Jester2138

*Massive eyeroll*

Also guaranteed that the radar is emitting! Warning: not recommended if using an IADS script!

If you're firing in HAS mode then the systems have no idea how far away the emitter is, so you just have to guess.

LMAO, really, dude? I agree the boresighting process should be simulated, but don't pretend you are OK with it because you're "cut to be a fighter pilot" All Maverick-carrying modules should have their relevant processes fully simulated. I'll admit it does feel a bit silly having to boresight Mavs while my Hornet friends don't...

I fully agree. And given that a 2007 Viper could carry APKWS II if we stuck it on there, it makes sense that the DCS Viper would also be able to carry APKWS II. (I don't understand your argument, unless you're saying that the environment the DCS Viper flies in should always be 2007 - hilariously impossible in the current state of the game)

Very bright, but not nearly bright enough to over power the sun during daylight. There are plenty of photos/videos on the internet showing landing light on with no visible effect on the runway. Here's an example. Landing light on, no splash of light. And I can tell you in all my time flying and being around airplanes, I've never seen anything like what landing lights in DCS do during daytime.

But there are several decidedly non-U.S. liveries provided by Eagle Dynamics... Should we expect them to be deleted?

That isn't true. Almost all glass cockpit aircraft can switch barometric units specifically. Even the general aviation aircraft with G1000s I fly in the U.S. can do that. However, altitude and speed will always be feet and knots unless you're in North Korea or something.

If it physically would work it should be available. Don't like it? Don't use it. You know you can control what's available to be loaded onto your aircraft per-mission, right? You're free to only ever make USAF circa 2007 missions if that's all you ever want to play. Just don't use the A-10C II and the F-16 in the same mission. Or any number of other combinations. Because that's unrealistic.

I'm not dogfighting in the Viper until the flight model is fixed & basically finished. Not interested in learning bad habits.

Love the comments this discussion always gets about how "jets are fast tho." Yeah, but it doesn't matter because it's a fake 3D world with arbitrary scale, and the rapidity and lag-sensitivity of events is still massively higher in any competitive FPS. From a networking standpoint, if modern games like Valorant and R6S can manage the insane chaos of a large match nearly perfectly, there is absolutely no reason DCS can't except decades-old code.

The game engine desperately needs this anyway. IMO continuing to make compromise solutions to get around having to rewrite the engine is going to kill the game eventually. ED needs to figure out how to re-do the engine. Whatever it takes. It's never going to be easy, and only ever gets harder and harder to do. We all know that. Just get it done, because the company cannot survive the continuously building technical (and therefore financial) future obligations.

Both the F-15 and F-14 we have in DCS are representative of their respective mid '90s configurations. If anything, the F-15 is older as it is more early '90s while the F-14A with LANTIRN is more late '90s. As for original designs, both airplanes had their first flight within two years of each other. They are very much contemporaries.

It's Digital Combat Simulator, not U.S. Military Simulator. That'd be awesome!

This isn't really true at all.

Will these release in a similarly terrible state as the Harrier, and will they also spend three years in Early Access, only to be moved to "Full Release" with dozens of major bugs and incomplete features? So far, I have every reason to believe the answer is YES, and I won't be buying any of them.

I like you BigNewy, but man, this is a load of crap. And I think you know it. Razbam has lost another customer in me.

The fact that some users don't understand how incredibly relevant weather is to combat aviation is probably the best example of how poor the current weather simulation is.

The Apache has a millimetre wave radar that is high-resolution enough (and subsequently short-ranged) that gives it the ability to do that target recognition. Unless you know something the public doesn't, the radars in Hornets and Vipers don't have that ability. The UFO thing is just the pod doing a contrast lock. It has no idea what it's locking on.

Seems the same to me

How would the LANTIRN know what is the next highest threat? It has no idea what it's looking at. That's what the pilot and slew commands are for...

More fuel = loiter time = afterburner time in combat = better

Obviously the pilot is going to move the cursor over the target manually if he wants a particular one. I don't know why anyone would find that laughable, so I assume you're talking about the pod. Still, why is it laughable? Even with J-Stars, pilots would get directed to a general area and have to find and identify the actual target by working the pod over an area to recce it.

I haven't been playing the Tomcat much lately primarily because of all the aforementioned issues. It's just not much fun when 90% of the tracks I fire on are dropped within seconds of me firing, to be replaced by 3-5 ghost tracks, without the target maneuvering much if at all. If that's realistic, I'll not criticize, but I seriously doubt it's realistic - and it's not how the Tomcat behaved up until two or three months ago. The only thing that sometimes saves the missile IMO is the magic INS.

My copy of DCS is fine. The SD-10 is not.