Harlikwin

Yeah never used tho. Yeah would be nice.

Thats the thing about Afterburners... You can't actually see plume in IR at longer range. Its rapidly absorbed.

LOL, thats not even a fight. Even if it had Pirate which HB said it wont.

Yup DAS does all that. I mean the F35 is gonna be ludicriously OP in DCS as in real life. I don't really see it having any real use in MP PVP servers for this reason. But I'm sure it will be popular in PVE.

I mean but they didn't do it. Israel did tho. I mean cool if its in but like its not how the plane was really used.

Yeah would love to see iranian airbases. I mean we basically have the IRAF in DCS at this point, and well at least sorta Iraqi AF as well. So like a map for that conflict would be great.

Um well, there is an air to ground eagle in DCS already.

Maybe they will have an option to turn off the DL. That would generally help alot in DCS. But devs don't generally implement turning things off. And it really just fits that "no opfor" space in DCS which I don't really fathom why its actually popular. Like period F15 from the early 80's vs the mig29 seems like a better choice TBH.

Is there a screenshot of the map in the F10 view showing which airbases are on it?

TBH you guys should make side-grade variants of the F5 ... Like the iranian one or something. If you are redoing the cockpit anyway. Or an F5C... Same FM, remove radar and RWR... etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I used to support ED fairly blindly since I thought things would get better/fixed in the eco system, but really at some point I realized whatever is added or "fixed" is Band-Aid level for the most part, and "new" stuff is often half implemented and then abandoned for the next half-done fix. So at this point, I basically out, not buying new modules. Weather and clouds is the perfect example of this. IDK how many years ago we got the new clouds, but well, it was a graphical upgrade, thats it. There was no weather system, just templates. Which ok, workable near term but its never been updated. Last week we got the news that they added fog, and ZOMG fog might block sensors as it should. But then it became pretty clear that while fog "might" block stuff, Clouds are still transparent to IR missiles and the AI at least for now. Having been around for a loong time, I don't expect that in the next 3 months clouds will block sensors either. We will likely have to wait years more for this most basic feature that every other sim has managed to get right from the start.

Exactly this... If the expectation is that a module has 3 year lifespan or whatever for 70 bucks... Well good luck with that business model. If ED wants to keep selling the existing modules, they are from time to time gonna have to update them both in terms of 3d models but MORE importantly "systems"... The F5 radar needs a total redo simple as... I don't mind ED monetizing those redos for 10-15 bucks or whatnot however. As I recall, the F86 weight is wrong due to ammo being either not counted or overcounted or something like that. Plus IIRC the velocity of the guns was wrong perhaps. The gunsight might have had issues at one point.

The two main things ED needs to fix are 1. Core game stuff thats variously either broken, sucky or missing entirely. And thats a long list. 2. Have a consistent set of standards for modules, be that their own stuff thats fallen behind (i.e. F5, F86, huey etc) and update them. But most importantly have a set standard for sensor modeling and it needs to be a high standard. Currently the Razbam M2k and F15 and the Heatblur F4 are the gold standard for radar modeling in DCS, the F16 and 18 are nowhere near it, and the less said about modules like the F5 and mig21 the better but they are in Dire need of updates to bring their radars to the same standard on modeling as the rest of DCS. Honorable poor mention to the F1 radar as well, but at least its being worked on.

I think the sentiment has been there for a very long time, and people have given ED a chance... But the game is big on promises and potential, but falls pretty hard in terms of practical execution of many things that "other sims" got right on day 1. The complaints about the core game have gone back years and its still nowhere near what it should be and the standard "its complicated" excuses have worn thin. I'll give credit to ED for improving performance, that was a big task and they did manage to do it. But it was an existential task, if they didn't do it, DCS would be dead. Similarly improving the core game stuff is the next existential task, and the list of what needs to change is pretty large, and everyone has different priorities. I listed some of what I thought was important earlier, but frankly I have little hope for improvements on most of it because its clear to me that what I consider important isn't important to ED. But I'm far from alone in that crowd. I mean you can go back every few years and find similar videos to this, the "beautiful mess" one from a few years back has exactly the same message, fix the core game, and then there are famous former DCS celebs that have said the same thing. And yet over the years basically nothing has changed in that regard. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, for the time being I'm out of passion and support.

Since I can't seem to get a clear answer on the english side of the house for this. Will iranian airbases be included with Iraq map (they would be even in the "high detail" area).

Any word on if iranian fields will be added, they are in the "high detail" area but don't see anything listed. Major mistake if not.

Well, the MP guys care as much for your opinion as you do theirs. It is what it is. And the splitting the community thing is a real issue in MP. An easy solution would be to offer server licenses like other games do, but thats not how DCS/ED works.

There is a free reskin mod thats good. But it doesn't pass IC IIRC so no MP love.

Frankly I like the map at this point, mainly the SA portion is actually pretty cool to fly thru. But like the conflicts/potential conflicts are basically missing there. So no one really bought it or uses it for MP. IMO a good MP map needs to have the following elements: A relevant conflict (or more than 1). And the planeset to support it. Some terrain variety (hills/mountains/valleys for helos etc) A decent airfield distribution to minimize flight times for the aero-quake crowd (of which I'm part of). Cauc works well for this on the latter 2 points, and well you can at least hypothetical a conflict there anywhere from 1950 to the present. Syria hits on all 3 very well. Sinai, Well misses on the conflict thing mostly/sorta. Terrain is flat/boring Airfields are sort of ok SA Hits on the conflict but misses on the plane set. Terrain in SA is good Airfields are grim, too smol for most fast jets unless you are creative (I managed to TO/land a mig29 at each one), but well... You aren't doing it in a viper.

1) Well, the mig23 was doable for 3rd parties, and the SU-17 is also "maybe" being done by 3rd parties. Frankly I don't care who develops it as long as its good. For ww2 tho, its generally less of a problem but its head scratching why the decision to not have a coherent plane set exists. 2) I expect the 29 to have a nice clicky pit, and hopefully the old school soviet era nav system and Lazur datalink (a core feature would be interesting AI wise), its not 100% clear what exactly you are doing with (if its gonna be a export polish/german one, it might be neat to also have an option for a garmin duct taped to the hud). But ultimately where I will grade you, and alot of other people will grade you will be the Radar and EO/IRST which are very very well known in terms of technical parameters. If the EO sees through clouds for example, well game over. Similarly, the radar had various problems locking stuff in LD/SD situations due to the inadequate processor. I honestly hope you guys can do a good job on it but your track record with sensors to date is frankly poor relative to what 3rd party devs have been able to do. I understand you guys have a mig29 pilot or two on hand to help out with the finer points of what the "limitations" of the sensor systems were and what circumstances they should have problems with. Fundamentally I think you guys really need to evaluate core gameplay loops when thinking about modules. I.e. The whole chinook troop/logi thing from what I understand/hear from others is that its still a pretty big mess. But that was a "good" idea, just needs to be implemented better (And transferred to the other cargo helos). For the kiowa/gaz for example, a good gameplay loop to add to the game would have been some sort of additional "scout helo" gameplay. I.e. rather than just making it a poor mans apache it would have been good to have the kiowa be able to direct AI/player airstrikes by other units, or even call in artillery. That would have significantly enhanced the value proposition of the module. For various fast jets, well, the big thing is the air to ground or air to air "experience", and that needs work frankly as I noted above. And obviously for good MP you need some sort unit "balance" which well, finally was getting there and in lets say January I was excited about DCS. But then the 3rd party problems have really soured me on DCS.

Yeah, I mean the video and this post is it in a nutshell. I've been in DCS for like 6-7 years at this point, and in the past bought almost all the modules. But this year, its 1/however many. I no longer have any faith that DCS is gonna get fixed in any reasonable amount of time. And each year that drags on with major Core game problems further reinforces that point. Hence I've stopped buying stuff for now. Realistically the problem can be broken down into 2 categories, Core game issues and the module issues. And until most of this is addressed I'm not really buying anything new, there is basically no point. CORE: Clouds/weather: At this point the core game stuff is pretty unforgivable. Like we don't have weather system anyone can actually use because clouds don't block LOS for the AI or IR missiles. That is major fail and its been this way for IDK, 4 years or something absurd like that. And weather has major impacts on air ops, be in WW2 (love getting sniped by 88's thru clouds) or modern. Ground unit AI: The main thing here is just how units react to air attack, like no tank commander is gonna sit in an empty field with enemy air/helos around, he's gonna find cover. Nor will that commander be taking pot shots at passing fast jets, he's gonna hope they don't see him or have something more important to do. AI of this sort is not hard to implement. Also some sort of mission/kill/morale kill for units would be great. Also, giving us more relevant target types than "tonk", probably the worst thing DCS is guilty of is that the A-10 module came first and the focus was bombing tanks-n-toyotas. Whereas in an actual modern air war, you are hitting depots/bridges/C3I etc etc. Yes there can be some CAS, but the focus in DCS is waay too CAS centric. (I also realize that this is partly a mission designer problem). Air-unit-AI Its been improved lately but still pretty bad. Especially wingmen. Post above covers some of it. SAM/IADS This is a huge topic, but at a minimum fix the AI SAM guidance behaviors on a basic level so I can't abuse the existing guidance behavior which is wrong (i.e. always flying lead pursuit, so I can easily fly SAMs into the ground). There is nothing sekrit about this, documents are out there starting from the SA-2 and up through the early double digit sams. I am playing a air-combat game and a big part of that is dealing with SAMs/IADS, and IADS doesn't exist at all in DCS. Also it would be nice to have more actual relevant sams for cold war which would be pretty easy to do as the 3D models can be recycled i.e. early Chapperal, add early manpads Sa-7/redeye/Sa14 etc (who cares if you use the igla model, no one can tell from 5k feet). The CORE game is about Air-to-Air combat and Air to ground combat. FOCUS on fixing how that works. Modules: Frankly I have far fewer issues with the actual modules in DCS but there some serious general problems that need to be addressed. Coherency The biggest general problem is the slapdash plane sets. 0 coherency. WW2 is great example, you have some 1944 allied planes, a 1944 map or two, and then 1945 German unicorn planes (109K? why not a G-6?). Like who the hell thought that was a good idea? And then there is the I-16, like why? I predict that DCS pacific war will be an absolute disaster for the same reason. We have what the F4U (coming 20nevernever) by the look of it, and a hellcat... Well where is the Opfor? Back in the Day when BST was around you at least got "matched" sets of planes which was a really good idea, and I wonder whatever happened to that. Yes, Mig15 vs F86, smart... Modeling standards and parity. For DCS to be good, you have to model things to roughly the same standard across modules. I realize that this is hard and requires work, but its the only reasonable way to do things, especially for MP. Currently there are huge disparities between modules radars and how thats modeled for each jet and this leads to abuse and "gamey" tactics. The F15E radar is basically the gold standard for how modern radars should be modeled. And frankly no ED module is even close to that level of fidelity which is tragic. But its also a problem for older modules, i.e. the F5E or the Mig21 radars by 2024 standards are really poorly modeled. Frankly there needs to be a 2-3 year update cycle for older modules that brings them up to modern standards if ED expects to keep selling them. I realize its work, but probably the biggest draw to DCS is the large planeset, especially for MP. SENSORS The other major elephant in the room is sensor modeling. This means radars/RWRs/TGP's/DL's etc. Modern air combat is 100% about these sorts of systems and in general with the exception of the F15E radar and the older F4 radar, sensors in most DCS modules are really poorly done. Frankly its my opinion ED should get out of the modern jet business and focus on WW2 or Korea/VN era because its pretty clear that modern sensors are not a thing ED knows how to do. I realize you guys are "working on it" and its complex, thus far I have 0 faith that it will be done well at all. This is triply true of things like TGP's which at this point are symbiology simulators, none of the major IR pain points are modeled in DCS at all, no Diurnal crossover, no real difference between IR images for day/night, no signal attenuation due to range, ED is using a LWIR (I assume) model developed for the Apache (LWIR sensor), for all the modern jet TGP's which are MWIR with the exception of lantirn. Modern air combat is ALL about the sensors, and DCS fails pretty hard for the most part here (F15E/F4 exempted). The one saving grace I suppose is that the audience/community doesn't actually have any clue how any of it supposed to work or look. Parting shot on maps: A big problem with the various maps is that they make very little sense. And IDK why ED commissions some maps. The reason Cauc and Syria are popular are because they are interesting and relevant places to fly, plus cauc is free. But terrain/geography in a relevant place is crucial. Caucus has mountains which make for interesting gameplay. Syria, well also does in various decent spots along with a good airfield layout, plus to Ugra's credit they are constantly improving it and upgrading it, I can't really say the same for any other map (normandy I suppose gets some updates). South Atlantic: Fails because no relevant units to do the falklands air war. And while I like the map, the SA part of it, there are no good ways to setup a MP sever with em. Sinai: Fails, its a modern map for a war last fought in 1973. Literally the Dev should bust out the delete tool and look at historical sat imagery and get to deleting. I guess we now have modern conflict there, but its basically JDAM vs toyota at best, which isn't interesting at all. I regret buying it. Kola: this may end up being good someday when its done, but the actual fought over part of the map (Rus/finn border) is basically flat. Afghanistan: A map for bombing toyotas... like I don't get the appeal, nor did I buy it. Iraq map: The decision to not have Iranian airbases is mind boggling, literally one of the biggest/longest air war of the 20th century was the iran/iraq war. And DCS at this point at least has enough of the plane set to actually do it right. F4E/F5E/F14 vs Mig21/(well we woulda had a mig23 who knows now)/mig29. Instead ED inexplicably thinks bombing Toyotas is what people want... Yup fair point. ED has at least somewhat fixed the performance issues and VR is now pretty playable. As for the 29 I'm bracing myself to be dissapointed. I doubt ED will get the radar or EO/IR systems right. And if the sensors are gonna be FC3 level, well I already own that jet.

So are there any iranian airbases on the Iraq map. And if not why not. The iran/iraq air war was one of the largest/longest air war of the 20th century.

Yeah, I guess we will see how it all turns out.

I think the issue here is likely the M2k FM, or at least in large part.