Jester2138

Pretty sure QFE is mostly just a UK thing. I've never heard it used in the U.S. at all (except for aerobatic competitions). DCS ATC certainly should use QNH as is the ICAO standard, but... DCS ATC... is what it is.

I bought an F-16 that had 4 usable HARMs. I'm very accepting of what I bought. What I'm not cool with is having features I paid for taken away. Oh yes... like the DCS Hornet... Sign me up! That is a SEAD mission, and halving the HARM loadout is a blanket reduction in capabilities. Ridiculous to claim otherwise. Let's call a spade a spade. The RWR is not what Wild Weasel refers to. And yes, Wild Weasel does refer to a specially-configured aircraft with special equipment. That's literally what it means. Read my link which explains Wild Weasel by someone who did it for a living. Never claimed it was, so this paragraph is also pretty much irrelevant.

That is a SEAD mission. "Suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) is defined by the Department of Defense (DOD) as “That activity that neutralizes, destroys, or temporarily degrades surface-based enemy air defenses by destructive and/or disruptive means.” https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS21141.pdf If you didn't have the ability to home-in on emitters, you weren't really doing Wild Weasel missions. You were doing DEAD. "A counter had to be found, and that counter was the Wild Weasel, a specially configured F-100 F aircraft with electronics for detecting and then homing on radar emissions from SAM sites. The Weasel proved to be an effective weapon for suppressing enemy radar and SAM threats... The first Weasels employed rockets to mark the target for following attack aircraft who would destroy the SAM sites with bombs or cluster munitions... The introduction of Shrike anti-radiation missile (ARM) negated the requirement to overfly the site, but its short range required further improvement. The improvement came in the Standard ARM, a missile that was followed by development of the High-Speed Anti- Radiation Missile, or HARM, the weapon of choice for today's Weasel." https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001861994/-1/-1/0/T_HEWITT_PLANTING_SEEDS.PDF Seems you don't understand. If ED includes the unrealistic liveries, they're available by default in the game and in MP. If ED does not include unrealistic liveries, then you have to mod them in. Right? Now what happens if you mod the game? You fail the integrity check, and server owners who want to restrict against unrealistic liveries can easily do so. Nobody has suggested removing the ability to mod liveries. No idea why you guys keep locking back on that weird idea. Read the other word. SOLD. It was SOLD as having 4 HARMs. When many users (like myself) bought it, it was indeed advertised and sold as having 4 HARMs. I don't want to stray too far from a key point here, though. 4 HARMs is not unrealistic to the F-16C. It is only unrealistic to the USAF/ANG F-16C. Many of you are unable to separate these two ideas in your responses. The only valid point made so far is that ED wants to do a USAF/ANG Viper only, an intention I highly dislike. Make all the points about ED's intentions you want, but don't falsely claim points on realism - especially when you also betray that you don't actually know what SEAD, DEAD, or Wild Weasel mean. A truly service-specific module would be a first for DCS. I'd hate to see it go in that direction. Especially odd to choose one of the most widely-exported fighters ever made for the approach. Counterintuitively, continuing that approach in future modules would ultimately limit available realism in scenarios.

If being an adult means calling other people on the internet children because they disagree with you... I'm good, chum That is not how it works. ED could just not include inaccurate liveries in their module. Which is, btw, what some other developers do. Exactly my point. The inclusion of those liveries is entirely unrealistic to a USAF/ANG Viper circa 2007 and makes a fictional airplane should the user choose to use them. Why are they included? I agree that they should stick with what was advertised. The Viper was originally advertised and sold as having 4x HARMs. They changed that feature after my money changed hands. However, if they want to reserve the right to change features after the sale, don't forget that nothing is necessarily stopping them from changing their obsession with only representing USAF/ANG loadouts, except their own word.

Not sure what you mean. The Mudhen has a quite different performance profile from the Eagle and Razbam should be developing the Mudhen's FM from scratch IMO.

Why does it not surprise me in the least that the same sort of person who criticizes and belittles the game's interface trying to help it's users also thinks the DCS: Viper shouldn't have HARMs shooting from 4/6 because specifically the USAF removed some wiring? I'm guessing this poster also thinks ED should remove the Greek, Israeli, and other service liveries, because they are not accurate for a USAF/ANG Viper circa 2007? Or should we be able to have HARMs on 4/6 if we just use a non-USAF/ANG livery? That the Hornet should be unable to carry Litening on the cheek, and unable to carry ATFLIR on the centerline (technically it should be unable to carry the Litening we have at all, since it's not a USN Litening and we're repeatedly told it's a USN Hornet)? That the F:15C should not carry the AIM-120C? That the Blackshark should basically be removed entirely? That the... It's not the desire to exactly mimic a real thing that annoys me in this move by ED. It's the inconsistency. It's that this extreme level of rivet-counting only occurs in certain places, to certain modules. DCS is not a very accurate game. It is riddled with technical errors and inaccuracies. That rivet-counters choose to die on the hill of removing HARMs from 4/6 is confusing and slightly amusing to me. Really? That's what's wrong with DCS?

Adding my voice (again) to those who say they want to play Digital Combat Simulator, not Digital Air National Guard Circa 2007 Simulator.

I'm pretty sure Razbam has already said they won't make CFTs removable due to lack of data. I'm not even sure they are removable outside of heavy maintenance because there are weapons pylons on the CFTs. A situation like F-15Es going on an A2A mission w/o the CFTs is far removed from reality, and I wouldn't want to see it in DCS, no matter how much I may want the F-15C. Strike Eagles are not Eagles.

1. Flight model 2. Bug fixes / fixes to existing features 3. Flight model 4. Flight model 5. Damage model and failure modes 6. TGP functions 7. Flight model 8. HTS pod 9. Everything else 10. Flight model again just to be sure

I mean... we do need a new one. It's good that it's being worked on. Both are valid statements.

Same issue as Nealius here. Pod never stows unless I fully power it off. However, this definitely falls into the "minor" category for me.

That doesn't make any sense. What's your source?

That is immediately ignored with prejudice for the blatantly ridiculous implication that an F-15E was a tougher BFM opponent than a F-16C or Mig-29. If they're talking about BVR then it could make sense. But definitely not BFM. A totally silly idea. Sorry to bust your bubble if you're hoping a F-15E will be a BFM champ in DCS. If it is, then it discredits the game's accuracy in a major way.

1) That is a picture of an overcast day. Water is much darker when overcast than when sunny. In DCS water is still dark when sunny. 2) That is still brighter than DCS sunny water.

If any of you have flown over very silty inland lakes or rivers (many places around New Orleans are good examples), they are quite dark, almost as dark as DCS 2.7 oceans. However, open ocean just does not look like that during the day. Water does partially (not solely; see silty water) take its color from what it's reflecting. That's true. During the day, the ocean is reflecting a very bright blue sky or white clouds. That's why it looks blue, not black, from above. It may be grayish on a cloudy day. But it won't be dark. If you swim in the ocean you may find it's actually green! At sunset, as the sky above you darkens, the water will darken as well, and only the far sides of waves which reflect the low sun in the distance will be bright. That's quite beautiful. Unfortunately, 2.7 water is just dark period.

Which newsletter? This one says: "the AH-64D pre-order is planned for the beginning of May 2021." https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter26022021-wn2u0hnzrkw3qz1gapkq7sohu17kqxw8.html That said anyone who takes ED dates literally has not been here very long. I automatically double or triple the timeframes they give and have yet to be proven wrong.

I've personally spoken to a pilot who flew both the E and the C models and fought between them and said that the C is hugely better in the merge than the E, and that it wasn't even close.

I'm not a photographer, but I do fly over ocean water a lot. The 2.7 water is way too dark and, perhaps more importantly, completely featureless. It's not realistic. Frankly, it looks pretty silly.

Correction: most NON-MILITARY aircraft use airspeed. Military pilots are trained to fly by AoA by-and-large.

Not everyone is OK with spending money and then not getting what you paid for until two years later. Also, many people are deciding between multiple modules. For example, someone who equally wants the Tomcat and Viper but can only buy one should probably get the Tomcat.

Not in BFM where it really matters.

Yeah, in real life. In DCS, with the incorrect F-16 flight model, it does not.

I'm a professional cinematographer and lighting designer in Hollywood. You are incorrect. A "correctly" (in a technical, not artistic, sense) exposed image is one that best translates the dynamic range of a scene into the latitude of the distribution medium. Note: dynamic range and latitude are NOT the same thing, though they are often confused by less-informed people including some professionals. The resulting image will not be anything close to what the human eye actually sees unless you are viewing it on a very high dynamic range monitor. The fact that you think they are the same is merely a testament to how good the art of photography/cinematography has gotten at fooling you. The immediate example is that if you take a picture of cloud shadows while exposing for the areas lit directly by sunlight, the shadows will look very dark and less detailed than they do if you focused on them in real life. On a quality HDR monitor they should retain the detail. Your computer monitor is most likely not a quality HDR monitor, and so games generally dynamically adjust their "exposure" level to mimic something similar when the shadow is the majority of the viewed scene. Except for DCS. Edit because I posted this before reading the rest of the thread: Some posters are claiming that the human eye does not in fact have a very high dynamic range, and that the reason it appears that we do is because the eye's iris rapidly adjusts. This is half true. The iris takes noticeable time to adjust; you can see it happening if you want from a dark room to a bright sunlit outdoor environment. It may take more than 30 seconds to adjust. The reason why you subjectively experience a greater dynamic range than photographs in timeframes under 30 seconds is because the human eye DOES in fact have a greater dynamic range than photographic mediums; most research puts it at well over 10 stops but probably over 15 stops and possibly over 20 stops (lots depends on how exactly you define it, how it is timed, how you are quantifying what can be seen, etc. There are also issues with how the eye may discern detail in dark areas better than bright areas, or vice versa, and that also differs in camera technology... It's complicated). But it's hard to pin down, and there's probably a lot of variation between people.

Why not just delete only the fxo and metashaders2 folders?

The Mig-15 is totally ridiculous. But, in both of those videos, you are always .2 - .3 mach above the Viper's best performing speed. Anybody could park themselves behind you and gun you.