falcon_120

Add friendly and enemy fighters to TAD page when there is an E3 AWACS around, specially for MP. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Please ED, I'm begging you on my knees, just give us at least friendly fighter info in MP on Datalink if there is an E3 around acting as gatewey. Im happy with just that. I love the A10C but its the most frustrating plane for me in the MP servers i normally play, being so slow if at least i knew i have friendly fighter in front o could play my cards to go in, strike and come back praying no one is catching me. But right now is impossible, you take off just to be jumped by hords of enemy fighters, without the possibility to use your friendly flights as cover since you dont know where they are.... Also, it seems fair since IRL A10c see other fighters in TAD as long as there is an AWACS around. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I share the same sentiment, and i am also keeping the F15e for the moment. For me the 60€ish are not a huge impact financially right now, and i thank god for that. Not being able to enjoy the F15E is worse given that Flight sims are my main hobby these days (nerdy hobbies, still prefer having time with family and friends ofc). Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

For me its hard to argue with the idea of additional FC3/FC4 being a great potential in terms of historical accuracy, gameplay, atracting a bigger fan base, etc for DCS world. On top of that i have to add that FC3 level of aircraft ARE FUN, it allow you to fly a plane you like without the huge investment in time that is required by a FF jet to be proficient at a minimun level. There are some caviats, for me the most important one is that a low fidelity plane should never be a poorly modeled airplane, meaning that even it is labeled Low fidelity i expect a professional FM, accurate representation of 3d model and cockpit and overall a true representation of its systems and weapons, the key point here is that it has simplified avionics but overall realistic tactical implementation of its systems (expected radar detection, payload, weapons ....), just avoid being War Thunder 2 please. If the above mention is respected, i can only say that the possibilities for a more rich stable of aircraft with richer gameplay and more interesting PvP scenarios is there, with a reduced but still somewhat high development time, lets not foul ourselves thinking a lowFi plane is Easy to develop. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Unfortunately i only have anecdotical evidence from war reports and pilots podcast from some of those systems (SA10, AEGIS and PATRIOT). So no bug report to be made without clear docs supporting this. You are also right about that some of the current functioning could be very well caused by limited possibilities within the current SAM/EW/RWR implementation in DCS and this will be improved at due time. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I would be surprised if MAC was still alive as a project. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I can understand the second point concern, but what in the world means the 1st point? The current F15e is already amazingly complete given it has only had 2 or 3 rounds of updates and bug fixing. Please do not spread misinformation. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Can you tell us more about the new multiplayer interface , what are exactly the dynamic slots? And is this coming in the next update or a bit later? Regards, Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Yeah, its funny right? I just made a Google AI translate from French to English (let's blame google i guess for butt-translating) of what Galinette discussed with a colleague/user or whatever you want to call it and summarize it in some bullet points for simplicity, without adding of substracting anything other than what have been said, and now he is shooting at me for posting that in this forum. Even when i clearly state this may have missing information in the very beginning of my post. Please let's stop being childish, i have no interest in making someone look like he has said anything different to what he has said, for sure not trying to make him look like saying the opposite (sigh...). Very happy to be pointed out where i try to make Galinette look like he has said a different thing. Galinette if you regret sharing information on the internet, just don't do it, but don't shoot the messenger. Anyway i'm out of this particular non sense. I hope this is solved soon for my sake, I love the F15e and other RB modules and I love DCS, and i want them to stay together.

So moving goal posts? First you use quotation for something is not literal or in my post, and second you did say “Galinette does not use the word SDK”. He did. What i did say is “RB have been or *have tried to use at some point* DCS core engine and SDK to develop/sell…” clearly a quite generic statement and very similar to “according to Galinette ED claims RB used the DCS SDK” based on available information this seems in fact the most plausible series of events; no drama added [emoji6], given ED response and how this have unfold, certainly more credible to me that this “maybe razbam did only make a 3D model or a couple of lua script” non sense you propose instead. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, i agree that calm is always the best approach. I guess people, fail to do mainly because the F15e is many people’s favorite plane; or a top 3 at least, its have been waited for so so long, and its been done so well, that the sole thought of it dieing so young and prematurely is a harsh one :/ And i have to say i cannot really blame at anyone feeling so passionate about it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not trying to increase any drama at all, already said i could be wrong or there could be info missing. But to your point, a 3d or Lua script does not seems plausible, as that would hardly elevate any complaint from any company. It seems more plausible RB have used some part of DCS engine to have their professional version of their planes working as trainers for some air force. Again, speculation but logical one given the response by ED. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Ok so the post by Galinette, if true is very enlighting and shows how there is no one on the right, as always there's some truths in both sides and both sides have been involved in some wrong doing from my PoV. If i got this right: -Razbam have been or have tried to use at some pointT DCS core engine and SDK to develop/sell professional versions of their planes to some defense forces. -They've done so as the T&C under which DCS were written at the time did not explicitly block or prevent that use. -ED realizing this have created a different company for their professional version of DCS, changed their T&C and have claimed some % of any transaction involving their SDK even though that may have happened under old T&C. I understand ED position as some propietary technology is being used by other companies to profit with no return for them. -At some point the discussion between RB and ED have not arrived to any friendly agreement, and ED have withhold payments of the F15E to put pressure on RB. -RB have made public the disagreement and the blockade to payments and stopped any support to DCS products as a response. Any of the points above might be pure fantasy or misunderstanding from my side but if true it draws a complicated situation with a long journey to be resolved. Meanwhile are users have been left discouraged, trapped in the middle, as we envision the possibility of having some of the best modules in DCS to be left to die a slow death.

[emoji3166] Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Sorry but you're really not listening to anythimg told to you about how real life missile work. I repeat again a distance means zero without an associated altitude and speed. To illustrate my point further the MAR for a 120c at sea level is around 10ish miles, meaning that an F5 shot at18nm can easily turn cold and be perfectly safe if you are shooting from low altitude, there no magic around it. You can be stubborn and keep saying that 18nm is very close, but that will not make it true. 18nm at sea level is harder for a missile than 50nm at 50.000, that is how much air density changes range. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Can you try make your shots at 30.000 at least and report back if you're getting kills or not at 10/15 nm? :) Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

There some decisions on SAM game mechanics in general that are this way i suspect to make easier for players to survive, specifically there are several SAMs in DCS that i suspect will not provide a launch warning IRL just a search indication so SAMs are actually amazingly dangerous. Some of these SAMs im mentioning should not give a launch warning are the SA10, Patriot, Aegis systems. Im sure im leaving out a lot more, but for these ive heard real cases in recent conflicts were aircraft have been shot down without taking evasive maneuvers even, which make me suspect they were not aware of a launch indication whatsoever. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure ED is well aware of the severe limitations of AI. I don't think a track is helpful at this point, its more of a ED thing making the effort to develop a block of AI behavior into the game, in the same manner some BVR AI improvements were rolled out some months ago. I think I've read in a newsletter ED is proposing this in building blocks, starting in BVR and moving to DACT and other areas. Regards,

Yeah any update on ongoing conversations would be reassuring. BTW, we start to see elements not correctly working in the F15E with new updates, just opened a bug report because the new fuze options are not selectable for anything added to the Left and right CFT hardpoints, so basically you are left with underwing and centerline station if you need to change fuze setting etc.

The new fuzing option for all bombs work ok if the bomb is placed on the weapon stations under the wings or center line but not when placed on any of the CFTs. You can check this because the yellow triangle does not appear when putting ordinance on the Left or right CFT stations. Tested in MP so unfortunately i dont have the track now. EDIT: The problem exist in the mission editor in SP.

For sure its not an easy task to stay proficient in a lot of modules, specially if you are not a content creator or young person with 4/5 hours a day to dedicate to flying. In my case, i'm a father and a worker with less than 1H/1,5 hours per week to play, and some very sporadic 2-4 hour session on a weekend, that's my situation now but when i was younger and didn't have kids i flew a lot longer, which helped to learn some of the modules. Currently i would say i can fly with great proficiency the F18/F16/A10/KA50, and i'm able to fly ok to a lesser extent the AV8/F15E/F14 and now the F4. I do own many other modules, but i'm not interested so much in those and i have not invested enough time on them. So now to your point, how do i cope with all those? HOTAS Standardization Although it took a while at first, i've managed to create HOTAS profiles where most used functions are the same buttons or switches on my HOTAS (Virpil CM3+Winwing F16EX+VKB SEM) for all modules. Generic things like Gear, flaps, airbrake, lights on/off, jettison button, Autopilot, NVG, are exactly the same buttons in all modules. For things that are combat related, i've also managed some very great standardization which helps a lot, for example, countermeasures and Jammer its the same button in all planes*, cage/uncage is the same, Radar elevation changes its the same button, Radar related commands like Bar/Azimuth changes are the same or very similar. I change between Radar/IR/Guns like in the F18 using the Weapon selector on my thumb in the joystick, so for me calling guns or IR missiles is the same in all modules even though in the real airplanes the selector could be on the throttle (i'm way passed that ultra realism consideration, i have a complaint mailbox at my door in case someone wants to criticize XD). Some very handy items i've also standardize in my HOTAS setup for your consideration: Same button for calling the A2G master mode, same button for markpoints in F18/F16/AV8B/F15E, same button for weapon designation in F18/AV8, same buttons for Waypoint up/down function in most jets. *The only time i change a specific button is when its very relevant to a specific plane, for example the CMS switch in the F16/A10 is the only one assigned to the CMS switch in my joystick, but because in both aircraft works like that and i'm very used to that from my falcon BMS days. For the rest of planes, the chaff/flares dispenser is in my thumb on the throttle. Pre-flight When starting a flight i always bring up the controls page in the option menu and go quickly through the main buttons in my HOTAS to quickly remember how it was setup. COLD start As of today i can cold start by heart the F18/F16/F15e/A10/AV8B for the rest i used the autostart button. Every now and then i try to learn a new cold start procedure but its hard these days. What to fly I normally have 'urges' for a specific thing at a time , for example some period i really fancy helicopters, some times i do like 4th gen fighters or in some cases more cold war planes. When i fly one type for some time is also a bit easier cause a lot of functions are similar between helicopter, 4th gen fighters,etc... For example i do not need to think a lot on how to create waypoints between the Av8/F15E/F18 cause the process is really similar.

Mmmm now you're making me doubt myself, it could habe been a markpoint yes [emoji849][emoji1751] Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

That would not work as it is now, the track replay is totally inconsistent in a mission longer than 10 min, many times shows totally different results, like a missile you evaded hits you in the track. So i guess part of why is taking so long is that requires a different approach to how the track system is currently implemented. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Well i always assumed the DC would save the mission or phase you're in, in a similar way you have today in community made DC like retention/liberation or DCE, a whole different thing is having saved files "in mission", allowing you to for example save the mission after the cold start and jump back in another day right where you left it. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

No one said Raw radar picture, read again. I said radar track, meaning a valid target. Why wouldn't they share a valid track of a cruise missile? When in fact this is a high piority taget for any resource available in the battlefield. BTW recently relevant when >300 drones and missiles shot by iran have been shot down by ships and fighters, or are a key priority target also in the Ukranian conflict these days. Reality is, no one goes discarding valid radar tracks in a war, even less so being these tracks a potential weapon launched against your troops/infrastructure, and even less based on a made up assumption like HQ deciding you should not see this track cause there is an AEGIS ship nearby. OP point is totally valid. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk