twistking

with ED VoIP being released and the Mig29 on the way, it's maybe a good moment to finally kick that thing to feature-completeness?!!

I agree. And i can't stress enough that computationally it would be a non-issue, if done correctly. Development time is the cost here - not frame time.

I think capability-wise the Fulcrum will just be the inferior aircraft, but it should hold it's own in a dogfight. I love the 29, but haven't flown it much in DCS, simply because of it being FC3 - so i don't know how exactly it will compare to other aircrafts. That said, the Fulcrum being lightweight with very good thrust-to-weight, good manoeuvrability and good nose-pointing-capability should make it roughly (!) competitive with both the Flanker and even modern blufor. If you struggle in dogfights, realize that the Mig-29 handles like a surfboard and will easily flip to become a huge airbrake when pulling the stick too hard. It's not fly-by-wire (hooray) so be double conscious of not overflying. When facing off against a Flanker try to leverage your superior (?) thrust-to-weight-ratio. In all other aspects the Fulcrum is "worse". But that's capabilism and we do not want to engage in that here (we leave it to the aero-quakers). The Mig-29 is beautiful and handles wonderfully. It's of historical significance and has a cool NATO reporting name. If that's not enough, then i can't help you. Oh... wait... have you heard about R77 (you might like R77)? *edit* I'm also interested in the usecases for the cockpit screen. I would assume, that it has more functions than just being a HUD repeater, but i don't know.

Aiding players with bad eyesight is a good point, but i have to disagree on the hardware-limitations: In theory the only readibility limitation should be resolution and both the carrier lights and refueling lights should be easily readable on fullHD resolution. I 'd argue that fullHD is minimum spec for DCS anyway, because with less you'll run in bigger readability problems with the cockpit isntruments and so on. We know of course, that those light are not always readable in practice, but that's because of bad implementation. Carrier lights are sprites, tanker lights are either sprites, or just an animated texture or both (not sure): They are extremely simple to draw computational-wise. Their readability is bad, because they are not rendered "physically based", but need manual tweaking for size and brightness etc. That's the reason why all aircraft lights look so bad or simply vanish with distance: They are drawn with such a simple (but still valid and good) technique that they are extremely fast to draw, but need manually tweaking by an artist to look right in every situation. This tweaking simply hasn't happened yet - even though i'm complaining abut it so regularly That said, there's nothing wrong with an overlay: AAR is difficult (and frustrating for many) so a lot of players may appreciate it.

I already said, i find Fulcrum HARM intriguing, no need to sell it to me further. Joke aside, i think flawed, limited systems make for good DCS gameplay and immersion. When going up against SAMs in your Viper with HARMs, HTS and a capable human wingman, you are constantly reminded that DCS AI is rather dumb and that your mission lacks the operational complexity in which modern SEAD would even make sense. Fulcrum HARM DEAD against all odds seems more interesting imho.

Yes! Please!

I know aero-quakers, but what's the "my capability" crowd? Please explain without derailing this thread and angering half of hoggit.

wouldn't be the more obvious solution to improve the rendering of the lights on the tanker and carrier etc.? i agree that they are hard to see at the moment, but this could be improved with the added benefit of the game looking more beautiful and realistic. an overlay seems like a crutch to me.

When the Mig-29 arrives in DCS, we will hopefully have the mission planning feature available. It's safe to assume that this would allow us to change the preprogrammed parameters during the mission when parked on a friendly airfield. If landing is not an option, you could use radio navigation. For me that sounds way more interesting than the newer jets, that present you everything on a digital map...

Is RSBN the soviet equivalent to VOR and Tacan? What about simple NDB type of beacons in soviet (military) aviation? I would assume that those were (are) a thing? I know that every AI unit in DCS can act as NDB by using voice radio broadcast action, but a dedicated static asset and dedicated NDB action would also be a very good (yet simple) addition. I assume that the Mig-29 could also navigate with "western" radio navigation beacons (VOR/Tacan/NDB), using simple radio direction finding. Is this correct, or are the frequencies not compatible?

Good catch. Both tracer and rocket exhaust bloom could very well be added in post. I would argue though, that these do not have a huge impact on perceived graphics quality.

alternatively ED could update and implement their NS430, if this project is still worked on...

+1

Considering the meagre internal fuel capacity, this would be very neat indeed.

Oh right. I didn't even think about that, but of course Ukraine was Soviet Union proper. So no downgrade... Thanks for the info. I'm happy with the 9-12.

How do you conclude that it will be the russian 9.12? Isn't an export 9.12A or 9.12B much more likely? What online manual are you talking about?

Probably yes. I don't see why not. It will depend on the situation. Does it really matter though? No, you won't be banned from ALL servers!

those effects were the "old footage" WWII film effects and effects related to audio. i did not spot any other visual enhancement. generally graphics quality should be archievable by everyone. of course the video was recorded on a dev built, so there might be some improvments to shading, weather etc., that haven't made it to the public release yet. obviously the new maps (iraq, afghanistan) that are used, are also not available to us.

Oh look, it's me! Anyway, since we obviously will get some kind of 9.12 export-variant, does that also mean, that we won't have access to the extended range R27ER? I read somewhere that 9.12A/B could not use the R27ER, but maybe i got mixed that up. I would definitely miss the ERs though. The extra range helps against Fox3s...

I think you're reading more complexity into my suggestion, than i ment. Everything i proposed can be hugely abstracted and still work "good enough" for a flightsim. Buoyancy does not need to be physically simulated. It could be a look-up table or other rudimentary system. Damage to superstructure and weapons could be done by dividing the ships in a few logical parts and having basic hitpoints for each part, assosciated with visible damage to the part and loss of functionality of systems in that area. Magazine explosion could be a dice roll with some simple condition checks for penetration. It's not about having a true-to-life simulation from the ships perspective, but having the simulation complex enough for the pilots in the air to make weapon selection and tactics a menaingfull decision. F.e.: It should matter if i deliver a certain amount of HE with a salvo of rockets, or if i deliver the same amount with one big bombs with a delayed fuze. A torpedo should be a different beast again and not just another way to deplete hitpoints. Such a system is a bit of work to develop surely, but it's not computational expensive.

That would be a good MVP indeed. Flooding tied to a Hull HP value, will however mean that ships will always sink in the same attitude. Compartment flooding would allow ships to sink in a rudimentary "simulated" way, maybe even roll over.

Yes, basically what Gunfreak said. I could have worded it better. Of course, once a ship is sunk, it can be considered destroyed. In a simple hitpoint-based system sinking would simply be an animation step at 0 HP (the ship completely battered, everything burning etc). However a lucky hit (or two) should be able to "mortally" wound a ship even when it's superstucture is still in pristine condition. Yes, magazine explosions would also be a good feature.

I don't understand the question. What kind of "new mode" are you thinking of?

Systems will be completely redone of course! Cockpit model will surely be redone: The current cockpit looks decent, but it's not up to current high standards and ED would not be able to charge full price otherwise. I would guess the same for the external model, but with less confidence. The flight model however will not be redone. That was stated by Kate Perederko on discord.