Auditor

You're being a jerk. They're the ones who had access to the simulator that they built their entire module off of, including the weapons. ED did not and has not claimed they had any access to this information. Are you going to claim that the plane itself isn't accurate next? They have the same amount of documentation for both IE: nothing they can show you because it's super classified material of objects that were made in the last twenty years. All this because of what: they won't show you detailed, classified Chinese documentation of a missile that's only ten years old? Keep in mind, posting anything newer than 35 years old is grounds for a warning on this board. The plane itself is 20 years old, tops. It sounds like you're trying to bait people into getting banned or visited by the secret police, even if they went out and got the sourced information. tl;dr: You're being a jerk over something you know nobody can provide you, even if they had it. Deka's word is law because they are the closest to the first-hand source of the matter. End of story.

Having the same problem. I've gone through multiple reinstalls and attempts to move directories to different drives. None have succeeded. EDIT: Enabled IPv6 support on adapter, problem solved after one refresh. I think this needs to be looked into.

If we're making wishlists, then I'll toss my vote in for the Finback. I love the Finback. I know the H and the F models are still in operation, but earlier variants would be just as welcome in my book.

While I agree, I think people underestimate how limited the Mig-29 in our current variants would be in the game. And this is coming from someone who would buy a Mig-29 module even if it was 200 dollars. Also draconus is pretty much right, ED is the arbiters of all thing Mig so far. The best civilian simulation of a Fulcrum that I've ever seen is a cut-down simulation that exists in this game made by ED. That may change with the Flogger, but we'll have to wait and see.

I dig that suit. +1

But it's still not an even match; it's not even the same sabre. The one we have has far better features than the Mig-15. The point to this I was trying to make is that we don't make planes in pairs or for fairness. Even the Sabre and the Mig-15; the closest and most evenly matched planes in DCS, favor the Sabre. I say it's BS as well, but that's because I'm selfish and don't care if people buy it or not. I want a Mig-29 study sim. However I think it's kind of silly to think it'll be as successful as the modern NATO planes, especially when people start to realize how limited early Fulcrums really were in scope. It would be more feature restrictive than the Mirage 2000C is now. Only the more modern variants of Fulcrum would have the bells and whistles people would almost expect of a fourth gen multirole fighter. Not that I care, I would buy it even if we got the Mig-29G "Monkey Model" that had a less powerful radar, no AA-10C capability, and no air to ground whatsoever. Only because I love this plane that much.

I can't speak for it myself, but I can direct you to a well-researched thread on the matter.

I'm not sure this is a fair comparison already because the F-86 we have is a vastly newer model with more features and advantages than the ones that would have gone against the Mig-15.

Or, my favorite, the extremely famous YAK-52! :prop:

That's just RCS, though. As I said before: I think the LD-10s succeed where HARMs don't because of their superior speed retention and better initial launch window, not because they can't be intercepted. HARMs get intercepted because they're traveling akin to a snail once they reach the emitter, and don't reach the same speeds LD-10s achieve post-launch. This is part of the white paper on the HARM itself as to why it was a needed upgrade from the significantly slower Shrike to spend less time in SAM interception windows, which the LD-10 does and explains the higher pk rate. Is this a realistic interception rate for these SAM systems? Maybe. Do SAMs in DCS needs an IADS system to realistically intercept all incoming missiles? Absolutely. Are SAM operators in DCS just a little slow to begin with? We know that's true. But with all that in mind, I think pointing the finger at the LD-10 because it's not comparable with the much older HARM when you have all these other factors working against it is quite frankly, silly. I've edited my last two posts to be much less rude about it because I realize that my irritation got the better of me, but it's infuriating seeing people who just assume it has to be inferior because it's not a NATO aircraft, regardless of the age or capabilities of the weapons themselves or without even doing literally a google search. Or worse, suggest that it needs to be changed to fulfill "Balance" in the universe. Like just picture if a car pulled up in front of your house and clowns just started pouring out, that's the kind of irritation it makes me feel. This is what I think was happening the other day when I was stating that they were missing or pursuing other targets. I think that's a legitimate bug that needs discussion instead of this thread.

Okay, at the risk of maybe incurring some kind of anger from above: Frankly, this entire topic is stupid. It should have never been made in the first place because it takes the ridiculous idea that these two missiles are equivalent. This is why I'm accusing you of not knowing anything about this plane or these missiles; even a simple google search would have told you the reason why the two aren't comparable. For more effort than it's worth, let's google both missiles and compare their features to understand why maybe the LD-10 has a better pk than the AGM-88C. AGM-88: Made in 1985 Has no INS A complete upgrade to the Shrike, of which was based on the sparrow. The C variant's strength was that in avionics, not flight characteristics The LD-10 Fielded in 2010 from SD10 specs from 2001 Has an INS Is an SD-10 with an anti-radiation seeker, which means it has a flight profile similar to the AIM-120C5 Which means it has all of the same advancements in flight dynamics and avionics made in the last thirty years. The AIM-120C5, SD-10, and LD-10 are highly comparable. Now, I don't mean to be rude, but if you or the person who started this thread had gone to any of the general discussion forums and said "I think it's an outrage that my Sparrows are not performing as well as those skill-less AMRAAMs, unless you play competitive MP pvp including both air and ground warfare you will not understand the problem :clown:" the thread would probably be locked because of just how inane of a subject that is. But then a thread does the same thing with the anti-radiation versions of the Sparrow and the Amraam and suddenly we're supposed to take it seriously because of the competitive MP aspect? This is a simulator. You bought an Early Access module of a plane made in the 70's to use a missile made in the 80's and are complaining that it's not competitive enough with a plane made in the early 00's with a missile made in the 10's. I don't know what you were expecting.

And that's also a good point, rallying to add the AARGM seems like it should be a much more important milestone for people who think this is a problem instead of coming to the JF-17 forum to complain about the LD-10, a much more modern missile. I would rally for the AARGM if I thought it would result in it being added.

That would be fun. You can use these in multiplayer but there's a hard-limit of two for the entire MP session so make em count! also I think it shouldn't be in the game because we don't know anything about this missile from a technical standpoint. Even discussion in this thread on its capabilities seems to be conflicting.

The problem, I've found, is that AGM-88Cs are like cows by the time they reach their target. They have TERRIBLE problems with energy conservation. I've seen GBU-12s be faster than them on terminal impact. Is this realistic? Who knows, but the Sparrow in DCS falls out of the sky before the AGM-88C does at speeds the AGM-88C typically hits its target at. The LD-10, if you watch it fly, is almost always at a much faster velocity than the HARM upon terminal impact with the target. Faster velocity = less chance for missiles to shoot at it. If nothing else, that behavior is realistic as speed beats interception every time. Perhaps the one you should be pointing a criticizing finger at isn't the LD-10. Also, I'm seeing that "b" word again pop up in this thread, balance. DCS is a simulator, and to make things worse, we have no idea if either of the missiles are working correctly. Trying to balance one against the other is a fool's errand because the AGM-88C could easily change one patch to another and become a cat and mouse game of trying to balance against it. But even worse than that is the condescending tone from the ones trying to claim that it takes "no skill" to use the weapon. Like this. It shows a distinct lack of familiarity with the aircraft. I wonder if the people using the balance card even know that the LD-10 lacks half of the features the HARM has? Or if they even care? And adding to this: The AIM-120C has now, as it should; the flight profile of both missiles is very similar.

It should be pointed out that the high-fidelity Eastern aircraft in ED's lineup were made under license. The Yak-52 and Ka-50 were made as contracted projects, as in they were paid to make a licensed study simulator off of these aircraft, and the existing work was made available in DCS. The L-39 and the Mi-8 were early Belsimtek offerings before the two studios merged. When looking at it that way, there really hasn't been an eastern offering from ED that they made with the intent to sell in DCS for-profit. Black Shark, as in the precursor to DCS, is the closest one could come to making that argument, but even that is based on work previously done under license. Again, I don't think there's any personal reason for it, I just think it's clear the NATO modules sell much better. They're ultimately a company and they have to put the justification in for selling higher-priced modules. Especially when the Fulcrum variants discussed aren't exactly systems-heavy machines. Definitely +1 from me on early production variant Fulcrums, as well. 9.13(S) would be a dream.

Okay, I have some strange issues with ACT where it will track toward the target point and decide something further away from it is actually what it wants to track when it starts seeking.

Hi, will there ever be a way to aim LD-10s or at least select their preferred target from a group? Thanks.

Okay, thank you.

I had this problem most of yesterday and some today. I think ED's servers are getting hammered, and the server list only occasionally decides if it's going to show up or not.

I'm glad the cockpit lighting was toned down. My only complaint now is that the lights are blurry. It's like the backlighting is shining through some really foggy gauges. Does this bother anyone else?

First off, let me say that I'm absolutely ecstatic about the HUD glare being fixed. Being able to look outside my aircraft has been a blessing. That said, I think when removing the HUD glare; something else may have inadvertently been removed as well. Namely, the tinting on the HUD screen filter. This is the HUD with the filter down. And this is the HUD with the filter up: Tell me what you think, thanks.

Licensing issues is an interesting viewpoint to have on it. Would it be a requirement to get licensed with UAC before simulating any of their planes? I would think the 9-12 era Mig-29 would be too old for them to care, but maybe it doesn't work that way. Oh man, I too would love an F-4, maybe an F-4E. I'm not bitter. :noexpression:

That's not particularly true at all. I reject the very concept that we need to start introducing aircraft to 'balance' sides or to find 'proper matches' for them. Even if it isn't a proper opponent, it's still a fourth gen aircraft and it still is a very realistic opponent for NATO fourth gen aircraft. There is no reason to 'match' aircraft in our study sim. The "It sells better" argument seems to be the only real barrier to its inclusion, which is a fair concern but I think undersells how big the Redfor side of DCS is and how many of them would love to have another study sim level Mig.

This may be my optimism at play, but I wouldn't say "Not a chance". Their statement about newer Russian aircraft only applied to themselves, ED. They've stated before that if a third party developer operating outside of Russia wishes to tackle one, then they weren't going to stop them. That said it's suspicious that we still haven't seen one yet from the third party devs aside from the fact that NATO aircraft seem to sell better.

Let's be a little fair here, a lot of the FC3 modules have had some mistreatment. There is an entire thread full of Mig-29 bugs and problems that includes flight path markers drifting into space, and the SU-33 subforum has various problems like wings snapping off at relatively low negative G and the response we got was rather lacking. Some exasperation over it is totally justified. Especially when FC3 makes up so much of the composition of the game.