Snappy

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.

Well even better would’ve been to think that through in the first before going out and making big announcements about the oh-so-feature-rich public tracker that is coming. It’s not a healthy management style to flip flop back and forth and people lose trust in your public communication.Anyway it’s not coming so we can drop it.

That tracker was cancelled by the same COO that announced it. For various reasons.Not very consistent behaviour I know.

@IronMike, can you please add this to be bug tracker?Thank you very much. Kind regards, Snappy

yes the acceleration chevrons are displayed on the HUD in the DCS Mirage. Edit: Kercheiz was faster Here is a pic from the manual showing them :

Ah, thanks a lot for explaining ! It now makes a lot more sense to me . I was having the wrong idea, I previously thought that night vision goggles are used as a complete substitute for the naked human eye during night flying, i.e. for both, reading instruments inside & looking outside. Now I also understand why there is such a problem in flying non-specifically night vision compatible aircraft with goggles. Really thanks a lot @HarlikwinI learned something new! Have a nice weekend, Snappy

Ok and if you dim your cockpit lights to a level so far down that you can't read instruments with the naked eye, inside the cockpit I mean ? Oh wait, or are you saying that in reality the Goggles are not used for reading the instruments at all and the instruments a read only by lookin down with the naked eyes , under the goggles and that the night vision goggles are only used for looking outside of the aircraft?

yes, according to the Server FAQ , the F-86 is there. Check out the FAQ if you havent already, it gives a good overview of things: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1I-aD-s3zoEpV4gGu7QIrEdywkpklfT40te-mYlX3zk8/edit?usp=sharing Regards Snappy

Well if you read the posts by the Kate Pederenko, she said it would incorporate public voting on issues/bugs. I.e. you likely would get the option to vote for A.I. improvements as a priority within the bug tracker and as you can imagine, you certainly wouldn't be alone with that wish to improve that specific area;)

Could you explain in a few accessible sentences , why the concept of simply strapping on a NVG Device in your average helicopter and dimming down the cockpit overhead & instrument lighting to very low doesn't really work well in reality? You can skip the part about weapons employment, I can imagine the issues with that much better. Serious question and genuinely interested.I just don't have a lot of clue about NVG , except a very very basic understanding on how they work in principle. Kind regards, Snappy

Yea, still would be nice if ED managed to fix this, if they can't fix the bugs on older modules it would be nice if they at least managed to fix the stuff they break later with their updates.

Are you referring to their flight model or to their "decision making?" with regards to the change you noticed? For the latter (the "I" in AI) , I find them as stupid as ever. Droning around in big circles, only changing between horizontal and vertical circles.Also you can shoot tracers right past their canopy or wingtips and still they don't jink or change plane of motion. They just keep going on the same previous trajectory which just makes them easier to kill. As for the FM, I have yet to see an AI plane stall or not make a miraculous speedy recovery from low energy state. In my opininon they have a long long way to go before they get semi- realisitic or catch up to the unname-able competiton. However maybe we should argue in a seperate dedicated thread.The way ED forum management operates lately, especially in regards to criticism , I expect see this thread being "sanitized" any day now, due to going "off-topic".

No. Expect a long wait until you actually see it in game for the majority of aircraft.