Wolve03

Guess I am late to this discussion, but if you have the inclination, do consider getting a helicopter during the sale. They are a different beast altogether and quite fun to fly. In multiplayer, if you get the right group of people, it's fun to find and mark targets, or do scalpel work. The physics are awesome and you would be put much closer to the action. I have owned the Ka-50 since BlackShark and it's still a blast to fly!

Worrazen... relax mate. ED has more information than us, and has probably planned this better. We worry because of our own selfish interests but ED is doing MAC specifically because of their own financial interests. You need to be strong and alive, to be able to churn out new products, many of which require a good amount of investment. DCS is ED's product, their brain-child. We love it because it lets us be something most of us are not... fighter pilots. And while this relationship works because ED produces something we buy, it's such a small community that the expenses can't be covered just by relying on us. ED has never done a "service" model where they charge us monthly or something... we buy a module and can keep it forever (of course not "for ever", but you get the idea). ED would need to make the game appeal to the masses to get some revenue in, and based on how the future looks, they will make their decisions accordingly. And let's be honest... DCS is a very niche community. And not everyone has the time or the inclination to go for full fidelity modules. I have faith that ED won't directly abandon DCS as it probably helps with TBS. But how the money would flow... let's just leave it to the decision makers. What we should do is voice our sentiments and feedback, and trust the developers to continue supporting the game as they have done for more than 2 decades!

(Possible Bug) - Compass stuck on take off, if starting cold and dark F/A-18C, spawned cold and dark on the ground. Got the aircraft loaded, manual start, compass working during taxi. And then stuck as soon as I took off. This includes compass on the HUD, HSI, SA pages... all. HUD is also stuck in updating target boxes on the HUD. Same issue with the HMD. Uses the HUD heading as reference. Tried again, 3 times with auto-start, and same results. Fully reproducible on my end, testing with a cold ground start. Both in MP and SP. Started hot on the taxi way, works perfectly fine. Compass working through taxi to take off and beyond. couldn't test in combat due to time constraints Does someone else also see this issue? EDIT: v2.5.4.29079

The most heart-wrenching part is seeing 60 dollars in bonus points, being unable to use them, and knowing that they would be wiped clean in a few months' time. All this after already having lost a fair amount in the past, and having supported ED with multiple games and modules through LOMAC, FC, and DCS:W. @NineLine ... any plans to convert bonus points to ED miles? Or allow a one last hurrah before we lose the bonus points for good, by allowing us to use the points for higher discounts? Pretty please???

Well, the datalink is handled in the Ka-50 by allowing the pilot to select their status (leader / wingman) and their number (ID) [1-4]. Yes, conflicts can exist, and we need to use separate channels but I think something similar could be used for the F/A-18C as well. Perhaps not in the cockpit (apart from freq) but in ME or on the join menu?

@OP... Remember that the RWR also has blind spots (true for all aircraft) and takes time to update (something to remember in the F-18)... so the azimuth can be a bit off when you are turning. As for human opponents. MOST, but not all, Red fliers like to fire off an ET at long ranges. It won't give you a launch warning, and is passive (IR) guided. Use the Mk I eyeball to spot that launch smoke!

The F/A-18C still has a lot in store (pun intended). We will get more weapons, and more sensors. The JHMCS is WIP and only supports the AIM-9X right now, but will eventually allow us to target grounds points as well. We will get the LITENING and ATFLIR pods too, as well as Harpoons and Decoys (ADM-141 TALD)! :D @OP... I have flown the Russian birds excessively. If you go the FC3 route, the Su-25A is not a study-level sim, but much more fun to fly than the Su-25T. Finding and engaging targets is more difficult as it does not have SHKVAL, but it's faster and more agile. The A-10A is simpler, but not study-level either. When you come to study-level, the A-10C and Ka-50 (helicopter) are classic modules now. The A-10C is better in terms of sensors and weapons. If you want a full multi-role modern aircraft, then the F/A-18C is a very good option as it's a naval asset and can do A2G and A2A quite well, but won't carry as much A2G load as an A-10C. The Viggen and the AV-8B NA are both good aircraft, and if you are into helos, you could also look at the Gazelle. What module you go for next, would be driven by what your favourite role is... air combat (fighter, interceptor, CAP), ground attack (CAS, SEAD, Deep Strikes, pinpoint strikes), or helicopter / non-combat support tasks. Heck, if you want, DCS also has dedicated trainer and stunt aircraft now! And DCS also covers different eras (WW2, Korean / Vietnam war eras, 80s and 90s...) If you want a glimpse of the "unofficial roadmap"... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893 The F-16C Block 50 is planned for this year ;) EDIT: remove extra lines. And just noticed that you bought the F-18 already. Enjoy the Hornet! SA Page comes out this week!

OR... just replace the sound and the wallpaper for the module you want to replace. I am not near my computer at this time, but I think it's stored for each module (under Mods, I think). EditorMusic is the theme for that module, and the wallpaper is stored under Skin or ME. I will check once home and update

The Ka-50 as well. But you need to ask the ground crew to set it up, instead of the HMD

I come from the Red camp (~15 years), but have been flying the F/A-18C exclusively for the past 5 months. I will say this, on the topic of missile performance in DCS... Missile dynamics are a lot better since ED implemented "adaptive proportional navigation factors". Before that, however, they had already disabled lofting for R-27 and R-77 missiles quoting realism. Yes, we cried and complained, but we learned to live with it. Yes, the dynamics need to be updated, and I believe ED are already working on the physics portion of it (guidance and navigation are separate), but there are limitations, both computational and that pertaining to classified "military" information. Also, not all changes are for balance. I agree with GGTharos on the point that missile trajectory can be calculated, and the effect of wind, air resistance etc. modeled for the sim. BUT, I also agree with RShackleford on the point that not enough is being done in this regard and missiles continue to be unrealistic. DCS continues to grow and use the hardware better so looking at where we come from, we should see advancements in the future. But before we delve into what's "realistic" or "unrealistic"... I have another question... if we look at recent and past conflicts, how has the performance of A2A missiles been? An AIM-9X missed an Su-22 in Syria, using cold-war era flares ... almost all US A2A engagements have mostly been against lesser equipped nations flying older aircraft. Depending on the source, the reported Pk of AMRAAM varies quite a lot but is upwards of 60%. Can we say the same in DCS? Real-world pilots use better tactics and value their lives. Players in the game know and understand how the missile's guidance logic would work and use it to their advantage when avoiding missiles. So, when modeling for a sim like DCS ... Should we consider anecdotal evidence when we gauge a missile's reliability and performance (and if yes, then which side's?), or the manufacturer's charts (marketing comes into play here), or the publicly available information (news and other media; which can also be biased), or flight manuals (which are available online, despite other "classified" intel)? Heck, there have been articles on the Internet claiming how a MiG's radar conflicted with western missile datalinks... what do you use as the basis for your modeling? CFD calculations are only as good as the model, but do we (civvies) really have laser-scanned models of the missiles (I admit, I could be misinformed on this one)? If we are going into realism then, kinematics aside, there's plenty of other factors which also come into play which would affect the actual Pk of a missile. Jamming, being the first of them... and DCS truly lacks a good EW simulation. The Jammers are simplistic, at best. Then you have radar modeling ... we don't consider conflicting frequencies or reflections. A lot of it is done simply to make the simulation playable on a desktop computer, and retain the "entertainment product" part of it.

There was a post by Nineline on a separate thread... https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3747310&postcount=16 One of the important points was that MAC will have separate smaller maps (NineLine did say that he was not 100% sure on that). Considering that... MAC and DCS:W may not really work together. Then you have the obvious debate on how MAC-level and DCS-level modules of the same airplane would compare to each other. Currently, it's on the mission makers to specify the aircraft and maps.

And that, my good sir, is why I am concerned with MAC. Modern A2A combat (as it currently stands) is mostly Blue Hi-Fi modules (F-15C exception) vs Red FC3-level modules. If MAC goes its separate way (which seems logical due to the map / asset differences), I guess the red fighters still have to stick with FC3 anyway, making MAC useless for us "veterans". I feel that it will be similar to the debates we have on OB vs Release... now compounded to MAC vs FC3 vs DCS:W. Should we not instead work on having something which brings the community together? rather than dividing player bases and letting them play in their own groups? Pure MAC players won't get to know about the hi-fi modules and may not even look at them.

Here's what I feel... MAC is a good entry point but would work best if supported by good advertising. Most of the folks here are right in saying that if a player has War Thunder or other sim-cade games, why would they even consider MAC? Will they even KNOW of MAC? Who really buys and reads magazines? The simmers will have their own sources, and the sim/arcade players will likely follow their friends or online "influencers" or whatever. The other games are visually more stunning, with dramatic voice-overs (which adds to the "dramatic" feeling of air combat) and don't try to dive into the sim side of things. Trying to emulate them would result in DCS losing its heritage and its special personality. Plus... most of the RedFor aircraft only have SARH missiles... that's gonna be an eye-opener for arcade gamers! Many of us have been associated with ED since the Flanker / LOMAC days. We progressed over the decades through FC, FC2, DCS Black Shark, and are now on DCS:W. I hail from the Red camp and have been an FC3 user primarily because of the modern Russian jets. I do know how different it is to fly an Su-33 vs the F/A-18C! And that's why one of the concerns I had was with the possible case of a server having both MAC and DCS-level versions of the same plane... the MiG-21, F-5 or others. The MAC version would definitely have an advantage due to it being simpler to use. And if you don't allow MAC aircraft on servers with other aircraft, then we lose the ability to have battles between Blue and Red aircraft! You would still need your Su-27s and MiG-29s and Su-25A/Ts to present opponents to the Blue Forces... but should you disable the other airframes? And if we disable the other airframes... what's the difference between FC3 and MAC? MAC makes sense for ED as it allows them to diversify a bit. But we, as the DCS community, need to think of how best it integrates with our servers, maps, games. If MAC has small sections of existing maps, I doubt that strictly MAC players will be able to join our servers. DCS + MAC players will, but that doesn't help the new MAC players, right?

Sorry gents. I am gonna have to withdraw my application for Red Su-33. Work has come up and I can't confirm my attendance for the day. If I do get available, I shall gladly stick around as reserve. Thanks!

Wolve - Su-33, please What's the mission time and weather? I understand that wind is 0 m/s and both carriers are moving at 18 knots, perpendicular to the transport ships.