proletariat23

talk to a real tanker pilot about how dead you'd all be at 247knts with liquid fuel being moved around in any nato aircraft boom or basket. DOX your real life pilots, or you don't have any.

when critique is considered disrespectful, you're actually looking for glad handing. Ban some more youtubers, feed the VFW of choice with early access. Shameless. dox your pilot consultants, produce credentials, or maybe delete some more posts at 2am.

I find your premise rather morose, considering your title, and your assumption of worth based on effort connected to software tweaking and tuning. I expect a fluid living world with which to frolic, is part of the contract , both financial and tangible- it's called digital combat simulator, not super menu deluxe. My secondary point was more personal, in that the tendency is to frill and flower any criticism in platitudes and apologetics especially in an environment rife with elitism and dogmatic fanboy think- I was simply ascribing a preamble to my thought process- I don't got time to blow smoke based on what is currently acceptable, I speak plainly, and I am to the point. My point being, that at this level, and this amount of time and money, on both sides of the development pipeline I don't fear making a judgment and saying it's either laziness or lack of production ethos, or a clear vision. It strikes me as production novices, wanking around in the darkness, being shoe strung and sandbagged around by early access monies and oft made promises, seldom kept deadlines and schedules. I am of the generation who purchased completed finished games and software, complete with bible length manuals, which had to pass QA and legal with no bugs or locks, because internet updates were slow or unavailable... your (abstraction)willingness to pay 60 dollars for an unfinished piece of software is neither my place to judge, or a good or bad black and white binary, but I do have the luxury of saying, it used to be better when we bought finished products, and in the same breathe, we took things a little less seriously- this hurts final production quality, as well as the narrative of critiques and constructive criticism. leads many with similar dispositions (not that there are many who think critically when it comes to budgets and wants) to vote with their feet and their wallet. Flight sim market in general is captured by this business ethos, in hardware and HOTAS, in software, VR, and licensing- there is this unspoken notion that this is what it costs,prohibitive- in time, in effort, in education or software proficiency... Balderdash! But I am only one man, and you can't make everyone happy. I am resigned to accepting my critique comes from a very hyper critical and detail oriented, auteur place in reality- I accept that I am not the everyman, and one unit here or there will not break the coffer, however I have the impression that this isn't exactly sliced bread at the top of the week, for the many reasons I've laid out, and last time I checked, no one willingly paid full price for half a loaf.

to build on a solid foundation, My opinions are my own. I don't have time in life to glad hand anything. Being rude is one thing, saying things in a curt manor people don't want to hear is by no means harmful, unless you can't take the heat. If the things I say upset you, simply do not read them. On the contrary, I find AAR incredibly fulfilling when the foundations for realism is there. I don't fly sims to tweak settings in a mission editor just like I don't fly planes to load luggage. What is popular is rarely true, what is true is rarely popular.

I think to have a living fluid sim requires a bit more than a fleet of tankers in an unrealistic environ, and handmade scripted events and engagements. I'm only one man, not exactly hard to ignore one unpopular opinion, unless it resonates.

to me the community disconnect between the church of "how it's done in real life" and the compromises in AAR is telling. How many DCS hardcore have trained for years now to do it at 225? I'll leave it at that. an aircraft on it's way to the shit, with loaded wings, has no time for all this dilly putzing around. You can Kibitz this all you want, until the tanker holds track properly for different aircraft speeds it's not accurate. Tankers have an optimal speed for weight and aircraft type, and when you get those situations when you've got an f-15 on the boom and a hornet on each wing on the basket, it's a whole different story. Nowhere in that story is 225, or busting your own chops in a recurrence of PIO and basket retractions. It's actually better to simply land at a divert, get your fuel, and be on your way, in this game at least.

If it doesn't have mila jovovich as ace pilot killing everything with her mind it will be above average.

the two major words around the story concept is a disgraced maverick leaving the navy and becoming a soldier of fortune in a conflict in the middle east...the other is a human story involving meg ryan and goose's son.

after my return from Haifa, and seeing the reality of how effective the f35I is, I would agree with you. they shot everything including the kitchen sink, over 1000 launches, not one hit. I also read recently about the overhaul of the hawk, which was only disclosed in Iraq 1, but happened out at "paradise rancH" during have blue sounding and studies conducted by the airforce. most of what they did for the navy under Overhoulser is still deep classified a silver bullet, or a few.

if they had a short cut in the sim, that could drop a picture in picture into the bottom of the screen, like the control display or the SA guide, that would fix everyone's difficulty no matter the problem be it FOV or resolution, screen size or technique. they could smart scale it in a sense, make it bigger farther away then bring it into realistic proportions as you came up on it. My buddy has experience with building sims for the private sector, on his rig which is a dome, it is absolutely a non object, you cannot see it, by the time you do, game over it's too late. On my screen which is a standard 65 inch monitor, you can see it, but only at a moderate distance. In VR, forget about it, it may as well not even be there.

it has more to do with discrepancy with AOA and what the tanker is doing with true speed at point of contact, I think if you don't go into the advanced editor and set a correct speed, it is worthless to practice down at the default speed, will give you bad habits, your aircraft will be too slow, and you'll get PIO. every aircraft, has an optimum speed of refueling, and depending on the refueling platform, that also changes.

I heard they don't even have a real script, just a blank check and a rough idea, Principal photography for 3 months, then piece together the narrative. Tom Cruise apparently pitched the entire concept, and is the main story creator, which could be good or bad. Speaks to his clout. Waiting to see all the liberal convulsions when it eventually comes out, great balls of fire.

the real question you should ask ED is this? is the combinative power of the Russian IADS system is truly being monitored. ECM pods are aspect based, but if you're flying blue and they are modeling the disclosed abilities of the combination effects of ground, awacs, and weapons system radars, you're not going to have any difference from a pod past a certain range. The Russian IADS is a web, it fills in blank spots. If this is being modeled to the tee, which I doubt, aspect jammer pods won't do anything for you. You're even gonna have a bad day in an sr-71 or lockheed RAM. Now, another smart question is when are they going to model the russian EWS that can smack aegis boats into catatonia? :D

it was a flir augmented sa2, the f-15 did not crash, it made it back to a friendly divert in a foreign country.the internet is full of misinformation and useless arguments based around that misinformation.

and some point they need to grey area the limits of machines and balance based on a "gamesmanship" style, or at least, think about it. To say "its a zero to one simulation" is inaccurate. they may take time to make things appear accurate but there is balancing fudging and nerfing. its not a study sim.

a skilled pilot is going to win, despite his machine. the problem in this area of conjecture is that it greatly influences the perception of skill. whats skill in games? high fps and reg? who judges who is better, if the guy is playing in a 4th gen aircraft with a bunch of manual systems and very little help, or if its a FC3 eagle pumping and dumping salvos of aim120s? Is it the skill of not crashing or ripping your wings off in the merge with the russian jets? so now its not even about who shoots who its about the meta of AOA and systems work. or the hijinx and hiccups of the sim. yeah, this is called the weeds.

i read every post in this thread. the only way to truly get good data is by having a bit of an aerial battle. developer states always put out propaganda with words like "allegedly" or "dynamic". It's a simulator, so it tries to be accurate- but the data is all biased and incomplete. unlike a spitfire or a bf109 or a fw190- conjecture and bias cannot be trumped with reality. I think sukhoi will always pump the flanker, and douglas will always pump the eagle. and then you've got a video game with multiplayer mechanics somewhere in the middle. forget about it.

only red air that ever worked well for me was mig29. su family all flamed out with nose down attitude, very nose heavy aircraft, into inverted flat spin death. also had problems with wings ripping off and rear stabs dying when a little rudder applied. Shes made of glass, or I need more practice, maybe a bit of both. its interesting to see your graphs. the flanker should crank the eagle in comparison, but I can't say if its slow or fast contrasting IRL.

it looks considerably better in the hog A too. like night and day, or black hot and white hot. heh. you guys take tons of shit. the good must be tipped the hat. I'm a massive cynic and critic of everything, it comes with age I think. That being said, whip it out and start smacking people. 2.5 isn't perfect but its a water mark. Im excited by your progress.

honestly in a flight sim game in 2017 not having it is laughable.

its more like 80 left 100 r, I am a real pilot. If I had something like that in the real world, I'd PAN PAN PAN at least. Thats a massive safety issue or avionic fault, it's not hardware, this is a DCS only issue. You sound ideological. Just stating facts.

it tracks united in the software, this is across the modules I have installed, but obviously I only tested it where relevant. The effect is greatly more pronounced in the FC3 aircraft, and less noticeable in full modules. Admittedly it's hard to gauge because of the lack of twin engine professional flight models. It's on all the su and migs, as well as the f-15.

I searched around here and elsewhere...does anyone have a link that isn't dead or a profile to spare me? Just need something to call tower, wingmen, and awacs. Will setup my own and post if I don't hear anything here.

I just wanted to say to the few posts up above, I was on the phone and in the guts with ghost filling for saitek then shortly with logitech, the ghost presses in x-56's at least will commonly occur after some system time and anything remotely close to an "extensive" profile has been running multiple layers. Most of it can be fixed with a reboot. If you're getting legit phantom input don't listen to me.

will those work on top of a logitech or saitek base?like the x-56?