Snappy

You don’t get it. The problematic part was where you wrongly claimed he had only gotten out of federal custody and only just now because of a good old boys pardon, which is both factually a plain wrong statement about the man. Anyway I can recognise a pointless discussion when I see one. I‘m out at this point and don’t bother replying , I won’t see it anyway , as you’re now going on my ignore list.

Well the generation definitions are really somewhat blurry , but not necessarily defined by containing something revolutionary. Still I find your view of the F-14 a bit peculiar, since it actually did contain quite a few innovative things, among others the AWG-9 with its TWS capabilities, the Aim-54 weapon system , (which probably is the first airborne active radar missile fielded, if you discount the aim-47 project) which again could be employed against several targets simultaneously , first aircraft to make use of a digital processor(MP944) , it’s data link sharing capability between fighter aircraft of the same type (with Link4c) The list probably goes on. Some of these features are not exclusive to the Tomcat , but in my opinion it’s more than enough to put it in a very different league avionics-wise than the commonly used 3rd gen aircraft . 4th gen seems especially fluid/variable in its definition, so personally I‘d say anything that was a significant improvement over 3rd gen in one or more criteria is 4th gen and the F-14 definitely fits that bill. But you’re entitled to your own opinion of course. Regards, Snappy

Dude…high horse, really? Coming from you? Where did I say in my post that I want the WSO/RIO to be named after Cunningham? This is happening in your mind. Was just pointing out that you put out a factually wrong statement about the man, which btw could be seen as defamation , regardless of the man‘s own legal troubles.Doesn’t mean he’s not a human being anymore after all. But never let facts get in the way of your pre-conceived opinion… Definitely would not like the see him named after Cunningham , but mainly for different reasons than you. I prefer simply keeping Jester as name.

Hey .Ah okay, thank you, just wasn’t sure how you meant it. Got it now!

It’s not impossible, it’s just a pseudo-philosophical question of which approach to take in DCS. Whether everything is always supposed to be factory fresh and in perfect working order or not. You could dig out some sources, come up with somewhat averaged reliability quotas and then apply the resulting percentages in a random failure option.Sure that doesn’t factor in environmental factors related to geography and so on , but it’s not like there aren’t other areas where DCS uses only more or less accurate approximations as well. Would sure make things more interesting and probably not more unrealistic than having the weapon working 100% of the time. I think the Strike Fighters series did that and you got a at least reasonable impression of the weapon reliability at that time. But since weapons are now in EDs realm and they re already overloaded with issues, I doubt they are going for it.

Probably yes, that would be preferred I guess.Ideally Along with spending further money on hyped shiny new EA modules (which btw, will take equally long to get finished, if ever) while you wait... It's just the real downside of their EA business model and it seems to become more and more obvious with ever more unfinished modules in parallel developement requiring ressources. But there's not much to do about it, they are stuck with their business model and it still seems to work for them. So you can only make your own decision, whether you are willing to further invest into EA in the future.

Thread probably going to be locked if the complaints keep rolling in , like quite a few other inconvenient ones recently , with a final „we‘ll let you know when we have news to share..“

Bump

It’s OT, but Cunningham has been out of prison since 2013 . He recently received a Pardon by the former president, but that’s an entirely different matter, so maybe at least try to do minimal research before you put out statements like that.. It’s not like he got out of prison due to it .

Very interesting story&information, thank you very much for sharing it. If I may ask, with your experience , what did you consider as realistic engagement ranges for those early Maverick TV versions under average conditions (no adverse weather) and how much time did that approx. leave you with to spot and lock the individual target you were attacking? Kind regards, Snappy

The „Olds“ Name on the helmet. Cobra confirmed in the hoggit announcement thread. Still wouldn’t read too much into it, as far as I understand it, the trailer scene was not necessarily in-game footage, especially the cockpit/ pilot shots.

What I wanted to say in my post was, if people would be more disciplined in their flying ( more respectful of RL G-limits) and striving more to approach BFM the way it is trained/ was done in reality, you would likely see a very different picture on the same servers, with the same aircraft.Probably somewhat more realistic. In my opinion to the large part it’s down to the players that things look the way they do now. I only brought it up because your post seemed to imply the structural limit implementation of the DCS F-15 was the reason for that and I disagree.I think the players are the reason. Can‘t say much about the DCS F-15. As far as I know it’s AFM is pretty accurate, there’s some discussion about STR, but EDs latest statement was something like „it’s accurate according to our data sources“. Personally, I’m much more suspicious about the Hornet and the JF-17, but with very little public performance data, it’s hard to say. Probably best to accept, DCS will be only be a limited though respectable representation of aircraft and combat .

That’s well possible, however that is more because of the way people fly / fight on BFM servers and much less so because of the way ED modelled the eagle FM. Ok and the limited G-model (of the pilot ,not the aircraft) of DCS is another large contributing factor, because in a way it enables such player behaviour. The way people (especially the competitive ones) fly on the regular popular BFM servers has usually very little to do with the way BFM is done (or better, was done) in reality. People just want to win, it seems the majority simply uses every exploit they can/know of. In DCS repeated over g-ing is basically standard operating procedure, so is flying around constantly with large amounts of G for a long time in circles .In reality you wouldn’t be able to do much efficient fighting at all under these conditions. Because you‘d be busy trying hard to stay conscious, would have huge problems moving your head much at all to keep tally and would rapidly fatigue. None of that is much of a factor in DCS, so people exploit it. Same with the Hornet.Watch any given fight on a BFM server with hornet and see around 90 % pull paddle to over-g plenty of times in a fight.Just the way people are. Like GGTharos has said, probably very few things in DCS are similar to the way it’s done in reality.

That doesn’t make sense. Even if the key phrase is „estimated“, by now and given ED‘s entire track record, it should be obvious to everyone, even to ED themselves, that their ability to „estimate“ is abysmal . They are wrong all the time and usually not by small margins. They are simply very bad at giving decent estimates.They constantly overestimate their ability. They could learn from it , but apparently they don’t. The simple solution is , make your estimate as usual internally, then add 300-500% /1-1.5 years buffer and publish the resulting number on the newsletter. Keep publishing said same result every few weeks . If they finish earlier and have a ready built(but only if both conditions are met) , revise and release. Everyone is pleasantly surprised about ED making it on time or even earlier and the pitchforks stay in. What they do now is just a worn-out bad routine. Almost no one believes EDs release estimates for anything anymore and that they keep repeating the same mistakes and then delay further at the last minute just damages their PR reputation , which isn‘t the greatest to begin with. regards, Snappy

It’s called GIUK .

Do you mean it was done differently before that or after that? regards, Snappy

Well that’s ED now, they got incorporated back into them . Still hope it‘s not them, because even the Hind is unfinished in large parts and the above caveats apply to any ED or subsidiary production,in my personal opinion. But we will just see.

Hey thanks a lot! I was familiar with the technology/method of using a miniature camera moving over a model landscape to generate an outside view for the pilots in vintage simulator. It’s a pretty cool idea if you ask me. But it’s rare to find high quality footage of these old simulators in action , so thank you very much for that @C3PO! Kind regards, Snappy

Well that and more or less by process of elimination as well.ED said it’s coming from third party and rather soon .Ok ,granted,the half-life of EDs PR communications is extremely short and they could have flip-flopped, which I hope they didn’t, because they seem to have already overloaded themselves far beyond their resources with all their unfinished modules. Not that that ever stopped them, I know. But if you take their statement at face value, which other 3rd party could realistically do it and relatively soon? -Aerges? busy for the next years with various variants of the F-1 and they are a small team. -IFE? Likely too new to DCS for such a complex project, busy with MB339 and thereafter doing G-91 already. -Razbam? Busy with complex F-15E for years, plus next is Mig-23,plus 10 Million other projects and whatnot. -Deka? Focussed on Chinese/eastern aircraft and haven’t officially decided what their next module is. -M3? Busy with Corsair and the F-8.Plus Mig-21 refresh Thereafter teased Su-22 variant already.Small team. -Flying Iron? Up to their ears in A-7 development and seem to have a realistic,conservative approach to development and resources. so these were the major contenders. Leaves HB, with one un-announced „fighter type“ project and their intention to provide further naval aircraft for their carrier. Or ED, which I personally seriously hope isn’t doing it, because then it’s likely never getting finished beyond 75% EA. regards Snappy.

Ok fair enough! Point taken.

Can't believe you are falling for this. Do you really think for one minute that they will be basing their developement decision between AI and full module on x number of likes to one of their pics? Seriously.They probably made their decision long ago. Besides I get your love for the seaking , I like it too. But its as if Razbam hasn't like 40 projects in various states of developement. I lost track of all their announcements.

Agree completely. Super annoying . Radar guided guns are one thing, but the way even BMP , normal iron sight infantry soldiers and tanks are shooting laser accurate fire at an aircraft, even if you come in fast&low level and should therefore should be spotted relatively late . Would be nice to see if this area saw significant improvement. Unfortunately DCS seems to be often tailored to stand off weapons and push-to-win buttons, therefore skirting around the problem.

Pretty sure it does and it actually was supposed to go under a FM review by ED, however unfortunately that was just pushed back by ED „until resources allow“ , which likely translates into a few years or maybe never , given how overloaded them managed to get themselves.

This is just ED‘s MO. As long as people buy into the hype train and throw money at them for the new EA module it won’t change.

Also I think you may factor in that jet aircraft are not always as well suited as props for certain aerobatics , for example a rudder reversal or hammerhead turn. Prop aircraft usually have a heavy engine block in the front and at low or even zero forward airspeed the prop still generates airflow over the rudder control surface.