby for their favorite toy, lest it gets nerfed. So in the end you have two kinds of people arguing against each other, but ultimately they have no idea what they're talking about.

To be honest, I can't wait until ED takes another look at missile dynamics. The current Crimea map favors low flyers and balances out Russian BVR deficiency because it's so mountainous. But we could have more problems on flatter maps (Nevada?). Funny, it happens almost without exception. It usually goes like this: Someone complains about X on the Russian side not working or not being modelled good enough. Someone mentions that the Y on the US side is broken too. Now X and Y is inevitably compared in a post and someone say even when fixed, X will never be as good as Y which completely derails the thread. Feelings are hurt and people start arguing about which one is ultimately superior. I've been here ever since Lock-On was in development. It never fails. There's quite a bit of patriotic feelings involved too.

Will the F-14 modules be integrated with the other modules including the FC3? Yes. Therefore, it's not a developer decision. They must adhere to the rules and standards ED set to ensure multiplayer is fair. It's also why the EA was removed from this game years ago. You can mod the AIM-120s and enjoy them in single player for all I care. Don't push for an official integration though, it's silly.

and the illuminati of course.

I'm sure it was by his own will, nothing else.

Only by numbers. I'd call countries stuffed with outdated Soviet/Western stuff hardly powerful against modern militaries.