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

Hi Elmo, sorry for my late reply. yes the bug is still there in the latest version. I attached a track now to this message, with the Radar screen enlarged export for better view. First I demonstrated that you cant increase range settings over 80NM with the toggle switch in the cockpit, then I manually accessed the higher ranges via TDC slewing. After slewing to 320NM range I clicked the "increase" range toggle switch in the cockpit again and the range jumps down to 80NM. Hope this helps, Kind regards, Snappy RangeBug.trk

yea, like that is gonna happen.. Its so frustrating.The only thing you can do is vote with your wallet and stop buying. Regards, Snappy

Hi Bananabrai, thank you for your answers, at least points 1., 2. and 5. are a bit clearer now. 3. and 4. I’m unsure about and so far have not been able to get consistent results for those. Appreciate you answering here! Have a nice day! Kind regards, Snappy

I don’t think the 6g,7.5g or 9g whatever limit you want to use applies to configuration with the full flaps down. The flap fully extended limit is much lower I’d say and for a reason. The airplane itself stress damage modelling is good, but I think the full flaps and / or their tubing is still too much titanium like in their current implementation, in my opinion, as you can still massively overspeed and over g (6-7 g with full flaps seemingly no problem) them , often with any blocking,asymmetry or damage. Regards Snappy

Second this. Found that with the present modelling you can still often severly over-g and and massively overspeed the Flaps with absolutely zero damage/jamming/asymmetry. Regards, Snappy

No , they didn’t say anything about evidence of it actually being wired.They said evidence for 4x Harms, which it can carry.Whether it can actually be used / fired is another matter. So when do u get the conformal tanks? Hypothetically technically possible. Regards Snappy

It’s not flapless..

First of all I wrote modern BVR , not modern Tomcat/Missile...if you want a „fight“ go WVR. Do some reading before you put out baseless false statements like „It was never made to fight other fighters“.. Thats simply not true, neither for the aircraft, nor the missile (specifically the -C variant). Just because it’s constantly repeated by clueless people doesn’t make the - its solely bomber interceptor rubbish- more true. Regards, Snappy