Snappy

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

Deleted

welcome to modern BVR.. Regards, Snappy

Of course I know they test stuff there probably all the time, but usually for something big like the next gen air dominance fighter, there is an open tender with a specification and the usual candidates (LM, Boeing, Northrop) battle it out and one gets the contract and more or less secretly builds and tests it, see the Next Gen Bomber/Raider project or T-X The article isnt very specific, but that they apparently already decided on a definite aircraft and got it flying is what surprised me.. Snappy

Hey everyone, still trying to get a grip on dive precision bombing and have a few questions.I read the manual on it and also watched some youtube tutorials, but some things are still not entirely clear to me. Maybe someone here knows how to do it reliably. 1.) When in the dive and after marking the target by trigger unsafe, afterwards should I keep the pipper/dot centered on the target all the time or can I let the nose drift up "past" the target and wait for the release cue? 2.)When do you actually pickle the bombs? I understand when the flashing "wings" appear for 0.5 seconds to pickle. Is that correct? 3.) I have trouble understanding the pull up cue circle .Sometimes it appears below the pipper, down where the horizontal range bar is- what does that mean? I m certainly not supposed to push down and steepen the dive ? At other times the pull up circle appears above the pipper which is good, but immediately jumps down again to where the horizontal range bar is. Why that? 4.) The target spot which is marked by trigger unsafe, is it where the first bomb is going to hit or is it the center of the bomb group/salvo. 5.) Is there an optimum speed for dive attacks? Most videos seem to be in the .7-.9 Mach range. Thanks a lot in advance, Kind regards.

Hi, interesting article: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34030586/air-force-secret-new-fighter-jet/ First thought of April 1st, but seems semi-legit? Kind regards Snappy

OK I tested this some more. Its a bug in the animated toggle switch for radar range increase , decrease.If you use the actual switch via mouse click on the radar panel, it does not increase Range above the 80NM setting and if you have a higher range already selected and click the "range increase" switch , it jumps back to 80NM. But if you assign keybinds or hotas to the radar range increase/decrease functions the system works normally as it should, when you prese the keys or HOTAS buttons. So the actual switch in the cockpit or the logic behind is bugged. Regards Snappy

Can‘t tell whether you‘re trolling or just being sarcastic.Did u actually read the thread.Theres a lot more functionality missing than just two things. Regards, snappy

No, Razbam should focus on the products they already got the customers money for and which are not matching their sales description. regards, Snappy

Hmm, maybe its the click-button on the radar control panel then , thats not working correctly .Because I operated with the mouse via the clickable button in the cockpit and I checked my HOTAS assignement , I have nothing assigned to radar range increase / decrease , so there shouldnt be any intereference.

Hi Jojo! very strange, I'm on open Beta too. I have no problem with 80NM being the maximum detection range, as I wrote its reasonable, even 65NM as mentioned in the tutorial for High PRF. Can check, but I don't how or which HOTAS button could interfere with this range setting. I use a standard castle switch for TDC slewing.And the TDC is not moving by its own. Just to confirm, starting from the smallest 10NM range setting, you can select up all the way up to 320NM range by only using the range increase / decrease selector switch on the radar control panel on the left side beneath the throttle , without ever touching your HOTAS or moving the TDC? Kind regards, Snappy

Hey, thank you very much, I hadn't thought of the DO function, makes somewhat sense to have the higher ranges for these. Re 3.) I suspect a bug by now, its reproducable for me and did some more testing, whats even stranger, if you have selected Range 160 or 320NM (via TDC slewing) and then press range increase switch (yes increase!) the range jumps instantly back to 80NM. Regards, Snappy.

Hi everyone, I have some problems understanding the M2000 radar.First of all, why does it have selectable ranges of 160 and 320NM, when it can‘t detect anything even remotely that far out? The radar training mission mentions a max detection range of 65NM in High PRF, which seems reasonable. Under optimum conditions I can detect bomber sized targets at around 80nm headon. But beyond that it becomes useless, so why are these range selections available if they can‘t be used? Could imagine its for datalink targets, but then again the M2000 doesn’t have DL capability, does it? Next question is, the radar training mission (NTTR version) mentions 5NM as the smallest selectable range, I can‘t go below 10NM. Is it an error or is that poorly worded , referring in reality to the close combat modes? Last question, why does the radar range increase selector knob stop working at 80NM?If I want to access the above 160/320 NM ranges I have to slew the TDC cursor to the top of the radar screen. Is this a bug or system design quirk? Kind regards, Snappy

Really, I wish you would stop defending their behaviour. If you want to call insulting customers and simply deleting critical posts or questions "communicating", well then yes, they're communicating on Discord. Great.. It would do you and ED much better if you came out straight forward and said sth like : "Razbam botched up the communication and Harrier out of EA-thing big time & we will straighten them out." This ongoing defense of them and downplaying of serious customer trust issues is really not good for EDs image as a "parent" / distributor of their products. I also can sense you getting increasingly annoyed with this thread and as a human being of course you only have a limited amount of patience, but the same applies to the customers in regards to Razbam. Regards, Snappy

Thank you for answering BIGNEWY. Yes looking after support forums is not easy and resource-intensive, but honestly, that is the cost of doing business. If a developer is unable to meet that requirement and provide adequate customer support in the official Forums, I think then its best for them not to be in business at all, and this should also be one EDs requirements for any 3rd party developer. If you sell any products in the real world, you also need to have someone picking up the phone and answering customers questions or complaints.Even if its annoying and the person handling it could help in production. If you dont, you will run into trouble pretty quickly with customer proctection laws. Regards, Snappy

Well you have to wait for Flighters official response, but personally I dont think this is a good idea. The servers are already less populated then they were and if you now use DLC maps, it will further split the community, excluding all those who don't have the required maps. In my opinion the good thing about the JDF Servers is , you can just jump in, have some quick fun in almost every aircraft and so there is very low bar of requirements to meet before you can join the frag. Maybe when the 2nd free map of the Pacific regions comes out, the two free maps can be swapped in intervals. Regards, Snappy

@Nineline&BigNewy, I appreciate you jumping in here and trying to get a hold on bug control, but apart from that I‘m still waiting to hear officially from you and even more ,directly from Razbam how the communication with customers will be adressed. Their customers service is really non-existent here and has been for long time and these are after all the official support forums for DCS products. The only time they really engage here is to show off ever new products in their pipeline and that doesnt count as customers service or product support. This behavior was their standard long before Decoy left so they can‘t blame it on his resignation. They also can‘t blame it on lack of manpower, because they obviously have manpower to actively manage and post on FB and Discord (where , as has been correctly pointed out, they can conveniently delete critical posts or questions/bug reports) While generally I have no issues with Developers using other social media as well for promoting and support, I do expect at least equal presence and product support support in the official forums. This is clearly not the case with Razbam. So as a paying customer(well they already got my money) I do expect this to get adressed here officially and have customers informed how this is handled better from now on. Also an apology from Razbam would be very much in order, but I won‘t hold out for that.. Regards, Snappy

Considering that ED gets a share of the sales and generally seldom misses any opportunity to tout the high realism of their Sim and the modules, I‘m disappointed. Primarily with Razbam for the abysmal communication and interaction with their customers here, for a long time(long before Decoy left) and secondarily with ED for failing get Razbam to meet a certain minimum standard, both in regards to product as well as communication. I hope at least the latter changes and that Razbam gets a stern talking to from ED.. Regards, Snappy

As far as I know they had the Aim-9P and earlier Sparrow variants in use around 1981 already.