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

Yawn … no thanks. The whole AH-64 just being another gigantic push-to-win button for people to confuse with their own skill.

Yes, my thoughts too, so much for the "last ever windows version" tsss...

This mission still doesn't seem to work , even in 2.7. The Mi-28 makes only or max two actual attack runs, despite announcing more on the radio , but then it doesn't actually fire. Even if you move well aside to give it room for its attack run. Most of the vehicles stay intact after his one or max two passes and next step of the mission isn't triggered. Even after I shot up some more vehicles myself. I've tried three four times now in a row and even after waiting a long while, the Mi-28 just doesn't do its task well enough for the mission to proceed. Please fix this. Or alternatively change the briefing to make it clear, that the MI28 is just there for psychological support, but you're supposed to do the actual shooting yourself . This is really a bit annoying. I mean it’s nice that Flappie got ist working after „a few tries“ but not everybody likes or has the time for doing the Same missions 5 times over in their scarce free time, just because the AI can't do its job properly. Regards, Snappy

Alpenwolf, thank you very much! Given the circumstances, I think this is a very reasonable interim solution, until Heatblur improves the FM. Just to clarify, will this mean the RB-24J is going back in as available loadout or is it still removed? kind regards and thank you again for trying to accommodate all players! Snappy

Speak for yourself if you wish, but if you know where the Viggens strenght are, you can do reasonably well against the Mig. Of course not if you're still dragging your whole bomb load around with you or trying to turn level with them . But "quite unsuccessful" really is too much of a blanket statement. The "occasionally" referred to myself, not general usage on your server. Using exploits aside, I still don't get why the Viggen should be forced into the A/G role exclusively and can't be loaded with A/A weaponry only. I mean, its not like the F-5 is unable to carry A/G weaponry as well. How about those guys going for the ground targets for a change once in a while ? Or are you basically saying, if I'm interested in air to air on the cold war server I have to buy either the F-5 or the Mig-19/21? Serious question. I agree with you 100% on the Heatblur part though. But I would prefer Sideburns suggestion though instead of removing the RB24J for everyone . That way hopefully only people who exploit the FM bugs would be affected. Regards Snappy

Yea, well too bad with the negative drag and people exploiting it..speaks volumes about DCS multiplayer culture , but not surprised given the proliferance of paddle pulling on the F-18 in the dogfight servers. People want their push to win buttons.. To be expected but still somewhat disappointing..I hope Heatblur gets on top of that . No sorry, I'm not missing the point. I 'm well aware of its primary A/G role in real life, however this is still a sandbox after all and I can do what I like in the Viggen I bought ,even on CW server (cheats&exploits notwithstanding). , if I feel like occasionally loading it up exclusively with air to air weaponry and going into a furball or whatever , thats up to me and it still can hold its own, unless you get yourself in silly situations, where you re outnumbered or at a serious disadvantage from the get-go. That being said, it had a secondary air to air role (hence the J in AJS) , plus for self defence it should be adequately equipped with self defense weapons and GeneralMav well explained why the RB-24 is unsuitable for that. I get the server roles too, but my experiences so far is, very few people care for the A/G targets or providiing strike escort and most just head for instant action, i.e. nearest enemy contacts, which is fine. But so can I then. Just because I own the VIggen and have no interest in buying the F-5 or Mig 21 doesn't mean I can't do that too from time to time. Regards, Snappy

Pardon my ignorance, but could someone kindly explain to me what the issue is/was with the RB-24J? I mean its already a pretty ancient missile and not the newer RB-74 variant. I know the Viggen has some FM issues down low (knowing DCS MP I can easily imagine people exploiting this) and besides I too would’ve liked to see Heatblur fix a lot of its many remaining bugs by now, but it isn’t.. Restricting it to the rubbish RB-24 seems pretty harsh, since the only other remaining air to air weapon are the gunpods which then further restricts other loadouts options and don‘t get me started on the Viggen fixed gunsight. Regards, Snappy

@dundun92 thank you a lot for the manual and making it available to everyone . Can imagine a lot of work went into that one! Out of curiosity , is it a formatting problem on my side ( I had the issue on two seperate systems) with my pdf viewer or do the following 3 missiles appear only in the index at the beginning, but not in the actual Threat air to air missiles chapter? PL-5E, Matra Magic II, Matra Super 530D? They are listed , but in the actual threat chapter, they re missing completely? Instead there are the Aim-54 variants in the actual threat chapter, but those are again missing in the index themselves ? weird.. Regards, Snappy

Hey Reflected, thank you very much your reply. I understand the idea of wanting to emulate some overhead civilian traffic. How about taking one of the military 707 derivate versions like KC 135 or Awacs aircraft as stand ins? They are actually pretty close to the actual Boeing 707 airliner that flew back then. Or as another alternative, even if less similar the B-52? I mean, if they 're just meant to be able to fly high enough and produce contrails for the setting , those should work well. Kind regards, Snappy

Dear Reflected Simulations, first of all, thanks a lot for this fun and very immersive campaign! It's proving quite challenging but very enjoyable due to the great atmosphere you and Bio created for it. One minor gripe with it. I just finished mission 3 only, but I think in the first three missions already there are C-17s flying around as general AI traffic and sometimes Jester even spots them and calls them outw,which is a bit immersion breaking, since the aircraft didn't exist at the time. Maybe you could remove those and replace them by something like C-130? The campaign takes place in 1987, the C-17 had its first flight in 91 and entered service in 95, so this really is misplaced. I know you can take era-coherence only so far, and nellis ramp , plus some other stuff probably is not really like in 1987 but this one should be easy to replace. Kind regards, Snappy

No offense, but your problem was, your tests (even your updated ones) were hardly scientific to begin with ( you said so yourself in the initial post ) and you argued basically on hear - say, guessing and "everything you read about about suggests otherwise" and so on.The next question is, how would you know the Hornet performance is accurate as it is now since you seem so bent on testing by comparing? So it really is not big surprise that no one from Heatblur acknowledges your tests or test results. They would likely need a lot more scientific setup from you to do that and not just your feeling on how the Tomcat fares vs the Hornet in acceleration and so on. That being said, this thread has evolved quite a bit in its course and covered several FM points. Fat Creason stated that the FM is still being tuned, that it is work- intensive and will take time and is best done in a specific order of things. So my suggestion would be to wait what happens when the FM update gets released and not to dive prematurely into pessimism. Regards, Snappy