Raven (Elysian Angel)

It surely looked like it: I noticed that as well.

I don't think that's how it works. Sure, ED's long-term goal with Vulkan is to include effects that would slow things down to a crawl on DX11, but the first iterations are likely just for compatibility: if ED can show that Vulkan can do what DX11 can do currently in a wide range of use cases without being slower, it can be considered a success and a good foundation to build upon with better effects coming later on. I bet that process will take multiple years. The effects as seen in the video are, until proven otherwise, the result of clever post-process video editing... That's how I see it.

This here is the correct subforum for reporting a bug/problem on the Mi-8: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/215-bugs-and-problems/

In the end, it should be very simple: - if the capability was there (even if never actually used for whatever reason), include it in the sim; - if the capability wasn't there, don't include it in the sim.

That article is sadly behind a paywall...

Thanks for the warning!

No it’s due to RAZBAM’s decision to model an early iteration first and then slowly incorporate more functionality and more modern systems (digital UFC, newer TPOD etc) as they progress through early access. And it was that process that was indeed interrupted. But I applaud the approach they took and I wish ED would follow suit: start with an early ‘90s version first and then add in the shiny toys while allowing people the choice which era they wish to represent through Special Options. Yes, exactly. In the end that’s what a lot of people here care deeply about: proper context outweighs having the latest toys.

Funny that you mention that: the Strike Eagle we have now is an early ‘90s version with some half-baked JDAM functionality slapped on.

The ‘90s were quite something… That Jane’s intro video: oh my word Same with US Navy Fighters and if I remember correctly even Jet Fighter III had a pretty awesome intro.

That seems to be the case, yes: APG-63<APG-70<APG-63v1. According to Wiki, the -70 was used as a stopgap for a while on Light Greys but later replaced by the -63v1 which is a decade more modern.

Save us, Obi-Wan Deka, you're our only hope!

GFM is 3 years behind schedule, and nothing's been said whatsoever about the AI's sensor abilities, and their godlike SA. Those should be addressed too. When they are, DCS is truly ready for an immersive PvE experience (and would cause far fewer headaches for campaign makers too).

Just look at the Strike Eagle's radar. In a DCS context, any differences between an APG63v1 and APG-70 shouldn't matter (IRL the APG-63v1 is very likely superior).

Just to be clear, the recent backlash against the F-35 plans are (valid) concerns people outed in light of what DCS can currently offer, and what they know about ED's recent policies. So they are not against growth at all, they are against growth at the cost of established standards. You have been very busy trying to assure us this is not the case, and that this will open new doors for DCS... Fine, let's see how it turns out, but it's perfectly normal for people to be concerned and sceptical.

Same with the FF F-15C really. To be fair this is easily done yourself (I have done it multiple times myself with FC campaigns), but having a professional go over any bugs that have arisen in the time since original release is certainly not a bad idea

It will, but not (entirely) in the way we'd want to. ED absolutely will include more modern RedFor (they have to if they want to make the presence of an F-35 in DCS make any sense whatsoever) but as AI only. This has been stated by NL. Something NL also said was that this is breaking down a barrier: ED making an F-35 is making a lot of other things possible in DCS. We'll have to wait and see what exactly that will be. But if it means better EW/ECM/CCM/IADS simulation, golden times are ahead for DCS.

A lot of people are like that, me included. But it's indeed very understandable to re-evaluative that position given the circumstances. The last 12 months has seen a lot more people angry with ED than before, and I do hope they manage to turn that around. I for one will keep my Strike Eagle: I love it too much despite the bugs and I'm still hopeful things will get sorted one way or another

This argument comes up again and again, and has been discussed to death already. "Competitive" doesn't matter one bit in a simulator: this is not Team Deathmatch where you'd need both teams to be balanced. ED - or any 3rd party for that matter - can't just pick and choose which aircraft they model. Sometimes an opportunity arises and then you can jump on it (or not). Sometimes you do a general survey of what is feasible and what not, and pick what's available. Sometimes you can look for information on your favourite aircraft, and see if there's enough available to model it properly. Perhaps the MiG-29 was an opportunity that simply presented itself. Or imagine this: a MiG-29 might be cheaper and a lot less draining on manpower to make than a Su-27. And as been stated before, this is a testbed to see how well modern (-ish) Russian fixed-wing will sell. Would you as a company go for the cheaper or more expensive option first? How much risk are you willing to take? It has been stated again and again that ED would L O V E to model a FF Su-27 (since it's going back to the roots for ED). Don't you think they would do so if they had the opportunity?

That scale seems off. Israel for example is a tiny country, much smaller than Belgium actually (about 2/3 the size).

This is probably the smartest approach

Jester (in the F-4) can also see through mountains. I'm pretty sure this is related to this exact issue, as HB tends to use DCS telemetry/parameters to model Jester (and then gets blamed if "he" does something dodgy). Just this week I was running from a pair of MiG-31s low in the Caucasus mountains flying at 200ft or lower with mountains all around me, while Jester was calling out contacts 40nm away...

Music to my ears! You and I both!