dimitrischal

I don't think this is a buG. The slider on the refuel page corresponds to the internal fuel capacity only. Jettison the empty tanks and equip new ones.

Let me change that mentality a bit for you. I don't wanna die but I need to get this thing done to the best of my abilities before I have to return for fuel. Scenario realism involves weather, fuel planning, enemy air defense analysis, fighter cover etc on top of switchology realism which for me is necessary. The community ignores or has sterized most of these parameters for the sake of easy access and team deathmatch multiplayer game. Blue Flag is a good pastime but realistic? If I fly some crates somewhere I can build a sam battery? Really? The f18 offers for the first time carrier ops, true multirole, long range standoff weapons(maybe?), realistic sead capabilities and half of the forum posts are about the hmd and the aim9x and its usefulness in dogfighting because some boys had their asses kicked by r73s when they run out of slammers in what is basically team deathmatch multiplayer.

You understand those are real countries right using real equipment and not allowances a mission maker took while making a mission right? You know there are procedures involved in war zones where commonality of equipment is present because of the risks involved? I don't see where the me thing comes in, aren't we all interested in realism? Probably not as I can see.

I thought we were talking about dcs in general? What does it have to do with the navy and f15s? I said I will not continue the politically charged discussion about Syria. I don't want an admin bursting a blood vessel again and closing the topic. Besides everything is based on rumors so... Regarding dcs and realism I don't understand where you're getting at. Nobody said anything about labels or easy mode. I mentioned period correct armaments and planes which is as hardcore as it gets, which in dcs is f15s with aim7s and su27s with r27ers but I don't see a lot of people populating the weapon restricted servers. I wonder why that... Probably because they are too easy, must be that. Taking potshots with amraams in tws in a plane that takes a few keystrokes to fly doesn't register in my book as serious flying in dcs, nor giving both sides the same plane types because it f@cks my rwr situational awareness.

So you actually think you're a navy pilot flying cap when playing f15 in dcs huh? Ok then... And btw this conversation would be on a completely different place had the Russians decided to actually support their allies. But let's not make this political.

FYI fighting against non period ac isn't hardcore simulation, it's arcade. The R73 was a weapon of similar period to the aim9m/l but a superior weapon. The R27 or 530d vs aim120c not so. And btw a mica armed m2000 would give anything a run for its money.

People whine about having a mid 2000s model amraam against essentially late 80s soviet weapons and a late 80s mirage. Totally different. And yes unrealistic. But that horse has been beaten to death and it's zombified remains hung up to dry yet people still go back to it.:P

Why the viking when you can have the intruder? ASW is tedious and boring to a lot of ppl especially if modeled accurately with poor meteorological conditions and low visibility carrier ops, something as pointed before not for the casual player. DCS lacks in so many aspects that asking for ASW to be implemented before these issues are addressed is kinda selfish. I can see ASW as being a DCS3+ addition if ever really implemented. I hope it does but i wouldnt hold my breath.

AI helis are a whole world apart from human controlled enemies. I have found it is pretty easy to kill them in mp. Usually a magic will do, if you want to save on 530s use the radar to acquire a lock pass the target to the ir seeker and turn the radar off. If you can't estimate the distance to fire turn the radar on switch to boresight mode or vertical scan read range and turn off again. Doing it fast enough won't alert anyone. Attacking from the same altitude helps but is risky. Shoot near minimum range and switch to guns in case you miss or try guns only. He will be completely clueless what hit him. Careful with the gazelles carrying mistrals though. Evade accordingly.

I'm pretty sure a direct mk82 hit will ravage any tank out there. I might sound a bit bold but a direct dud hit would cause massive damage too. We just need to wait for the bombs update.

Agreed, my point was that dcs bombing is dominated by smart munitions to an unrealistic extend. I also agree that the viggen isn't in the same league. However I cannot see why this urge for smart weapons all the time. We play dcs looking at a screen that displays another screen in which we slew a designator tab...

I love the old school bombing with the f5. Would rather see the bombs fixed than have mavs added but I can't see the harm in having it as an option. My gripe is that dcs bombing is dominated by guided munitions to a ridiculous degree and the f5 and viggen offered a refreshing different approach to that. Wouldn't want to see the f5 turned into a another small maverick truck.

Some might argue that 0 should be 1 if you re referring to the eagle.

As they said in ww2 if you find the performance of you gun ineffective get closer. With no modern targeting equipment I believe this is the only way to gunfight on the Tiger. Of course I would like accurate performance of the guns and this matter resolved though.

I must be the only one who finds the spread useful in a2a combat? I admit it's not as useful on ground targets but it kinda makes aerial gunnery easier than laser like precision and honestly I can't see how this can be considered a disadvantage. I think of it like a shotgun vs a rifle situation and here the shotgun is the more useful instrument. Just my opinion though....

I don't fly fc3 fighters and think they shouldn't have been included in DCS in the first place. So the Mirage was the only way for me, it's a great little fighter, very easy to use and very dynamic. Some issues are there and will be for quite some time, very difficult to develop a module with FBW without manufacturer cooperation. Some tweaking regarding the FM is normal as it is still a wip. Honestly some bitching about the FM in the forums is uncalled for... Damage modeling is pretty pathetic but no one can blame razbam for this as this is being reworked from the ground up we won't see any updates until ED releases their code. I would buy the Mirage again if I had to.

You don't need anything to "tell" you how to navigate. The ability to follow waypoints with compass and timer is Basic. That makes the F-5 so damn fun to fly and should be a basic skill even for digital aviators. You need to keep the bearings, time, speeds, distances and landmarks handy though. Like in a piece of paper or a cellphone or tablet. You can use tacan or ADF if nearby, usually easier to plan them as waypoints so you can use radial in and out for convenience. Getting to the mission area on the F-5 like this is fun at least for me, using the TAD on the A10 feels like a waste of time in comparison.

And developers will always provide for them because of profit,still they get owned though:D

A theater map provides a reference point for specific types to be developed for DCS eg Vietnam era planes over Vietnam. Since module development isn't easy some concessions have to be made at least at first. A specific map does not only offer accurate geography and ambience but in an ideal simulator enviroment accurate weather depiction specific to the area as well, a factor easily overlooked in DCS single and multiplayer aspects. So flying over caucausus and petending its vietnam... Nah...

Exactly, besides it's ridiculous expecting ppl to pay full retail for each separate version of the same type. It'll have to do.

Don't veao have a tornado scheduled in? Although with all the stuff they have "under development" and the state of the Hawk I wouldn't hold my breath... The Tornado is highly marketable, one of the more iconic eurojets with interesting procedures and operational capabilities although I could see an f-111 or a su-24 being even more capable and marketable.

I know, thats what makes ac like the f4,mig19 etc important, they are old(easy to find information) iconic(selling potential) and finally easier to recreate(simpler avionics) than modern ones. They also create the potential to populate and implement a theater in a way previously not possible in DCS. Although i think ED could bypass most of the restrictions by outsourcing the creation of modern redfor jets to developers outside Russia and choosing versions exported to other nations. But who knows...

Right it's a simulator so if I want to balance it in multiplayer I should give both sides all planes or remove armaments from one or both sides instead of simply having planes of the same era in each side adding in realism and immersion. But it's ok it's fixable. Suuuuure... The statement that D.C.'s is a simulator and needs no balancing is absolutely correct. The belief some people have that we don't need planes and equipment of the same era for a better gameplay experience is utterly retarded. Western planes are in high demand because Dcs userbase is primary Europe and USA. No secret here.

I never questioned if a single person can fly a2g effectively, especially on modern electronics. I said I want to fly 2 seater a2a and a2g in the same platform namely the f14 or older planes. So do a lot of others. Hence all the activity on all the old plane wish threads. Also the broken thermal imaging, that's what it is seriously broken, is a major issue affecting acquisition times and will show up in the upcoming harrier and f18 that are fast with smaller loiter times. Higher zoom doesn't help when a warm tank has the same contrast and heat level as the trees around it... Now that you mentioned it there is a very large percentage of users disagreeing with ED's decisions to bring post 2000s modules and weaponry only to the blue side myself included, stating serious playability issues in mp. Not saying anything about nerfing anything, just having a match in opfor would be great. But I don't see it coming soon.

I was talking about flying a2g in a 2 seater which offers much more potential than a single seater. The f-14 was utilized towards the end of its life as a bombtruck with designation capabilities for other ac, something pretty interesting, the f-4 was a wild weasel plane for ages. No i don't want to use harms or 21st century tgps, i prefer shrikes and lantirn. Besides the thermal imaging models are seriously broken in dcs and will remain so for some time rendering this modern equipment ironically useless anyway so...