Xhonas

FC3 Is probably amongst ED all time best seller modules. And i disagree that it wouldn't be profitable. Having simplified avionics means that the development time would be shorter, so they can develop more planes, sell them in a pack for 79,90. Some jets are highly anticipated by the community, and given the popularity of FC3, i believe that low fidelity jets have the potential to be very profitable. And i agree that the point of fc3 is not to bring classified jets, i'd be happy to have more early cold war jets and other variants of existing jets, like in said in previous responses, Mig-25, Mig-23, F-15A, F-16A, since developing those jets in the full fidelity form wouldn't be viable.

Yeah the Flanker is a though one, tho i would love to see a Su30 making its way into the Sim. But other variants of the Mig21, the Mig23, Mig25.. those are much more likely to have available information to be developed. And as i said in my OP, would be nice to also have other variants of the same jet. Why not have a low fidelity F-16C blk 30... They could make the same thing they are doing with the MiG-29 now, make some adjustments to the systems / 3d model and use the current flight model as a baseline and tweak it to reflect a blk 30 model.. We have a FC3 15C, we could have a 15A, etc etc... I'm not saying that "its so easy just do this and that", but i'm sure that would take a lot less time than developing from scratch a study level jet.

I'm aware of the other games, but i'd still prefer to fly those jets in here since DCS is more of a simulator and less of a game. I believe most people would love to have more options for redfor aircrafts, especially in the lower fidelity form, since this lower the entry barrier for many players. I know a lot of people who main NATO jets and refuse to fly with Redfor aircraft because they are more complicated / have a different hotas philosophy compared to Blue aircrafts (like the Mig21 or Ka50). Having lower fidelity options would attract players like those i mentioned and would be an insta buy for players like me who enjoy redfor aircrafts. As i said in my post, i'm part of a group with more than 100 membres, and basically everyone agrees that we should have more low fidelity jets, the group is diverse, with lots of casual players, competitive / tournament players, hardcore milsimmers, i know its a small group when compared to the whole dcs community, but still, given how well FC3 sells i believe it would be profitable enough to be viable for ED to develop. Not having to model all the systems, startup procedures and clickable cockpits would shorten a lot of development time. Making the cockpit and 3d model is the "easiest" part, as many artists have already said that those are complete long before the module is ready to be released. Also, FC3 is a very popular module, selling as well as the F-16C Viper (based on some community surveys).

Hello there. It has become clear that ED have changed their minds about low fidelity jets, with the upcoming FC2024 module. And thats a good thing. I would like to suggest to ED to bring new low fidelity jets to the game. The ones coming to FC2024, although awesome, are already in the game in the full fidelity form. It would be nice to have new aircrafts that are not in the game yet. For example, you could pick 3 jets to develop in a low fidelity form and sell them in packs. Name a pack "Soviet Legends", featuring a Mig21PF, Mig23MLA and a Mig-25PD and sell this pack for us for the price of a full fidelity jet ($79,90). Or, you could also use this opportunity to bring us more variants of the same jet. Sell a F-16 Falcon pack featuring our F-16CM Blk 50 in a low fidelity form, plus a F-16C Blk 30 and a F-16A Blk 15, for example. It has to be something that makes sense, or something historically accurate, for example, the soviet migs that flew together in many conflicts, they are historically accurate. The F-16 variants, makes sense to be sold together, as it gives you possibilities to play in earlier and modern scenarios. Having low fidelity jets would increase the variety of aircrafts in the simulator, bringing more gameplay possibilites, more modules to buy, more releases per year. And eventually, you guys could bring these modules into the full fidelity form, the same way as you guys are doing with the MiG-29 right now. Ideally, ED would develop the low fidelity modules and full fidelity ones at the same time, with one not directly impacting the development of the other, if that is possible. I'm part of a community with more than 100 members and there isn't a single soul who wouldn't insta buy those packs if you guys decided to develop it. I believe that almost everyone wants to see modules like the Fc3 Eagle or Flanker turning into full fideity jets and at the same time, having lower fidelity options for other jets like the mig25, or a more modern Sukhoi, like the Su30 or even earlier variants of an existing jet like the F16, that otherwise would take too long or would be impossible to make their way into the simulator. The Flamming Cliffs module is very popular, and i believe that the FC2024 has a lot of potential, especially if you consider adding new aircrafts. And perhaps, not limit it to aircraft only, but expand it to include helicopters too. I hope that ED consider this possibility. Best Regards !

This is definitely interesting, but i doubt Heatblur will accept science like this. Just the other day, an aerospacial engineer showed up on their discord and proved to them that the F14 flaps don't have induced drag modelled (this generates an unrealistic boost in slow speed dogfighting performance) and Heatblur received him with cynicism, sarcasm and straight up rejected his finds. Heatblur believes that they are the best dev's in DCS and that they can never be wrong. Those guys have a huge ego. Disappointing.

Hello there ! @BIGNEWY Any news regarding this?

Hi there @Lord Vader. Yes, i have the target in STT. So, after firing the missile, you can press the PB 10 (in the right mfd in this case) to switch to flood mode and guide the missile. It goes into flood for a few secs, and after that it returns back to tws/rws for no reason and that interrupts the guidance. I believe that is a bug because about 2-3 patches ago if you pressed the PB 10 after firing the missile the radar would switch to flood and guide the missile all the way if kept inside parameters, and in many other modules you can switch to flood / illumination mode after firing in STT. It would not switch back to tws/rws uncommanded like its happening right now. If thats not a bug, then fine, its just that it works very differently from every other module that have the same system. This was a very useful function to use against beaming targets trying to break your radar lock by notching. https://streamable.com/hxlswo Check this video. Both missiles guide in the flood mode after pressing PB 10, guidance is interrupted after the radar switches back to tws uncommanded.

HRP | Trigger - MiG-29A HRP | Fiber - MiG-29A HRP | Derby - F5 (WHERE F5?) / Mirage F1EE (in case no F5) HRP | Brand - Mirage F1EE HRP | Juquinha - Mirage F1EE HRP | Ghost - GCI

Hi there. There is an issue with the flood mode in the F/A-18. After selecting the flood mode to guide the Sparrow, the radar switches back to TWS after a few seconds for no reason, completely trashing the missile. Aim7 flood mode.trk

Hello there. Currently there are some issues with the APG-73 that makes it impossible to use the Aim-7 vs cold targets in the F/A-18 First issue is: When you are in STT and shoot at a target with the Aim-7, the radar will enter the memory mode and eventually will drop the lock, despite being in ideal conditions to sustain a lock, making the Aim-7 lose track of the target. Aim7 Cold target.trk Second issue: If you are in TWS with the Aim-7 selected, if you fire an Aim-7, the radar should automatically command a lock on the target and switch to PDI. But thats not what happens. Instead, the radar maintains whatever PRF you had selected previously, and never switch to PDI, making it impossible to guide the Aim-7. Aim7 tws to stt.trk

RWRs being too precise plays a big factor in this perception, and also the fact that missiles appear on the RWR when they are still too far from the defending jet, giving it plenty of time to think and defend in the notch. There are a lot of online references on how RWRs should work and EW in general, if ED used available data in our RWRs this perception would be very different. I wont send it here to avoid breaking any rules, but i believe that ED is aware of these references. Aside from fixing some problems with the Aim-120 terminal guidance, i don't think there is a lot more they can change to improve tracking targets that are in the notch.

Hello there, not sure if this could be considered a bug, but the Aim-9x behavior in the F/A-18 is questionable. I'm providing 3 tracks to help explain what the issues are. Aim9x no radar lock.trk In this first track, i acquire the target with the Aim-9x without the help of the radar, only slaved to the HMD. I put the aiming circle at the target, and press the cage/uncage button and the missile seeker is now locked into the target. Nothing wrong so far. The problem is, the moment that i take the HMD fov off the target, the Aim-9x loses the lock on the target and is slaved into my helmet again. I didn't press anything, i just moved the HMD Fov off the target. I belive that the missile should stay locked into the target, and only be slaved back to my helmet if i pressed cage/uncage button again. The way it is working now is very inconvenient. Aim9x with radar acm lock.trk In this second track, i acquire the target with an ACM mode and with the Aim-9x selected. As soon as i get a radar lock, the Aim-9x is slaved to the target the radar is tracking, no problem. Now, if you press the cage/uncage button, sometimes the missile will get slaved to the hud (but not to the helmet), and sometimes it won't. Also, when it gets slaved to the hud, if you press cage/uncage again to slave it back to the radar, sometimes the missile will fail to track the target being followed by the radar, as you can see in the trackfile. Aim9x with radar bvr lock.trk In this last track, i acquire the target with the B-Scope and the 9X selected. For some reason, it is impossible to uncage the missile into the target while looking at it with the Helmet. The missile sees the target, you get the tone, but pressing cage/uncage does not achieve a seeker lock, neither slaves it to the designated L+S. The only way to slave the missile to the radar lock, is looking directly at the hud (if the HMD is on). If you take the hmd fov off the hud, the missile will be slaved into the helmet, and unable to achieve a seeker lock. Also, by the end of the track, you will see that the missile slaved to the L+S doesn't get a seeker lock. Just hear the tone, you get that tone that indicates that the missile sees something, but isn't in the threshold to get a lock (it makes that bap-bap-bap-bap-bap sound), despite being in perfect parameters to achieve a lock. Sometimes you get a more high pitched tone, indicating that you can achieve a seeker lock, but pressing cage/uncage does nothing. Sorry if some of the descriptions were confusing, just watch the tracks to be clearer.

I know its off topic, but what about a Su-27/30 ?

In the current patch (DCS OB 2.8.8.43704) the long-range laser lineup system is not visible on daylight and is barely visible at night. May be a multithreading problem. I would like to see this problem fixed since this system is very important to provide visual lineup information for case 3 landings. Please see the screenshots and feel free to take a look at it ingame using the trackfile: nullLong range laser unable to see.trk nullLong range laser can barely see night.trknull null

Hello there ! When flying the F/A-18C in DCS it isn't hard to notice the amount of attention that ED gives to small details. With that in mind, i would like to ask for a rudder flutter effect in the F/A-18C. Since Razbam was able to do it in the F-15E i assume that there is a technology in the DCS engine that would support this effect in our loved Hornet. Here is a video of this effect in a Real F/A-18:

Squadron: HARPIA Timezone: 17z - 20z Aircraft: Av-8B, F-5E F-16C, F/A-18C, F-15E, F-14B, JF-17 Maps: Caucasus

Squad name: Harpia Squad lead: HRP | Trigger / HRP | Derby Time Zone: UTC-3

Hello guys, just got the Sinai Map, overall looking good an running great at my system. But i have been able to find some very abnormal texture transitions, as you can see on the attached pictures. Its very obvious where the texture have been cut and doesn't look natural. I have spotted many clipped courts and swimming pools on those resorts textures. Coordinates of where this is happening are on the status bar, but there are many other places around the map that the same thing happens.

Will the new radar update feature ground clutter (false returns) when flying at low altitude in both F/A-18 and F-16 radars like seen in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VseTWC_jSE0&t=251s already timestamped.

Hi there, in the current OB [2.7.17.29140] version, the AiM-120 fails to hit a target if it is barrel rolling. The missile will track the target all the way but it will miss by a few feet in the very last second. Please, watch the following tracks: aim120 track 01.trk aim120 track 02.trk aim120 track 03.trk aim120 track 04.trk aim120 track 05.trk

Squadron: HARPIA Timezone: 1900z-0300z Aircraft: F-16C, F/A-18C, F-14B, M2K, F-5E Maps: Cauc. Point of Contact: HRP | Trigger

HRP | Trigger / HRP | Fiber / HRP | Guericke Aircraft: MiG-29A HRP | Derby Aircraft: F-5E

Hi, here is the trackfile! easynotch01.trk So, can ED please explain to us how a multi-milion modern fox3 should work in reality? Do you guys at Eagle Dynamics really believe that a lazy turn to the 90° should easily trash an aim120 or any other modern fox3 missile? Please, take a look at the track, i notch all the missiles until THE MERGE and kill the bandit with my gun. Why do even bother putting missiles on the airplane?

Here is a track of the main issue, the missile being too easy to notch. There are other issues in multiplayer causing missiles to miss in unreasonable situations as pointed out by others in this thread that are a harder to reproduce in a single player mission. aim120 too easy to notch_1.trk Also, the missile sometimes behaves like an iron dome kind of system. Look at this track. I chose the F/A-18 because its radar can reliably track missiles (for an unknow reason) to demonstrate the following problem: When you're having a close range fight and both planes fires simultaneously, the missiles often will swap target and they start tracking each other instead of tracking the planes, even when youre 100% sure that the contact you fired your missile was an enemy airplane. It happens a lot with the F16 in MP and its radar can't even track missiles, so there is no reason for the missiles to swap targets. Aim120 iron dome_1.trk

That is a problem on this forums, no matter how obvious is the problem, there is always someone that comes with some delusional theroy to say the contrary just because.