HWasp

It would work, just look at the various F-15 modifications. With a new radar system and upgraded Aim-54s, it could be quite lethal. How much it would cost, and how difficult it would be to maintain is an other question though...

That is quite possible, but my problem is, that if the engine inlet parameters would change as rapidly as the thrust change suggests, then there would be an engine surge or stall. Or the very least there would be a visible fluctuation of engine parameters. I've seen none of those.

If air to air is your priority, you should wait until the radar is in a better shape and more modes are introduced. Right now situational awareness is very limited and there are lots of bugs. I'd say, give it a couple of months...

Based on your posts you should probably stick to single player. :)

That 10% that plays MP regularly is probably the most involved in DCS and have the most modules purchased per person. Also, the way I see it, complex servers like BF are the culmination of the DCS gameplay experience, and the only reason they are not even more popular is because they require a lot of effort and learning.

I would like to request the following improvements for the AI AWACS/GCI: 1. Threat prioritisation according to: - Range - Aspect - Type (if available) Targets within a certain range to the player (let's say 20 nm) should inhibit calls for far away targets. I really don't want to hear about the bandits 180 miles away, when about to merge. If there is a merge call, concentrate on that bandit until it is outside a certain distance or faded. Maybe I'm wrong, but the AWACS seems to be a leftover from the LOMAC or even Flanker 2 days, and desperately needs some improvements. With the Mig-19 close to release and the Mig-23 in developement, it would be a great time to take a look at this feature. Thank you in advance!

When discussing this F-14 vs Mig-23 matter, you should keep in mind, that you are comparing a 30 million dollar jet (at that time) to a 4 million one (very, very rough estimate, please correct me if I am wrong) If you want a fair experiment, let the Tomcat fight against as many Migs as the same amount of money can buy. It will not be a one sided fight anymore, I assume... The production numbers also show that difference : 5000 Mig-23s vs 700 F-14s. In a cold war gone hot scenario, there would have been a literal wall of Migs. Sure, going head on 1v1 is suicide for the Mig-23. There should be not much to argue about that... Favourable numbers and GCI is a must.

True, but I wasn't asking for all missions to be like that, only some... Anyway it was just an idea. In my personal opinion it would be the best compromise considering all the present airframes.

You are totally right, there should be no changes just to make it comfortable for a module. I was suggesting this option because, in my opinion it could also improve the general gameplay aspect. More merges = more fun. Lots of successful servers employ weapons restrictions. I respect your decision of course, thank you!

Would you consider setting some missions to rear aspect IR only in the future maybe? Mainly for the Mig-19, but also generally it could shift the server towards more dogfight less ambush kills. I admit, it's been a long time since I was on cold war, but the 19 will change that for sure.

It was great! Thank you!

I find it strange, that nobody is complaining about the lack of reliable SEAD for the red team. Flying as a blue fighter it has made my job a lot easier, being able to rely on the SAM umbrella, when on the defensive. The good old Su-25T was an important factor here! The Hornet effect is very real of course, and it is sad, that this has not been sorted out still. On the other hand it didn't feel that one sided at all, many Hornets has put up a good fight. I don't think that an amraam equipped f-18 can be taken lightly, even in it's current state. For me, it was great fun. Looking forward, I am more worried about the incoming F-14 era. It will be difficult to set up an even playing field if the Tomcat will be on one side only...

When using the single Aim-9X on the outer pylon, firing one of them results in extreme roll moments. This does not occur with the double pylons and other loadouts. In the attached track I have used nose up elevator with no roll input to check the behaviour, which, as you can see, resulted in a barrel roll after firing the Aim-9X. F-18C Aim-9X assimetry.trk

+1 Would love to have this plane. If for some reason a full module is possible, I'd be happy with a late M4 model at the FC3/MAC level. That would be, basically fast Su-25T with an afterburner.

Of course, you can fly it like an F-5, but most people don't, meaning that all the RWRs were ringing constantly for the last months, and clueless hornets were flying around with no SA, causing lots of friendly fire incidents. Looking back at this, I would say, it would have been a much better decision to either label the radar INOP until it is done, or include the old model (FC-3) until the new radar is more or less stable... (not now ofc but back at initial release) If there would be LTWS and some IFF related symbology present, so that I don't have to lock to identify, the Hornet would stop being frustrating instantly!

Mig-19 will have a lower wing loading though, and better thrust to weight. I wouldn't dare to get slow and low with it in the F-5. But we will see... I'll be in the Mig-19 anyway :joystick:

Even though there is a clear majority on HARM and the FLIR, I really hope that LTWS comes first with the ability to IFF properly. When the plane was released, I thought, that I will fly the Hornet all the time, but this has changed quickly due to the radar and IFF problems. Since, less than 10% of my DCS flight was spent with the Hornet.... This current lock-raygun-buddyspike needs to stop.

Sorry, that is not correct at all. :) You need to calculate with drag, especially at low speeds (induced drag).

I have tried using the autopilot, being lazy as I am, but it was not able to hold altitude at all, so there was no other way, but to do it by hand.

I have just spent 5 minutes to test that acceleration (it is so damn hard to keep this thing level...) See attached track: 00:10 600 km/h 00:26 1100 km/h AC mass was 19000 kg. This gives 16 sec instead of 15, but keep in mind, that there were lots of control inputs by me, creating additional drag, so that 1 second is on me... Have a nice day! Su-27 horizontal acceleration.trk

Thanks for the replies! It is good to hear, that ED has plans to move a bit this direction as well! I would think, though that developing a real good dynamic campaign under AI control is going to be much more difficult and time consuming, than to introduce a new UI layer, basically a real time mission editor, and let the humans do the thinking. Setting player waypoints, and creating briefings especially to the kneeboard is a great idea, I have also been thinking about that! :) Imagine this: There could be a second page of aircraft slots, that is created by the commander by placing additional client aircrafts using resources and with limitations. Those slots would be created for a specific mission, waypoints set by the commander, very short briefing with some waypoint info, time on target, (filled automatically according to the waypoints set), and additional text if needed. Slots could be set to be open to everyone or based on invitation. Players could also apply to closed slots. This would basically create a flight package. This, coordinated with AI flights as well would be a serious game changer. Normal aircraft slots set by the mission designer would be unaffected of course, so still anyone could join anywhere, if it is public server. This should be no limitation to players not willing to cooperate (except for the problem of facing a coordinated package supported by AI flights :)). Also I agree, that these kinds of things would better be implemented gradually, and through Combined Arms maybe.

Hi! Dynamic multiplayer servers are getting more popular and numerous. One of them, Dynamicdcs by Drex, features the creation and movement of ground units and the spawning of certain AI air units. Spending time on this server has given me the idea to post this request: Create a new strategic command interface for DCS with the following features: - The ability to spawn units based on certain criteria - Resource point system (based on territory capture/objectives) - The ability to manage larger number of AI units (standard RTS like system) This would basically create a real-time strategy game using the DCS engine for both single (sandbox) and multiplayer. I would imagine this in pratice for multiplayer in the following way: -There would be a framework mission with pre-placed client slots and units as we have it now. (players could join aircraft and GCI slots the same way as now) -There would be a rank system that would enable certain players upon certain criteria to join commander slot (multiple command slots available, resources would be split between them) -Commander would recieve resource points upon certain criteria. -Commander could spawn AI units from a preset unit pool using resource points(to prevent the spamming of a single unit type only) -Commander could spawn and control AI planes and helicopters (Air spawn to prevent chaos on the airfields). Ideally this could mean, that even 2 players online on the given server could create a full, combined arms dynamic battle. This would also mean that unbalanced player numbers would be much less of a problem, since even one player on the opposing team (having sufficient rank to join command) could create serious resistence. Last but not least having a built in system like this could dramatically reduce the number of scripts required to run an interesting server, hopefully improving stability. I think that these features could be implemented with the current DCS engine without unrealistic amount of work. What do you think?

I really don't want to brag about it, but I have manged to convince the Developers to correct their flight models TWICE already with rather short and clear posts consisting more or less accurate data and documents. They do care about this, even though not everything is perfect. If I would think, that there is something wrong, I would start with the SU-27SK flight manual, available on the internet, searching for information like: -How is the fuel system working? What system is there to stabilize the CG in the correct region by controlling the fuel tanks? How does all this effect the CG position according to the manual? And so on...

I'm glad I could help. Looking forward to the Yak-52! :)

Thank you! Unfortunetaly this is all for now, but if you have time, you are also very welcome to run the same test flights, just to make sure, that there was no gross error on my part.