Snappy

If you ask me, that is highly unlikely, besides of course the existing versions of the Su-27/33/ Mig 29. Also referring to the Interview.If they really want to target part of the Il-2 crowd with MAC, well good luck with that. DCS has so many issues right now, VR performance, multiplayer netcode issues and lag , unit visual rendering , A.I. and their flight models, weather, amongst many others I really fail to see, what would be attractive (besides the "modern" setting) to that target crowd to make it able compete with Il-2. But lets see. Regards, Snappy

Well would say that depends , the Mirage is likely draggier with AOA which becomes quickly apparent in any sustained turn.The delta gives extremely good initial(read instantaneous )turn performance, but as soon as you put and keep any significant AOA on the jet the delta wing becomes one huge airbrake .The sustained turn capability of the Mirage is not that great in my opinion. Last time I checked the hornet was still be able to outrate (sustained) everything in DCS except the Tomcat if flown correctly. To the OP, if the Hornet feels sluggish , besides controller curves/sensitivity .I would check your flying technique.Are you flying at optimum speed for what you to achieve? Are you pulling too hard? If you‘re already low on energy any jet will feel sluggish . Regards, Snappy

Honestly I‘m not sure whether the mystery aircraft question has now been answered or not in that interview.Its still all vague and confusing in my opinion.So yes Apache is coming, possibly Mig-29A too, but if either of those is the mystery aircraft..don‘t know. If it is the Apache A-Model (Mig-29 seems to be undecided yet) I wonder what all that brainmeltdown hype was about?! So they make a blue semi-modern helicopter.Ok.whats so special about it? Black Shark will have a counterpart of sorts.I don‘t want to step on anyones toes and if the rotory crowd digs it , good for them. Still I don‘t see whats so revolutionary or brainmelting about it , that ED had to hint-hype it . Its neither epically famous like the Phantom, nor capability’s-wise a blow-away like F-22/35 nor is it a type of aircraft not covered before like a V-22 or whatever. Regards, Snappy

Removed

To my own surprise I find myself for once in agreement with Zhukov..;) Regards, Snappy

What would be even more informative was if we finally got the comprehensive performance graphs - real vs DCS, which Nick Grey announced were coming some 7 month ago on Hoggit, so that every user can compare reality versus DCs performance for himself. Quote: "In Q1 of 2020, we plan to make available all our CFD calculations, performance graphs and data sets for most of our missiles and AC in DCS. We have set ourselves a hard target of delivering to you the most reliable and precise missile FM and guidance laws in order to put any uncertainty or lack of clarity to bed. This work is being done with the assistance of all our SME's and 'friends' in industry and while not all data is openly available, our aerodynamics and missile specialists will deliver a very scientific report for those of you who wish to cross-examine our calculations and findings in detail. Our goal is to move closer and closer to reality where and when possible and to deliver enhanced combat realism and customer satisfaction. That goes for airframe aerodynamics, engines and systems as well." End of Quote. Well Q1 is not happening obviously, not that that is much of a surprise. regards, Snappy

Maybe its just closer to the real aircraft, i.e. more realistic now? It used to outrate sustained everything in DCS (including the F-16 which performs apparently close the numbers) except the f -14 , which was somewhat suspect , as the Hornet is not exactly famous for being an awesome 2C rate fighter. Regards, Snappy

Reflected, would highly appreciate a Stennis version if possible somehow, even if some of the functionality or atmosphere is lost compared to the SC version. I understand the difficulties for you and the limitations of the default Stennis are an issue with ED, but in my opinion the need for additional purchases to use something entirely else should be limited as much as possible. Its bad enough that most of the WWII stuff is behind the WWII assets paywall already. I'm getting that its not always possible, i.e. campaigns on paid maps etc. But with the carrier I would appreciate if people would not have to purchase that, just to enjoy your campaign. Just my 50cents, respecting other opinions on this too. Regards, Snappy

Hi everyone, have a question for the more knowledgeable folks on the Mirages system. If I have a target locked up in STT mode (ahead of me and in range) , should the magic missiles (after selecting them) automatically be cued to the locked target (its within magic range) and only that target? Or do I have to perform another step? Reason I am asking is, that I have had the situation now several times, where despite having a target steadily locked in STT, the magic seeker head, was not cued to the radar-locked target but instead annoyingly targeted other things in front of me (other friendly/enemy AC, even missiles exhausts) by their heat source and therefore I was completely unable to fire magics at the locked target,even though clearly in magic range. (when fired the missile would go for the heat source target and ignore the radar-locked target) Regards, Snappy

Hello Reflected, thank you, that is looking very good. I like how you captured the cold war atmosphere with the bear escorting and photo ops:) and the story driven background. Can somewhat relate to Fuertes comment about the strong language ,but different people different tastes. Wanted to ask, will this be supercarrier- only? or is there going to be a version for people with the standard Stennis carrier too? Looking forward to this and even more towards your Zone 5 training campaign :)) Thanks and regards, Snappy

No we shouldn’t. Yes, cash flow should be there, but not at any price.And if people stopped buying after bad experiences the cash flow would drain. This would definitely force ED to reassess their way of doing business and they would ask themselves if they should better spend some more attention to product care. Which would finally be a good thing. People like you who buy basically everything just to support ED are achieving the opposite. This behavior just sends ED the message „Everything is fine, keep going the way you are, pump out unfinished EA products, let older products stay or become buggy, we buy everything anyway“. So don‘t expect things to change then. Regards, Snappy

? What do you mean? Those two aircraft are already announced by 3rd party and both are already in some early stage of developement. Agree with your statement of finishing the released modules before ED pushes out new stuff. Regards, Snappy

As long as needed until people stop echoing the flawed "Don't use beta then" argument.

Much as I can understand the wishing for a competative modern Redforce and acknowledging the lack of it in DCS , I really hope whatever it is , its not any other 4gen or newer ,be it Red or Blue. Because its glaringly obviously that ED is already in way over their head with their two 4gen projects and I absolutely don't see them successfully doing another. It would be literally years in developement , slow everything down even more and sap ressources from the badly needed overhaul.. So hoping for a somewhat simpler, cold war 3rd gen or something that can be completed quicker without years for DDI sub-pages, 20 radar modes and 300 mio weapon combos. But I think they probably might go again for big PR-announcement and marketing hyperbole- I.e. F-35 or something along those lines. Regards, Snappy

Yes, you should be able to display the current radar mode, if you bring up the control position indicator overlay (Right Ctrl+Enter it was , I think) On top of the joystick position indicator in the lower left is the currently selected radar mode listed . Hope that helps. Regards, Snappy

Hi Gunslinger, also regarding your first point, please note that the two VSL modes (high&low) only work within 5 nm range. But PAL mode works out to 15 nm. Just so you dont get annoyed when the VSL modes dont pick up an aircraft thats 8 or 10 miles ahead. Personally I use PAL to pick up targets within 15 miles straight ahead and once in an actual turnfight the VSL modes come in very handy.. Regards, Snappy.

Hmm is it planned to be implemented at all? Regards, Snappy

If you are referring to pumping out a steady stream of big PR announcements of ever-new and cool-sounding stuff.Then yes. However, if we are talking about actual updates regarding the progress(or lack thereof) in developement of such announced features (remember improved A.I., A.I. FM , damage models,weather, ATC , performance, visibility, performance diagrams, accurate&more complete changelogs amongst tons of other stuff?) then , no actually not pumping out of updates. Regards, Snappy

Nothing. Still waiting on ED fixing the numerous significant issues with the core before I push any more money their way. Tired of the big PR announcements and little actual progress. Regards, Snappy

We're still on version 2.5x

Did you even read what I wrote?? I never wrote anything about people not using zoom IN DCS. I wrote that contrary to your statements there are OTHER sims which implementated different rendering systems resulting in reduced or no need for zoom use. As for the ED statement that you feel you need to constantly bring up: I don‘t give a lot on what they say in that regard . They also claimed for a very long time that their implementation of the M-61 gun dispersion was correctly modelled and that they wouldn’t change it at all- until they recently had to cave in and did change it despite their statements. That’s s all I‘ll write on this here , as it‘s pretty obvious discussions with you lead nowhere.You‘re seemingly unable of respecting diverging opinions. Regards, Snappy.

To the first point: No , thats what YOU think how it’s supposed to be done , nothing more and if you think all flight sims are universal in that regard, you certainly haven‘t seen a lot of them, because I‘ve played a few where this was solved better , with much reduced or no need for zooming and without unrealistic giant overblown aircraft. To the second part, regarding scaling: Again your opinion and just because you haven‘t seen a good implementation of scaling doesn’t mean it is non-existant. Regards Snappy

Nice arrogance on your part. Even if they did, maybe ask yourself why they do?Because it maybe resembles their actual field of vision in the real thing more than the zoomed in , looking-through-the-straw thing you have to resort to in DCS to make up for the suboptimal visual rendering system we have right now? Which is why some sort of a well-implemented scaling system would be the better way to go in my opinion. The constant „ thats not realistic“ shouting is plain silly given the hardware limitations we have in this and other aspects of the sim and the many other concessions to gaming and usability in DCS. Regards, Snappy

And you have acquired knowledge and over-g as reason for structural failure in that incident how exactly? Regards, Snappy

Not sure what you mean .What do you expect to happen when the wing on one side gets blown off completely? Aircraft continues in a controlled state of flight? I don‘t think so and yes I know about the israeli F-15 that lost one wing in a collision and landed, but if you read up on that , you‘ll find that it initially went in a very tight spiral dive , plus the F-15 wing is of a different shape. Guess it depends on how much wing area is missing, there are photos of a Tomcat missing half its wing and still flying, but whole wing gone?Not sure if controlled flight is possible in that state.. Regards, Snappy