falcon_120

Are we specifically talking about the SU27 now right? If yes, we now know a lot more about the real capabilities of the basic SU27 compared to the F15 of the 80s, the conclusion that can be drawn from that are: -US had a big upper hand in SA given by much better radar; it's not a raw power or range advantage but a usability, resistance to EW and overall radar azimuth, F15 is a true search radar, whereas the flanker and fulcrum are much more reliant in GCI -Better RWR giving incredibly more SA -Arguably better missiles (AIM7 M vs basic R27 comparison). Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

Flaps needs to be in OFF position, have you checked this? Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

Now with this FF implementation is more important than ever to play the way it's meant to be used, in servers were they simulate GCI support and radar in an 80s/SARH only context Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

Let's say it's not an air superiority fighter by USAF standards. Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

Yes, that's another topic to be discussed, as far as I'm know, neither the SA10 or the Patriot should give the current launch warning (SARH like warning), they are more like a TWS guidance that should be in the middle RWR ring and you should just defend pre-emptively when in the launch zone. Plenty of RL reports where the Patriot has destroyed friendly fighters with them not even knowing they had been engaged. We even have a report from Ukraine of a Su35/34 defending a patriot where the launch is called out by the EWR or the AWACS but not the RWR from the Russian jet. Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

This is consistent with the SA19 Tunguska behavior, you should just defend as soon as you see a "19" or "22" on your RWR and assume a launch, those things are pesky. Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

Is it correctly working along the TWS auto mode? So good bye to having to go AUTo>MAN>AUTO again to L&S target outside current AUTO rdr coverage? I'm away on vacation and we'll be unable to test for at least 1 week :( Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

That is what I thought until recently I played again the DC of this other simulator, I have to say I was impressed: -generated packages makes total sense, with ToT, OCA, sead support and even stand off jamming if required -Briefing page gives you all you need:iff codes, l16 codes, friendly armor pushes in the area, AWACS and tanker support... -those comms... I just love the realistic AWACS calls, and ATC comms talking not just to you but to all existing AI in the battlefield. -the AI gives you a really hard time, they will bait you into Sam traps or just into other enemies, -battlefield or main DC page gives you an overview of the battlefield including the amazing info coming from jstars assets which is really great Idk, it is great, having said that I am really looking forward to what DCS can create specially over a long period of time through multiple iterations. I will be supporting them for sure along the way. Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

I dont know, i happen to like my blurry HMD symbology more than the previous dim iteration, it was so hard to see during daytime, now i can totally see it.

After setting a Ground attack mission with several ground targets and some air defenses and deciding i would run the same mission on a different map, after loading the new map i realize all my ground targets are gone and have been replaced by different units. Replicated in a BVR mission, after changing map the enemy fighters went from JF17 to SU27, i had to select again JF17 and loadout setup before.

JF17 ground mission with 8 units in Cold War Germany, stuck at 0% and game crash.

Thanks for the video it clearly showcase the problem starting at 4:05. This is specially problematic when you use the HACQ mode as once the contact is locked (designated as the L&S) the AIM9x seeker logic start to make funky things. Its been more than once that in the seek of the battle you waste a AIM9x as you dont get the tone and the reason is this strange bug where the seeker is actually seeing the target randomly after some seconds or not at all, once you use the cage/uncage button is moving between states in such a manner is a bit unpredictable

Really relevant, most MP servers are moving to dynamic spawning which is effectively preventing the use of DTC in some of my favorite servers.

When setting specific threshold and AUTO program (1, 2 & 3) for a thread, it seems different selection are not remembered. Example: Threat SU30. 1.Selecting threshold "Search" to action "None" 2. Selection threshold for Track-> appears previous selection (in this case "None")-> Set to AUTO1 3.Going back to "Search" now the threshold appears as AUTO1 and not the previously selected "None" Is it possible to set 3 different programs for the different threshold? (Search/Track/Launch)? Not sure if its working properly but its confusing as hell.

Ok, i managed to make it work. It seems bypass does indeed refers to the panic button. Just a minor bug @BIGNEWY, it seems the bypass option ignores the Chaff quantity. Setting bypass to 1 flare, 15 repetiton, each 1.5 seconds. Releases a flare AND A CHAFF, on the correct repetition and interval (15, 1.5seconds). Can't i have no chaff released? or is indeed a bug?

Hello, i'm having problems to make this option work in a instant action free flight mission. Couple of questions. First, is this bypass option referring to the panic button of the hornet? If not, shouldn't we have a bypass option for CMD FwD and one for CMD Aft? Until now bypass option always released one chaff with CMD Fwd and 2 flares with CMD Aft (or the other way around always mix them). I'm editing the DTC so in bypass mode it releases 8 flares 0.1 second apart, then i save the DTC and once in the plane a load it through the MUMI page, however it seems it does not make any difference, i'm still seeing 1 chaff/2 flares when in bypass mode instead. I will attack a track if that helps, but have any one tried successfully the bypass option of the F18? EDIT: I realize now that i'm testing in air start missions, is this a problem? should i be parked in the runway?

Thanks @BIGNEWY, those are very good news, it means to me work is already underway and on testing so I'm a happy man, whatever long it will take based on the testing. Regards,

As the title says, ED have in some occasions referred to revisiting the MSI implementation based on latest public information, IIRC Wags himself mentioned this in the latest February QA. Well... is there any capacity for it this Year? Is it something for maybe 2026? Regards,

Not a foolish idea to "level the playfield" for those gamers looking for "balance" in MP servers. You get my vote. Regards,

I dont see the big fuss with this. You can follow a physic based approach with current simulation capabilities to make a RCS footprint of a plane and assign some estimation based on public information. So if a F16 frontal RCS is something 3.2m^2 an F35C will have in DCS something like 0.05 m^2, and you extend this to other angles and profiles. In practical terms you might see a F35 (in DCS) with no external loadout and close base door at something like 8 to 18ish nm depending on the radar (eg.APG70 will see it further out than a APG68v5 and so on). That is good enough for us simmers to have fun and try to shot down that sucker before it runs out of missile and go home to rearm and repeat [emoji846] I also expect planes with modern IRST (eg. Typhoon) to see the F35 on clear days further away than with the onboard radar (probably >30nm depending on factors like use of AB, speed, etc...). In the end, all AF in the world are field IRST tracker on 4th/4.5th gen fighters to reduce the gap with LO fighters, and there is a good reason for that.

I really need that JTIDS/Link 16, i'm sick of loosing BVR to those pesky F16/18 just because i lost my SA for a second and run into an Amraam MAR unaware. I want to show them again who is king

@NineLine this has nothing to do with specific documentation, its rather a physic based approach as your team is doing on the tire strut suspension. We just want systems that converge with the laws of physics and mathematics (and EM fields). You cannot have perfect angular accuracy with a limited number of antennas at relative close distance from each other, your team knows that. But i guess this is something not planned at the moment.

Well, that of course can be done. But now you're talking about a huge project. It took Razbam 5+years to develop the F15e to the current level, potentially ED could have that reduced a bit but still no less than 2/3 years i'd say (yeah i know they've said F15C and F35 starts this year and will be in 2026, and i dont think that will hold true specially for the F35). In any case, ED considering to make an F15e from scratch would follow the same process as any other module: 1-financial viability (how well it will sell), 2-documentation available and 3-technical capability. Now point 1 is a tricky one, because now ED knows exactly how well it will sell, since they are actually monitoring the sales of Razbam F15e, now a more relevant question would be, will it sell the same the second time? considering all the fans that got very upset for the ED/Razbam situation and more importantly, considering that many users; myself included, already have the F15e and are happy with it. I would not buy the module again except if: A-It comes already with what is missing in the current module (JHMCS,Link16,new weapons...) or B- if i perceive ED is in a bad spot and at the end of the day i want to support them as they are my biggest hobby and source of fun).

Fixes are always welcome. Not gonna lie, new features are thrilling but you can't have those all the time. Thanks!