Snappy

I read it. Doesn’t change the fact that’s it’s already very potent as it is.You just have extremely high expectations, which is ok. However I for the most part have medium level expectations in regards to other aspects of DCS, which right now work nowhere as well as the aim-120 does now. Personally I’d rather see those addressed, perhaps similar to the OP, than having the aim -120 simulated to perfection. But I’m giving up now.These discussion usually never lead to any changes.

Dear reflected simulation, with the upcoming release of the HB Forrestal, is there the possibility of a Forrestal version of this campaign for those people who don’t have or dont want to buy the supercarrier module? I know its a lot of hassle and work to redo it, so its really just a question, I understand if its too much workload for you. And while we‘re at it, you once mentioned a possible Zone 5 sequel with you teaming up with BIO again.Is that still in the cards? Thank you and kind regards, Snappy

Hi Jonsky, sorry for my late reply.Thank you very much for your that answer, I already thought it might be difficult. But thats a starting point, thank you for the idea! Kind regards, Snappy

Your condescending arrogance is impressive..

You still haven’t gotten the point or you chose to deliberately misunderstand me. The aim 120 may be incomplete and its pk off by a bit, but the thing is and read the following again please: it works well enough as it is. You cant seriously claim its a bad missile as it is now in its present representation. While lots of other things don‘t work at all or work way way worse in DCS right now and no , I wasn’t even talking about the other missiles. So me personally , I‘d rather have a sim where most things works reasonably well/ok but maybe not perfect, instead of a sim, where a few things( example: your aim-120) get perfected to the extreme while lots of others are just not working or inadequate. However this is pointless since in the end its EDs thing and they make their decisions. As for the cows , I still don’t buy it.Sure the aircraft models are more complex, no doubt, but even then I would prefer to ED to spend their modelling ressources on at least getting started overhauling these instead of spending the manpower on unneeded cows. Still the same as above applies, in the end ED makes their own development decisions. I just don’t agree with them.

I think the point is, the Aim-120 may not be perfect but it works ok-ish to reasonably well(its not like it isn’t already one of the most capable missiles in-game) while lots of other things do not work at all or are working very badly. So why make the Aim-120 even more realistic instead of bringing the other things or at least one of those to an ok-ish level? It’s like why spent effort on adding a completely unneeded cow 3d model instead of fixing the legacy Minecraft-looking F-4 or Tu-95, S-3 ,whatever 3D models? I really don’t get those development decisions either.. Regards, Snappy

Hi, unfortunately I’m not that familiar with advanced DCS controls setup and never had much need for it anyway.But now with the harrier, I ran into a problem.I would like to assign the nozzle movement to an axis on my Hotas throttle because I noticed assigned to an axis the actual nozzle movement is quite a bit faster than compared to assigning it to two nozzles up/down buttons. The only available remaining axis on my Hotas is a spring centered mini stick.Assigning it to nozzle movement works, but because it is spring- centered the nozzle position defaults to something like 45degree down,in other words for normal forward flight I constantly need to push the mini stick to its forward stop to make the nozzles stay in up position. Is there clever way around this to still use the spring centered stick for this.Ideally stick down should still move nozzles down and stick up should still be nozzles up , but the centre default position should be not be nozzles at 45degrees but nozzles up. Sorry for the block of text, just wanted to describe the issue hopefully clearly . If anyone has an idea, that would be cool. Kind regards, Snappy

You’re out of line . Where did I say anything about wanting new textures? Its nice that to you everything seems to be perfectly fine, however just because you personally didn’t notice it , doesn’t mean the Tiger doesn’t have bugs. Among others, the RWR is bugged, , the lead-computing gunsight, the TACAN system, the engine-throttle interaction thing, excessive gyro drift , the aircraft despite being long out of early access still has no airframe overstress damage model - you can happily pull 13G without any damage . So basically we now have bugs in several critical systems, offensive,defensive, navigation, Instruments, engine, damage model.While this is still being sold at full price as a supposedly full module, which gets close to zero bugfixing. So stop claiming absurd things, like me wanting a free texture overhaul.

Some people never cease to amaze me. ED hasn't managed to properly finish and de-bug the basic systems of the simple old-analog cold war F-5e years after its release and you re willing to throw more money at them for another even more sophisticated version that will likely end up even more unfinished and buggy due to its complexity..

Thank you very much for your awesome in-depth answer.

Hey, thanks a lot guys! Quite interesting- I had completely forgotten about the SK-60, but then again I didn’t realise it could be armed .

@Hummingbird could you kindly make an official bug report on this? I also thought this was adressed as fixed a few patches ago, but it wouldnt be first time , something slipped through on the actual update that gets released. It doesnt seem to get a lot of attention in this thread. Thanks, Regards, Snappy

Hi, slightly OT, but just out of curiosity during later cold war (70s/80s) in case of a conflict/soviet territorial invasion on swedish soil, which aircraft would have taken up the role of CAS? The Viggen could probably do it, but seems less than ideal due to its normally high speed profile&its "drop everything at once" during bomb runs. The Saab 32 Lansen? Regards Snappy

Virpil should not be an option then either for you personally.. It’s not as if Belarus and Russia are big on human rights and free speech either.. Belarus especially not, being referred to as Europe s last dictatorship and Russia.. well.

You were already told what it is for. To avoid imminent collision as a last resort and thats why it is on the flight stick and not somewhere behind your back or down by your knees. Not sure whats so difficult to understand about it. The swiss hornets (probably the same as the canadians) are also rated up to 9G.That is a totally different matter though as these aircraft have received significant structural upgrades to make this possible.So dont compare apples to oranges.

Whatever you need to tell yourself... Its been stated over and over again ,in reality the paddle is only for emergencies i.e. avoid imminent ground collision and not to enhance performance during bfm. I strongly doubt it is used in any form during training fights which nowadays tend to have strict safety rules as well, plus the moment you pull the paddle you essentially become a test pilot as you’re flying outside the envelope. Unfortunately 90% of DCS Hornet pilots on dogfight servers don’t get it or don’t care as they want to win at all costs. Just watch any given Hornet on a dogfight server and see them happily pull past the G Limit 90% of the time. Its ok from a gaming perspective, I just find it mildly ironic that these people chose DCS as their platform of choice as they basically put the strive for realism ad absurdum.

I like your optimism:)

Sure, if you want to take such a simplistic view, feel free to do that. It’s not factually wrong . Doesn‘t help though in a discussion about aerodynamic or engine performance related phenomen in DCS where it’s good to be specific. If you start throwing around the term „loss of tail rotor effectiveness“ the average guy probably googles it , learning that it usually refers to one specific condition where the wind conditions cancel out the anti torque effect of the tail rotor and then thinks „ Ah ok , so it was the wind, I need to avoid certain wind conditions in order not to encounter this Problem again in DCS.“ Which helps exactly zero, as this is not simulated in DCS and the real problem likely lies elsewhere.

Erm F-5E?

No - LTE is not simulated in DCS helicopters as of now. The developers stated the calculations involved are very complex and they are still looking for a way to implement it, the hind may feature it in some form.

@IronMike could this kindly be improved in the course of the upcoming cockpit texture overhaul? Kind regards, Snappy

Thought we just had a discussion in another thread about the RIOs/WCS‘s capability to manually send a -go active- signal to a phoenix that’s already inflight in order to save an otherwise likely to be wasted shot and the official response was, as of now there’s not enough verifiable info to implement that capability.. Edit : Here’s the thread in question,if I misunderstood you and you were talking about sth else just disregard my whole post.

Actually several people gave you good answers within this forums. However their answers seemed to somehow not align with your personal opinion on how things should be , so you didn’t acknowledge them or took extremely selective parts of their statements out of context.

Well the maintenance shop is on the carrier soo… Just kidding. I actually agree with you. Prefer a more complete aircraft too personally.

Yes I still don’t get why the small stuff like buggy TA readout that was mentioned to be already fixed internally long ago (on sep 22nd) didn’t make it into the hotfix. Ok ED didn’t announce the first hotfix in time after the big patch , but now we have the second hotfix and still it’s only containing ED stuff. Makes me really wonder how much they coordinate or to talk to to their 3rd parties about hotfixes in advance. I mean it’s not like other modules might have benefited from hotfixing too..