Snappy

Thank you for the comprehensive update on Razbam s various developments‘ status. Nice to get an overview on the state of things. Good on the Harrier customers, they get a much deserved sizable improvement for their aircraft with the coming update it seems. What about the „big changes“ for the Mirage that you also announced would be coming in this update? Regards, snappy

Hi Nineline, appreciate that you’re being open-minded towards this and thank you very much for forwarding it to the team! Kind regards, Snappy

Save your facepalms for better opportunies.If you actually read my post I wrote "just an idea" and not "ED you have to do this" . They can decide for themselves what do with it. Besides, now matter how long you are in business, its good to keep an open mind and not get stuck in the line of "we know everything there is to know and we have already thought of every good idea there ever could be" - thinking.. Regards, Snappy

Dear ED Team, just a suggestion / idea: Given that many older modules (basically everything thats not Hornet, Viper or SuperCarrier , i.e. F-5, Helicopters ,Yak-52, Combined Arms , FC3 aircraft etc..) currently receive very little to no bugfixing much to the frustration of their customers, how about this: Designate one your (ED's) modules as "legacy" module of the month and set aside two , one or even just half a work day of your developement team's capacity to tackle the reported bugs for that module. Just do whatever you can in the assigned time. Some smaller things can probably fixed completely and bigger things , well just do what you can and then carefully document what still needs to be done for the next time. Then rotate to the next Aircraft in the next month/update. Once you been through all your modules , begin again at the first one and pick up whats left of bugs or couldnt be completed the last time. So with each monthly DCS update, one module would receive some attention/bug fixing. Believe me, this would do A LOT for the customers of that product and regain trust in product sustainment.You could even publish the order of modules in advance so everyone had something to look forward to. Plus you would likely slowly regain income from people that currently say, "I m not longer buying your stuff until you fix the my old module XYZ". Its not about how much bugfixing can be done in the assigned time in one month, its about that something does get done and that it gets done for every module when it gets its turn. Reliably. Anyway its just an idea of mine. Kind regards, Snappy

With 14G you may expect to see some serious damage. Plus, even if the wings dont come off right away, they still have to withstand the airload and flow for the remainder of the flight with their possibly severely weakened internal structure. They might still fold later in the flight. Its not like you pull 12+ G and all the maintenance crew has to do is an extended check and off it goes again. You likely have to exchange entire parts of the aircraft. Regards, Snappy

Did you even actually read Metzgers post, two above your own? The issues are so fundamental that posting tracks makes no sense.Its not like the AI has issues, the AI itself is the major issue and it has been that way for years. It should get a major overhaul and not cosmetic bug fixing. Regards, Snappy

Have you checked on ebay for used stuff?Me personally I wouldn’t be too focused on the prominent big names like warthog etc. True, quality has its price , yes, but if the alternative is throwing in the towel completely, then probably any HOTAS or even standalone USB Throttle plus Stick is easier and more fun to fly with than keyboard plus Stick. There are sometimes good deals to be had for used stuff and you certainly don‘t need to shell out north of 400$ to get a starter combo to get you going into the multiplayer game AND have some fun. I use an old throttle and even older joystick without fancy extensions or ten million castle switches and still have tons of fun. Regards, Snappy

First of all you have no idea what I do or don‘t , so don‘t make baseless assumptions. As for proof , neither do you have any, except words from ED, which doesn’t mean much either without documents to back it up and I mean for the ANG airframe they constantly point out they‘re modelling. So you can‘t prove anything either. Its not like ED wasn‘t wrong with some of their claims before, see M-61 gun dispersion issue. Also I think you misunderstood me, personally I have no big issue with you loading on 4 Harms or triple Mavericks if it absolutely floats your boat.I personally think the whole DCS realism tag should be taken less seriously. The thing I took issue with, is people acting like ED is somehow the gold standard for for module realism, as opposed third party developers, which it is not. ED takes the same dips into the hypothetical as other developers from time to time. Anyway we‘re getting OT so I‘m quitting here.Lets see whether they stick to authenticity with Scorpion Helmet sight. Regards, Snappy

You got to be kidding..Standards?As in 4 HARMS vs stick to what their modelled airframe actually carried/was wired for? Triple Mavericks? Its not like they don’t drop their standards to cater to their userbase wishes..Seriously hope your post was meant in a sarcastic way. If they push in the Scorpion I never want to hear another word about other developers Frankenplanes or timeframe inconsistencies. Kind regards, Snappy

I simply don't know. You are simply making a lot of assumptions with very little actual information or context. Plus, anyone who tries to point out alternative scenarios/viewpoints is unacceptable for you somehow to even consider.. Without regard to the above specific case: If you honestly believe that simply being in the very top of the field of any profession means that you are immune to making mistakes and/or misjudgements.. well then I'm done here.I can only say thats a naive position. Regards, Snappy

Well you obviously think he didn't. Regards, Snappy

Its another tidbit frome the Snodgrass speech QuiGon. Another thing he said he did to defeat that one F-18guy. Regards, Snappy.

Exactly. You don't know if any torque tubes or other parts broke or cracked and the maintenance shop had to put in extra shifts to get the jet flying again. Regards, Snappy.

Dear Developers of the A-4 , can't remember where exactly I read this, but I think it got mentioned somewhere, that an EFM is under developement to improve the flight modelling of the A-4. Is this correct? If so, how are things progressing if I may ask. Thanks a lot for this super fun Scooter! Kind regards, Snappy

Hi Jaguara, oops , ok got it. Somehow overread the part in the manual that stated it is only applicable to the Super 530D. So just to confirm I understand correectly , with two Super 530D loaded the HUD should always show G and D both circled, but the missile pylon selector switch in left or right position should still select which missile comes off the rail first? Kind regards, Snappy

You made that point yes, but whether you like it or not , plenty of things in DCS are based on „what if“ or similar assumptions. See the latest stance of ED on now putting 4 HARMS on the F-16. Its nothing but „what if two additional stations were wired for the necessary feed“ , which they were not in reality on that aircraft. Technically possible/ thinkable yes maybe, but purely hypothetic too. So even ED is inconsistent with its realism. So the whole „realism“ tag of DCS should not be taken too seriously. Especially when it comes to BVR where many factors are either missing or extremely simplified. Play with what you got. It can be fun and semi-realistic. If it bothers you, resort to servers/Vgroups that implement relevant restrictions if it makes you feel better. Regards, Snappy

Its hearsay anyway , same as your statement, but I heard the opposite re its (C Variant)usefulness against fighter targets. Regards, Snappy Edit: Here is Dave Baraneks take on it and he certainly would know , scroll down to the AWG9&Aim-54 combo question and its second to last paragraph. https://hushkit.net/2020/08/08/we-ask-a-real-topgun-instructor-to-rate-the-movies-realism-and-talk-f-14-tomcats/

Hi Jaguara, ah thank you very much , good to know you reported the manual issue. What about Magic and the Missile pylon selector/HUD indication? Is it buggy then? Kind regards Snappy

That war must have dragged on for some 15 years if the soviets were to ever encounter the A-10c... Regards, Snappy

Hi Flighter, wanted to ask if you ever thought about adding the free Su-25 to the 1v1 section aircraft selection? Before you fall off your chair laughing :) My thoughts are : It has rudimentary A2A capabilitiy and can even carry the R73 missile and has an internal gun with wingsspan gunsight. But my main thought was , users who are new to DCS and want to have some initial uncomplicated MP fun on your server would have an aircraft to fly ,so they can have a sneek peek at the action without having to buy a module first. Plus for the seasoned player it could actually be fun, fighting Su-25vs Su-25 , its an exotic scenario. Thanks a lot for your super-fun servers! Kind regards, Snappy

Hawkeye, OK I now understand what you mean, thanks for explaining ! Don't necessarily agree with all points , but as you said, there 's probably little use in a full blown FFvs FC3 debate. Both have their high and low points. Thanks again and have a good day, Regards, Snappy

Well either way, it would help to figure it out if the manual contained an accurate and up-to -date description how the system should work, so the user can check whether its a bug or or not.Also the Training Missions do not reflect the seeker lock-on logic but the missile selector showing what missile has been selected. Regards, Snappy

Hello ED, can we please can an update on and for this? Wags announced that the missing waypoint indication on HUD will be added almost two years ago and it still not added. As of now you cant see what waypoint you're actually flying to , based on cockpit indication in the Mig-29. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3652885&postcount=13 Regards, Snappy

Slightly OT, but: Not sure I understand what your point exactly is.. So are FC3 aircraft too easy as in too easy to shoot down in your opinion? Don't agree, highly depends who is flying them. I've met some very capable operators in FC3 Aircraft and also some not impressive ones in full blown modules.Nothing to do with the actual aircraft. Also at least the F-15 is still a very credible BVR threat.Within visual range the russian line up is not too shabby either ,except for the frogfoot of course. If you meant it the other way around, as in FC3 are to easy to fly or are point&shoot. Hmmm whats the difference to getting in my F-14/18/16/ Mirage whatever and hitting the next ACM radar mode on my HOTAS and off I go? Its not like you need to do a super complicated system set up first , likely the reason most modern fighter have some sort of dogfight quick mode or another to avoid that. Most of the FC3 aircraft also have a PFM by now as well, so they' re not game-ier/ easier to fly. Just curious what you meant exactly. Regards, Snappy

Hi everyone, before I incorrectly flag this as a bug, I wanted to ask for second opinions here. In my understanding the Missile Pylon Selector and the missile selected indication on HUD (G or D) are not working correctly. According to the manual, in Missile Pylon Selector auto mode the missile on the aircraft side which is closer to the locked target should be circled as selected in the HUD. This doesnt happen on my system, neither with Magic nor Super 530D. I placed two targets ahead of me, one at my 10 o'clock and another at my 2 o'clock and I loaded the M2000 with only a pure air2air loadout , i.e. 2 Magic and 2 Super530. With the Super530 , no matter which target I lock, both G and D are circled in the HUD in pylon selector auto mode. Selecting G or D on the Missile Pylon Selector does not manually override this. With the Magic missile selected and the Missile Pylon Selector in Auto , the left missile / G is always selected, even when the target on my right side is locked, again no manual override working. Am I misunderstanding something here or is this buggy? Kind regards, Snappy