Terrorban

When I do a manual start-up, the autopilot button does not function in air. Is there a step specifically to turn on autopilot instrument before I can activate it? EDIT : Nevermind, Autopilot mode does not work with Air to Air Master Mode. I believe this is an intended function.

Despite how upset I am with certain weapon downgrades, I love this jet. The level of detail when using instruments is very entertaining. I congratulate Deka on making a very controversal jet possible which is not considered capable by many, even in real world. Hopefully more people are enjoying this jet like I am.

The missile has airbrakes now. It is funny how after the first burn stage, it just loses energy really fast and plops down like cartoon. I guess the pressure from the mob really scared Deka. Even after fix, I am certain that they will make it less capable than the current AIM-120 which even ED say need improvement. So much for simulation.

Is there any official statement on why they reduced the performance of the SD-10? They explained why they had to reduce the performance of BRM1.

Yeah, Dont even need to test it, the SD-10 performance has been considerably reduced. it is similar or less capable than the current AIM-120C implimentation. This is very dissapointing indeed.

Yeah, seems like they have reduced the performance of the SD-10. Will compare it to the current AIM-120C. Maybe ED had some hand in this after all.

I am now a proud owner of JF-17 module. :)

Congradulations! Cant wait to get my hands on this beautiful jet. You guys did a really good job.

I am hyped and worried at the same time with this release. The progress of this jet will define how good Deka is as a company. I am waiting to grab this module as soon as it comes out. I wish the developed best of luck with this release. Be prepared from even more crybabies to come here asking features to be toned down soon once they see how capable this jet is.

I appreciate you giving out your opinions regarding how you understand other weapons work. I on the other hand did not claim anything. I was just stating what conclusions people are coming up with besed on how they believe a similar but different weapon performs.

Mate, what you are saying is what I have been saying all this time as well. It is totally fine that the rockets are not affective against MBTs, but people are argueing that these have no AP capability and should not be effective against armor just based on how APKWS perform.

Don't bother man. Seems like these guys will only believe the words straight from the chinese military's official statement. Since this will never happen, they will continue to compare it with american weapons and then say that it should underperform by giving some random unrelated statistics. There are arguements going on about pretty much any weapon which is outperforming american ones available in DCS.

Where are all these people suddenly coming from asking to tone down the simulaton because other modules do not have it realistic enough. This is just the worried multiplayer crowd who are most likely not even going to buy the jet (since they are asking its features to be toned down). Their heads are so closed from flying the planes from the 70s and 80s that they believe that something made in 2000 should underperform those american jets even when it is obvious they do not have certain features properly simulated. I'm sure these are the same people that went crying to Heatblur to nerf their pheonix missile because it makes the jet "OP" and were rightfully ignored. Now everyone praises heatblur for their level of simulation. I hope deka do not listen to these people and mess up their reputation in the early days.

I never suggested that. Again, you are argueing the performance of one thing based on how something else performs. Now you are beginning to compare the rockets to AGM-65s. Deka already said that the rocket will not one hit kill the MBTs. These are laser guided, so they hit the vehicle directly, from the air up top. Do not know why you claim that MBTs are immune to anything lower than an AGM-65.

But ultimately you agree that the AP rocket (even though it is a photon torpedo to you) should be able to disable light armored vehicles, APCs and medium armored anti air units. I am simply failing to read, comprehend your reasoning beyond the issue of MBT destruction, which they said will be corrected, that these are not realistic. All you provide is explanation about other weapons in defense. I completely understand these scenarios, but DCS does not simulate trenches, enemies in buildings, or realistic structure destruction where most of the battles takes place. Most of the times the enemes are clumped somewhere in the open so, easy to destroy. Additionally, Since the vehicles in dcs do not receive damage to their engine, tracks, turrets or ammo, the closest thing we have is the vehicle it blowing up. So I think it is quite normal if the rocket "destroys" the unit. I agree that tanks or "MBT" should not be destroyed with these rockets but a salvo should disable them in some form BUT that is also not simulated. We cannot expect Deka to nerf the weapon to such degree that it becomes a joke why the military would even bother developing or using it.

You just want the rockets to be nerfed because the american and russian variants are not as capable while also denying the manufacturers information by calling it "fluff". Also constantly asking Deka to give you weapon specifications because you yourself do not agree with whatever is available publically. Just by defining other weapons in detail does not mean that this one should behave like those. Deka even said that they will make it so the AP rockets take multiple hits from the weak point to destroy the MBT but you keep comparing them to HE variant of american rockets. Please, explain to me exactly how these rockets should behave against Heavy, Medium and Light armored units. I am curious what vehicle types and scenarios you have in your mind.

I agree with this decision. The more options, the better. If people do not like it, they should not use it or allow it in their servers. The single player community should not be punished for some vocal people. If you can make the AP rockets kill medium and light armored targets but require more hits on MBTs then I have no problem. I was under the impression that the ground armor units do not have directional armor values modeled so the only solution was to make the rockets useless against all armor like the rest of DCS modules' rockets.

I completely understand that point. My real concern is that MBT damage is not properly done in this game. While other developers have also made sure that rockets do not kill MBT easily, that resulted in rockets becoming usless against pretty much all the other units as well. My main concern is that Deka seem to be providing the rockets that can actually be used in missions but some people want it nerfed because they kill MBTs as well. I dont think the effectiveness of rockets against other units should be compromised just to cater for one vehicle type that ED should have fixed. From what I noticed is that people are concerned about these rockets being overpowered in multiplayer, but if you look at those missions, they have the units clumped in one area with no real strategy or purpose so it's just SU-33 or A-10 just bomb spamming them. For majority of people who design and play single player missions, these rockets can be really effective against realistic scenarios where there are more medium to light armor present than a clump of MBTs. My biggest concern is how loopback is replying to these people with weird answers where sometimes it is oh we removed them, then we didnt remove them but if people ask we will remove them and then they were not even suppose to be in there, it was a coding error. Sounds more to me like they are planning to removing them for sure.

Why are people trying to hold the proper simulation back just because the other modules are underdeveloped in that sector? Why not go to your favourite module devs and tell them to improve their product since the competition is moving forward? Why are they coming to Deka and telling them to tone down on the simulation because they say it is not realistic enough without providing and sources or document evidence? I thought Deka wanted to sell this module. Removing features to please people who are probably not even going to buy the jet is not going to gain them any good reputation. I also do not like how these devs are so easily convinced by a few guys on the forum enough to force them to remove features while so many are still asking to keep it. I seriously went from being really excited about the module to if I should even bother getting it because deka might be spooked into removing even more functions and features down the line. It is unecessary headache I can avoid by not getting this module if they are so easily manipulated.

I genuinly do not care if the rockets one hit kill the big holy grail of american engineering abrams or not. All I want is to be able to attack and destroy medium to light armored vehicles with these. MBTs are useless against jets anyway so no real chellange in taking them out. So far, you guys are the only ones who offer the AP rockets that can actually damage the vehicles while other modules have rockets that do joke damage. If you nerf the rockets then it is just time wasted on developing a weapon which will not be used by majority of people. Saying that, I will appreciate modeling the rockets to their most accurate representation possible.

The developers have already said in the general discussion that they will nerf the lazer guided rockets and they seem to be blaming people for that decision.

Okay. From what I see, this is more of an issue with how tanks receive damage so it is an ED problem. If Deka are so fragile to remove the effectiveness of a weapon based on some guy just asking questions. I suppose I will have to hold off on getting the JF-17 on release just in case they start changing too much around on how the people think a weapons should behave. So close to release and the way developers are responding is making me nervous.

The DCS AIM-120C is far different from the real thing, even for a simulation. I will not be happy if they force deka to fake out their missile because it does not match with current aim 120 implementation. This isn’t counter strike where everything needs to be exactly like the other.

Thank you for the clarification. I understand better now. The tanks play a big role on this aircraft. I hope it has as much mission time as the harrier at least. I will probably use it more for ground strikes. I am also curious how it will perform with similar air to air load out like the mirage from Razbam.

All these YouTube guys posting showcase videos of JF-17. Make a startup tutorial already! I want to get clicking in the cockpit the moment I get it. Also, thank you guys for the much needed exposure.