Auditor

Has anyone else tried using DECLARE except for me? It would be a very useful function until we get IFF functionality.

Azimuth scan for me was always whole numbers. I have a small bug report on the radar as well: PRF doesn't appear to function despite functioning in the review videos, which leads me to believe that it's a new bug. Steps: Enter radar Press MFD button for PRF, default is high/med. Notice no change.

Declare doesn't appear on AWACS menu, either in singleplayer or multiplayer. PROBLEM: 'Declare' and 'Vector to Tanker' are missing on AWACS menu for just the Hornet. This affects no other plane. REPRODUCTION: Lock up a target with the Hornet's radar. Call AWACS for declaration. 'Declare' isn't available in the AWACS menu. REPRODUCIBLE: Create a mission with an AWACS, frequency set to your choice. For this example, I set it to 266Mhz. Set frequency to 266 Mhz, dial in with either Comms 1 or Comms 2. Lock target with the hornet's radar in STT. Use radio to call AWACS. IMAGES:

Oh one more question. If FC4 modules are simplified third party modules, will the third party creators be getting a cut from them as well?

Hoo boy Hoooooooo boy Oh man. Hey Nineline, this will get lost in what is now the most popular topic on the ED forums, but can you find out if FC4 aircraft and Hi Fidelity aircraft will share the same slots? Because having limited parking on tarmacs seems restrictive if we're now effectively getting more slots for the same aircraft. This is really all I care about.

Okay, dude, bruh. Do you think I'm putting those links in my posts for sport? I'm putting them in my posts because they're threads by people who understand the engine and have tried doing exactly what you've said. ED and third party devs aren't magic, there's a process they would need to go through in order to change it. But other than that, Yes! Lets' wait for Deka to get back to us if that's really the sticking point in this whole thing.

Wow it's almost as if I made a post addressing this already which was directly addressed to you with links to mods that have attempted this before and you just flat-out didn't read it. We've been over this two pages before: If I'm wrong, Great! But if I'm right, like all the evidence from modders currently points toward, then the only way to rectify this is to replace it with an HDD that doesn't have a Datalink like feefifofum recommended. If that happens it will not only be absurdly unrealistic because we both agree that they're the same HDD, but also insulting to people who voted in this poll because the question never was to replace the HDD. The question was to remove the datalink, and I think using the results of his poll to justify doing that would be deceptive. That's why there's such contention over this.

Six was saying that he didn't know that the HDD and the Datalink were connected. As you mentioned, the in-game HDD for the J-11A is literally just the SU-27's. Not the real one, the in-game one. What's more: It would be very unrealistic to lock it to HUD repeater mode because the top-down radar still exists in the J-11A. The navigation pages still exist in the J-11A. Every single mode that the SU-27SK had available to it is available to the J-11A's early version models. Those screens never went away. The reason the Mig-29 is in HUD repeater mode is because that's the primary function of it in the A and G models. My whole point as to why HUD repeater mode wouldn't work for it is: why would we want to replace unrealism with more unrealism? To feel good about 'fixing' something? That's why I think the 'remove' voters are misguided: They're not aware that removing the Datalink also entails re-writing the HDD or sticking it in HUD repeater mode. Six certainly mentioned that he didn't think it would be that big of a deal. That's not something they have thought too much about because that's not what the poll is asking. I would like to know how the poll would look if it was mentioned that the only way to 'remove' the datalink is also to remove all those nice HDD modes that are inherent to the Flanker and its variants that it should 100% have. And you're completely right, If the datalink goes: so does the top-down display radar, and so do the navigation pages. It will be locked in yet another mode that no one would use during an engagement, is left as an emergency mode to operators of the SK, and no operator of the J-11A would use 24/7, all of the time just to feel like something was accomplished. Turning it off is also an option, and is also extremely realistic as you can turn off the real one, too. However, I don't think anyone would argue that there should be a blank screen there just because you *can* do that. In turn, by trying to feel like something was fixed, they would have instead just made it even less realistic. They could also just leave it alone and achieve about the same level of unrealism. If it's not going to be the same thing we have, but minus the datalink, then what's the point? What's the purpose? I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing the J-11A's relationship with the SU-27SK, but the question then becomes: why is it okay to claim that it shouldn't have the capabilities of the S but also shouldn't have the advantages of the SK? This would be a complete systems downgrade at this point, not simply disabling a datalink.

Yes, I keep linking back to my posts because I've already said all of this before, but clearly you didn't remember me saying it. "I have plenty of stick time in the J-11" REALLY? Is that why you didn't even know where to find the datalink in question until I told you? HUH. I mean, even someone who has sat in the cockpit of the SU-27 in-game would have known this, or has read the manual would have known that, but that's okay. I'm sure you and your 'plenty of stick time' just simply overlooked that. ;) Lastly, GREAT! Let's wait to hear from the devs from this. It's just silly to scream "REMOVE IT!" without ever once considering how they're going to remove it, or what it will be replaced with. Or even worse, letting people who don't even fly it have a say in how it's going to fly. Again, all the more reason this poll should have been conducted on their facebook group and not here. If they don't fly the plane, they should have no say in the matter of how the plane should fly, period.

You "do" care, but the first thing you thought to care about when addressing the plane was how hard it is to fight against, not how realistic it would be to fly. And you've shown, and stated, a couple of times now that you have no intention of flying the plane. But you think your opinion on it should be worth as much as someone who is going to fly it. Sure buddy, whatever floats your boat. ;) I love this! :megalol: It's like you haven't even read a single one of my posts! I've stated several times before that we have these inaccuracies not there because they're "okay", but because the effort to fix them isn't worth the payoff. I don't even know where you got that from. We're arguing if they're worth fixing if it makes an airframe even more inaccurate. I even said this two posts above yours, but you didn't even read that one. Taking away the HDD altogether would be extremely inaccurate. Giving it the HDD of the Mig-29 would be extremely inaccurate. The ideal solution is to recode the HDD to remove the datalink functionality, which we don't know if they can do, because it's not as easy as just turning it off. Did you even read the post I specifically addressed to you mentioned why the datalink is part of the SU-27's HDD and therefore would require modifying that? Also I like that strawman you've now built that my issue with you is something to do with spamming 120Cs and multiplayer. My issue is that you've come to a thread about a plane you aren't even thinking of flying to vote in a poll about a change that only affects people who fly it. I'm concerned that you and many others like you are even allowed to vote in this poll at all. It's nothing personal, I just don't think you should be allowed to pitch your opinion on it if you aren't going to use it. ;) Absolutely this. Removing the HDD or making it blank would be a travesty realism-wise, when a non-change is only a slight inaccuracy because of timeframe issues. That timeframe only being in the range of about 10 years.

Yes! Preach! :thumbup: This is exactly what I would like to see, a complete implementation of the specific MFI-55 that we have on this model. If it's possible with the information we have and if it doesn't take away from the development of the JF-17

Ah, there it is! You just said the magic words! You don't care about the actual realism of the aircraft. You never cared. The first thing you thought about was 'what would it be like to be up against this thing'. Not 'How realistic is it to fly?' or 'How will this change affect people who fly it?'. No, the only thing you even came to this thread for is because you wanted to argue about competitiveness in multiplayer because you were worried about fighting against it. I mean it was pretty obvious considering that you didn't realize that it shared the SU-27's datalink, that the HDD was the datalink in question, and that you had no idea how much work it would take to change or remove it. You really only care about it because it might be inconvenient to fight. Wasn't that my point? That basing your decision off its competitiveness means you shouldn't have even voted? The question was never "is it competitive" or "will it be hard to fight against it", but instead "is it realistic"? Congratulations, you've effectively proven blokovchan correct when he asked, "It wouldbe interesting to know how many of remove voters, are actually F15C pilots..." The answer is: a whole lot! A whole lot of people are giving their opinion on a plane they don't fly, don't know how the datalink works, and maybe even in a pack they don't even own, about a realism change that wasn't aimed at them. Would you appreciate it if the question came up if The AIM-120C should even be on the F-15C that we have (hint: realistically, it shouldn't) and you had tons of Sukoi and MiG pilots coming to your thread, voting to remove it just because they hated fighting against it? No! You would have every right to be angry at them about that. You would be mad at them because what possible right would they have to make decisions about a plane they don't fly and aren't actually an authority on just to get an edge on you in a multiplayer server? I hope Deka Ironwork sees this little exchange and realizes that asking the forums is a poor idea and they should really ask their customers on their Facebook page: You know, the people who are actually going to buy the JF-17 and what this little feature of FC3 was meant to help advertise. They are the ones who should have a say in this, not Eagle drivers who aren't even going to think about tiny details of the J-11A or the JF-17 further than "How am I going to deliver 120Cs to this thing?".

Do you really think you're the first one who had this idea? Do you seriously think we haven't had this discussion before with other planes? We have it at least once a year. The conclusion is always the same: "It's a harder problem than you think it is" and "It's not unrealistic enough to where it's worth the effort changing". Saying "JUST CHANGE IT CAN'T BE THAT HARD LOL" isn't constructive and shows your lack of familiarity with the problem. Why do you think I made this post way back here about treating this problem with care? Why do you think I made this post discussing the J-11A and the SU-27's datalink because they're exactly the same in-game? The Datalink in the SU-27 is a part of its HDD; you would have the same problem if you tried to write an F-15C HDD without the datalink. So your options are to write it just for the J-11A to specifically remove the datalink, or replace it with another FC3 HDD. If Deka Ironwork is going to put aside the resources to do that. I think you should take a step back before you comment on something that you clearly haven't taken the time to research. The question is easy: Is this worth putting the resources toward to fix it because it's slightly unrealistic when all of the FC3 aircraft in the game are slightly unrealistic? I don't think it is. Not unless they want to surprise us and give us something that is unique only to the J-11A, even if it's just the same HDD the SU-27 has but without the datalink; which I would love. I wouldn't love it enough to take away from the JF-17, because I'm planning on buying that aircraft. Frankly, I think the poll should be closed only to people planning to buy the JF-17, because they're the people who are probably flying the J-11A right now.

..Really? You don't know what the relationship is between the HDD and the Datalink in the J-11A; or why I would refer to one when talking about the other? You are aware that the HDD in the J-11A is the same one as in the SU-27, right? When we talk about the datalink; we're talking about the HDD because that's the only place the datalink comes into play in the FC3 SU-27 and J-11A. The reason it has a datalink at all isn't because someone decided that the J-11A should have one. It has one because it's based on the SU-27's FC3 code, and the SU-27 has a datalink which is linked to its HDD. Which is where the argument stems from. Should it be based on the SU-27's HDD, should there be a new one made just for the J-11A, or should it just use a HUD repeater like the 29 does? One of those is sort-of inaccurate, one of those requires modification work to FC3 code which we're not sure they're allowed to do, and the last one is extremely inaccurate, but means there would be no datalink.

Because comparing features of the J-11A to the F-15C is a fallacy. Furthermore it seems more than a few people are really only concerned with how it stacks up the F-15C and not about portraying it realistically. We have no FC3 equivalent to what the heads down display in the J-11A actually does. Removing it would require levels of customization that we're not sure Deka Ironwork is capable of doing for what amounts to an FC3 side project, and your post about how the F-15C should get a bunch of stuff because the J-11A gets a datalink isn't helping things. Not sure why you brought it up or why the F-15C's features are even a part of this discussion.

I'm talking to you. The guy above you was mentioning that people's biases regarding the F-15C and 'competitiveness' may be biasing people's opinions on this poll. -And then you went and confirmed it. We're not talking about changing the F-15C, we're talking about changing the J-11A.

I'm glad we have a post right above mine demonstrating the problem with asking the forums about realism changes. I hope Deka Ironwork sees this before making a decision. The J-11A is the J-11A, 104th meta is 104th meta, The F-15 is the F-15. If you have problems separating these out because you feel they're all related to one another, then you shouldn't have voted in this poll. Likewise, if someone brings up the very real possibility that some people's feelings on the F-15C and 104th meta is affecting their decision-making process on the J-11A's realism changes, and your response is "But what about the Eagle?!"; then you shouldn't have voted in this poll. You have no say in this argument because we're not talking about the J-11A's competitiveness with the Eagle, we're talking about what's best for realism of the plane. If you can't separate the two, then why even vote in this poll? This has nothing to do with the Eagle and Deka Ironwork can't make design changes to the eagle; so why should it affect your decision?

Identities aside, I think there is a point to be made here: It would be really nice if DCS had a profile creator that could extend into multiplayer, Maybe one akin to IL2 or ArmA where you could select your pilot from a lineup of portraits, their sex, their voice, and maybe your online handle from that. We sort-of have that now for tracking air victories, but not really for detailed statistics.

The Mig-29 textures really need some love. Have you seen that weird fog all over the HUD that makes it impossible to see straight forward?

Okay, so why do those examples exist, then? I think it's a worse fallacy to replace something unrealistic with something else unrealistic for the sake of feeling like you fixed something. That's not fixing anything. An actual fix would be to make an HDD that operates similar to the HDD in the J-11A, not replacing it with something else unrealistic. I don't think that's in line with DCS' core values.

Question that will influence my decision: What are you going to replace the J-11A's data with? That heads-down display is still there from every picture I've seen. From what I know, that's also not a HUD repeater like in the Mig-29. In fact, it's an MFD that may be closer to a systems display, an RWR, or an overhead radar view all in one. The reason I ask is because I remember this same discussion happening with the Mig-29 a long, long time ago. The mig-29 initially had the same Datalink that the SU-27 did specifically because the systems were just mirrored for FC3, no one thought it was important enough to fix. It later came to light that only the Mig-29S would have any hope of having a Datalink, so they removed it and put a HUD repeater in its place. The problem is that not all Mig-29 versions had a HUD repeater there, especially the 29S; and it was equally unrealistic to put one for every single Mig-29. It traded one piece of unrealism for another. Heck, every version of the Mig-29 before the S shouldn't even be able to fire the cannon with a centerline fuel tank attached, but the A and G will happily fire its cannon all day long with one. I guess my point is: If you cannot model what the actual early-version J-11As have for its head down display, then don't bother. It's making work for yourself and you're just making something even more unrealistic to fit arbitrary definitions of 'realism' from random people on the forums who seem to think realism is just making all the aircraft worse. This notion of total realism isn't in the definition of basic FC3 aircraft to begin with. If you could make it one of the MFD pages like a systems display, a more advanced RWR, or even the same top-down radar view but without the datalink; then sure. But that gets into the coding part of it and I'm not sure you have the resources to even attempt modifying the stock SU-27. Also I think arguments like these are misleading at best, but I see them all throughout the thread. If you can only replace unrealism with more unrealism, then what's the point? DCS isn't going to die because an unspecified feature was kind-of-sort-of available on the same aircraft of a later version but not the version that we have right now. If that was really your concern, then the 15C that we have shouldn't have 120Cs, and the Mig-21 shouldn't be able to fire Groms but should be able to fire R-73s. These are compromises that DCS has just sort of lived with because fighting to get them changed wouldn't be worth the effort.

sorry to hear that, Rudel. That must be really frustrating. Can you check on exterior lights, as well? I think those were hit with a similar downgrade.

Update: Lighting was improved in the latest patch by removing the blood-red glow on instrument backlighting, but it's still too weak to be of any use. Red flood lights should be twice as bright as they are right now. Instrumentation lights are functional, at least, but the red flood lighting barely does anything except illuminate some minor parts of the cockpit. Still a nightmare to fly at night because of this unless you know exactly where every switch is as they all don't have phosphor painting (but to be fair, all mig pilots should know anyway). Also Exterior lighting remains unchanged. Navigation lights disappear if you scroll 300 meters away from the plane. Landing light is at the wrong angle to be of any use, and also taxi lights are the only exterior lighting which seem to illuminate the plane for other players who are greater than a KM away.

Agreeing with this thread because I'm having the exact same anger with it. It's impossible to turn fight enemy fighters unless you faaar outclass them, and even then some of the simplified flight models of the AI aircraft resemble UFOs than actual planes. Which makes dogfighting them an exercise in tedium unless you have the missiles to do something about it. The AI Mig-21 can maintain full angular authority even at <100 knots. So it just hits the burner and keeps looping and looping and looping. If you turn hot on it, it will abort its loop, gain tons of airspeed, and turn straight at you. I'm sorry, this is not the behavior of an energy fighter. Every AI fighter in this game behaves like a turn fighter and it's frustrating. Utterly incomprehensible how anyone could have seen this and said "Yeah that's fine". This isn't even accounting for the damage model that allows AI airplanes to lose a wing and keep turning at you stronger and faster than your perfectly functional aircraft. Yeah this too. I basically don't go on dumb bombing runs anymore because anything with a pistol can snipe my pilot straight out of my aircraft. Even T-72s are extremely deadly, getting .50 cal shots against the weak points of my engine even if I'm moving at Mach 1.5 over them.

Thank you, it really helps to get some feedback on this. Can the same be said for SFM?