Snappy

Oh, so it’s cool to hype sth before it’s released, but not make critical statements? Interesting. If you have nothing to add, don’t bother writing.

Didn’t ED always claim the sustained turn rates were already spot on, matching the data they used to model it? Now given the first side by side comparison in the video it seems they further boosted STR significantly. Certainly hope they re not catering to the complaining crowds, it seems to become a recurring scheme lately.

That’s no way to compare level of anticipation prior to release .All other modules have already been released for quite some time.(years, with the exception of the Hind). Of course their store pages aren’t as popular now as they were prior to, during and shortly after release. Plus the Apache fan-crowd probably has constantly one tab open on its store page and is hitting F5 key non-stop skewing the metrics..

Don’t think it’s the most anticipated ever. The F-14 build-up to release was much more intense in my subjective perception.

Back when I tested it I think I had used warehouses , hangars or outposts that I placed via the ME.Definitely buildings. I will try again when I find time for DCS. Itˋs been quite a while since I tested it, maybe it got improved in the meantime with one of the patches. Thank you for your answers and checking it! Regards, Snappy

It’s about Jester spotting and targeting static objects, I know can manually designate anything. Thats not the point.When they published the Jester Lantirn capability patch Heatblur mentioned the limitation that Jester would be unable to spot&track static objects that are in the map by default. However the way I understood it, he should be able to spot&track static objects that are placed manually in the ME. Last time I checked, he was still unable to do that, hence my question. @IronMikedid I understand that wrong? kind regards, Snappy

I haven’t checked in a while and have no access to DCS at the moment, but is Jester now able to spot and lase custom-placed static objects? I don’t mean default stuff that’s already in the terrain, I understood that is a limitation, but last time I tried he simply wouldn’t even spot static objects placed in the ME, like warehouses etc. even it’s directly in the pods pov. regards Snappy

To be expected.Just wish you had been a little bit more creative in your argument and not resorted to sweeping over-generalisation. Not everyone playing DCS fancies replicating Middle East real life conflicts and/or attacks on civilian cities with nuclear weapons.Even ED has stated they have no interest in further WMDs, as it just something they wish not to simulated. Anyway this is leading nowhere, it was just feedback for Alpenwolf, like I said.

@Alpenwolf, I generally like your server and the philosophy behind it, but just as some honest feedback and at the risk at being immediately being told by people „to get over myself“ or „stop being so sensitive“ : I‘m not too happy with the direction you are taking things with this mission. Yes, I read the „fictional“ scenario part , but still I think this a sort of unnecessary politicisation of DCS as a usually more or less neutral game where people from different parts of the world can come together. Especially since „arab“ is a very broad overgeneralisation and with the involved plot of a nuke on Haifa it’s quite clear who is being painted as the bad guys here. This a loaded geographical area with high running emotions and even without having any personal horse in this issue , I find it a really unfortunate and somewhat alienating background setting. At the very least I would‘ve recommended staying with just the usual red and blue side and leave nationalities aside.Anyway in the end it’s your train set and you can do what you want with it. On the plus side, thanks for embracing the A-4 mod and trying to integrate it! Kind regards, Snappy

Well they definitely need to drastically improve A.I. first , otherwise the dynamic campaign will be not much fun with the current abysmal AI. As for your question, this proposed „AI&dynamic campaign“ module would likely just be another EA cash grab with no definite timeline and shifting goalposts, so no thanks. There are enough unfinished and buggy early access modules by ED around to show you that giving ED even more money doesn’t improve things. They have lost my trust.

Hi Vulture, no worries and thank you very much for your detailed reply! Most interesting. Certainly doesn’t sound like a lot of time (or remaining range) for the employment of the early maverick missiles. I imagine it to become very very difficult in regards to spotting and locking on quickly , in less than optimal weather , with camouflaged targets that are blending into the surroundings and probably shoot back at you in a European theater. Especially at the flying speed involved . Thank you again for sharing your experiences and stories here in the forums! Kind regards, Snappy

The newsletter means nothing in my opinion. I lost track of all the features and stuff announced and hyped in newsletters by ED that are still not delivered or which only got started and then abandoned again. You can start celebrating when it’s actually in the changelog.

What CBUs does the Apache carry? No argument from me that the crater fps hit is an annoying issue , but the Apache has zero to do with it, nor will the Apache be more affected by it than other modules.

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 .