Harlikwin

Yeah honestly this is the map I'd want most in DCS. Hell you kill 2 birds with one stone by adding the northern bit of saudi to it for DS91, 2003, and the iran iraq war. Maybe run it as far north as Amarah to keep the map size reasonable.

The point is for mulitplayer PVP servers you need some level of balance and symmetry. Modern online servers are basically blue on blue and this will only get worse as more and more modern blue jets get done for whatever reason. Its my general opinion no one is modeling the modern stuff in DCS all that well, due to lack of data, my favorite whipping boy is the typhoon for that. Compare that to the cold war jets that you generally speaking have a decent amount of documentation on things like, the jet, the radar, the missiles, ground assets and so forth, as well as having doctrinal pubs. I frankly see the chinook that ED is making, maybe some sort of marketing ploy to try to sell a modern helo "simulator" to govt clients actually. That or they already have a contract for it. Because if you really think about it older variants saw far more historical use and relevance. Which IMO is the versions that should get made. Same comment on C130. I will likely be buying neither at this point, and its increasingly true for stuff thats coming to DCS. And I'll be the first to say I would be far more interested in older versions of them. Yup totally agreed. And honestly I am excited for the Tornado even if it is a slightly later variant than I would like. Well, its not really a "problema" we get whatever 9.12 variant we get, and I'm betting it will be the export version due to the <profanity>ty world situation for ED at this point. Honestly I'm not sure the downgraded systems are all that much worse really.

Yup. This will be the future like it or not, but Devs and ED for whatever reason are way too enamored with the latest greatest most irrelevant versions of planes and helos, maybe MFD's are easier to code than steam gauges but I kinda doubt it. I mean I think I called it when I said they would model a "western" mig29... Guess what was featured in the 2023 video... Polish mig29... Western sources...

I was quite fortunate because my case had a fair amount of room so I didn't have to bend the adapter much at all, but not everyone has the luxury. I've also heard some PSU manufacturers are making whole cables that are PCIE direct to the card so you skip the adapter don't have to worry as much.

Point them to the MP server Engimas cold war... Have them check performance with the baseline control ~within 1h of reset (server resets every 4h) And then after like 2-3 hours of play. What they will see in VR is the following (shadows on) CPU frame times right after reset are "normal" ~15ms CPU render time After 2-3 hrs this will rise to 30-40ms when looking toward the "frontline" (this is terrible like 20fps in VR) However if you turn off the shadow sharers in VR, it returns to normal ~15ms... So something in 2.8 broke shadow sharers when looking at large numbers of "objects" that presumably aren't being cleaned up

Have you seen the community VR hud upgrayde?

Did you watch it? there is polish 29 there... Hmm ED cant do russian stuff... Guess who else has docu-mints?

Yeah the IR missile stuff aside from the 9B needs to get fixed/updated. As well as the radar. Hopefully both come with the EE.

Heh, thats the new DCS tanker. IRAF 707

2023 video is coming soon enough, so maybe it will be in there.

you need the new beta version.

you gotta put the piper on the orange radar square

They probably could get J docs, and not E docs. Plus france operated the J (ish)

You will have to dogfight the old fashioned way komrade.

Yeah N003. We're not getting an MLD, it will be the iraqi modded MLA, which had a few upgrades from the MLD (RWR, flares etc) Best guess is 2023 or 2024. The Eagle still isn't out and most likely their coders are busy with it. So likely a limited coding effort till the 15E is out.

Yup 100% true. I honestly don't want to see a F4G in DCS at this point. Not until we have some better radar and actual SAM and IADS simulation.

It seems like this thing without fail 100% detects all missile launches and shows that nice "yeet" track as it comes at you. The reality is that MWS systems do miss launches with some level of frequency and also have some level of false alarm rates IRL. This MWS seems very arcadey in comparison. And I assume the case is the same for both the Apache MWS and the A10C system. Perhaps a user defined slider would a reasonable way to address this since I doubt actual real world documentation on these systems under combat conditions exists. Aside of course from the recent unpleasantness that we can't discuss, but there are plenty of videos of helos going down there that should be equipped with President-S which our MWS is "loosely" based on.

My two cents on this from a PVP perspective. The 530's are kind absurdly over modeled at least based on their actual historical performance. But thats an ED problem with many missiles. But if you are doing PVP with the mirage I find taking the EM and using it for the close range head on shot is pretty effective. For BFM, I think the vast majority of F1 pilots are being stupid and take drop tanks. Like you literally want to be at like 50-70% fuel when entering the merge not 100% you are vastly too heavy. I honestly prefer being at about 50% or less. Vs the mig he has a better TWR and will out accelerate you and regain energy far faster, so you have to be smart and hopefully try to kill him quick cuz you will likely loose an extended fight. VS the F5 its a more even fight if you are light IMO, I try to use vertical as much as I can but its down to pilot skill. Luckily on ECW there are plenty of low skill F5's.

Honestly for me the bigger thing is the state of clutter not really canging at all. Basically its a pulse radar with MTI processing when looking "down". As such even at a basic level when looking "up" there shouldn't much in the way of clutter (there is IRL from clouds and such but thats not what this looks like). Similarly when looking down there should be way more clutter, as well as more clutter at low alt (or at least range reductions etc). Plus at least from what I have read, the Cyrano IV was never that good in look down and it seems to work pretty well. And really adding the cage/uncage stuff for the IR missiles seems pretty straightforward as well. They did a fantasitc job on the 9B IMO, but like where are the fixes for the 9J/P/juli and the 550 (and now magic II).

Guess we will see how it all ends up.

I mean thats not really how it worked. ED got a AF contract to make the A10C, they didn't randomly decide to "uplift" anything. That being said sure it would be great to get some flankers or fulcrums in the game, but I don't see it happening with the current geopolitical situation.

What prior example of FC3 module being made FF? And don't say the A10C cuz it wasn't.

When flying online from an autostart, using the HMD the shkval will be correct in azimuth, but elevation is point into the clouds when I designate. I can slew it down and its roughly where I need it but its absolutely whacked. No issue when using the hud to designate, just the HMD. And it only happens online with the AutoStart. I can fly offline (hot start) and its fine. Its either bugged, or autostart is missing a step.

Yup 100% agreed

Cuz ED would have to add all that code to flaming cliffs, which isn't happening. The existing J-11 is basically a re-skin/minor 3d work on the actual flanker. Its using the same exact code as the rest of FC, and ED isn't gonna sink any more resources into it.