TLTeo

Depends on the new fancy FLIR system I guess? Even the R-60 is supposed to have some sort of capability like that, which the Hind used, so if that becomes a thing I don't see why the IRIS-T (or the AIM-9X, which also should have that capability) wouldn't either.

Well yeah, the situation is "4 bandits are approaching the carrier group and they need to be shot down asap", not "you're escorting a strike package". Of course you will use your most aggressive tactics in that scenario.

There is only one method to designate an air to ground target, the button on the stick has nothing to do with that. As far as I understand, the HUD symbology should change automatically after you designate to guide you to your target. I don't know about the HSI but frankly, I don't see why it would be useful to look at it when, at that stage of a mission, you really should focus on what's outside of the cockpit and using the HUD as a primary instrument.

Unless things have changed since the last time I flew the Mirage: The Nav Update/Magic Unlock button on the stick is used to update the INS when overflying a point, to unlock the target the Magic is looking at, and to toggle through its search modes. The A2G Designate/Magic Slave button on the throttle is used to designate targets in a2g modes, to slave the Magic seeker to the radar, and to use the radar to update the INS. Their names are almost identical and both are used to update the nav system in different ways, which makes it super confusing, but it sounds like you are using the first instead of the second.

Yes, which is why for example you will experience significant Mach tuck in the Viggen at Mach ~0.9-1.1.

As far as I understand, countermeasures in DCS are just a dice roll on whether the missile tracks or not, and the probabilities are entirely independent of geometry or target speeds, much like RCS is independent of viewing angle and aircraft loadout. Which, of course, is extremely unrealistic and will only be changed when/if we get a whole new EW model.

"bis" and "ter" are both Latin words. What I find ironic is that of all people, afaik that nomenclature was first introduced by the Italian fascist regime to label some aircraft variants (the CR32 and SM79 being the most common aircraft with bis/ter variants) due to their ideological link with Imperial Rome.

Holy crap that is the most Soviet thing I have ever seen

Yep. Believe it or not, FACs and JTACs were a thing before buddy lasing. For more context, I'm modifying most of the single and quick missions from the modules I own so that they are more complete, and so that they can be flown with different aircraft. Some of them are proper CAS missions with friendlies in close contact with the enemy (like the one above), so it makes sense to add a JTAC to guide the player to its target.

You misread my post. In DCS, I do see that happening frequently, but only under specific circumstances. In the other sim, the AI is even worse and it doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the vertical plane. I just wanted to put things in perspective - yes the AI in DCS is mediocre, but we could be doing much, much worse.

@IronMike At this point this thread is entirely useless, could it please be closed?

Why, thank you for the free lesson. I'm not saying 1v1 dogfights in that sim are impossible to beat, but that they are worse because they don't even exist. Lining up to something doing a shallow turn doesn't count as a dogfight. I have never, ever seen a vertical maneuver from the AI in 1v1s. You are right about their FM though.

Honestly as bad as the DCS AI is, it's nothing on another ww2-based sim. 1v1 dogfights in that are literally impossible because the AI just flies around in a shallow horizontal turn after the merge. One thing I noticed about the AI never-ending vertical loop is that it tends to only happen when the AI identifies that you're low on energy, which it always does almost perfectly (e.g. if you try to force it to overshoot by bleeding speed and going for a flat scissors). At this point, one of two things happen: either the AI FM of your opponent is broken enough that you get stuck in lag forever, or the AI slowly loses angles until you can gun them. If you keep your energy up, I found that the infinite loop doesn't start nearly as easily - although whether you can win that fight or not is entirely a function of AI aircraft and especially difficulty setting, with "Ace" aircraft being essentially invincible.

Meh, it's ready when it's ready. I'm perfectly OK with not having a constant stream of meaningless 3d renderings or pretty screenshots that don't actually tell anything about the state of development.

https://trello.com/b/HsMiJggJ/heatblur-public-roadmap It's in the roadmap.

Naaah, the goal of every fighter pilot is to single-handedly shoot down the entirety of the opponent's air force in one sortie, by engaging 69 targets at a time with TWS shots. Everything else is a waste of time.

Yeah I honestly can't tell whether the aircraft in that picture is a Typhoon or (more likely?) just a Jaguar

Hooray I win the prize for the dumbest post of the month!

Uh? I'm pretty sure that PD-STT is supposed to act like a Fox 1 all the way to the target, and P-STT is supposed to be active off the rail.

Yep, the same was true for the old A-10 iirc

It's less about this and more about the fact that competitive DCS is in a weird spot when it comes to these bugs. Most of the classic games that spawned esports in the first place have dozens of these weird bugs/issues/exploits/whatever you want to call it: from rocket jumping in Quake, to patrol micro in Starcraft 1, to whatever is going on in the Dota code (and which was intentionally ported over to Dota 2), to frame skipping (I think that's the term?) in fighting games, it's all over the place. None of those games were ever intended to be esports either, when they were coded the term esports barely existed. The fundamental difference is that those competitive scenes have accepted the fact that weird behaviors exist, and they make mastering those behaviors part of mastering the game. I think it's harder for the DCS community to accept the mentality because, unlike all those games, DCS sort of attempts to emulate reality, so anything that behaves in un-physical ways is frowned upon. Obviously this logic makes zero sense because in reality fighter pilots don't try to kill each other for sport, but that's where we're at.

Likely TGP/LGBs/gun/unguided bombs, a bit less likely JDAM/LJDAM, much less likely the fancy UK stuff like Brimstone or Storm Shadow (or Taurus, which is the German equivalent) imo

It's set to the correct value for each map by the ground crew

Yes On a serious note, I have a curve set to 15 for every aircraft I fly (mostly because my rudder pedals are crappy), and I found that just a gentle tap in either direction works fine. Speaking of which, do NOT use differential breaking to change direction while moving at high speeds. That never, ever ends well.

Not the best example there buddy, the Eurofighter is fully supported by its manufacturer, unlike the Mirage 2000 which can't even be called "Mirage" in DCS specifically because Dassault chose not to collaborate.