TLTeo

This was fixed in the last OB patch

I feel like this replay thing should go in the FAQ, because it would help with reporting bugs. I had no idea this was a thing until I read this thread.

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure making a post like this does not require military-grade funding. I guess we'll see.

Good stuff. This is the kind of communication people have been asking for for a long time, hopefully the Farmer and Harrier will also receive similar roadmap posts.

Yep, there are two separate companies that fly them. Some have even been modified to carry AESA radars iirc.

That's the usual crappy AI model we've had for years.

Pretty sure the secret is just that the AI breaks the laws of physics. Their FMs are bonkers, so I wouldn't be surprised if ground interaction was simplified (and wrong) too.

I'm not sure the plural is warranted here I'm also not sure of who is doing the alienating at this point

To be fair, I suspect this would be really good for the sim. At least 3rd parties could anticipate weird bugs (like the lighting drama back during 2.5.6) more effectively.

The stuff people get hung up on never ceases to amaze me. I just want to say, I admire all devs, SMEs and CMs for putting up with it in a constructive way, I highly doubt I could do the same.

War Thunder also has an incredibly predatory business model, and next to no support or development to improve the quality of the gameplay (which is kind of important for an arcade game). Saying "WT is free so it's more appealing" is misleading - getting those (relatively) modern jets either requires spending much, much more money than DCS full fidelity modules cost, or hours and hours of grinding.

I guess it depends on whether the DCS SDK supports it or not

You can fly it like that (really, you're supposed to), but you don't have to.

Also the Strike Eagle didn't even achieve IOC until the end of 1989, so mid/late 80s means literally nothing here....

These labels are generally very very silly (and for example, your characterisation of both the -15 and -21 is not quite right), but luckily they apply quite well to the specific variant of the Mig-19 we have. The -P was designed to be the Soviet Union's first supersonic all-weather (defined as, it had a search and track radar) interceptor. The Mig-19 in general had another main variant (the -S) which was meant to be a generic front line aviation fighter.

Tbh the best way for the community to do while minimizing errors it is to combine instrument readings, Tacview and the ctrl+y bar data and check for discrepancies and/or find which one is closest to the real thing. Without access to whatever dev tools HB have, that's the best way to mitigate any systematic issue.

Honestly, for SP I just have a label mod that turns the labels on bandits either slightly blue or slightly red, depending on whether they are friendly or foes. In my mind it makes up for the fact that unlike real life there is hardly any useful communication among aircraft in the same area/furball (or with a GCI for that matter).

The lead 3d artist is the same. No more, no less.

edit: nevermind, need to double check my math. Woops! second edit: ok so, if I did the math right, the drag index for each a2a loadout assuming no tanks is: 2x0x6: ~14.9 times that of a single AIM7 outside of the boundary layer 2x2x4: ~11 times that of a single AIM7 outside of the boundary layer 2x3x2: ~8.3 times that of a single AIM7 outside of the boundary layer 2x6x0 OR 4x4x0: 5.8 times that of a single AIM7 outside of the boundary layer

I mean, it wouldn't be the first time either. That's how the original A-10C became a thing in the first place...

They said they've been working on a recce pod for the MB-339, so it's fair to say they will try to bring that in the G-91 as well.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=4537864796226946&id=594476197232512 Aaaaaaand it's coming!

Truly dark times for the Viper community

I agree, my point is simply that your average simmer is really uninformed and this air supremacy notion thing is dumb. I'm not arguing that at all, I'm arguing that the PVO's doctrine wasn't some weird outlier

You mean like the USAF stubbornly focusing on carrying the Falcon on their Phantoms instead of the Sidewinder, or taking ~5 years after Rolling Thunder to implement proper BFM training, despite witnessing the USN's successes during Linebacker 1 and 2? I'm being a bit disingenuous here, and Soviet doctrine was certainly rigid, but the same was true to an extend in the West as well, that's just a product of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO training almost exclusively for a nuclear conflict in the 50s and 60s. Yep! To some extent, but you can't take a single engagement as proof of much. Otherwise, you'd come to the conclusion that Tomcat pilots had a habit of ignoring the rules of engagement :) ADC jets basically displayed a dot on their radar scope that guided them to a point where they would then turn on their target and execute whatever attack was chosen by GCI - depending on aircraft and/or armament, that could be rear/front/side aspect, or a pull-up to zoom towards the target. In the same way, when they reached that point, the datalink would also guide the pilot towards the target, and it was up to the pilot to find the actual bandit on radar and carry out the attack. I don't know how the PVO did it, but I imagine it would be roughly the same. There's only so much one can do with a bunch of vacuum tubes after all edit: I imagine this would just be some one-bar, narrow azimuth mode. Kinda cool that it can be done automatically though! In DCS I always use that manually if I know what I'm supposed to be intercepting, it's good to know what I'm doing is sensible.