CAmastersgt

I'll stick to the real world combat use data from the US Navy. 2/3rd launch failure rate and 1 complete miss. Easy to program the launch failure rate in the game and make it more realistic. The miss obviously underscores the fact the missile doesn't hit as much as it is portrayed in-game. Heatblur and DCS moves us a NOTCH closer to Ace Combat. NOW THAT'S NOTCHING!!! LOL Quoting Iranian combat use claims marks anyone as an idiot.

The F-14 may have downed those Su-22 and MiG-23's but it wasn't by the AIM-54 missiles. In fact the three times it was fired in anger, 2 AIM-54's had their rocket motors fail, and one additional time it just simply missed the MiG-23. So for the sake of reality in the game with it's dubious combat history in the US Navy it would not be unrealistic to mimic this reliability rate. Iranian sources are hardly accurate at best based on their mere propaganda alone coming from their regime. The Fakour is probably powered by 72 virgins for all we know.

Black Screen Screen goes completely black for about 3 seconds as the game continues to run. All I can do is cross my fingers that the aircraft will not crash. This is not a blackout type moment due to high G. This happens during normal flight, sometimes a minute after takeoff, and sometimes after 20 minutes. Then all of a sudden the game comes back on. I run the game in VR with the Oculus Rift. It is identical to the black screen during a catapult launch before they fixed that issue, but maybe a few seconds longer.

LOL, it culls the herd for sure.

All

Would like to have the ability to pay for modules/terrain in cryptocurrency through services like BitPay. I can pay for food at Subway with cryptocoin and shop on Newegg. ED not so much. Would be a convenient option.

Putting it on my Christmas wishlist, not sure which year though....2019, 2020?

"3 little kids in a field of rice, aiming stakes for napalm strikes." OLD SCHOOL CADENCE I agree, use what you want, the enemy don't care how you die anyway. Don't deny opportunity to someone else. Simple programing is all it takes. They already got fire explosions for aircraft. Just make it last a little longer, enhance it, and apply the effects. Since this is a military aircraft simulator, the great parts of the game/simulator are applying the weapons, doing some damage, oh and a little bit of flying too of course :)

LOL

All good points even the ethical questions. As a former combat soldier I could care less about pain and suffering of the enemy. I only care about such things as efficiency, destruction of the enemy, area denial, employability, impact on my mission, and saving my men, among other things. The enemy I expect will not care about how painful any of the weapon systems he employs against me. A bayonet can be as painful as napalm. Killing of innocents and civilians on the battlefield however is another thing, and that can happen with any weapon system. Do I understand where Viper is coming from, absolutely. But it was a historical weapon from WWII on. I do hope it gets modeled into the game at some point. It was especially useful against soft targets(HQ, Supply dumps, convoys. etc.) to include infantry. All viable and legal targets in war. Great conversation. Hope it gets included and players get to decide on its use.

Add-on's I'm okay with $5 Add-ons to existing aircraft, such as Vietnam era "versions and their weapons" of an already built module such as the UH-1. Who wouldn't want to drop some napalm on targets from early model F-4's (if module is built), or F-5's for example. Period specific add-ons are okay in my book for a small price.

Don't give us another plane module until developers give us NAPALM.

My conclusions on this Thread After reading all the wonderful comments on this thread I have come to these conclusions: 1. The technology in the Wright Brothers plane lead to the F-35. 2. Pilots are the biggest factor. 3. Pilots are dicks. 4. Hong Kong makes rubber dogshit. Who knew?

F-4 all the way. F-16 can wait 5-10 years. Would love to see the F-4 in all versions, Vietnam through present. Great history and remarkable transformation from earliest to those currently flying.

AATW! Completely agree!

AH-1 Cobra (Army and Marine Corps versions) F-104 F-111 F-15 (full fidelity) F-4 Su-24 Electric Lightning Blackhawk F-8 A-7 F-105

Wikipedia...really. LMFAO good effort. Actually a delegation did fly both in 1973, impressed with the F-15, they loathed the F-14. Sorry guy And yet here we are and the F-15 is still flying 30 years later. That says a lot. F-14 maintenance cost were horrendous. Still a great airplane for its time. Thanks for your valuable input.

And here is our world -The Israelis THOROUGHLY evaluated both, and found that the F-15 was better in maneuverability, better in dog fighting, cheaper to operate, and better suited for their needs. Remember that the F-14's main selling point was the Phoenix--great for defending a carrier battle group at 200 miles out against cruise-missile packing bombers, but not so good when the enemy is five minutes flying time from the border. You're welcome

A slow fighter is a dead fighter. Most engagements are in pairs. Pilots fight their aircraft to their maximum ability and avoid an adversaries advantage. The F-15 ruled the dogfight even as claimed by former F-14 pilots. They were glad the F-15's were on our side. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-14-tomcat-vs-f-15-eagle-aircrews-perspective/

Combat pilots know that energy management is key to survival. Getting too slow is a guaranteed kill (for the enemy). Most pilots will not get into a turning fight to lose to much energy and give the advantage to an adversary. The F-14's strength was as an interceptor (high speed missile launch platform) used for fleet defense not a dogfighter. Rarely if ever did it mix it up with nimble dogfighters which could easily get the best of them. The US Navy's policy was to avoid dogfighting with this class of fighters and maximize its true best qualities of kill from a distance. Even the F-5E was a challenge for the F-14, initially losing at a 1:2 ratio in games until they devised better flying practices to overcome the nimble fighter. The F-14's real challengers were the MiG-23 and Sukoi fighters of the 1970's and 1980's, flown by less than capable pilots with far less adequate electronic equipment. It was more than a match for them. Matching a Tomcat against today's F-15 or latest F-16 would be suicide as each can easily defeat the AIM-54 and then move in for the kill. It was a great plane for its time however, but to match it against newer models with better technology and across the board capabilities is unfair and really not a fair comparison. I love the F-14 however, I hope they realistically model how it was used. 2 Phoenix was the preferred configuration with 4 at most (and having to jettison at least 2 for safety reasons upon landing). 6 could be carried but never ever happened in real life due to weight and landing. The missiles themselves cost over a million in 1970's dollars. It will be fun flying an older generation airplane that was one of the best of its time. Even the best pilot in an inferior plane can defeat an inferior pilot in a better plane, but the better plane sure helps.

+1 for the cat sitting on the leg, it just makes sense.

I want an "evil" pilot, so please replace the kneeboard with a furry white cat.

+1 great idea

+1 for F-111 a must have aircraft for DCS.

Gives me some boost Well no matter what, it seems to work to some degree when the absolute only thing I changed was the SLI option in Nvidia Control Panel. :)