Jester2138

That was before the SD-10 got "fixed." Now, I don't dare take the JF-17 into PvP because the SD-10s simply don't track the target 50% of the time.

I don't think this is true as there are many examples of TPOD footage on the internet that are similar to what we can do in DCS with those planes. Here's footage taken from a pod in 2001 that is better than what we can see with the WMD7 (don't forget that the video quality is degraded, but you can hear the crew describing what they can see):

On this subject, I find the max zoom on the TPOD to be borderline useless. I avoid missions that would require use of the TPOD because even at 15,000' directly above a target I can barely make out what it is. This is after going to NARROW view mode and using the zoom axis bind to zoom all the way in. Is there another level of zoom I'm missing? I find it hard to believe that a contemporary TPOD from any nation would have such a poor zoom.

What I don't understand is... the JF-17 is not remotely "better" than the Viper or Hornet... Especially after multiple SD-10 adjustments... What are they complaining about?

Yes, but I thought we were talking about GPS and continuing to home on a target after the emissions have ceased, which (because it lacked GPS) the AGM-88C was horrifically inaccurate at doing and this prompted the development of the AGM-88D with the GPS receiver.

Probably because the jet is capable of doing it and that should be reflected in a simulator for that jet. I appreciate that ED is mostly going for a particular time/place with their Viper (aim small, miss small) but few people buy this to simulate only USAF configurations.

This is incorrect; GPS wasn't introduced until the AGM-88D. Actually it does have a dedicated EW pod analogous to the HTS which has been in DCS since release day 1.

The fact that you can't read their Chinese sources doesn't mean they don't have them. The LD-10 outperforming the AGM-88C makes perfect sense. It would shock me if it didn't. The AGM-88C is a very old missile that doesn't even have a memory/GPS mode. The LD-10 is not only a newer design electronically but is much faster and has a lower Radar Cross Section, making it significantly harder to shoot down. The proper comparison would be the AGM-88E, which undoubtedly would vastly outperform the LD-10. But we don't have that in DCS. The SD-10 almost exactly matches Nighthawk's CFD work. Unless you think Nighthawk has a pro-China bias, too?

IDK what you're talking about with the block 3 thing. Your last two examples are long-since fixed, so what're you complaining today for? What features in the JF-17 right now do you think are inflated to make China look better? I have no idea what their bias is or isn't, nor do I care. The only thing I care about is whether it's an accurate simulation, and all of my research on this around the internet has led me to believe that is is probably one of the most accurate (and complete) simulations available in DCS. Yes, the plane is a pretty good multirole jack-of-all-trades master-of-none. Why is this a surprise to anyone, when it's a design that's 30 years newer than the NATO fourth gens in the game? BTW, I am American, and in another context would happily tell you everything I think is wrong with China. But Deka is not one of those things. Lay off it.

Even with the HTS and HARM the F-16CM will still be an inferior SEAD/DEAD platform to the JF-17 simply because the LD-10 (2012) is so much newer and better than the AGM-88C (1993). I would love if we got the AGM-88D (2003) or even AGM-88E (2010).

NineLine, when you say ED's SME has "signed off on it as-is," what does that mean exactly? Did he scientifically test it to verify the FM was correct, as Hummingbird is doing? Or did he fly around a bit and just feel it? Speaking as a real-world pilot myself, the FM is not valid just because a pilot played for a bit and said "Yeah that seems about right." Scientific testing is the only valid evidence here, and Hummingbird is providing that.

At mach 0.4 it's a full degree per second less than your reference chart, which in a dogfight is quite significant. Given that the existing G-tolerance model prevents sustained dog-fighting over mach 0.6, which is where the DCS Viper's turn rate is accurate (and fastest), this seems like something worth fixing. It means that, in effect, most uses of the DCS Viper will occur in the least accurate areas of its flight model.

I've been playing flight sims since 1997 (lol at the guy who suggested that since I support a subscription model, I must be "new" to the game). Everyone wishing/thinking/expecting that Microsoft FS 2020 will have a partnership with Eagle Dynamics or ever include a serious combat element of any kind are delusional IMO. That has always been 100% against the MSFS brand and it looks even more so based on the 2020 marketing so far. Ain't gonna happen. Yes, there were MSCFS games. I played them, too (they were great). Yes, they were completely separate both in marketing and sales structure to the MSFS brand. For better or worse, we're stuck in the DCS engine for the foreseeable future. I hope all those opposed to subscription models are happy with how things are.

I also have always supported a move to a subscription model. I think most people would be very surprised by how low the monthly price would need to be in order to be revenue-neutral for Eagle Dynamics. Wags posted user numbers a few months ago and I did the math and it worked out to being somewhere between $5 and $10 a month for total access. Obviously that's just pure back of the napkin speculation but I think it's probably in the right ballpark. In practice I think you would vary the price above and below that depending on how many modules a subscriber wants access to. Obviously, many users react extremely negatively to this suggestion. The arguments typically fall under either not wanting to pay again for something they already bought or just hating subscription models in general. I think both of those are weak arguments but I understand why people make them.

I used to have an Odyssey and don't recall being unable to read the altimeter or ASI. If I did, I agree that would have been very frustrating. I usually ran it at 1.5x SS. I have a Reverb now and it's even better, while at 1.2x SS.

They look basically the same from a graphical fidelity POV except the lighting in 2020 is better. It sounds like you just like the less saturated colors of the 2017 screenshot but that isn't more realistic, just different.

No

I like it the way it is. The menu almost always has the option of what I want right there as soon as I open it. Not sure how requiring you to repeatedly drill down for most actions is better.

The DCS one is just a bit more saturated. That's all. A photo from the era would not reproduce the correct saturation. You guys are basically saying make it look like the photos of the screen, instead of the actual screen.

Just so I understand: You're saying you had only 1,000 lbs internally and 4,000 in the external tanks? Why did you do that?

Obviously that's an individual decision but here's my take on it as someone who bought the Viper for 50% off (and only uses Beta): It's not worth full price right now unless you just have an emotional attachment to the idea of a study level Viper in DCS for some reason (like I do for the Eagle...). The air-to-air is mostly feature complete, but there are plenty of bugs and inaccuracies within those features that will take months to get fixed. Air to ground is mostly feature incomplete and all you can really do is basic TPOD and LGB functions, but those have some bugs, too. Most other functionality like navigation, damage model, and DTC features are missing and will be for a long, long time. I agree with the poster above who said the FM seems mostly fine.

On top of that, you also have to consider what SP is used for when it's used. I would wager a huge proportion of SP "flight hours" are spent preparing or learning for the ultimate goal of playing in MP. If you took MP out of the game, I think you'd lose a massive percentage of the playerbase overnight, regardless of what ED sometimes implies about it mostly being a SP game.

The server population being low doesn't mean people are playing singleplayer. It could also mean that there's a huge proportion of people who buy modules but don't play much - which, again, would check with my personal experience among my social groups. I know ED's implied things about MP vs. SP, but they've never said anything explicitly and we have a lot of reasons to doubt the idea that most regular players are primarily playing in SP. Literally everything one can independently check and read in the DCS community shows MP being the central element of the game for most people. If you want an example of a flight sim that is primarily a SP experience with some MP elements, look at X-Plane 11, which is also much more popular than DCS. It's fairly easy to verify all this stuff by using Steam numbers and some common sense guesses as to Standalone. There isn't some vast silent majority of SP users in DCS. There are some SP users. But DCS is clearly primarily played for its MP element by most of its users - it's just that DCS is not that popular in general.

Source? I don't know a single person who plays it in singleplayer even 1/3 as much as they do in multiplayer.

Questions of how much it cost to develop etc. are kind of irrelevant for the consumer. I don't know how much it cost to develop my chair or stove or monitor and I don't care. I care about what the value I actually get versus what else I could spend my money on. IMO the F-16 was worth the $40 I spent on it. Definitely not worth $80. I could get more enjoyment with that $80 from other things.