Airhunter

Can we expect a preview video or some pictures before it comes out on the 14th?

А какой у вас ХОТАС? Попробуйте настроить оси по крене и тангаже гдето на 20 - 25 в право. Я годами летал на Т16000М, без проблем и етими настойками на оси. Недавно перейшол на Вирпил и летаю без виртуалъных осей в ДКС, по скольку этот ХОТАС механический. 29-ку вообще то надо летатъ не как Миг-21 или другие самолеты, а с малыми отклонениями РУСа на посадке и взлете, и активным, постоянным тримированием.

Ok, got it. Thanks for the work then.

Wasn't this supposed to be fixed in the last update? Unless it got left out as well.

1) What? 2) The argument was about the 54C. And it's not like the 54A and C doesn't already go active in TWS or off the rail with pre-defined settings. It was a matter of whether the 54C does said thing in STT and TWS, given track memory, an INS and everything that is known about the 120A. Since the 54C is basically an entirely new missiles, apart from its shape. No one was even remotely making an argument about the 54A, which HB have plenty of information and documentation on to know how it works (albeit, they did misinterpret a few things in the past leading to some more recent changes or things simply not being possible in DCS). This also isn't a question of opinion or proving someone wrong but about credentials - you have none, you are not a DCS developer, nor do you know what you are talking about 69% of the time. If you have some real world test and eval. data on the 54A Pk, specifically the Mk60 motor (not a seeker, so I have no idea why that would matter) and launches feel free to share them with us. You are literally applying some competitive game logic here to fit your playstyle and because you can never admit that you re wrong or adapt your tactics. Me, including many others have offered you to hop on voice and show you some tricks, tactics etc. on how you could improve but you have never accepted those, which only shows your stubborness and unwilingness to learn. And this is coming from a guy who mainly flies Mig-29A's with 6x Archers or Mig-21's with 4x Aphids in DCS PvP with decent enough success rates against pretty much anything, including F-14's. It's a matter of mindset my dude. When I first got shwacked by a Phoenix online I didn't go on the forums and whine about it, I watched back the tacview and asked myself "what could I have done differently here" and very quickly adapted my tactics. Never have I died to an AIM9X, ARMAAM or AIM54 and did not think "well I clearly f-ed up here and it was all my fault". You can't just expect to always have the technological and kinemtic advantage over the enemy where you just fly straight at him, press one button and kill him without ever being in any danger. I know this is really off-topic now but given the original subject has sort of came to a halt I think we can just clarify a few things.

Not all opinions and thoughts are valid or should be respected. Facts and reason stand above everything. EDIT: if only once said individual would have provided factual evidence / proof of the claims he was making people would react much differently and take him seriously. In fact, I have provided plenty of counter-evidence, which he simply dismissed and just called me names in DM's. The bugs that were known and repdoduced were already fixed by HB as well - namely desynch and the TCS silent launch.

That is true. It just gets old after you keep telling the same story for over 2 years.

Can we like yeet this guy? He was already banned from most DCS discords.

Uninstall.

Personally I don't really see much of an issue with this. Instruments are perfectly readable in most conditions I came across.

Agreed here - much rather see the Intruder before the Typhoon. And probably before any other module they announce next.

Personally I don't care about the shore / USAF versions. Anyone can land on a runway, in his sleep, with half a wing. If they do the 4J/S we can actually have both worlds in the form of VMFA and VFA squardons. So I guess if you want to get really nit-picky about foreign versions, a2g armament and whatnot there is no reason the J and S, potentially even the B, would not fit both worlds. Nothing is stopping you from not flying a J from a boat.

Я вчера летал на 29-ке в онлайне (Гровлинг Саидваиндер), садилса около 10 раз после возврата на базу как с оставшимися подвесками так и без, все посадки получались мягкими и без какиг то проблем. Перед этим я не летал на 29-ке около 1 года. Просто надо летать по описанных процедурах в руководстве пилотирование и летать на правилных скоростях - тогда и не будет колбасить и не будет головоморочки. Тримирование по тангаже также очень важное. По моему мнению на этом самолете летать в ДКС очень легко, если есть понимание аеродинамики и пилотирования.

To get back on track and stop arguing about missiles again, hopefully we'll see something on the 29 at the end of the year.

Sure, MLA/D were good but keep in mind those would face Tomcats and Eagles at that point in time. The late F4 wasn't the main a2a platform anymore. And even then, the F4's had some advantages in avionics, electronics, SA and missiles - IF they used the 7F and potentially M (which I dont know given the timeframe). The F4J/S was also very capable in most arenas, reltively speaking and it would come down to pilot skill, tactics and relative WEZ's. The ML/MLA aero. manual is out there and available so there should be no speculation anymore. There is a reason why the VVS did not actually get any off the line MLD's and the Mig-29 prodution soon replaced it. It was mostly outdated the moment it appeared.

Why are we talking about the Mig-23 here?

Forrestal. Definitely the boat.

The OCT 14 should be the big one. Fingers crossed, unles history repeats itself again.

You seemingly ignored what I wrote beforehand. But anyway, let's get back on topic, shall we?

Ok, and?

Only with certain store configs. EDIT: Point being. You can NOT just make up anecdotal performance or have test data and charts open for arbitrary interpretation. NATOPS procedures and limits are often written in blood and there for a good reason. And SME feedback or comments can also often be wrong based on the timeframe and fleeting memory. A YT video is all but scientific, factual evidence and a very rough estimate at the very best. Numbers make airplanes, not imagination.

Yeah but the Hornet has an APU.

Yes and your post was overblown, inaccurate and no one even remotely said or acted in a manner which you described. Also, last time I checked the actual developers are in fact not reading the forums, let alone the english section. All people were asking for was a Wags style "mini-update" on what is currently being worked on and when the laundry list of advertised features can be expected to be fulfilled. Only getting the same answer for over a year of "the team is working on it" or "ready room and hangar are being worked on" - while people in here were asking for compelely different features which are much more relevant to flight ops and base functionality. Imagine you send in your car to the shop to be tuned and fitted with a new sound system, you then call them up to ask how said things are going and they start talking about LED lights and new tires. Clearly we aren't on the same page here. I personally bought the Super Carrier module after seeing the relatively short "during EA" laundry list of features and thinking "surely this EA period will be short as there isn't a whole lot left to finish after initial release". Clearly I was wrong.

Ok, all of what ED is doing is wrong and stems from some random document they found where detecting and shooting down missile was described. Like GGThanos has said, this simply isn't how even older missiles are programmed to work because if they worked in this manner the Pk would be much lower and glide decoys would be the primary way of defense. There is exactly 0 chance where a Phoenix matched the doppler and range gate of a hot aspect Tomcat at the same time, at the expected range. We actually know the physical properties of the Phoenix and its radar dish so a fairly good RCS estimate for x-band can be calculated rather easily. Right now however, I see people defending S300's and SA-11's with AMRAAM's online with ease. An active missile you just fired on a fighter should not be switching targets onto the missiles the enemy fighter has fired on you, even when active - unless it somehow happens literally at the moment of separation in a window of less than 1s. where it won't really matter.

Correct.