Exorcet

You could say that there isn't a need for very much at all, flight sims from long ago were pretty bare bones. Refueling damage is nice to have simply because it's realistic, and it because it rewards proper flying. It'll also be another factor to plan for when in the air. Learn your emergency procedures and be ready to put your knowledge to the test.

Fixing takes time, and bugs can only be fixed if they are found. The AI has been terrible at fuel management for years. I've felt it as a mission maker. People requested for a long time that AI be given an unlimited fuel option. It was finally added recently and I'm including it as standard in missions because the AI still uses too much fuel. There is value to having the option to disable things. Users should always have the option. A simulator doesn't gain anything from forcing settings on users, nor is any realism lost by allowing users to enable or disable features. While giving the option allows for users to get around potentially serious problems while waiting for a fix.

There is no reason they can't be. A sim gives us the ability to choose how we interact with it, that's a good thing. On the practical side, an off option could be useful for the initial implementation (turn it off if it's buggy), for debugging (turn it off if it makes refueling easier and you're trying to examine a bug with refueling), or if it interacts poorly with other features (turn it off in multiplayer because lag turns the drogue into a hypersonic whip of doom that cuts planes in half).

This seems to come up pretty often, while I myself think the ME is very good as it is. Not perfect, absolutely not, but pretty easy and intuitive. My solution for this is variables. You'd assign a variable like "Cruise Altitude = 30,000 ft" then in the waypoints, you set altitude not to a number, but to Cruise Altitude. Then there would be a variable table where you could see all variables, sort them by type, and by what units are using them. You'd not only be able to change multiple waypoints in a group at once, but literally every waypoint in the mission at the same time with very little work. And these variables could even be saved across missions, example a variable "F-15 cruise speed" could be made and set to be automatically entered whenever a F-15 waypoint is created. Years ago ED made it so that planes have default speeds for waypoints and it's still terrible. Create waypoints, later decide to change the aircraft (or use the aircraft route as a template for other aircraft and copy paste), and now all your waypoints have their speeds changed, most likely to a useless value. It was requested I believe by people I believe, but it doesn't appear to have been planned out and as a result is less than worthless as it just creates problems for no benefits, at least for me. Could be useful, but it also may need to account for things like refueling, combat, reserve fuel, random waypoints, payload (are weapons dropped or not?), etc. In other words, packages. Yes it would be a good feature. Technically it doesn't really require AI changes as it could be built around follow.

Maybe some material sciences courses would help you communicate the problem. 42,000 lbs isn't bending the wing, it's a force not a moment. The Empire State Building weighs 730,000,000 lbs. It's doing fine. The wings have to hold more than the tank anyway, there is a 25,000 lbs (or whatever) plane attached to them. At 14g, that's 350,000 lbs, a lot more than the tank. And the tank itself is going to be inboard because that's where the wing is stronger.

For now I actually plan to keep two installs. The main benefit for me hasn't changed. I can keep a stable version of the game to do my simming in while also having access to all the latest additions. Unless bugs are virtually eliminated, two copies just makes sense to me. However if I do find a given update to be an improvement I guess I no longer need to wait for a stable release to update my other DCS install.

I could have worded that better. There is no way to prevent any case of CSAR, but better weapons and a higher success rate means that CSAR missions should be less common. As for the F-35's suitability for CAS or CSAR, it won't perform those missions the same way an A-10 would, but it might not need to. With the F-35 being classified, this conversation can easily tumble into speculation, but the F-35 at least does have a large fuel load (the A and C do anyway), and most comprehensive SA system known to be a fighter, which includes a visual system (EODAS), and on the payload side can still carry a fair amount which will only be helped by trends in weapon miniaturization. A dedicated completely dedicated CAS plane would be ideal, but I don't think the F-35 is set for failure in that role. Hand in hand with weapons go tactics. If loitering over the area doesn't work, then don't do it. Sixth gen aircraft are taking communication and sensor fusion to new levels with the inclusion of drone wingmen. The future of CAS may see the piloted aircraft as more of a carrier and command/sensor unit than an attacker.

Kola will be a partially Artic map.

The A-10's ability to loiter can make up for the speed in some cases but there will also be situations where orbiting overhead may not be possible. The F-35 is capable of handing a winder range of situations. With a low enough threat presence, the A-10 is fine, but at that point you could probably use even cheaper options too. The F-35 can't carry its full load while remaining at maximum stealth, but that's not a problem because if stealth is required, it's the only one that would be able to do the job anyway. Stealth also isn't binary. External weapons will increase the RCS (possibly only from some angles) but it doesn't mean that the plane will be easy to find. F-16's and Super Hornets have RCS reduction features despite also carrying external weapons. If funding and resources were unlimited both planes could be employed and we'd be able to cover every type of situation, but I think the US is trying to go for the most efficient route for the real world. If the F-35 works as planned, you're eliminating CSAR by more effectively fighting or evading the enemy. If a need for a more specialized CAS aircraft comes about there are also other options to consider.

I was able to look into it, the problem is related to 55G6 maybe. When using E-3, targets eventually get too far away. You can also see random detections at long range thanks to the new fluctuating RCS (I assume): script2.miz

More to learn if you want to do everything the A-10 can offer. It might be AG only, but AG is typically more workload than AA. Militaries don't want pilots to be fighting their controls while also trying to dogfight. Carrier landings are harder than airfield, but an airfield landing doesn't have to be easy. Weather, visibility, airfield condition, etc. When it comes to the A-10 specifically, it can't thrust its way out of problems like multirole fighters can.

I agree, really useful on the Mirage, however in a real aircraft you can feel acceleration changes, so maybe that's why they were never added. The speed tape on the HUD can also be used to gauge acceleration in US fighters that have them. When it comes to AA fueling specifically, I make a note of the fuel flow needed to keep up with the tanker and use it as a reference, though in the Hornet the EGT reading may be a little more precise.

CAS is one role where the Hornet will likely come out ahead in terms of fuel. Especially if CBU's are involved. They're bricks, and the F-16 being a tiny plane feel bit of the added drag index, not to mention weight. I'll also mention that I really have no idea why the Air Force shuns 1000 lb bombs. They're a really nice middle ground between 500's and 2000's. I love carrying them on the F-18. I'd say the same.

Adjusting fuel is an apples to apples comparison. You can't use raw fuel amount, the planes are different. Cruise range also isn't just for ferrying, unless you're immediately taking off and going into combat. How far you can cruise is going to determine how far away you can fight. I haven't done as many combat comparisons on fuel use, but I've found situations where the F-16 comes ahead. It was able to get up to combat speed and altitude faster and then use mil power to conserve fuel while maintaining most of its speed. The Hornet needed AB the entire time to keep up which burned through the fuel. Again it's going to be mission dependent. Heavily loaded the F-18 will pull ahead.

I might not be able to check the mission for a while, but I'll try to look at it when I can. Strange that results differ.

Stealth probably increases the effectiveness of those, along with jamming, speed, and standoff attacks. You might be able to point out something that are technically an advantage in the A-10, but you need to look at the entire package together for a meaningful evaluation. You don't really want to have to rely on chaff and flare, you want to destroy air defense before they even know you're there. I didn't say greatest, everything contributes. Speed is not only important for combat, but for getting to the target. If friendlies 100 miles away call for CAS, all else equal, they will want a faster plane sent over to them. As for the F-4, the speed and thrust was a good thing. When pilot training was addressed, the F-4 was shown to be among the best fighters in Vietnam.

Expand/FOV button

I've done the test a few times, though not recently. Clean the Viper is a couple hundred miles ahead in my experience. With AAM's that shrinks a bit, but then the gap widens with fuel tanks. AG loadouts is where the Hornet's advantage lies as the F-16 struggles to climb to really efficient altitudes with bombs or AGM's unless it's the bare minimum. Here are some screens from one of my tests, might be a little hard to read, but it's a SEAD loadout. 4x HARM on the top row, then 2x HARM and 2x Fuel on the bottom. Max AAM payload taken as well. Jammer on the F-16 since the Hornet has one internal. Fuel is adjusted for plane weight, which is why the F-16 has a lower bingo than F-18. The F-18 gets 690 miles vs 564 from the F-16 with missiles only. With tanks the F-18 reaches 1036 vs 1011 F-16. In this case the Hornet did go further, but this is a border line payload. I used to repeat these with FM updates, but as I said before, I haven't redone the test in a while. If things have changed recently, it would be good to know.

It seems we were talking about slightly different things and your original point was correct. I was interpreting the question as looking for an adjustment dial, but I guess the switch is more analogous.

That's for the DED. HUD dial is right under the HUD, same one used to turn it on or off.

Probably worth mentioning DCS has unit templates, which usually include some of the SAM systems arranged in groups already. Pick the template, place it down, one click for working SAM. The templates vary by country, which can complicate things, but it's worth trying the templates and seeing if they have ones relevant to you.

The F-16 has the better range, the Hornet is a bit fuel hungry. If you're flying at different speeds that's really going to throw off results because flying faster means higher fuel flow. The F-16 uses much less fuel and has a slightly higher cruise speed, so it will get more distance when it's not heavily loaded. On the other hand: Since the Hornet can carry more, things swap around when the planes are heavy.

This was years ago now. I believe a comment from Chiz or Yo-Yo. I don't think it was ever stated to be actively worked on, but was a consideration at the time. As there are currently no plans for new FC level aircraft, it seems that the consideration was dropped at some point. Separately FF F-15 and other FC planes were mentioned years ago, but again not pursued.

It would make a great addition to DCS. I know some time ago ED proposed an idea of adding modules initially as FC level and then upgrading them to FF. I wonder if that is a more viable path for modern red air. FF is absolutely preferable to lower fidelity, but for planes where that is simply not possible, I wonder if other options could be considered. Technically it's happening to the MiG-29 I suppose.

It has always been one of my favorite WWII fighters.