Mars Exulte

Sounds like you missed the dynamic campaign engine being created for both offline and online play. Effectively is being created as two AI ''generals'' conducting a campaign against each other RTS style, with dynamically generated ''objectives/missions'' for players to fulfill. I believe it's in closed testing right now, supposed to release sometime later this year or early next afaik, though I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

I have an ultrawide curved 1440. The only ''advantage'' is it slightly increases peripheral vision, but sure does look nice. Imo 1440 is the ideal compromise between quality and performance. My 4k experience was a bit disappointing on the other hand (it's overkill for a normal size monitor, and if you're sitting very far back it doesn't look much better than 1440 does. Highly recommend for larger TVs) Worked a helluva lot better than my 3x 27'' screens. That was interesting as a novelty, but way too much distortion, the screens didn't exactly match, etc

I don't remember which one of these it was, but one of them had a really interesting section about the Sea People. I really, really enjoyed this whole series.

@Pikey Oh yeah, I know. I ran a medium size clan a few years ago, it's like herding cats even in a less intensive environment than DCS. Not that I can criticise people much for not taking their video games super serial enough.... I personally am in the gray no man's land... I dislike the relative chaos of really casual groups, but equally am annoyed by clans that want you to fill out an MOS (and milsims are brimming with those types) so I mostly play by myself or with very small groups of friends.

Auto slats off the leading edge serve the purpose you would normally get with deploying flaps. ''just like people did in WW2 aircraft?'' Gamers are the only people who do stuff like that. I've heard multiple pilot interviews where they were specifically asked that and the response was always a blank stare and ''No.... why would you do that?'' In real life pilots tend not to risk damaging their aircraft with the usual bs gamers do. Contrary to popular belief, getting a kill was secondary to not damaging your aircraft.

Primarily because it's infinitely easier to plan, organise, and create when you're working with a known quantity. If you have 10 people, and they're flying 6 dissimilar aircraft/helos, it is a royal pain to try to allow for that. Especially if you can't consistently plan around what they'll be flying. ''So many choices'' yes, and there is such a thing as too much of a good thing in some situations.

How many bombs drop is dependent in part on the aircraft and pylons in question. Outer pylons will typically drop in pairs to avoid dangerously unbalancing the aircraft. The Su-25 for example can drop single bombs afaik... on the inner pylons.

I like how your last UFO video is blocked for containing footage from Warner Bros.

Probably because a lot of us tend to be like https://pin.it/2E94SNI

I would say safely zero. @OP Prepared dirt, or naturally hard (like the salt flats) is very, very different from ''grass field'' and ''running off the taxiway''. You know what's not likely to firm enough to support an aircraft? Random fields and the ditches alongside taxi/runways (which are more for drainage than anything else). DCS is *not* ''all planes stick or don't stick''. It is very simplified, but it DOES have different ground conditions. You wanna know what's another major influence? Aircraft weight! If you're empty and low on gas, your odds of getting ''massively stuck'' are much lower than if you're trying to bombtruck out of a wheatfield @@ Oh, and I didn't read everything, but from past experience : the ''I got stuck and firewalled the throttle and it still wouldn't move'' people are absolutely right. That's unrealistic. DCS should have the gear collapse, the plane dig into the ground and burst into flames, then it should flash ''you suck'' across the screen, automatically uninstall itself and force you to check a box saying ''I will try to suck less'' before allowing you to reinstall it. This is a flight simulator not ''Offroad Muddin' 2021'' @@

Because I am sitting here with time to kill? It takes a lot of dicking around to record a decent video, edit it down to essentials, and usually a couple hours to upload it (I don't know where you are but USA upload speeds are garbage). Me spending five minutes typing is not even remotely comparable to that degree of effort. Because I want to? Whether or not I'm losing sleep over your opinion is not related to whether or not I think the topic is interesting. You continue to fundamentally miss the point, which I'm beginning to think is borderline deliberate. It is examples of the basic tactics and strategies a person should be striving for. Any video is fundamentally useless except as demonstration because circumstances eill always vary. You need to be able to observe a demonstration, recognise the principles you're seeing, and try to apply them yourself. That's literally how ''watching a video of somebody else doing a thing'' works. So yes, GS skill is irrelevant in that context, as the relevant material was the behavior of the Viper. No, they're not. They're superior in different areas. In this case the differences are substantial enough that it can be extremely difficult to capitalise on your ''advantage'' because of the gross disparity. No. You're trying very hard to be obstinate and miss the point. They're not evenly matched. The Hornet is better at low speed high alpha, the Viper at higher speed energy retention. They are not so grossly dissimilar as a P-36 and F-86 as to be ''incapable of bridging the gap''. Both are capable aircraft and can cross over into each other's realms... but each is better in its own realm than in the other. You can use any aircraft in any manner, depending on circumstance. That is very much the ''why even both flying anything else, Hornet meta iz the bestest'' tone of this thread, yes. If by ''equally skilled'' you mean ''equally determined to engage in the same fight, which naturally favors one over the other'', then yes. Equally skilled does not mean they should fight in the same fashion. Sorry, it's not helpful for you. If you want to compare stats and pre-judge the winner, tis up to you. No, they're saying a Viper cannot beat a Hornet in a low speed knife fight and it should never even attempt to do so. It can, yes. T/W combines with drag to determine overall acceleration blah blah blah. I don't have the DCS lua files open to compare decimal points right now. I'm afraid we'll have to stick to more simplistic generalities. Good on ya. That can happen pretty easily, yes. That's what happens when you've got two modern high performance super fighters trying to kill each other. Somebody's one bobble from eating a bullet. Yeah, that happens sometimes. Yeah, you can get killed no matter what. That's like... a thing when two planes are shooting at each other. That's still the kind of fight you'd want to fight against a Hornet. I don't get what's so hard about that to understand. Yes, that guy got shot. IT DOESN'T MATTER. That's STILL an excellent example of the kind of energy advantage you want to try to build up. Do THAT, but NOT the part where he got shot. That's your goal.

No, I didn't. I did advocate energy tactics being viable and that what gets most people killed is fighting the Hornet's fight. I argued that superior T/W is not ''practically useless'' in a dogfight and that people claiming something that absurd fundamentally misunderstand what a ''dogfight'' is. Your proposed argument is nothing new to me nor is DCS the first forum where I've seen it presented. Everybody else who said it was fundamentally wrong, too. For somebody who reread the whole thread you seem to be missing my core argument. Me not being willing to sit down personally and hold somebody's hand and compose youtube tutorials for them to win forum arguments should be surprising to absolutely nobody. At the end of the day, I really don't care what any of you think, and PC accessibility is secondary to that. I'm here to amuse myself and pass time when I'm bored. People have been writing about air combat for at least 110 years, and making Youtube videos for 15-20. There's plenty of material available. That's a reasonable assumption if you think T/W and acceleration are useless. Eveeybody starts somewhere, though. Hardly. But I know that Hornets aren't invincible. I'm opinionated and easily frustrated when people make nonsense statements citing spreadsheets. Regardless, I'm not usually talking completely out my arse. That is the direct cause of 99.9% of shootdowns circumstances notwithstanding. You're focusing too much on what the Hornet was doing and not enough on what the Viper was doing. GS skill or lack thereof is irrelevant. You wanted examples of what I.was trying to describe and that guy provided them very simply. The basic manner in which he flew is to be emulated when engaging a Hornet. Yes, the better flown the Hornet is the harder it will be to kill and the fewer mistakes he'll make and the quicker he'll respond to yours. But that is the approach you'll try to use, how successful it is will be circumstantial. Neither is superior. There is no such thing as an ''I win'' move. The Hornet is so popular because its manner of fighting is simple, intuitive, and easily replicated to good results even by inexperienced pilots. The point is it is not unbeatable or unavoidable that it wins, and by NOT flying against its greatest strengths you remove its low speed handling and high alpha post stall maneuverability from the equation, forcing it to fight with OTHER stats on its spreadsheet which may favor YOU. At the very least you eliminate the noobiest strategies and force the pilot to up his game. I realise I'm flippant and sarcastic, and 90% of your posts are responding to that. It isn't black and white. I'm neither an expert nor an idiot. I am somebody that knows spreadsheet stats are of limited utility and that blanket statements like ''T/W and acceleration are useless'' are absurd. I'll try again. The Hornet favors the fast resolution, due to low speed high alpha handling if you both go in hard, cashing in energy, and somebody dies in the first 60 seconds, it will probably be you. You exploit your T/W by dragging the fight out. The planes are similar enough he can't just instakill you, he has to maneuver with you first. Your T/W advantage means each maneuver he's probably bleeding more and takes longer to get it back if you're flying the numbers just right. Logically, if the fight drags on, this should result in you accumulating more and more energy and gradually moving higher and faster compared to him. If you're ever able to force him to dump energy to dodge a shot that's ideal. Where the ''modern high thrust jet'' becomes a factor is in greatly reducing the margin for error. One mistake or 5-10 seconds of inattention can cost you everything you accumulate. Eating a snapshot is an ever present risk. Gettimg too far away is an auto reset. Once the planes merge somebody's gonna die. No, it's not easy. It is a knife edge with little margin for error. If he's any good he'll be trying to prevent it, and cause the performance margin is close he can if you're not supremely careful. But it is possible and they're not wholly unbeatable. If somebody ''paddleswitches'' or dumps flaps etc they are increasing your energy margin. If THEY miscalculate it can be irrecoverable, too. You want to know how to fight a Hornet (or any low speed, high alpha dogfighter) that's how. There is no magic move, no guarantee of victory, but that IS how you go about it. Who wins is up to you and him and who makes the first mistake. My whole point again, is merely that it's not impossible. The guys thinking it is, or that habitually rely on exploits like over g are exactly the kind energy fighting will work best on because they underestimate its effectiveness and rely on brute force. As for thinking I'm a phony, that's fine. As I said, I don't care what anyone thinks =) I'm structuring my employment to have a life again, so you'll definitely get to see me in the tournies this year starting Augustish. You're welcome to jeer anytime I get shot down. Please use creative insults while doing so :p

Everybody starts somewhere. I don't fault anybody (not even Youtubers), if they're not ''on the money'' with every utterance or move. I think GS videos are entertaining, not as annoying as soooome, and accessible for demonstrating to people what DCS is and that's what's most important. As for the terminology, yeah, I think people get overly focused on that. They're useful descriptors in some cases, but... yeah. I have never thought in terms of ''circles'' or named maneuvers, or conciously tried to perform certain ones, some of these terms I had never even heard of before I started hanging around here and reading stuff like Shaw's book. I just try to do whatever ''feels appropriate'' to avoid getting shot in the face, preferably while shooting the other guy in the face. Except for hammerheads. That one's my favorite, even if it occasionally gets me vigorously molested.

Hey, he finally said something I agree with!

''This information does not compute with my stat based meta. Error 404. Pull moar Gs, noob'' I give up.

Well, you could technically do that with any autopilot provided the target was directly ahead, but if they maneuver much or shoot back you're not gonna be able to avoid maneuvering. I just think people hang up on that bit too much and take it as being way more significant than it is.

Oh, look, someone does exactly what I described and repeatedly killed a Hornet. It contradicts DCS FORUM META though, so clearly HAXORS. If you do your job right, even the dreaded paddle shouldn't matter. Contrary to popular belief, you can even win without pulling 15gs. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. Like I said before, I'll take a Viper, Fulcrum, or Eagle over a Hornet any day.

The idea the planes themselves are being directly controlled remotely is just a bit bizarre and I don't understand why people keep claiming that. There's just no reason why you would ever actually do that. The Soviets tended to have a very top heavy command structure with minimal flexibility or initiative for lower levels, not only in reference to aircraft, with a tendency toward micromanagement. I've seen multiple references to the mentality, from issues with Ukrainian troops with European trainers, to things like aircraft overflying troops in contact because it wasn't their assigned sector and so forth. Generally a rigid command structure, but not actual ''remote control''. I.e. ground controllers vector the aircraft to their assigned targets and handle a lot of the tasking for what individuals would do, but the pilot is still flying the aircraft. You literally could not have a functional air defense at all if they were restricted to only throttle and weapon controls. If that was the case, then they would have never bothered with designing maneuverable dogfighters. -edit You could technically use autopilot enroute, but that's hardly unique to the Soviet system.

Pretty much, by the time they were coming out the MiG-29 was available with all the same or better, plus a much more capable airframe. That's not accurate at all. It's inferior to a 4th gen lifting body aircraft, most especially in low speed handling, but saying it's complete garbage is at best gross exaggeration. People proposing that love to skip over the part where after the initial few versions, the 23 was extensively lightened and improved, particularly with the MLA (the most mass produced version) and being further improved with the MLD. An even cursory glance over it's capabilities indicate a ''fair to good'' aircraft, generally inferior to 4th gen aircraft (unsurprising) but a long, long way from being useless. Also, the whole point of an HMS is to greatly widen your engagement envelope... specifically so you DON'T have to ''turn with the best of them''. It's not an F-18, but there is more to fighting than simply pulling hard on the stick at stall/post stall speeds. Is there a source for this? Both fair points, and marks in favor of the later generation aircraft, but that's still not remotely the same thing as ''it has no fight in it'' Not really... Very possible, at any rate these upgrades didn't happen for a reason. The MiG-23 arrived at kind of a weird transitional time. Had it appeared a few years earlier where it was fighting more of its technological peers (Phantoms, etc) it would've had a much better reputation. I think it's a bit funny that these aircraft I just mentioned are considered ''good and capable'' and it's equal or superior to them but somehow ''has no fight in it'' @@ I think cultural bias has more to do with these ideas than anything else.

I know I do :p The Harrier, Mirage, etc are not receiving significant (any?) 3d updates, being essentially finished on that front. The guy/s doing that stuff haven't suddenly been fired, they're doing other stuff because... why not? A 3d model does not a plane make unfortunately. Even if you bought one already done, the work to rig it up with functionality, code the avionics, flight model etc, is likely to be at least 2-3 years start to finish. Sorta, they're more than ''not the same'' though, as the C pretty much lacks any and all A2G ordnance, while the E very much has tons of that stuff. It's easier to substitute an E for a C than the other way around :p I'd rather they did it in whatever the most logical order for them to do it is. If they are already well into the F-15 (likely considering its age) it would be really foolish to halt it so they can spend several years starting a new plane from scratch. Fact is, we have relatively little info on what all is going on in the background. Agreed =) It's a lot like a F-104 in principle, if the F-104 wasn't hot garbage :p

Oh wow, I had no idea they were that visible.

*shakes head*

They said a looooong time ago it was low priority and only receiving a bit of 3d modeling attention A side effect of ''not working on it'' See above The F-15 has been in the works a lot longer, and has been widely assumed to be the next thing they focus on. Only if you somehow thought it was a high priority subject, which they have indicated multiple times it wasn't. People complain the older modules aren't ''good enough'' and they shouldn't be dividing their attention to new products, then they complain the roadmap for new products isn't moving fast enough @@

Heh, that's not a bad idea Seconded

Ok, so he waited a few days before ordering them out of the AO. Point still stands. Grossly miscalculated? Yes, I do. Helping buy him a few days They did, that's not really debatable. The size of Saddam's air force is irrelevant, considering how badly he was outmatched. The Iraqis did well lasting as long as they did, inflicting as much damage as they did. Had the coalition been less careful and charged right in, the Iraqis were positioned to inflict significant damage. End result would've been the same, but they would have caused a lot more damage before going down. Unfortunately for them, the Coalition did not deploy in Leeroy Jenkins formation. It was not his intention to do so, but once shooting began what happened next was not up to him. It is vastly simpler to evacuate some planes to a neutral territory in a matter of hours than to evacuate tens of thousands of troops and tanks. Very possible, that's what happens when you screw up. You often don't realise it until it's too late. I never said they didn't. Iraq was well entrenched. Their air defenses were extensive and relatively well planned. Their air force did not participate in the fighting to a large extent, however, which IS what I originally said. The Iraqi defense did not hinge on their air force, which would have been slaughtered by coalition CAPs had they attempted to intervene on a large scale. You don't evacuate a force you're depending on for victory and that is proving highly effective. You evacuate a force you don't want to lose and recognise they can't significantly affect events. You can send in Apaches into a SAM and AAA network, particularly when they are operating in largely uncontested air space, which again, was my original observation.