bies

RCS, just like missile parameters, has to be set and control directly by ED themselfes for unification, because right now its implemented in very rudimentary and arbitrary way. Right now if three different 3rd parties would make identical i.e. "F-16A Block 1" each of them would have different RCS value. Not even a malice - just every 3rd party would estimate and measure it in a different way, because there is no one standarized way. BTW: According to real life F-22 pilot interview F-16 is notoriously hard to detect from the front even by advanced F-22 radar due to its blended shape and very small frontal section.

A-10C is more of an anti-insurgency low cost precision munition carrier because air defense and interceptors advances made using it as a "tank killer" against symmetrical enemy basically a suicide. A-10A was used like it was designed, as tank killer, because at its times (1970s-1980s) it was still possible to use it this way and its pilots were trained to do so flying at extremally low altitude terrain masking and attacking enemy armor formations from close distance still having acceptable chance to survive. Like they did few years later during Desert Storm. Another advantage of full fidelity A-10A would be the fact even fully realistic analog A-10A would be incomparably easier to learn and use than A-10C, which would be beneficial attracting the new customers from outside the DCS community. For me A-10A vs A-10C is manually aiming gun, rockets and bombs when dodging AAA, avoiding SAMs vs. programing self-guided smart munitions. That's why i still fly low fidelity FC3 A-10A - because it's naturally enjoyable, emphasising the most attractive and engaging parts like pilotage, maneuvering, manual aiming etc. I would love to see a full fidelity A-10A and Su-25A.

Heatblur makes different variants, AudioDev/Aerges makes different variants, Razbam makes different variants, Polychop makes different variants, even one of ED stuff stated in the interview ED is considering making "everything F-4" variants. Just saying

MiGs advantage would be the R-73 missile, it can launch up to 45° off bore when AIM-9M up to 22-23° off bore. Tomcat would have another pair of eyes. Maneuverability is close enough F-14 being prefered at slow speeds and one circle wnen MiG-29 at higher speeds and two crcle. It can go either way. And MiG has to win fast due to it's fuel fraction. I hope soon we will have both as full fidelity in DCS.

It may not have another module since Apache is not even in early access yet. Maybe, big maybe - full fidelity MiG-29A or Black Shark 3. I think other features like new weather effects Vulkan API/Multithreading, FLIR, Dynamic Campaign can be presented, which are even more importent than one new module. Who knows after all. ED needs modules to stay afloat financially, they have to balance things.

If i understand correctly something like that is being work on by ED for the DCS dynamic campaign. Both attacking and protecting logistics is going to be great.

All this video argument can potentially be flawed since experienced pilot like C.W Lemoine would feel the Gs and AoA during turn and he would know exactly what to do to keep the aircraft at corner speeed. Here i've seen them flying ~200 kts and still pulling all the way, being surprised the aircraft is losing speed at 3.5G - well, even the best turning aircrafts like lightweight F-16A or Eurofighter or Raptor would lose the whole speed flying 200kts turning all the way. If he would feel the Gs and AoA like he did IRL he would know very well how hard to pull to maintain the speed and run around the circle at 9G. That's why ED is posting tables, NASA wind tunnels and DCS comparision which are very close. I MAY BE WRONG, but for me it's all about trained experienced RL pilot not feeling the aircraft physically, habits from RL flying. But overall it's good for the DCS when RL pilots try the sim and judge it, we can only benefit. (Plus all real life F-16 pilots giving their opinion on "F-16.net" about different F-16 variants in BFM agreed F-16C Block 50 is considerably weaker in BFM due to additional mass than F-16A with way lower wing loading, way smaller inertia and way better fuel consumption with similar T/W. Or even F-16C Block 30 with higher T/W and lower wing loading.)

I doubt it's true, I've seen official documentation, it's publicly available, F-15C was head and shoulders above F-15E performance wise. Especially maneuverability and speed. Remember F-15E even without CFT is considerably heavier airframe thus higher wing loading no matter what engines you use. And this degrade turning performance, especially at higher altitudes. F-15E is a strike aircraft, not a fighter. Remember as well more powerful engines to maintain the same T/W ratio of the heavier aircraft means higher fuel consumption so flying without additional CFT would be pointless except for the 10 minutes airshow.

Especially MiG-19P and MiG-23MLA.

ED is to make it with their own API, not a 3rd part developer.

As Ranco said this mass is for 1980s / Desert Storm AH-64A, not AH-64D Longbow Apache. In the interviews Apache pilots say AH-64D is considerably heavier, less maneuverable and has less excess power than AH-64A which they called"sport variant".

Yes, Fulda Gap map would be awesome, that's all I know.

Ka-50 is typical Soviet philosophy, restricted visibility, but very heavily armored cockpit, rudimentary fire control system not particularly efficient to use and as high flight performance as possible. I like it. On the other hand Ka-52 has worse flight performance and delicate, only lightly armored pilot cockpit. Ka-52 is just "westernized" Ka-50, like admitting to failure of their own philosophy.

Well, to be honest this sounds like a really great and really interesting idea. There are three levels of scenario realism 1) Unrealistic: soup of aircrafts and assets from different timeframes, unrealistic coalitions, fighting on different timeframe map in scenario impossible to happen. Like US Navy vs USAF in 2020 Map Strait of Hormuz... 2) Realistic: real life war with real life aircrafts and assets used historically on proper map - recreation of history. Like 1960s Vietnam war, 1950s Korean War, 1980s Iraq-Iran War, 1990s Desert Storm etc. 3) Plausible: coherent aircrafts and assets from one particular timeframe fighting in some plausible war/coalition on proper map. Like Cold War gone hot in Europe or, proposed by you, Apache in 2008 Georgian war. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually US Army sending 2008 Medium Combat Aviation Brigade with Apache Longbow battalion and Kiowa Warrior squadron in 2008 to help Georgia to fight off Russian invasion is quite plausible, like most other DCS campaigns we have i.e. Ka-50 campaigns in Georgia. And it sounds fun as hell! Really it's the best idea of Longbow Apache campaign i've heard so far. Symmetrical opponent with tanks, SAM, AAA, aviation instead of some helpless insurgencies on the desert? check, NATO vs. Soviets vibes? check, proper war map, with complicated land relief favourable for helicopter operations? check, proper war 2008 timeframe coherent with our Apache variant? check, plausible scenario which could happen IRL with slightly different political calculation? check

Genesis - Firth of Fifth guitar solo from 1973 Selling England by the Pound Genesis - Firth Of Fifth guitar solo.mp3

I guess MiG-21bis nuclear bomb isn't as strong as IRL.

I agree with all of that except for the Hind - it's a Cold War 1980s fully analog Soviet helicopter with manual challenging, skill requiring flight control, manually aimed gun, unguided rockets and dumb BOMBS, strict crew coordination, PAPER map with some doppler cursor inside the cockpit, analog instruments and gunsights plus Cold War vibes and i have a blast flying it! It's like helicopter MiG-21bis.

Damn, good to know, you know DCS became a mainstream when you see the terms like that So my answer is: nothing in DCS has been "nerfed" because it's a simulator, every time effectiveness of some system has been increased or reduced it's because the developers managed to obtain or process more data and change the system to work closer to the real counterpart. As simple as that.

Ehh, i would say it's 180° opposite to what i like - i like challenging pilotage part and relatively simple avionics and systems. Like an F-14, MiG-21 or Hind - easy to learn but hard to master. Maybe Kiowa as well?

What means "nerfed"?

Hornet has complicated aerodynamics with many blended elements and curvatures so it looks great at some angles and only so so at some others. The same is true for the most 4th gen fighters. BTW legacy Hornet looks way better and way more proportional than Superbug which is disproportional with some elements enlarged greatly and other remained unchanged, with tiny engine section and huge intakes etc.

Carrier operations on the deck of WW2 Essex Class CV-38 - USS Shangri-La in year 1962, somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea. (Make sure you selected 1080P since video has great quality for 1962, year of Cuban missile crisis, way before Vietnam.)

Ka-50's one pilot concept in well protected cockpit with limited visibility, lack of thermal sight with dedicated gunner and nearly fixed canon make it particularly vulnerable to late detected threats, like MANPADs. Design is always a compromise.

Note Mover was flying F-16C Block 30 which had different analog flight control system with slightly bigger savety margins but with ability to exceed the limits to the bigger extend. Plus Block 30 had higher T/W and lower wing loading at the same time than our Block 50. Let's some RL Viper pilots verify.

I woul love to see some early, lightweight, more maneuverable F-16 variant like early F-16A. But F-16 never used Sparrow except for a handful of National Air Guard specially modified F-16A ADF in limited number, but they were used only to intercept Soviet bombers over the North. With F-16 radar Sparrow was only useful to attack big, heavy, sluggish bombers at high altitude, it wouldn't be useful to fight tactical fighters in complicated situation. That's why they didn't even station in Europe. Sidewinder/Gun only F-16A was simply better to combat Soviet tactical fighters like they have shown during 1982 Bekaa Valley clash you described. Only F-15 was firing Sparrows during 1982 war.