Mars Exulte

Ugh. Ugly bastard. Alligator is def the hot cousin. Also... Yeeet!!1! We're back in bidness, boyos! That was pretty much acknowledged a long time ago. Weren't you the one ranting about wanting Iglas to compete with the uber1337 Apache for AirQuake? Make up your mind. See every thread on modern RedFor ever created. It's going to be missing most of the stuff that actually makes a 52 unique, and is at best a ''lightly modified'' variation of what we already have. It changes relatively little. A 52 would change quite a lot.

Very true, in real conflicts aircraft are a strategic level asset. @Baaz In Desert Storm, as I recall the majority of the Iraqi Air Force fled well ahead of allied arrival to foreign countries. They didn't stand much chance against the numerically and technologically overwhelming coalition forces and would have been doing little more than feeding them kills. Basically, the Apaches were operating in conditions of more or less unchallenged air dominance. SAMs and AAA were a threat, but flying 10-15ft off the ground is a pretty viable defense against them up til you get right on top of them, at least. Even if they Iraqis didn't flee and came out to engage the Apaches, they'd have been almost immediately swept up. ''Heading out first'' and ''completely unsupported'' are not the same thing.

This old wives tale again? That's not how guns work, generally speaking. There's a lot more to it than the diameter of the round. Being able to chamber a round does not mean it will cycle, won't damage the gun, or won't blow up and kill you. It's not. At all. I would say safely he has not operated, or likely even seen the weapon systems on it, which means he has no idea what he's talking about. And since he was repeating known wives tales, he probably also didn't spend much time studying them. The video about the Hind and MiG-23 both are both very interesting and informative, but they also have a lot of utter garbage in them, a lot of which can be dispelled with minimal effort or in some cases actually looking at the things in question. Example MiG-23 intakes were not copied from the F-4. You can easily see this by... looking at them.

My wife's laptop has a 2060 and has played every game I installed on it at max settings at 1080p. For 1080, I would safely assume anything over a 2060 is overkill, except for DCS which of course will take whatever you can throw at it. I have no idea whatsoever where the 1660 fits in to the current hierarchy, tbh, and avoided it due to uncertainty.

You'll have to go elsewhere if you want an echo chamber, I'm afraid. I did not try to shut him down. However, the ''besides the obvious'' part is silly, the ''obvious'' part IS the reason. Real life helicopters operate as a group and don't yolo off by themselves where they can get farmed. They survive and accomplish their mission by working together with a larger force, and by actively avoiding getting themselves in that situation. DCS diverges because helo pilots do the exact opposite of what they should be doing in a great many cases and operate alone without coordination with others, as a result... they get farmed by fast movers. Just like would happen in real life if they did that.

Yeah, that's that good ol' exploit lovin' gamer mentality. ''Sure, my plane would be permanently grounded in real life, but I got the kill, hurdur! RTB and spawn a new plane!'' @@ This from the same people obsessively quibbling over fm charts. They want ''realizm and immurzun'' then proceed to immediately throw it out the window @@ And concur about the lucky shot. Physics don't suddenly change because you're flying a hornet, the tomcat got shot because he flew in a straight enough line for long enough to actually get hit from ''a mile away'', bullets still have travel time, even in DCS, the only way you get ''sniped'' at long range is by holding still for it.

Tldr version Results in DCS do not match with real life in ANY topic, because there is absolutely nothing about it that resembles real life. Not the behavior of the pilots, the objectives of the missions, the cooperation between units, the layout of the combat environment, etc etc etc. There is almost nothing about how anything is done in this game that even remotely resembles what you would see in real life... So, unsurprisingly, the results do not resemble real life, either.

Unfortunately true. I read/watch a lot of accident studies. I noticed early on the most common causes of fatalities is flying when they're not qualified to fly and indecision at critical phases. You don't get to have ''oops lol'' moments in the real thing.

Having gone the SLI route myself in the past with dual 980ti, it is usually not all it's cracked up to be. It also doesn't work with VR at all, or DCS (at least not reliably). You are pretty much always better off having one better card than two SLI'd cards. It's likely the whole concept will die off within the next few years anyway from how it sounds.

From DX12 to Vulkan, probably not, because they're both hardware level apis. DCS uses DX11 though, which is still the older software level api, so it will be a more significant difference, although I really won't be expecting ''30%''. Who knows, though, we'll find out eventually. Better to keep low expectations and be pleasantly surprised!

Hours etc are in a text file in the saved games directory. You can edit it by hand if you want to. It shouldn't affect it. I don't bother with multiple installs, btw. Skate's GUI ftw, lets you switch back and forth easily. Most the time, unless there's a new map in beta or something major (like 2.7) it doesn't take much to switch. If you're blessed with good internet speeds, may not matter much even then.

M.2 is a form factor. NVMe and SATA drives both come in M.2 form. SATA you probably won't need one, NVMe, you might. They're cheap enough and easy to install, so no big deal. A lot of motherboards come with one or two these days. My brother's motherboard was camo patterned, and had one on it which we stupidly overlooked for sometime @@ You could easily just not use it, though, if you had a aftermarket one.

Really? You missed the whole phase where people were griefing servers by using an exploit to slam planes into airfields from extreme altitude and render them unusable? That you've been living under a rock in no way means this community doesn't have the same griefer/cheater tendencies literally every game ever created has. The high cost of entry probably does more to lower prevalence than anything else, but it absolutely still happens. -edit Btw, looks like this guy is modding weapons, so I'm 100% certain other people can, too. You maybe can't tweak the values of existing weapons, but that's easily worked around by modding new ones in, copying the old stuff, and tweaking it to your liking.

I've never described DCS to someone, or shown them my simpit, and them not be extremely positive. My wife (who grew up in a strictish old fashioned family) gave me a lot of grief about being ''a grown man playing games'' when we first met, until I recorded a lengthy sortie for her (and she saw my simpit). Tldr her opinion changed.

It is, and it's not even about just English. A Scotsman and an American sound absolutely nothing alike, even though they may both be speaking ''English''. Windows works with ''American English'', being an American developer basically, but even then you have to spend a fair piece of time ''training'' it to your voice. I'm an American, speaking American English, but I found out immediately as a Texan, it was different enough it couldn't reliably understand me. Developers love to cut corners, and spending this much time on something 90% of people aren't going to set up properly and then flood their forums with complaints is probably not most companies' idea of a good investment of time. Vaicomm ''works'' because it requires enough effort to set up that only somebody really dedicated gets that far, and the DCS custom voice pack does all of the footwork for you. Besides, what's the issue with using Vaicomm? We have 3rd party aircraft, 3rd party terrains, TacView is a 3rd party utility. Why is Vaicomm somehow ''not good enough''? It's an externally developed plugin that does the job quite perfectly. It's not going to ''benefit'' much from ED developing their own solution, in the way that ED's replacement for SRS is likely to streamline and improve functionality and features.

This is basically a Turkish propaganda video ''look how we chased off the Greeks'' Notice he peaks at less than 4g, is at 2g most the time. They are maneuvering gently onto non-maneuvering Greeks while excitedly shouting tacticool phrases for the audience's benefit. It's really easy to get a guns track on somebody that is completely ignoring you.

Just to throw in a point I have yet to see actually mentioned. Something you guys need to keep in mind when talking about R-60s/Sidewinders on helos. An AAM on a helo does not equal a AAM on a jet. You are going to be flying much slower, much lower, firing at a receding target flying 3-4x your speed or more. This will severely reduce the accuracy and speed of your missile, and as a result its overall effectiveness. If you are thinking somehow a heater is going to let you blunder around in the open without friendly air cover, you're going to be reallllllly disappointed. All that stuff you read about ''helos get air kills against fighters'' presupposes two things : #1, most importantly, the helo is not blundering around like an idiot, and #2 that the fighter's RoEs prohibit using BVR missiles on it. Online #1 is extremely common #2 is not a factor #3 helos get repeatedly molested

Yes to improved G strain modeling and yes to something resembling stamina so you cannot pull high g maneuvers forever without your pilot eventually tiring. No to... all this other weird crap people are suggesting. I can't believe people actually would suggest War Thunder's idiotic skill system here with a straight face (it works more or less exactly like is being suggested here).

*yawn* Oh look, somebody missed the point of literally everything I said. It's almost like I wasted a considerable amount of time trying to reason with min-maxers @@ Whatever, you're all right, I'm wrong. Hornet is teh best, all hail the bug, ED are wasting their time and only the all mighty flat turn determines success or failure. Every small penised country that didn't buy a Hornet is a dirty scrub certain to feed kills to the mighty, well endowed nations that fly Hornets and perform majestic unconquerable maneuver of turning left or right.

I disagree. The box the pilot sits in is an influence, but no the Hornet is not the ''I win'' button you guys seem to think it is. Against noobs that don't know how to fight it, sure, but the more experienced the pilots get, the less that's going to happen. Entirely possible, but again, as long as the disparity between two planes is not ''insurmountably huge'' it's not THAT significant of an influence. People aren't losing fights over a degree or two a second. Not even talking about the Viper specifically, but literally ''turn fight vs energy fight''. It doesn't matter what the planes are. You shouldn't be fighting your opponents greatest strength with your greatest weakness.

Yeah, of course. I'm not meaning to say it's all that easy, because it's not, my stance is merely that turning alone will not automatically win the fight and that worked right, a higher T/W is equally as useful. If dissimilar aircraft were incapable of defeating each other, there wouldn't be as much variety in the world. As lomg as the opponents are approximately comparable, a few % plus or minus is extremely unlikely to be the deciding factor. Yeah, of course, add in missiles and none of this matters hardly. The tournaments and duels are almost always 1v1 guns only stuff, though, which is what I thought we were mainly discussing. As for dueling, I'd love to once I'm able to set my rig back up. Tldr, everything is in storage and I literally live on the job these days. Hopefully this summer that all changes. I want to get in on the tournament scene 100%.

I have hardly ever had an argument with someone on the internet that didn't end up claiming to be the foremost authority on whatever it was we were talking about. It's just internet stuff, people are full of shite, etc. Ah, the ''instagram influencer'' mentality. That's a cancerous development in society if ever there was one. I've done some RC flying (I have a foam BF-109G with 50'' wingspan). It's not harder or even all that different, your controls are the same and it flies more or less the same. It's just perspective and relative speed is so different. It's really hard to tell its orientation, especially from a few hundred feet, and while ''60-70mph'' doesn't sound like a lot, for a four foot plane it's really whizzing around. Adjusted for scale... yeah, that's pretty damn fast, and you'll be out of view or radio range in seconds (or in a tree or building). Some of the faster ones easily exceed 100mph.

You're correct, the Hornet is most popular. It favors low speed turn fighting which the majority of people also favor turn fighting. Its FCS also does a lot to prevent loss of control or over G, making it to a large degree idiot proof. Anybody can fly a Hornet and be a credible threat provided the opponent engages in a low speed turning fight. Energy fights are a lot harder to conduct properly, and you rarely see it done. It's the same in every flight sim, turn fighters are favored because they're easiest, not because they're best. I watched the FoH fight too, a couple of them were pretty good, most of them were not. That a plane catering to the lowest common denominator was popular is hardly surprising. The F-18 is a competent fighter, a jack of all trades, but I would rather have literally any other high T/W aircraft. Give me a F-15, F-16, or MiG-29 anyday. If he lets me get above him and build an energy advantage he'll be screwed. Yes, gamers love using exploits to win, and the ''destroy my plane to get the kill'' mentality is nothing new. You should never get slow enough for it to be a viable option for him, and if he jams his flaps trying it (which most will, because gamers are chickenshit and go for cheap kills) you should be actively anticipating, extend, climb, then kill him at leisure. He surrenders all initiative the instant he does it, if he fails to kill you within 2-3 seconds, which he shouldn't because you're supposed to be anticipating that bs move, he's screwed. WWII or jets, the rules are the same. I've already been there, done that a million times. The #1 rule is ''don't fight your opponents fight''. If you have substantially higher T/W, or even just a higher energy reserve, you have the option of ''saying no'' to whatever your opponent is wanting to do. Regarding something like a Hornet, a few deg a sec, or a g or two, literally shouldn't matter, because you shouldn't be fighting his fight in the first place. As long as you're close to his level of maneuverability, you should be able to threaten him. You just have to exercise restraint, get and keep your energy, don't cash it out until you're ready to make the kill. It's not that I'm some super splendiferous super internet warrior, but I've done this stuff enough to know how simplistic most people are in their approach to fighting, and I've become very good at maintaining the energy advantage. Used to, I was usually better at flying the knife edge of the envelope than most people and could force them to stall or dip a wing, but modern FCS largely nullify that option, and modern fighters are quite at home with high alpha, post stall maneuvering. Regardless, managing your energy state is very basic stuff. Hornets are not the end all be all, except to people who only know ''I pull hard on stik, mak playn go brrrrt''