dimitrischal

If you want to beat the air Defence mission you have to climb and dive on the SU-24s on full burn. It takes tactics to win besides brute speed or overwhelming firepower.

Trolls are like strays. Someone just has to feed them.

Rendering a bridge unpassable does not necessarily mean dropping all the spans. Damage on any span can mean the bridge is out for a respectable amount of time, almost surely unsuitable for armor. I am also curious though about the absence of any larger warhead weapons on the viggen.

So what? Can't the LAUs be jettisoned if needed? With a2a refueling available it is still easily doable in DCS. Even for the trolling joy of it... Noone will chew your ass if you dump a boatload of expensive missiles in a sim.

I stand corrected. The following applies... Still not proper multi threading.

DCS uses only 1 core. People have complained multiple times about it.

I want the same upgrades you want but I also believe they shouldn’t come at the price of overal performance especially on lower end systems. Now If improvements are made in the way DCS handles resources and cores more specifically we could have all those upgrades but that is another discussion altogether...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1#Operational_history Pretty interesting track record so far...

I was always a fan of the system but these latest reports got me all wired up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1#Operational_history The system proved more than capable of intercepting extremely low rcs drones and munitions. I also thought it was high time we got it in DCS as it has been in service for a few years and it really offers a unique mix of counter munitions defence and classic SAM functionality. Also i think the F18 is a step up from the SU25T in terms of SEAD. It can be saturated of course but it is just another item to add something different to the mix.

Can't wait for this. Mig19, F4E and Mirage 3 will pretty much focus me completely in cold war gameplay. Cheers to the awesome fights to come!

Doesnt prove anything. The Tunguskas are skill crap close in. And adding 4 Tors in mp adds quite a few complications....lol

You are talking about CA, I am not. I don’t want to drive it or fight with it in CA, I want it as an AI opponent to the upcoming aircraft and their long range HARMs and SLAMs because it has been proven to be able to track and engage multiple incoming projectiles or even uavs successfully and provide excellent point Defence. The code for this is available and is used on all the ciws on the ships... So it can defend a tracking or search radar from incoming HARMs from F18s. So it can give mission makers something to spice things up in MP. It can also be a potent threat against low level fighters and helos if any stray too close for a cheap kill on a high value target.... The Tunguska we have now cannot do that. It tracks incoming projectiles or planes extremely poorly and fails to intercept most(I’m talking about the cannons now). The SA15 can be saturated extremely easily and cannot provide terminal Defence. The way radars work now it is very difficult to simulate any counter SEAD tactic. That is what made me think about the Pantsir. I don’t care about the sidearm much. Honestly about 200 pieces were made and used up quickly in exersices, it had limited actual use and razbam made it to give a slightly unfair edge to their harrier against SAM threats. It was a niche weapon made in limited quantities and had no real operational use in actual combat so we can measure results. The AGM45 had a slightly larger warhead so can be considered closer to a normal munition in DCS and could easily be considered a bit to kill weapon. The AGM88 definitely. A more complex damage system for ships is needed I definitely agree but I don’t think people would appreciate the impact in performance if it was expanded in all ground units.

Personally I find the hitpoint system adequate for the use at hand. After all almost always a smart weapon hit results in a complete kill. Why use more processing power for a use few will notice? I asked for the pantsir because it is a powerful countermeasure for the onslaught of long range anti radar and stand off weapons being advertised for the hornet or currently available ie KH58U. Not for another anti aircraft SAM. But anyway. I guess interest is limited in creating a complete battlefield experience as long as we get to blow stuff up...

Paying for MLUs is a slippery slope. Beware...

From what I’ve read the pantsirs ciws capability is excellent. It’s part of an antimissile umbrella that involves the TOR-M1 and the S-300 systems and is comparable to the c-ram and phalanx. My thinking is not so much as an antiaircraft weapon but an effective anti missile weapon to protect radars and high value assets from stand off weapons like the HARM and SLAM. It was used this way with great effect in Syria.

Seeing that the F-18 is around the corner and with all the HARMs and SLAMs that will be flying around I was wondering if getting a Pantsir-S1 at some point would be possible so that we can have some decent medium to short range anti missile and anti air defense. Besides the TOR-M1 that is.

What has been said regarding low and fast. When you think you’ve nailed it then go lower and faster. Now that 2.5 is out I observed that trees block the line of sight of the SAMs and make approaching in the viggen way way easier than before. Of course now you can crash on trees also so care is needed. Planning is crucial. Use the terrain to your advantage to mask your approach and escape. If you can use countermeasures. You usually do one run so use them all during the run, no point flying them back. TORs are beasts, if you can make them expend all their ammo before the attack is better.

I don't want a workaround, i want the normal installer to be available again, this is unacceptable as we are paying customers and are being treated on a first come first served basis for crap bandwidth allocation reasons. Very poor behaviour on behalf of ED... It's not as if 24 hours will matter anyway.

Why and for what reason was open beta install blocked? I am a paying customer and want unrestricted access to all the free installs of the game i support and not a first come first served basis. Please give back the 1.5.8 open beta install.

Set first pitch, then power and trim. In that order and bear in mind trim changes with airspeed and fuel consumption or weapons used so you actually need to trim for the airspeed you are targeting. And most importantly give it some time, the plane needs time to settle and you need time to get a feel for it so avoid excessive trim changes.

Regarding your example you can defeat the SAM sites with saturation attacks and pop up profiles which is how it’s done irl. Do you expect to defeat an SA-10 site some other way? Should somebody “make” it some other way so someone feels warm and fuzzy about himself and not get upset because a poorly executed attack didn’t work? Similarly should we restrict AIM54s because someone wants to join in a server and bag an F14 easily? If he has tactics and knows his stuff he will or else...

Yeah i'm pretty sure hardcore simmers with 100s of hours can land an f-5 so take what you find in youtube with a bit of salt... The f-5 we have doesn't have antiskid brakes so when brake pressure is above a certain value depending on your speed the brakes lock up, releasing brake pressure helps unlock the brakes and you to stop skidding, so nothing is wrong with your axis or slider just be gentler with the brakes or fine tune the curves if you find that helpful. Admittedly the f-5 might need some curves adjustment on many setups as control inputs are a tad oversensitve accross the range on all axis...

The same crappy argument has been put many times by redfor or M2000 pilots against fox3 missiles... Fly what you like but don’t restrict others in what they can fly or their weapons for that matter and call it balancing. It’s retarded.

I hope heatblur give us the ability to datalink the AIM54 from an E-2C. That way I don’t even have to stay around after foxing them. If anyone objects he can get a tomcat also. I won’t be frequenting any servers that restrict anything from the Tomcat anyway. This seems to be a lovingly crafted product with a lot of work gone into it and effort to make it realistic, definitely more than many modules out now or in beta, it should be treated accordingly.

You have started numerous threads and posted complains on others about this issue. Although the f5 isn’t easy in high speed ground handling it doesn’t appear bugged. Loads of people have been landing normally without the issues you are having without using the parachute on relatively short runways. So the normal assumption is you have a problem somewhere and continuously complaining about it doesn’t make it a bug. My impression is the default curve settings are a bit sensitive on the f5 in general. Maybe look there?