Mars Exulte

The Yak-38 isn't ''newer'', it's a 70s/80s aircraft, too. Not much of an ''opposition'', the Yak is basically a proof of concept (the 141 was intended as their ''real'' offering) inferior in every way. It had very short range, almost no payload, mediocre performance, and the manner of VTOLing in it was considerably more ''problem prone''. Probably shouldn't be on a discussion board then. Agreed. No news, and I'd say very little chance due to the likely short supply of info on it. The MiG-29 was widely produced and distributed, the Yak-38 was not. While that's not a ''hard kill'' on feasibility, the shorter the life cycle and more ''niche'' the plane, the less likely there'll be gobs of data available. Heatblur was working on an AI version, afaik there are no planes for a flyable one yet.

DLSS is adaptive anti-aliasing. That's literally it. It does not yield any magic gains, full stop. I'm 100% certain there will be. It doesn't. AMD already released their own opensource version of the same thing, cause. @OP Beware flashy sales ads. They're usually not relevant to real world application. As for game engines being interchangeable, in short, they're not. Just like in vehicles, while physically possible to change a motor, some motors are suitable to one task but not another. An engine suitable for a passenger car is useless for a heavy truck and vice versa. In the case of a flight sim, the engine needs to be optimised to handle the scale, speed, and physics of flight, which not all engines are designed for or appropriate for. Can any engine be rebuilt to purpose? Yes, of course, with enough labor and redesign : see Star Citizen which took a session based shooter engine and rerigged it to use as a open world MMO flight engine. Is this usually a good idea? No, also see Star Citizen which spent large sums of money and uncountable man hours hammering a square peg into a round hole instead of designing or using something more suitable in the first place.

If you can't read the native language it's pretty much a necessity. I can stumble through Russian/Ukrainian, but still prefer English for ease of use. Unless you're using a 1 to 1 scale replica pit of the aircraft you're flying you pretty much have to. There's too many differences between aircraft, and you're using generic controls. Logically, you should try to put similar controls on the same buttons for your own ease of use. ''Realism'' is great as a goal, but certain realities have to be acknowledged and trying to pretend/force ''realism'' in an inherently unrealistic setup isn't even ''hardcore'' it's just dumb. Making good use of the interface options you have isn't unrealistic : real world pilots absolutely do the same.

Not really, I'm afraid. But in general, if a module is approximately ''imminent'' or at least ''confirmed in development'' it will at least have its own forum section. No. The next releases are likely to be the Ah-64 Apache, Mosquito, Corsair, Oh-58 Kiowa, and possibly Strike Eagle. There's a few others, too, but they're probably too early to say for sure.

Likewise, the actual roadmap wasn't very useful, but it was a handy reference for any new info drops. Hopefully ED didn't whack it... that would be more than a little annoying.

That's weird. Maybe Dragon got tired of upkeeping it. Or just decided it was crazy out of date in many sections and needed a re-do.

Afaik, tankers fly their track, hooking up is the pilot's problem. I've never heard much communication in videos, and according to several rl pilots they also indicated relative silence. It's formation flight, literally one of the most basic, simplistic skills of aviation and one of the very first things most pilots learn. It does not take ''hundreds of hours per month''. It takes a youtube video and a half dozen tries.

That is an absurdly large amount of weaponry. I didn't even notice the sidewinders at first and was like ''There's MORE?''

long it'll take for people to quit spamming the forum with the latest sales brochures @@

We've all read the sales brochure, yes. The difference is some of us are experienced enough with life to know 90% of what companies claim in sales brochures is bs cherry picked to make people rush out and throw money at them. This happens to people chasing numbers sans common sense. A few years ago when 4k was new, tons of people rushed out to buy it when the tech to drive it properly was still 5-6 years away only to encounter *gasp* low framerates. Lo and behold, people rushing out to purchase VR headsets with grossly inflated ''specs'' that absolutely no PC can even hope to run efficiently also encountered... low framerates. DLSS and FSR are not magic that are going to suddenly make poor purchasing decisions better. Tailor your entire rig based off the technology available, relying on gimmicky graphic options to resolve jumping the shark is, at best, unreliable.

Turn AA on. Note the FPS and image quality. Turn AA off, note the FPS and image quality. DLSS and FSR yields results between those two figures. If that is your idea of ''game changing'' technology, you need to raise your standards and hold your wallet a little more tightly.

They have that already, it's the literal purpose of the axis configuration screen, where you can set saturation, curvature, and deadzones per axis, and even adjust it in a non-linear fashion.

''Make it moar realishtic!'' ''No, no, not THAT realishtic!'' It's pretty clear: You have no idea what you're actually presenting to discuss and You're not actually interested in discussing anything. You act like you just discovered how to use Google a few days ago, and can't wait to show everybody this fantastic stuff you found on the internet that nobody but you has possibly ever seen @@ I say that sarcastically, not because I'm harshing a ''new guy'' but because I'm harshing a low effort troll @@

Well where's the fun in that? Oh wait...

Xilon's really fallen down the rabbit hole...

Well, that does it, you clearly did a lot of research! @@ Not to be mean, but you need to work on building logical arguments and research.

A Rafael piloting dogging the nearly identical Eurofighter? Who would ever imagine such a thing? @@ Yes? Any fourth gen fighter is still competitive, that's why they still fly them. Aerodynamics is a finite science, there's a limit to what you can do with the laws of physics. Can GENERATE high AoA and NEEDS high AoA are two very different things. You need to read up on what this terminology actually means, because it does not mean what you seem to think it does.

You say without citing any particular information. Your ''personal opinion'' is not really relevant in and of itself. What ''reason'' do you have for what is clearly only your opinion? I don't see what relevance that has. You're also dealing with professional pilots trained to use their aircraft properly as opposed to gamers, that's going to be a significant factor. Which you have no reason to doubt, and could find plenty of information on had you bothered to even attempt to determine what DCS does or doesn't simulate. That's not the reason straight wings are used, #1. They provide better, more stable lift and handling at subsonic speeds. ''Turn'' and ''climb'' is a different factor not directly related to wing shape. They do tend to function as a big airbrake at high AoA, it's true. ''Can't vertical''? What does that even mean? That's a factor of thrust to weight more than wing shape, regardless. Oh dear... Not all spins are created equal. Some are severe, some are not. There are other factors involved, too, besides only airframe, mostly related to the hows and whys you entered a spin in the first place. It can, if it lasts very long. Again, this is circumstantial. No. The recommended procedure for every plane in the history of aviation is ''save it if you can''. Ejecting comes into play if you drop below a certain altitude where you're unlikely to have enough time to save it. Gamers disregarding operational harddecks is not the game's fault, but generally this depends on what altitude you were at when entering the spin. At 20-30k ft, you have plenty of time to attempt recovery before even reaching any hard deck. I'm assuming you mean high angle of attack maneuvers? Ie the nose pointing one way and the plane moving another? That's very much a real thing and easily observed online if you want. It depends on the plane, though. A Su-27 can pull more alpha than say a P-51. They do. Again, you have no evidence to say so, and it's pretty clear your understanding of what you're talking about is ''hazy''. No offense, everyone starts somewhere. You won't be banned, but you're definitely not going to be taken seriously. I can with fair confidence most sims from the last 20-30 years were pretty rough around the simulation aspects. They didn't have the processing power for complex aerodynamics for one, but they could fake it pretty well sometimes. Afaik, you can't script stuff like that in DCS, but the wind does surge up and down and vary in direction a bit.

Short version : DCS works best on an SSD

So a while back I saw a guy asking about his game randomly dropping to desktop, and he couldn't figure out why. I can't find him now, but I found a possible fix, if you're still floating around out there. Last night, my dad described a gradually worsening scenario where games were almost unplayable because he would CONSTANTLY drop to desktop. He thought it was the monitor freaking out and not holding resolution, or a variety of other things. Seemed to be unsolvable, but was exact same symptoms this other guy described. He frequently uses CCleaner to clear registry, but one day he decided to try a thing called Glarysoft (registry cleaner similar to CCleaner). It turned up a large number of entries related to ''altered key commands'' (his memory of the wording was hazy, but it seemed keyboard related) and after backing up the registry, he allowed it to do its thing and remove them. Miraculously, all the issues he had been having suddenly stopped. Most of these ''gaming devices'' can be reprogrammed on the fly via hotkey, and if you're not aware of it, you could possibly unintentionally create screwed up macros that cause erratic behavior. We now believe this is what happened with his gaming keyboard, that he accidentally created and was triggering macros and that the registry clean ''wiped'' them, restoring normal functionality. CCleaner did not detect this aberrent reprogramming, but GlarySoft evidently did. Maybe it will do somebody a solid some day.

Still, interesting to see it looked into by somebody. Maybe someday

Yes, it doesn't have to be paved, but it DOES have to be prepared. This is good. This is bad. WWII fighters are light enough and slow enough they can land in fields in just a few hundred feet, but there's a big difference between a 6,000lb plane that needs 1000ft and takes off at 100kts, and a 50,000lb plane that needs 4,000-6,000ft and takes off at 200kts. If you want to land in a meadow you use a helicopter, that's what they're for

With few exceptions every aircraft needs a runway. They don't all need PAVED runways, but they do need A runway. Yes, going from pavement to a ditch at 200kts is usually going to result in a crash. A ditch alongside a paved runway is not going to be prepared for handling a heavy aircraft at highspeed, because... why would it be? There's literally pavement right there. If you run off the pavement into a ditch, you will consistently crash in real life, too. A ditch is not the same thing as a packed, smoothed dirt field (ala the Normandy map runways) nor is it a paved motorway used by cars and trucks. This is not a difficult distinction to make, and it really amazes me people keep repeating this nonsense over and over around here. If this is what you're expecting an aircraft to do, then, yes, you will have the same issue with all of them. You cannot expect multi-ton aircraft to hit a gopher hole or large rock in a field and not have a negative experience. A minimally prepared field is NOT the same thing as a farmer's field or random meadow. Heavy and/or high speed aircraft need prepared fields, end of story.

I spent about three to five minutes, and that's not a rant. So then what are you griping about exactly, ''unaccountable faceless'' people ''telling you how to think''? If you HAVEN'T been moderated, I'd say you said something and somebody disagreed? That happens sometimes when around people, they don't necessarily all fall in line. You gave the impression you were catching flak from people in comms for things you said. As coarse as *I* sometimes can be, even *I* basically get along well(ish) with everyone most the time, so I can only infer from THAT if somebody is having consistent issues with people, they must be directly contributing to the thing they're complaining about.

Most these things, BTRs, BMPs, etc are armored to withstand .50s from the front at medium/close ranges and may be moderately resistant to 20-30mm at longer engagement ranges (absorb the first hit or two, but repeated hits will pen). From the sides, pretty much everything will go through except small arms. Bradleys and BMP-3s are generally ''heavier'' persay, but it's still a similar situation, resistant across the front, pretty thin on the sides. They're probably better protected against HEAT rounds from RPGs than from actual AP rounds due to ERA and such. -edit By that I mean it's probably a bug or unintended armoring. It shouldn't be shrugging off 30mm AP usually unless at extreme range. HE rounds won't do much to an armored vehicle, you're basically throwing hand grenades at it. Might damage a track or optic.