Harlikwin

I'd just be happy with some improvments to the Air-to-ship interactions, better ship damage models, better missile damage, specifically being able to knock out ship radars for example. Or other combat systems. Rather than the "health bar".

Yeah the whole situation is a bit weird IMO. Best guess on the corsair is that they are waiting to finish the asset pack for it, waiting on ww2 Marianas to release it, or waiting on an unannounced zero to fight against it, or some combo of all 3.

I don't think anyone really knows, there isn't much on the 530 guidance on the missile side that I have found. Though given its a 60's missile that may be the case. What we do know from the manuals is that once you are locked by the Cyrano radar there is no further change in frequency/PRF/anything from a locked up state to a missile just got fired state. So from that perspective there shouldn't be any difference in "state" an RWR could see there to indicate a missile has been fired. Other radars do other things like switching to CW illum for example for some US radars which can be detected. But this doesn't seem to be the case for the Cyrano.

I'm far more interested in the idea that the maps could be "stitched" together at some future point in time as ED alluded to in some vaguely recent update.

Well it looks like the big 4x and even 2x jumps in performance are based around implementation of NVIDIA specific technologies and rendering techniques, which ED has in the past said they don't want to do, i.e. implement NVIDA specific stuff and/or AMD specific stuff. So while I think yeah maybe there will be a performance jump, its not going to be huge. And especially since DCS is still largely CPU bound in VR in my experience.

IDK, on the whole FM debate I took his comments more as control comments. I.e. it was difficult for him to replicate the control inputs he expected with his setup in DCS. Which is something entirely different than FM IMO. What he is saying IMO is I move my controls to positions A,B,C and expect result Y. And I get Result Z. If it move controls to positions D,E,F and I can get result Y, but my controls are off from the real thing which he flew a few hours ago. And he does detail that he spent a ton of time tweaking the controls to get it as good as he could, but perhaps not good enough. And that the apache seemed to have been developed with standard "HOTAS" controls i.e. a throttle vs a collective which has perhaps led to the results he was seeing. So IDK, its a point of criticism, but IDK if its really fatal as for most DCS users we won't have the "correct" controls, nor will the they be setup "correctly" to provide the correct inputs.

So I'm trying to use this, and I get an error: No connection to DCS detected. But I can see the select WP dot... So... any ideas?

Cool thanks.

Is this a graphical thing, or it has some functional role in how the missiles work in the game?

Can anyone tell me what this means in the patch notes? Weapons. AIM-9B/P/P5 - added nozzle exit area Also do the other sidewinders i.e. the Aim-9J/L/M and the Rb24/24J also have this nozzle exit area?

This looks sweet, thank you.

No one plausibly thinks Israel and Egypt are going to war at this point, not since the Camp David accords. Syria Modern, fine thats a different deal. But this IMO would be far better as a historical map. But I get it, its easier to pull data off goggle maps to build a map, or however they do it, than try to piece a map together from historical imagery like ED did for the channel map.

Well, the post 91 mods to those would be "russian". i.e. any sort of new RWR/Radar/IRST/engines etc.

Honestly only ED really knows, and they will tell us when they do actually know. I honestly figure the political situation probably screwed them hard on lots of things. That being said certain modules are still coming, so I hope the 29 is just a delay. From what I understand of the various "legal" issues its mainly russian info moving out of russia, i.e. russian manuals being used. That being said the 9.12 29 was exported to alot of nations, and I bet German, Polish, Czech, Cuban, etc. Docs are out there. So if they can make a case of we used "foreign docs" it might fly. The other interesting "chiz" post recently was that there is apparently a real legal difference between "Soviet" and "russian" stuff in that regard. So that may actually be helpful in the sense it might be possible to do "soviet" stuff. But not "modern" russian stuff.

Depends, the issue is likely if someone is developing it within russian with russian docs. Or outside of russia, with non russian docs... Say... IDK polish ones for the su22. (hint russia never used the 22)

Sad... No one cares about maps from the 2000's... The historical map would be far more cool and relevant say from 67...

Is this modern or historical map?

Precisely. I hope its not gonna be like the gaz. Well, it could be like the gaz, but I still want an AI gunner for launching missiles while I fly the helo.

Honestly we don't really know about the numbers for the Jeff, but I imagine the Chinese market bought it quite a bit, and it seems like its a big market for DCS.

Cool, what fictional radar features will our magical AESA radar have then?

I like the look of the earlier J10A myself. As for the release, who knows maybe ED's new policy means we get to find out in the next few weeks.

IDK, the whole SU-22 thing could be resolved by either the devs teaming up on it, or doing different variants. Plenty of interest in both the late and early cold war.

How about an AI gunner? I mean IDK exactly how it works on the ED helos but it should be the same sort of thing on any helo. look here command shoot etc.

So, the J10 (early one) shares a ton with the JF-17 so they might be able to do that. There is a fairly decent J10 mod out using the JF17 as the base already. But it all boils down to the politics of how that works for them. I think they have stated they can't do "modern" Chinese planes, or "currently in service planes. So unless thats changed I kinda doubt we will see a su-30mkk or a J-10. That being said I think the flanker would sell better than a J10. They also did say at one point they got MFD burnout and wanted to do an older plane, but lord knows what that could be.

Well the guy just above showed you how wrong that was, but plenty of early missiles used vacuum tube electronics.