Snappy

The discussion wasn't about the pipper or the way the Mirage gunsight operates in general as a historic sight .That wasn't what the post was about. It was about the predictive shoot cue in steady tracking solutions , not with target constantly changing directions. It has little to do with where the pipper on the snake, as it would , under ideal conditions, tell you when to press the trigger. Nevermind though.As explained, it has limitations and limited use under actual combat conditions.

I deliberately chose an extreme example with the entire jet. It boils down to how much do people want feature/aircraft XYZ in the sim. In the end its a personal preference/point of view I guess.

Yes, but the problem with that is , who defines " believable"? Just because certain aspects of DCS are not the real deal, does that mean anything else goes? By that logic, (the russian law thing notwithstanding) you could also argue for the implementation of modern red force jet. Oh, well most systems and fm data is classified and/or we dont have access to it . However lets do our best guestimate implementation based on the information we have.. Or would you rather not have a modern redfor jet? There it gets highly subjective.. Its not like you dont have enough capability in the AH-64D without it.

This has already been discussed here: In my personal opinion ED should stay away from fantasy implementations.

Congratulations on your child Alpenwolf ! There are more important things in life than a server. Hope you and your family are well ! Kind regards, Snappy

For me ( as average ballpark numbers only) what works at average weights is to set the rotor blade pitch angle to around 7 and then once you reach a indicated speed of around 200kph,the Mi-8 needs close to zero or zero anti-torque pedal input to fly straight and relatively well balanced. That way you can live the yaw trimmer off and do longer flight segments relatively hassle free. Kind regards, Snappy

Regardless of the F-16 itself. Having FBW does not automatically mean the aircraft has autotrim. It is frequently a feature or capability of FBW aircraft, but there are also FBW aircraft which are trimmed primarily by the pilots.

It’s funny to see this argument suddenly being brought out when it suits peoples agenda, i.e. to gain even more capability. While at many other occasions people can‘t yell loud enough varying versions of „this is simulation, not a game.We don’t want gamey , arcady stuff in DCS bla bla etc“

No it’s not the same HUD. Some things are similar, but for example the target caret is completely different, both in Color and shape.

The alpha adjustment is fine, but given the very limited publicly available data and EDs not really forthcoming behaviour about what they actually modelled it on I have serious doubts about its STR capability across the speed range.It wouldn’t be the first FM they got wrong, though admittedly it is often a strong point of their modules and in general they get it quite accurate it seems. I don’t count that single data point from the GAO report as a valid way of cross-checking, even if the FM meets it on that point.

True. Neither is the F-18 a F-22 that it currently does decent job of emulating in DCS. Conveniently it’s FM review just got postponed until development resources allow, which in DCS time likely means years.

Fair enough! I respect you for coming back and at least giving it a more realistic tone. Not that you need my respect in any way . regards, Snappy

Gotta love overblown subjective blanket statements like that..The supercarrier has lots of issues and functionality missing and don’t even get me started on the Hornet. Plus, hot starts are at the same time a very good for at least as many reasons.

Slightly OT, but why are they test-flying with a cluster ammunition dispenser weapon on the second to last picture? It looks like one to me, but Spain is also a signee of the convention on cluster ammunition . Or are they testing for potential export customers? Regards, Snappy

Yes, I read it too, although I found their statement in it about the currently used AI SFM a bit bold , let me quote: “Although SFM produces accurate trajectory parameters such as turn rate, specific excess power, flight envelope..” yea right.. Let’s hope the new model is significantly more accurate.

No, don’t get me wrong Arew, I understand your frustration and your position. But by now people should know how ED usually operates and that EDs definition of EA translates into long stretches of buggy(in certain areas) and incomplete product state, after they got your money. Still people seem to be willing to throw money at them, as soon as they market the next new shiny toy for pre-order & EA despite the track record. In an optimal market your expectations for the F-14 compatibility of the carrier would be reasonably valid, but again this EA, even more , it’s EDs version of EA. So you really shouldn’t be surprised, even this long after product launch. You bought into it with EA. You should expect to wait a bit longer I guess.

Tracks or it didnt happen

Well thats your opinion. Beside its kind of questionable to make any real distinction there, between bug and feature when it comes to EA . The F-16's earlier inaccurate flight model could then by your definition also be considered a bug, yet ED referred to the EA label and that it would be improved later on- which it was btw, later in EA. I would say Supercarrier compatability with anything else but EDs own F-18 is a missing feature and apparently not high on their priority list, otherwise they would ve implemented it by now. The current implementation is just a no frills bandaid patch- over so that ED can formally claim you can use the supercarrier with the F-14.So OP will likely have to wait until they get around to improve it. It's just the nature of EA.

I know you’re not gonna like it,but it’s EA. Meaning it is incomplete and will likely take a long time to finish. As long as people keep giving ED money for largely incomplete modules and without a clear schedule or time frame for completion, nothing will change.

The AI FM is only half of the problem, the other half is their „decision-making“ process, if you want to call it that. @b0bl00i‘s example seems to be more a problem with the latter than the former. I really wish this would get significantly improved. They still act very stupid and changing their FM won’t change it. One example: Shoot at them with guns in a tracking solution, they simply don’t react, they don’t jink, they don’t change plane of motion , they just keep flying in the same predictable previous flight path until the next burst unsurprisingly kills them. Don’t even get me started on the constant looping or the vertical zoom climb , which simply makes them a perfect target for heat-seekers against a cold background.

Lookup tables as basis for FM are better than their image.Even commercial level D simulators use them. But they are only as good as the data they contain and there seem to be serious flaws in the data for the AI FM. Simplification would be one thing, with less data points across a range and extra/interpolation ,but looking at the way the AI flies there really seems to be wrong data in it, making them pull stuff they physically can’t.

Lets not get into a discussion about the business model as this leads OT. Suffice to say, they need to churn out new modules to keep money coming in and due to the complexity of the average module, they have ever more EA modules to finish and (broken by updates) modules to de-bug, while at the same time the next new modules have to be produced and coded to bring in money . Plus they will soon run out of popular all-star aircraft that sell like hot cakes to the broad majority of customers . Not to mention the tech gap to bridge from the old core. You can easily project where this leads in the medium to long term. Personally, I dont see this working out. But if you want to discuss the business model, make new thread, or write in one of the existing ones about it. This one is about likes and dislikes.

Simply take "like" and "dislike" if "love" & "hate" is too strong or loaded for your taste. Like: - Cool visuals, normally good systems & flight modelling, sandbox possibilities. These 4 points are awesome. Dislike: -AI. AI. AI. both in air and ground units, the simplified FM for AI too. The whole AI issue drags this entire sim down immensely in single player. -The long overdue core issues. -The way older modules are still marketed, but really not cared for and pile up bugs. -The various variants of the " I'll ask the team, if there is any progress, We willl let you know when we have something to report.Thanks " - statements by community mods, which basically mean nothing and could be dropped completely or would be better be substituted each time by a simple: "This is an unpleasant side effect of our business model, live with it or stop buying" -The way ,even accurate , objective and on-point criticism is treated on the forums. -The overblown marketing hyperbole at time, i.e. over-announcing time and again, big plans & features and then having problems actually delivering in the projected timeframe or at all. regards, Snappy

Thank you very much for your clarification, regarding the „window“ related to wingspan and the inherent limited practical usability for gun fights. I understand it better now. Maybe a short paragraph about this limited usability in real life could be added to future manual editions, so people who are not familiar with gunsights don’t get unrealistic expectations. I appreciate your presence here and providing support! kind regards, Snappy

No its not.It was implemented with the latest update.Check the update presentation on top of the forums. It has a picture.The predictif function does not immediately change the gunsight appearance.But if you are in range and position with enough lead for a shot you get a double square or triangle around the target on the HUD, to btiefly summarize. But the exact mechanism is still a bit vague , hence my questions. regards, Snappy