FistofZen

Can you make the F2 view jump to the closest airplane, when pressed for the second time? A lot of times I and maybe others too, press it sometimes by mistake and it jumps to a plane that is far far away and prompts loading of terrain textures and plane textures too, which causes lag spikes. Even if we want to cycle the F2 view, it would be nice if it could jump to the closest airplane and so on. And one more thing. When you get shot in the air and you eject, then go to spectator, view jumps to some plane that is also ( a lot of times ) far away from your area and it prompts the same thing as described above. It should maybe stay in F11 of the last spot you were, when you go to spectator. Thanks.

I have seen this video a couple of weeks ago, thanks for making it.

from a video link, example youtube.com/watch?v=ANChMnbWA7Q, copy only the part after the =, the ANChMnbWA7Q.

Isn't it amazing how 12 BGM-109 missiles can fit in this small launcher. This can't be even reported as a bug. Thanks for spending time on creating this amazing asset. Picture links don't work somehow.

Interesting. I have the same HOTAS and everything works fine.

BukM2E?

Silly me, I should't have answered, since post is directed to ED and not you.

So you guys are saying that, even if ED is close enough to complete A-A capability, it should abandon it and develop A-G capability, which is far away from being near completed.

Wouldn't it be better to complete A-A capability and then move to A-G, or vice versa. According to the poll results, most people want A-G weapons. So, you have added all the A-A missiles and now you will add JHMCS, which is nice, but what will be next? HARM and TGP? Start working on A-G and forget A-A? If you add next only the HARM, the Hornet will still be a weak ground punder and a weak fighter. A little bit of AA and a little bit of AG and we get nothing at the end. Complete one capability and then move on the next.

ED has to set the standards first. Most of the time, ED itself is not willing to write proper changelog.

Plane physics are simulated, everything on the ground is simple arcade. This ammo truck is no different from a soldier, except that it has more Health Points.

Mod only works when Textures are set to high. This is not the only thing ED doesn't want to integrate.

This happened to me yesterday, but I was in a Su-27. Was unable to input controls, I was rolling right, then it stopped registering the inputs, all, keyboard and HOTAS. After I crashed into the ground everything worked fine. Respawned and went into the battle. It was on Caucasus, too.

Shame on ED.

HARM, then TGP.

Helicopters in DCS are amazing.

Don't buy the F-18C as you will get nothing at the moment. Maybe wait for the F-14.

The Su-30MK flames are maybe unique. But on most of the planes, you can see when the fuel lights up in the combustion chamber. I would rather see this effect than cows. Check the video out. Older engines seem to spew flames. Newer engines should then only have the flames visible inside the combustion chamber, which is visible from the outside.

I think the APU on the Mi8 has the flames too, not sure about Ka-50s APU. Jets don't have it.

Flames visible inside the combustion chamber when the engine is starting up and plugs do their work.

Done a couple of test today. It's easy to deceive the Aim9X if it is fired at 5 miles and the target is flanking. I have also managed to deceive it when it was fire from some 2 miles from 4 o'clock. Su-27 vs F-18C. F-18C fires the Aim9X from 5 miles, I in the Su-27, Flanking, Aim-9X incoming from my 3 o'clock, as soon as the missile was fired, I pop 4 flares and the Aim-9X goes for the 4th flare. I have repeated this scenario more than 10 times and I can say, 8/10 times the Aim-9X went for the flares. Next scenario, same airplanes. F-18C comes closer after I survive the first Aim-9X launch. ~1.5 miles range, 4-5'oclock when its fired, 4/10 times the missile went for the flares.

Denying isn't an argument. When the Aim-9 goes of the rail, it goes at a much faster speed than the plane is flying in the moment. The missile goes forward and you get enough time to locate it once off rail. The pilot, who fired the missile, wants us to believe that the missile disappeared, did it leave to another universe after the launch. This short interview with the pilots and all this fuss about shooting down a defenseless plane, seem to have another goal than sharing the details of what really happened. The Russians must not know that the Aim-9X can be deceived. The thing is, we can't change the reality, but giving the Aim-9X unproven characteristics in DCS is pure bias and supporting the current flagship and it's pilots only. This is not and won't be the only unrealistic thing in DCS.

Thanks. He says he lost the smoke trail, but the 9X is smokeless? See tacview screenshot above, the 9X got deceived. The thing is, this is WIP and we aren't dramatizing here. There will sure be tweaks in the future. But for now, I think the Aim-9X seeker has no simulation. Knowing ED, I am 100% it is something simplified just in order to release it asap.

That's an interesting image. I don't think the sun looks like a plane, but you still get the tone when you point it at the sun. And about the Su-22 case, I don't think it would be wise to confirm that your latest missile can be deceived by flares. The reputation of a perfect missile has been saved, stating that it malfunctioned (technical error), so it has nothing to do with how the engineers designed it. Why did the pilot fire an AMRAAM instead of firing the Aim9X? One Aim9X can fail, but what are the chances for other Aim9Xs to fail?

Yes, yes and yes. I have experienced the same thin you described here. The ball is good, AOA on spot...etc.