Snappy

Spiceman, thank you very much for your super-quick reply! So am I understanding you correctly , after the emergency wing sweep handle has been pulled out and used to move the wings directly/manually via the cable system and you want to return to normal wing sweep mode , you have to move the yellow handle along its fairing arc until you find the spider detent and can push it back down into it, so that the servo system can re-engage? So the actual spider detent itself isn‘t visible from inside the cockpit, looking at the throttle quadrant- it‘s in the mechanism below it? Kind regards, Snappy

Hi everyone, can somebody kindly explain to me what exactly is meant with the expression „spider detent“ and where that detent is located(picture of it would be even better). I get that it is related to the wing sweep controls, it was also briefly mentioned by the F-14 crew on the Tomcat episode of the Fighter pilot podcast but I couldn‘t understand the explanation. It‘s also mentioned once or twice in the manual, but only briefly referred to, not in a description unless I overlooked it. So if someone could explain it to me again, that would be nice. Kind regards, Snappy

Hi, suggest you give the „Just dogfight“ servers (there are 2, one is open beta,one stable, check the server info ) a try . They each have 2 1v1 sections as well as a guns only area and are generally oriented towards quick action ,with easy jump-back in once you‘re shot down. Very fun. Regards, Snappy

Yes , fully agree with you on the training part. Right now it seems still hampered/ limited by the A.I. implementation/behavior. A while ago I played a bit with the mission editor trying to create basic BFM setups, like you mentioned, a perch or butterfly setup. But so far no success as I couldn‘t get the A.I. to cooperate reliably (so that there a training / demo value) in these canned scenarios. They seem to have a mind of their own, which is not bad per se, but unfortunately not much seems to be going in their minds... Hopefully this gets improved in 2020. Or maybe someone with better skill in the mission editor is able to pull it off, I‘m far from an expert with it. Regards, Snappy

Short question, what exact conditions must be met to refuel/rearm my aircraft?For me the „ground crew“ comm menu seems always grayed out and the crew usually doesn‘t respond , even after engine shutdown and landing on a correct/own side airfield. Do I need to be in a specific spot on the apron? I thought it worked on the entire airfield. Kind regards, Snappy

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know by chance whether the radar in the A-7 (D and E variants) had a basic air to air capability? I know its in no way a fighter, and that it carried the AIM-9 only for self defense, but I mean for gun ranging or lead computation? Regards, Snappy

I understand your confusion. Can't say why they chose this specific concept for the video,it was way before the age of youtube. Maybe to make ppl feel like they were part of a class in basic BFM. Or they tried to bring a tiny bit of TopGun atmosphere into it (there is a vague similarity to the ACMI debriefing scene in the movie ) Anyway like Sn8ke wrote, he was the technical advisor to an early (at that time for PC groundbreaking ) sim and the manual,as well as this video was meant a basic introduction into some bfm concepts I guess. Sure from todays viewpoint its looks dated and out of a place in some ways, but so do a lot of things. Not sure wether this helps clearing up your confusion:) Regards, Snappy

Contact, did you even bother to read Etirions quote?! if so, it seems you didn‘t grasp the point.. Regards, Snappy

Agreed for the most part. However apparently its what most people want, boring (personal view) fbw sensor - potent 4th gen blue fighters. As ED for one reason or another (dont want to start that discussion again) is unable or unwilling to put out competitive eastern modules , if will likely stay that way for a long time, with mostly blue force turkey shoots. But it has nothing to do with being good at it. Personally would like to see more cold war era modules , where skills and tactics matter a bit more. Regards, Snappy

You can keep testing if that makes you happy, but this is in no way a scientific or objective comparison, starting with issues like the different Aircraft versions and too many unknown variables in regards to performance. Its maybe interesting from a curiosity standpoint, but if the aim is to get ED to change the fm based on this, thats not going to work this way if you ask me. Regards, Snappy

Well Flarpt has a valid point though in regards to the core software being not very efficient/optimized for current technologies (i.e. not making use of more cores etc etc) and I also tend to agree that by now its so patched up and bandaided that I can‘t see a way to get it de-tangled and streamlined without a complete or at least major rewrite. Not seldom I get the impression that this alone is becoming more and more of a problem of it‘s own, as these patches seem to have the tendency to break other things, which then need patching in return, but don‘t get it because coding ressources are needed for money earning-new modules. So the spiral continues. Yes I know , Nick Grey‘s post about more 50% of staff working on the core...but then again it makes me wonder why so many bugs and issues seemingly languish for month and years despite being reported again and again. Plus, some of the newly announced features (e.g. new weather,A.I.) will put even more computational load on the already inefficient hardware usage. Maybe ED will cater more and more to the small crowd that can throw money at ultrapotent PC systems to compensate for the engine in order to enjoy MP or complex missions. Thats ok , if they can make enough money that way, why shouldn’t they. Don‘t get me wrong, I do enjoy flying in DCS a lot , but I‘m definitely worried about the direction it seems to take, in several ways actually.In the end, its ED‘s train set and they get to decide what to do with it Regards, Snappy

No objections from me in regards to some systems in the F-18,Av8b that clearly show their 90s/2000s heritage.But at least the M2000 and F-14 are in my opinion somewhat valid actors for a -cold war gone hot- scenario of the 80s, with the aforementioned minor imperfections and pretending. I‘m fully with you on the weapons loadout options(possible) and selective MP capabilities (Very unlikely if you ask me, too complicated and you would need alternative systems, e.g. the original 80s radar of the early F-18.) Disadvantage of the Mig-21 yes, but you will always have that in some ways.Even on the Mig-29/Su-27 , the RWR is vastly inferior to their contemporaries,say F-14 /F-15, at least in multi-threat environment it will be impossible to adequately differentiate between multiple threats . On the other hand the soviet fighters have their EOS advantage. Maybe we’re drifting too far off topic.As for the OPs question I would say it depends on how perfect era-specific you want the module to be. It you want perfect vintage cold war, there are really not that many modules,with maybe some more in the future. Regards, Snappy

One could say it was too good and bugged at the same time.Now its only bugged.Excuse my sarcasm pls. Also then simply don‘t equip the NVG. Regarding the F-14 , if I understood it correctly Heatblur stated both the A and B were late 80s (87 onwards) models (notwithstanding some of the available newer equipment for them). I think „cringeworthy advice“ overdoes it a bit.Better learn to live with some imperfections and pretense regarding cold war modules. Much as I would fancy a pure CW simulation as well, but we have a very good approximation available under the circumstances.At least thats my take on it. Regards, Snappy

ED was aware of this for years..its not like these are sudden, newly discovered deficiencies. Still these issues languished. Also very interested in the next newsletter. But then again announcing things has always been a strength of ED, I would appreciate instead tangible progress in A.I. amongst other core issues instead of nice-sounding newsletters Sorry for sounding somewhat negative, but based on past experience I‘m not getting my hopes up. Before anyone says the usual : „ some ppl will complain no matter what, unappreciative,negative nancy, bla bla...“ No, its just different ppl have different tastes/preferences and while its cool that we get a new map free of charge, I‘d rather have much improved A.I. and skip the map. Regards, Snappy

Goth hi, yes there is a button to bring up stats inflight.On my keyboard (non-us layout) I think its one or two buttons to the right of the Letter „L“ key. Sorry for the difficult description I‘m not at home and cant remember the exact key off-hand.Try the ones between L and „Return“. Hope this helps, Regards, Snappy

You can mix it up with F-5s and Mig-21 and if you are disciplined with your AOA and speed control stand a decent chance of shooting down your opponent,however you have to guesstimate lead as there is no lead computing gunsight in the Viggen.As TLTeo said, keep your speed up rather high for good turn performance or to take it vertical over the top. Anything more modern than F-5/Mig-21 , well if you‘re not blowing though a furball taking shots of opportunity or ( as TOviper said )your opponent does a silly move , then it‘s most likely going to end ugly for the Viggen. If you go for any turn fight keep a good look on your AOA indicator, otherwise be prepared to fight your engine stalls harder than the enemy jet. ;-) Still,air to air combat is a fun challenge in the Viggen . Regards, Snappy

Mirage 2000 might also be an option , introduced in the early 1980s, also a capable/ versatile aircraft for that era.However its still bugged,so depends a bit on what you expect/want from a module. Regards, Snappy

Well if all that moved to MAC then DCS in my opinion would become a very boring monotonous place ,with 90% blue 4gen in MP ,except for the JF-17 and no other red/eastern competitive fighters in sight for years..(The M2000 being often pushed to red as a sorry stand-in, in regards to its real world Customer list) Also aside from simplified system(which is not always to their advantage btw) they all feature PFMs now, so they‘re not easier to fly manually or anything.. Regards, Snappy

Actually they didn‘t really and if you cared to take a look at the mass of reported and unanswered or not even acknowledged bug reports in the mirage section alone, you’d see that its not lame by now. And dont even talk about the bug tracker on their homepage please. Yes the map developers are separate from the aircraft coders, but still razbam doesn‘t give a too good impression of managing and supporting multiple products simultaneously. Therefore asking for the next map after the Falklands/malvinas is in my opinion well premature, but each to their own. Regards, Snappy

I would even say they obviously have issues finishing / de-bugging their already released modules.Would like to have those getting their numerous bugs fixed (or acknowledged for starters) before we talk about any more new products, be it the Falklands or the F-15e. Regards, Snappy

It would be nice if the Razbam Team would at least show some presence here... Though the thread title isn‘t probably to helpful in that regard.Maybe we should open a new thread called „PRESENT/PERSISTENT MIRAGE BUGS“ and throw it all in there.Maybe thats a bit more of an attention getter.. Regards, Snappy

Except that it wasn‘t a rant at all.Actually it was rather respectfully formulated and thoughtful , but its diverging from your own opinion on the subject of course. Its a increasingly common but sad trend here in the forums, that any disagreeing or diverging opinion that is not a direct pro-ED stance is decried as a rant, negativity, ungratefulness or whatever. Instead people would do well to accept that other people have different opinions which are no less valuable than their own and sometimes ED would do well to listen a bit more to some of the critics and less to the no - matter - what fans. But I guess already this is a wasted effort.. Regards , Snappy

Top Jockey, serious question: Why are you surprised that the jf-17 (or any other semi-credible opponent) for that matter is harder to fight in the Mig-29 than in the Su-27? Or the other way around, why did you expect(if I understood you wrong,please correct me) the Mig-29 to be the better dogfighter of the two? Not trying to annoy you, more interested in your thinking. Kind regards, Snappy

Video of „your man“ s testing with all parameters visible, including Alt&OAT pls. Otherwise too many factors involved for such a blanket statement. Regards, Snappy

Ah Knock-Knock, thanks a lot for your quick reply!awesome :))