Jester2138

Intruder!

I have another word starting with "S" for this idea.

"Basic aerodynamics" for your Cessna 172, sure, not necessarily for a relaxed stability fighter flown by a digital FBW system.

100% agreed. I think the Viper FM still needs a lot of work. The ground handling feels all sorts of bizarre and there's a dangerously large bump in the flight control laws when you drop the gear that makes performing a proper overhead overly difficult compared to every other fighter in the game. Not to mention the issues with thrust that have been beaten to death elsewhere.

We all play "competitive MP pvp" as well. You're not special. The 1980s AGM-88C is not going to perform similarly to the 2010s LD-10. Full stop. Stop asking for it to, because it won't, and if you want it to be made so unrealistic you should find another game. If you're truly concerned about balance, then the appropriate idea within a simulator would be to ask for contemporaries to the LD-10 such as the AGM-88E, which is a far, far better and more recent missile than the AGM-88C. But you're not doing that. Why?

Sounds like you're in the wrong game. This is the DCS forum.

First, this is meant to be a simulator. Balance is irrelevant. Every single module that gets released creates a balance issue in one way or another. Second, why should it be made similar to the HARM? It is not similar to the HARM IRL. The LD-10 is faster, smaller, and more modern. It makes sense that the brain-dead DCS SAMs have a very hard time shooting it down compared to the much older, worse HARM that needs huge improvements to match its real-world kinetics. That is a problem with the SAMs and the HARMs, not the LD-10.

Nope, ISPs worldwide are actually below capacity so this is a non-issue. Besides, FPS and network lag are different issues.

What fuel bar? Must be missing this. I'm aware of two indicators of fuel quantity: HUD top-right and data->fuel MFCD page.

If we alter everything else to accomodate bad AI, what happens when AI are improved? It creates a constant back-and-forth to balance things that's heavily subjective. I'd rather just aim for realism and not worry about balance.

It loses accuracy but it will keep going towards the same general point. As to the OP, I'm opposed to limited the good and realistic parts of the game for the sake of the bad. ED should improve the AI and SAMs rather than 3rd parties limit themselves.

99.9% of the time, the BIT's there to make sure you're good to takeoff. I'm not aware of anybody simulating jets with broken parts before takeoff so BITs in DCS are entirely pointless IMO outside of just thinking it's cool they're there. It's like pouring development into making sure the ladder-climbing mechanic to get into the jet is super realistic. Neat, I guess, and can serve as a bragging point WRT other sims, but entirely pointless to the actually simulation and gameplay involved and a waste of development resources while more important things (basically everything else) still aren't done.

100% agreed, and well-put. I want to study an aircraft, not a dev's practices and their roadmap.

Actually, anyone who plays MP is also forced to put up with the bugs and problems the super EA modules put into the sim, such as the Hornet messing up everyone's datalink for months or the SC code (the module of which hasn't even released yet) breaking the free Stennis to the point most MP missions have removed it entirely. Don't pretend it's entirely an individual issue, because it's not. The state modules release in affects everybody. This community isn't that big or that segmented. Very true, but that's on ED not Deka. The JF-17 is 100% ready for stable and has been for months.

Raptor and Su57 aren't really competitors with the EF. Different class. Current IRL Eagles, Super Hornets, or Su-30s are more similar.

The F-14B is basically finished. The only feature I'm still looking forward to is Jester AI operating the LANTIRN pod. But tbh I do a bit of software myself and this feature seems like an extraordinarily difficult thing to develop so I'm not holding it against HB that it's taking them so long to do. In the meantime, human RIOs are perfectly capable of using every LANTIRN feature.

@Deka - I know it's not like this on the real thing, but can we have an engine that's 3x as powerful? It would be theoretically possible to do that IRL so I think we should have it in-game. After all, there's already an engine in it so just making it more powerful isn't unrealistic. Make it a mission editor option so those who want it can have it.

Put an HMD on the DCS JF-17 and you're not simulating the JF-17, you're simulating what you wish the JF-17 was.

The only thing more useless and annoying than complaining about ED's obviously frustrating development standards and timelines is people complaining about people complaining about it.

Really? PhysX is used in: Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Arma series, Metro series, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Warframe, Killing Floor 2, Fallout 4, Batman: Arkham Knight, Borderlands 2, Star Citizen, Ghost in the Shell, Warhammer 40k EC, XCOM series, Warframe, Planetside series, Mafia series... It is supported natively in engines like Unreal, Unity, and BigWorld. Didn't realize those games and engines didn't work on AMD!

Not true - SPJ pod gives ranging data on emitters. I always carry one unless I need the TGP.

Only tanks and pods can go centerline.

I agree on the balance it's probably possible to do a full-fidelity Flanker but this particular statement isn't true.

They didn't let this through in the update? How is OP seeing this then? /s

Those aren't from the same sources. The Iranian Tomcat kill claims don't come (only) from the Iranian government.