Jester2138

DCS hasn't even scratched the surface of what's publicly available about electronic warfare. Plenty of room to go. Bad reason Same as almost everything else in DCS. Good?

In normal software practices, a beta and stable version are used to test and fix bugs in beta before moving features to stable. ED does not follow this practice and moves features to stable whether bugs are fixed or not, so IMO there's next to zero point to using their "stable" release.

Jamming and ECM in general is a huge part of real air combat. We have entire aircraft dedicated solely to that mission because it's so important. It should be simulated.

Seems more likely that the issue stems from the -120 using parameters and a flight model developed for Flaming Cliffs ages ago with no update since then to bring it in line with the hugely increased standard of fidelity that exists in the game now, combined with ED's typical refusal to admit they're wrong about something until there's massive blowback from the community over it.

Care to comment, ED? Most recent study here by Nighthawk seems pretty darn conclusive...

That demonstration was an AIM-120 shot from 15.7nm, 10,000' above the target, and mach 1.04. And the target never manuevered. A DCS AIM-120 would have no trouble hitting that, either.

Hmm. When I read that I thought it was funny. We've done CCIP and CCRP and so forth so many times with dumb bombs in other planes it would be a waste of time for Deka to do yet another dumb bomb guide unless the systems are hugely different (they're not). But, if this was your first DCS plane, I can see how that would be disappointing. Not to worry, I'm sure the full guide will discuss dumb-bombing.

I just shot down three bandits on Growling Sidewinder and landed safe; seemed to work just fine... Though I indeed had no datalink with the AWACS.

Not working on current DCS open beta due to failed to compile depth fx bug.

Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and the Space Shuttle all used a mix of systems under the hood.

I suppose you could take your right hand, move it, and place it on the mouse. Then you should be able to click the gear handle. At that point you can place your hand back where it was. Let me know if this works.

In the videos, the horizontal stabs are in the normal position as soon as the aircraft rotates. You might just need to look closer.

Got a real laugh out of me :megalol:

lol

Is there an easier way to tell a radar contact's exact altitude besides the teeny-tiny two-digit number by the contact on the HSD page? When I find something on the radar page, right now I'm having to look over at the HSD page to see it's altitude and then look back to the radar page to adjust my antenna to keep the contact centered. This is pretty clunky - surely there's a better way?

Cursed comments

This does not work for me w/ E-3 or E-2 in MP, in either slave or master.

I highly doubt that as all the input data for weather, planning etc. would be imperial as well. In order to use metric internally, they'd need to go imperial -> metric -> imperial again. The computer doesn't have a preference between imperial and metric :P

I suppose you could take one hand, move it, and place it on the mouse. Then you should be able to click the gear handle. At that point you can place your hand back where it was. Let me know if this works.

I don't understand this debate. Imperial -> metric and vice versa is stupid easy and if you can't do it then you just need more practice. We've been flying with mixed systems per-side in DCS for a while now (I regularly fly Tomcats as Redfor, you don't see me asking for a metric Tomcat). The reality is that IRL only China, Russia, and North Korea use metric in aviation. Russia is converting to imperial because, like everyone else, they've realized that imperial & knots is actually much better for aviation and aerial navigation than metric on its own merits, and if you'd spent any time flight planning IRL you'd know why. There is no JF-17 flying IRL with metric and there won't be, any more than a metric Tomcat.

It's not about total revenue. It's about cash flow. A transition to subscription model would obviously seek to remain overall revenue neutral. The point is to change where the money comes from in order to alter the incentives and business model and be less dependent on frequently adding new features packaged into single large updates. That's why many companies have switched - it doesn't make you more or less money overall, it just enables you to change your business model to focus more on the core product itself. Right now ED is totally dependent (according to Nick the co-founder) on frequent early-access releases to remain solvent. This would not be the case after a revenue-neutral switch to a subscription model that generates revenue independently of module releases (enabling more resources to be spent on core updates).

Maybe but I don't see the relevance, since that's not what HB did. According to the SMEs, the DCS Tomcat looks like the typical Tomcat they flew back in the day.

Why? The cockpit is perfectly usable and is realistic.

Obviously, that's a horrifically overpriced subscription and not a good example. Realistically, subscription services are priced at less than 1/12th of the normal purchase price so that you "even out" after a year or two of ownership. That would make the flagship module Hornet subscription more like $3-7 a month depending on how ED plays it. Most modules would be even cheaper. And you could switch what you're subscribed to without paying extra. Hornet one month, Tomcat the next; and it would actually be cheaper in the 1-2 year timeframe than buying them both outright. For the "I just want to OWN it" crowd, what about the Hawk? You never own software that's dependent on someone else maintaining it.

I've owned lots of professional subscription software and ALL of it is hugely better maintained with more frequent free core improvements than competing one-time purchase software. I think people should get over their knee-jerk distaste for the business model. The results speak for themselves.