Airhunter

Can we fix tis? Like, what's the point of having an A2G radar with SEA mode if the Harpoons are literal rocks you throw at ships? This has been an issue since day one. The much older RB-04 and RB-15F missiles do a much better job at this.

That's not the point. This does NOT need a track, go use the 9X and see for yourself. Literally the easiest thing to reproduce and check. I'm currently working on gathering public info on 9X Block I performance as it is kinda hard to belive that is has worse kinematics than the much older 9M.

Maybe it could be related to chaff usage or the enemy firing weapons (as those will show up on your datalink). And honestly, on a maneuvring target I'd personally go for STT.

It's mostly the spaghetti code and core physics that affect carriers. It seems DCS has real trouble with handling moving aircraft on a moving ship.

Probably got delayed as always. Hard to take anything ED officials say seriously to be honest. I don't even blame the actual developers, just very terrible management.

Too chonky loadout.

Just did a few quick tests for drag and lift + energy retention. ISA, 500KTS TAS except for 50.0000ft, which was roughly 380ish TAS. In descending order (top to bottom), 5K, 25K, 40K and 50K feet, all straight line shots with millisecond intervals. You can clearly see that the 9X has almost identical drag and energy retention to the 9M below 5K feet and the 9M is superiour in lift and energy retention from 25K feet and up, which makes sense due to the larger fins and more surface area, assuming they use the same motor, have very similar burn times and chemical energy stored. Given this very fact one would assume the 9X would have a range advantage closer to sea level since it has less surface ares and thus less aerodynamic (induced and form) drag.

Did a few quick tests, the 9X for one has the same drag values low level (below 25K down do sea level) as the 9M, which from an aerodynamis standpoint makes little sense. But regardless, at least in the Viper the first 9X shot seems to miss pretty frequently despite being well within parameters and with good tone. Below two tacview files to demonstrate that.

Really appreciate the poll guys! Let the community decide on what has higher priority and what doesn't. :thumbup:

I am fully aware of how missiles work and are coded in DCS. See, if you'd have used the 9X yourself you'd know what I am taling about and describing. Go hop into a quick SP mission or any MP server and try it yourself. This is literally so obvious that it doesnt require more than 5 minutes of testing (which ED never does). Regardless, here is just one quick tacview showing said issue. My target did not preflare before the first launch and just did some slight 7G pulls and rolls, both my 9X's went stupid. I have more later on if I can find them. Even a 120C can hit a target pulling more G's than that...

So, I am not going to include any trackfiles as this is literally the easiest thing to reproduce in any quick SP or MP mission. The AIM-9X has been performing really terrible as of late, missing headon 5nm to 2nm shots with the target not flaring and flying straight or in a slight turn, they also seem to have higher drag than 9M's in a straight shot, front and rear aspect. CCM and seeker perform very poorly and sometimes even one flare sends it into the ground or into space. This should not be the case for a FPA seeker. Flares should barely matter unless you flood the seeker with them. So ED, please take a look at the 9X code and make sure all values are what they are supposed to be (as in, what we had last year). The 9X is almost useless now and all my friends are observing and reporting the same.

You can get 30-40nm TWS AMRAAM kills on DCS AI, so I'd assume 50nm Phoenix kills shouldn't really be a problem either. I've gotten plenty of 70+ nm kills in MP on non-suspecting targets before who only started defending 5s to impact.

Yes. And the Paveway II we currently have right now in DCS is alright for the most part as it uses a so called "bang-bang" type of guidence. The thing is, most aircraft in DCS would benefit from the GBU-24's and 32's being in game finally. For example the F-16, F-14, Mirage 2000 could use the 24 and the Harrier could use the 32, in turn adding new weapons to most aircraft across the board.

How is a publically available NATOPS info not allowed to be shared?

Knowing quite a bit about project management myself I'd say if EA products are the only or major form of revenue for ED then they'll be in a lot of trouble in the long run. As a business you should also clearly define (somewhere on the product page or in the purhase contract/terms of service) what your internal "Early Access" really means and what a product "out of Early Access" is supposed to look like and/or include. In the recent past, all these "live service" or "early access" games have mostly failed and disapointed people. Good reputation goes a long way and once trust is lost it is very difficult to restore. Just some food for thought.

Here's the deal, the Viper is currently around 95% complete for Air To Air. It has pretty much all important HOTAS functions modelled, TWS and DL (which will hopefully get fixed soon). The only thing missing would be maybe an improvement to the gloc model, more liveries and a pilot body for the cockpit. Other than that it is decent and it's core can be very well brought up to speed this year - proper waypoint simulation, offsets, TGP A2A mode etc. And given the fact its radar hugely overperforms in DCS, it is probably the best air to air BVR platform.

Legs dont move and the dude isn't even strapped in, so yeah, it's WIP.

This. 100% agreed :thumbup: And if they decide to add weapons I'd rather have them fix and finish the current ones (HARPOON, HARM, JDAM) before implementing completely new ones.

I don't want to be that guy but I kinda called it two months ago... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264685 Felt it a comin'

Well, I guess my initial concern earlier this year was legitimate. Hornet wont be out of EA by the end of the year and still be missing basic stuff like GPS/INS, GBU 32, 24 and jamming.... To give at least some feedback I'd rather see the SLAM-ER get replaced by the GBU-32 and 24 Paveway III and move up the list for this year. This should be much easier to implement and make more people happy. Unless I am wrong on this one, in which case I'd like to hear everyone's feedback regarding this.

But why, if it is marked as "fixed internally"?

Was the F-16 DL fix included in this?

Dude...this is just ridiculous at this point. Not like people are spending a lot of money on modules to play MP in OB.

Can we expect another patch this week to fix the stability, fps and the 16's DL?

We get a new roadmap every few months it seems...