Airhunter

Well....here we go again then.

Nope.

HAH! This guy gets it. :thumbup:

Exactly that. Rigid release dates should only be published when said feature or module has been tested and is very certain to be released on that exact date.

Will we get some more base liveries with the next update as the "new ones" we got were just very slight variations of the default livery?

He's just one of those dudes who throw around some paper numbers from manuals they found on google. A very specific scenario (like 10k feet) and some specific weight. While in a real fight there is a TON more to it, that just the ideal lab numbers. If anything it comes down to pilot skill, SA and initial positioning. A 0.2° "advantage" is barely even noteworthy in any case.

I find it funny how the guys at the IL2 studio very rerely give out dates for their updates and still manage to post roadmaps and "community updates" on an almost weekly basis, keeping the community in the loop. Very little "disapointment" there. No "Early Access" either, although a different business model.

That. "Balance" should be the last concern in DCS. A faithful and realistic representation of the weapon platform and its capabiliies should be the #1 priority. If you want balance and "competitive" play, go play Rainbow Six, COD or any other game. DCS is also very limited in terms of ECM, missile and radar simulation. I do find it quite amusing how all these SATAL guys go around crying about balance and the "fairness" for their sweaty competitive scene. Please show me where the AIM54 touched you. :lol:

I do hope so as well. But it's "different teams" right? :music_whistling:

Just an engine limitation I'd assume.

Again STT isn't STT, esp. with a PESA. Older RWR's may not sense any change in PRF or frequency and thus never get a lock or launch warning. Unless you fly the 31 in real life, how would you know for a fact which mode it guides the missile in and how the scan algorithm works? This is going well into a rabit hole discussing radar theory and how RWR's work but it's not as simple as it seems, like, not at all.

Known issue. Will be fixed eventually

Not surprising at all. ED just keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over again

No, I meant like a cold war scenario. Mig-21's vs F-8's. And even on regular servers you can do well with it, just like you can with the 21 or Viggen. This is DCS after all.

Eh, not if you know how to fight properly. :music_whistling: That'll happen for sure.

I can only imagine F-8J's taking off from Heatblur Forrestal class carriers and fighting Mig-21's somewhere on the Marianas map. This will be glorious.

True, I think this is a known issue. However, the Mig-31 having a PESA radar shouldn't even spike certain older RWR's and guide the missile in a TWS-like mode. The R-33 is technically a Fox-1. While in DCS that might not be intended, in reality this very scenario is very likely. For example, during the Iran - Iraw war the Iranian Tomcats found out that the RWR of the enemy Mig-23's and 21's did not respond to the TWS mode at all. You don't really need a launch or spike warning if you know he's there and have him on radar. You need to build good SA and be aware of possible launches.

I personally think Jester is pretty decent and once you get used to him you can get very good SA and solid locks. Make sure to disable the automatic PD-STT to P-STT setting WVR in the special settings tab. He also is a fairly good missile warning systems as he call out all enemy launches even if they are below you. :D Can a human RIO do that? Nope. Instead of saying he is useless and complaining, give it a dozen flights and see if it gets better over time. It's just a completely different workflow to aircraft where you personally control the radar.

There is a big difference between an old PD dish and an AESA you'll find on a Rhino or F35. Especially the 35.

Kuznetsov should be free for everyone in my opinion.

Correct, you dont have to buy EA. BUT and that is a very big BUT, the way ED has advertised past EA modules pre-release was a huge deception. Hornet being out of EA by 2020 was then twisted in terminology and a ton of features were moved back to 2021, which essentially isn't out of EA. The Viper was supposed to benefit from the Hornet's development and be done by the end of the year. Didn't happen and is now being slowed down even more so they can work on the Hornet. All of these plans were completely unknown to everyone before they preordered and got the initial version. Funnily enough other 3rd party developers are doing a much better job with initial releases and product sustainment. Now, is this because of the team size and resource allocation? If ED can't properly sustain all these different project + the base game at the same time then that is also a problem. I can assure you that hadn't the Viper been worked on and released the Hornet would've been much further along in development. They wouldn't have made any (or as much) money doing that but that's just part of business. Also saying "uh, it's so simple, don't buy EA and you wont get hurt" is such a shortsighted statement. The core game, updates and everything else in DCS is affected by EA modules. Sometimes said EA modules break the game or cause a ton of issues for other players in the MP environment (lack of IFF, wrong datalink ID's, CTD's, lag, the list goes on). Even if you dont buy or own any of those EA modules you are still negatively affected by them, let alone all the 3rd party developers who can't push their own updates as quickly and have to rely on the EA module update cycle. I've been playing DCS long enough to know how the cookie crumbles.

Cut to 3 months later and still not even AMRAAM changes and the ever so promised new missile API. The new API is really where it's at since we need more complex proortional navigation guidence and terminal criteria. Thw 27 fam. does need a CFD rework like the AIM-7 and 120.

Hahha, this is hilarious.

Please specify. Do you fly F-16's or what to you base all of this on?

Just turn that setting off. More realistic to have it off than the current model we have now.