Snappy

Completely agree, AI behaviour and their flight modelling are by far the weakest area of DCS. Which is unfortunately very immersion breaking since it’s an integral part of any combat flight simulation. Hearing Nineline say that he and Nick Grey think it’s actually not too bad in the Air Combat Sim podcast interview didn’t really go down well with me personally. I mean sure they’re entitled to their own opinion, but it left the feeling of not being able to accept justified criticism. DCS does a lot of things well, but AI and their FM are really bad.

No you haven’t.Going 400plus kts in 1 circle isn’t very good idea in my opinion either, certainly not with fox 2 and even guns only you’re just making it easier for your opponent to get into offensive position, not just against an F-14, but just about against anything semi -capable. That way he can go slightly slower than you and still get easily inside your radius while still keeping reasonably high speed /energy for follow on maneuvering. Exception to this might be if you merge head-on at medium-to high alt and both pull up straight into a vertical 1circle, but even then I’d try to check his pre-merge speed to get an idea for his possible next move. I mean, if he’s zipping by at 500+kts and then pulls up, sure then go vertical 1circle at 400-450 with your T/W, but otherwise I agree with you, I wouldn’t go that fast for 1 circle either. regards, Snappy

The entire thread is pointless.There are way too many variables (for starters OAT, air pressure ,exact aircraft specs and I don’t mean loadout and many more..)involved in the video/real world example which you simply cannot know and therefore not replicate , plus others you may think you know but can’t replicate accurately enough . All these affect aircraft performance and make these comparisons completely void for any meaningful performance assessment of the FM. Edit: HWasp partly beat me to it while I was typing

Depends on what you wanna do with it. If you can’t effectively turn with the easy-to-fly Hornet which is actually performing suspiciously well in that regard , then you maybe won’t have fun in the F-14 in a close in fight. system-wise it’s somewhat more analogue and hands-on, getting good situational awareness in it requires some mental work, not sure if that appeals to you or not. regards, Snappy

Interesting, thank you. I honestly don't know why he is saying that . Maybe he was referring to that they didn't get them directly from the US included with the F-14 deliveries. Even while he is talking, the picture in the background shows the F-14 of the IIAF with Aim-9 and Aim-7 , not that it means much. Or maybe not all units got them. But I am wondering. I have read several times that they indeed had both missiles and if you look up the air to air statistics you will see that there were several listed with Aim-9 and Aim-7 by the F-14. I don't know why there is this discrepancy. Regards, Snappy Edit: It is really a bit confusing. Here is an interview with another iranian F-14 pilot and he mentions that Iran originally ordered Aim-7 and Aim-9 for the F-14 but the deal fell throug with the hostage crisis and he goes on to say that there were compatibility issues with the variants of the Aim-7/9 carried by their F-4s. But then again later , in the question about the kill ratio , he explicitly mentions them as well. Nevertheless interesting & detailed interview if you haven't read it already: https://hushkit.net/2020/04/07/interview-with-the-greatest-living-fighter-ace-f-14-tomcat-pilot-col-rtd-fereydoun-a-mazandarani/ Right now I tend to think, with the deliveries of the F-14 they initially only got the Aim-54, with the Aim-9 and &7 being on order, which then got cancelled and then they adopted some of the Aim-9/7 from their phantoms. Maybe someone else can chime in with more detailed info.

Not sure why you think that they didn't have Aim-9 and Aim-7. I think they actually carried both. I think one type (likely the Aim-9) they got straight from the get go and the other one was added shortly after the war began. Can't get the details back together right now. I think they transferred the sparrows from the their Phantoms, after the revolution and the lost support from the US. Regards, Snappy Edit:This thread discussed the early loadouts as well ( look further down in the posts): One example , quote from Magot: " There is list differencies Iranian F-14A GR IIAF/ IRIAF in time (1979-1980) against F-14A US NAVY - downgraded ECM - downgraded ECCM - AWG-9 changed frequencies or jumped wavelengths/ counter jammings - Processors was slowered about 1/100 against US NAVY F-14A processors - APX-81-M1E IFF system for Iranians could only detect and interoggate transponders of Soviet origin Air to Air loadout AIM-54A Phoenix - ECCM was there a bit downgraded against same AIM-54A used in same time in US NAVY AIM-7E-4 Sparrow - from deliveries for F-4s for IIAF (AIM-7F never been delivered to Iran, but before islamic revolution it was planned) AIM-9P2 /P3 Sidewinder- from deliveries for F-4s/ F-14As for IIAF Engine: TF30-PW-414 (Was less prone to stall engine than original engine TF30-PW-412 mounted to first series of F-14A for US Navy) There are some source data about use microprocessor in F-14A http://firstmicroprocessor.com/"..

Agree with you, but that bug report hasn’t even been acknowledged or marked as reported by ED. Personally I doubt they’re able and/or willing to change the track replay system. regards, Snappy

Thank you @Silver_Dragon, but also forgive me if I take EDs announcements and their projected releases with a huge grain of salt, given their actual track record. If I believed what they say we should see first dynamic campaign version and vulcan this year. I still think they’re overloaded by their many projects. Will be happily proven wrong though, Regards, Snappy

Ah cool, even better ! Thanks a lot Tom!

Hey, sorry I may have to tread back on that. Just looked again at the Development map and there it seems indeed as if one of the two modules is now replaced by the EF. That being said, I also found a post by IronMike on Reddit when asked whether EF would affect A-6 where he said basically that A-6 is years away and other modules (plural) would likely be released before. So make of that what you will. this guessing is all overhyped anyway But we could still get lucky and have F-4 among those!Would defo be supercool.

Hi @Northstar98 Think it was this quote from IronMike from page 2 of the sticky development roadmap thread: Lastly: "Next Gen" means next generation of Heatblur module, rather then a next generation of fighter jet. I can see how this wording is a bit misleading. They will be fighters though, that is all we will admit for now. sorry,not sure why his smiley got supersized.It was part of his original post, it’s not meant to annoy you Northstar. kind regards, Snappy

Didn’t they state somewhere in connection with their development map, that the 2 other modules would be „Fighter-type“ aircraft? Granted that definition can be somewhat interpreted broadly , but then again I‘m almost sure they would’ve said „attack“ , „strike“ or „bomber“ or nothing at all if that applied . But that’s all guessing. regards, Snappy

Hi, thank you both very much for your answers! Appreciate the effort going into improving the module!! Looking forward to the reworked and more realistic gunsight. Thank you and have a nice day! Snappy

If so , I d only want these AI assets, let alone playable ship modules done by 3rd parties , not ED. ED doesn’t even get around to update the old AI aircraft 3D models like Tu-95, the very last thing they need is more stuff on their plate to finish, whether it’s paid or not. In this regard I‘m strongly opposed to this, unless it’s strictly 3rd party. regards, Snappy

Hi, I have two questions, regarding the current A/A gunsight question. Unfortunately there is little high resolution HUD footage from the real aircraft out there, but could the center dot of the radar solution pipper be made a bit bright and thicker? Compared to the real gunsight, it still seems almost unnoticable in DCS: vs DCS: Also my second question: why is in many Mirage HUD videos from the real aircraft the beginning of the snake in both radar and non-radar assisted mode a dotted line, while in DCS the entire snake from beginning to end is solid? Thank you in advance, Kind regards, Snappy

They stated on Hoggit/Reddit, I think it was, that the EF is not one of the two modules on their own developement map. Its a separate cooperative project with TrueGrit. So that still leaves two "figher type" aircraft slots open. Regards, Snappy

Really wish people would stop further alienating the few remaining SMEs kind enough to keep a presence&interacting on these Forums by making snarky posts like the above.. Regards, Snappy

Thanks, was funny!!

Not really in case of the F-18/16.Avionics are still way too modern&much more capable in regards to detection and situational awareness , Cold war Hornet would also ve have much less performance , since the uprated engines came later. They make for poor stand-ins of their cold war variants if you ask me. Better to leave them out. But with the various CW planes in development, the CW era should become more interesting. Regards, Snappy

I think they don't see it as splitting the player base. Probably more as a stepping stone for completely new aviation-interested players which offers a possibilty without being faced by a relatively vertical cliff learning curve, at least it could be perceived as that . As for the second part, no unfortunately, depending on what era aircraft we are talking about , the performance data (besides some general data points) is as much under wraps as the avionics or stealth properties. You need a lot more than some basic numbers for a reasonable flight model, and as far as I understood ED, they still want to offer professional flight models, even for MAC, at least as an option. Regards, Snappy

I don't think this is a good idea, at least not to have it done by ED. Looking at the glacial pace of the Supercarrier module, I prefer this to be done by some 3rd party. Even if a WWII is carrier somewhat simpler.The last thing ED needs is to take on more projects which they can't complete in years.

Don’t ask me, ask ED. I do not know what their internal requirements are for documents to be acceptable and legally usable. Which part of „feature complete“ did you not understand? ED said they consider FC3 feature complete( by their definition <- read this again) . I get that you deem this feature to be critically important for BVR combat, but that doesn’t change EDs stance. They do not want to add anything else that is not currently already implemented. regards, Snappy

Have the same issue, with radar off very smooth performance, with radar on quite a bit of stuttering. Hope this can be improved. Regards, Snappy

Ok, I think it had been pointed out , even by 9line or BigNewy( can't rememember which) that even if a user hands them the necessary documents for certain aspects of simulation, that does not mean they can legally use it. I do not wish to get into this mud-slinging debate, whether or not they always state the true reasons for why they do or don't do a certain module or feature, but I can definitely understand your frustration. Still I think it is best (for your blood pressure too ) to simply accept that they are just not interested in adding any more features to FC3, as they have said themselves and regardless of how incomplete certain aircraft aspects seem. Seriously I mean, they can't even manage to finish/de-bug their own legacy FF modules (Yak-52,F-5 amongst others). "Feature complete" for ED does not the mean the module is simulated completely or 100%. It just means they consider it complete in regards to its future developement in DCS, whether it is actually missing features or not is not important. Regards, Snappy

Well if you’re looking for that TOPGUN atmosphere/training and haven’t already bought it, I would highly recommended the “Zone V” Campaign by Reflected Simulations for the F-14 . It will give you that in a fairly realistic manner, given the limitations of DCS. it was made with the help of a former F-14 RIO and TOPGUN instructor. Granted the campaign still has you based in Nellis, but other than that it should be what you’re looking for. ED has stated they consider Nevada terrain finished and won’t add any more airports/areas to it and I think it doesn’t make sense to do a new neighbouring terrain ,just because of Miramar. regards, Snappy