Exorcet

ie the type of software that very commonly gives users options to tailor their experience. A refueling aid is completely in line with DCS. It can also be a greatstepping stone to increasing refueling competency among the playerbase as a whole as some users of the aid will go on to trying to refuel without it, as is the case with many other aids.

That didn't pan out and ED was looking into alternatives. Personally just updating SAM behavior to flash or coordinate with AWACS/EWR would be a massive improvement. A detailed module would great but is not necessary, and I'd argue the gains from simple quick changes are so large that it should be a separate long term project.

Going right for a module might be optimistic. AI might make a better first step, firstly because EW is complicated and secondly because it's usually secretive. With AI simplification is more acceptable and we kind of need EW aircraft in numbers for SP and MP missions for SEAD and strike packages.

A lack of understanding of trigonometry and radars.

He's carrying bombs, as he mentions during the 3:45 segment. It's not really representative of the F-16 in dogfight trim. He's also not making definite statements, just going by rough feel. Even if he's right, it's kind of hard to know what to change.

I feel like this is good enough. Even the modern maps aren't 1:1 representations. Give us a reasonable 50's map with 50's autogenerated buildings (outside of important landmarks of course) and I think that's plenty good. If we can get 100% accurate maps all the better, but I don't think we absolutely need them.

The maps are fine in my opinion. They also aren't 100% accurate representations remember, so they're also a bit flexible. They don't represent one set date, they can span maybe a decade or so. The other problem is, war is big usually. We don't have any maps large enough to actually capture real theaters of war. Gulf War requires Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar. Korea requires N and S Korea. Vietnam, all of Vietnam, etc. I think the maps we have are partially because it's the best we can get right now. Fictional is fine and so are the modules. The maps are close enough for the 4th gen stuff we have and those planes also would exist for a few years without changes (depending on the exact history of updates, etc) Would love to have all of this for sure. All of our maps are plausible, I don't understand what you mean. But I do agree with the desire for historical maps, especially if we get them in full. Part sized maps I'm personally less interested in.

Maybe it's some issue with the AI spawning as soon as the base is captured. What happens if you delay the spawn a few seconds? AI planes can't park on runways but they can be parked at parking spaces using the "Uncontrolled" tickbox. If you want to force the AI to wait on the runway, you can try blocking its path with a vehicle and then despawning the vehicle to allow it to takeoff. Also it generally helps to post your mission when having issues so people can directly inspect it. Just attach it to your post.

I'd say that's at odds with many aircraft that followed the Phantom, including the F-15 and F-22. Yes both of those planes had ground attack capability, but they clearly leaned toward one purpose over another. In the 70's and beyond, it simply became so easy to attack bombs/rockets to a fighter that it was a universal capability (and it wasn't really the first time, see WWII/Korea) regardless to whether a fighter was designed for a single role, like the F-15, F-16, YF-17. All of these aircraft despite having some level of AG capability from the start were eventually modified to improve AG performance, ie Strike Eagle, later block F-16's/F-2, F/A-18. The F-22 also had the FB-22 proposed. Also, just looking at things from a design perspective, it's pretty clear that single role can still have advantages over multi. If you don't have to accept a wide range of AG weapons you can shrink your weapons bay or specialize your hardpoints. You may also be able to get away with not having certain sensors which will save weight. AG aircraft also tend to be larger and heavier to handle big payloads, which can be avoided with a specialized AA design.

You might actually be fortunate. It sounds like you were trying to buy the F-15E? The F-15C is likely to be the one you want to mod. The E has not been released and is also much more complicated. The C shouldn't be anywhere near $50 as it's a FC3 plane.

C - single seat D - twin seat 50 - GE engine 52 - PW engine

Just be careful when it comes to sharing missions or playing in multiplayer. Unlike in most civil sims, a building being in a different position for two different people can cause huge problems. Then you also have to consider the effects on the AI and weapons. It's not that it can't work, but it might not be exactly the same as the civil sim situation.

DCS standalone (aka not steam) has a free trial. The best first step is to try the planes for free and see which ones you like. Then you can use your first time buyer discount to its fullest. FC3 may be simplified compared to other planes but I don't think it's a better starting point. You can emulate their simplicity by learning a FF plane system by system, which is better than trying to learn all at once anyway. Also the lack of clickable cockpit is a negative in my opinion as if you forget what keybind does what you can't just look around for the switch in the cockpit.

A single player mission that can be edited for MP built around the F-16. See the user files for more details (may be pending). Please use this thread to post bugs, reviews, comments, suggestions, etc. Thanks. Download: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3329561/ A strike will be conducted on the Syrian coastal city of Tartus. The city houses an important train terminal, which is the target of the air strike. Two pairs of F-16's, flights Lobo 1 and Lobo 2, will conduct the strike using GBU-31's on the designated targets. Ahead of them will be Fighter Sweep and SEAD flights to remove air and ground threats. Targets for Lobo flights are set as waypoints 5 and 6 for each flight. Each aircraft is to drop 1 GBU per waypoint. Viper 1 will perform fighter sweep. Air opposition is expected from the Russian occupied air base Bassel Al-Assad and mixed Russian-Syria forces from Hama and Al Qusayr. Encounters with Su-27, MiG-29S, and MiG-29A, MiG-23, and MiG-21 are all possible. Coordinate with AWACS Overlord to intercept hostiles along waypoints. Opposition is expected beyond WP 3 with additional hostiles at WP5. Both SAM and SHORAD line the coast. Weasel 1 and 2 will be responsible for the heavier SAM threats to the north, in particular a known SA-2 site near Bassal Al-Assad. After turning to waypoint 4 Weasel flights will be heading directly at the SAM site. Keep it shut down while Viper 1 is engaging air threats or destroy it. When depleted of ARM's it will be your call to disengage or to assist in the fighter sweep. Nearer to Tartus, British GR4 Tornados will suppress shorter ranged defenses to aid Lobo flights. However flight over Syria is to be avoided. If flying over land stay above 20,000 ft and do not fly past the coast into the mountains. A pair of US Navy cruisers are stationed east of Cyprus and will be providing SAM cover during the mission. If necessary retreat to this area to avoid pursuing fighters. Tankers will also be operating over Cyprus. Package Overview: Viper 1 - 4xF-16C Fighter Sweep - Time at WP3 15:10:00 Lobo 1 - 2xF-16C Air Strike - Time at WP3 15:20:30 Lobo 2 - 2xF-16C Air Strike - Time at WP3 15:18:30 Weasel 1 - 2x F-16C SEAD - Time at WP3 15:14:40 Weasel 2 - 2x F-16C SEAD - Time at WP3 15:10:30 Supporting Assets: Overlord - 1x E-3A AWACS Arco - 1x KC-135 Tanker TCN 42Y Texaco - 1x KC-135 Tanker TCN 48Y Colt 1 - 2x Tornado GR4 SEAD Colt 2 - 2x Tornado GR4 SEAD Uzi 1 - 2x Tornado GR4 SEAD Uzi 2 - 2x Tornado GR4 SEAD Radio Settings: Flight - Comm 2-1 Air Refueling - Comm 1-3 AWACS/Package - Comm 1-4 UK SEAD Operation - Comm 1-5 Incirlik ATC - Comm 1-20 Akrotiri ATC - Comm 1-18 Airfield Operations: Weasel 1 Taxi Time 14:54 Takeoff Time 14:58 Weasel 2 Taxi Time 14:55 Takeoff Time 14:59 Viper 1 Taxi Time 14:56 Takeoff Time 15:00 Lobo 1 Taxi Time 14:58 Takeoff Time 15:01:30 Lobo 2 Taxi Time 14:59 Takeoff Time 15:02:30 Parking: Viper 1, Weasel 1,2 - Taxi east to runway 05 Lobo 1,2 - Taxi north to runway 05

The F-16 is not complete, but is very feature rich. It doesn't feel like it's missing anything unless you're really digging for a specific feature. As far as missions and campaigns, it doesn have as many as other modules but you can find stuff on user files to download: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/type-is-single/unit-is-f-16c/apply/ Currently 166 missions.

Both AIM-120's outrange the R-77. Use that to your advantage. If you do happen to be shot at with a R-77 at a shorter range, it's like any Fox 3 missile. Force it to maneuver, or if it is really close, notch it. When against Fox 2, assume they are fired at you if within 15-20 miles of the enemy. Flare, but always make sure your flare program launches at least 2 flares at once. I use P1 (5x 1 chaff) and P6 (5x 2 flare). For emergencies I might ready P3, bit it can be any program besides 1 or 6 which is set to 0 chaff and 10x 2 flare. Also avoid facing the enemy head on if you suspect close range ET or R-73 shots. This way you minimize the chance of flying directly at the missile so that it has to expend energy to lead you and also has a longer flight time to allow it to be distracted by flares.

You can use it to switch between TWS and RWS yes. Or different settings for azimuth or bars, etc. Whatever you might need. I will usually map reduced azimuth TWS to missile override and full azimuth RWS to the AA mode button. I'll sit in TWS by default and switch to RWS when I need to find more elusive targets.

Not at all, this is a sim. Give us the limits. I already respect them in the F-16, modeled or not. Even respected the wing limits before they were added. It's not hard in the 16 either. My understanding is that it's for terrain avoidance. Relying on it a dogfight may win you the battle but cost you the war so to speak because your plane will be in maintenance all the time. No pilot will choose to get shot down, but they plan used to avoid that is proper tactics in an engagement.

It was the 5th model. A/B and C/D were designed together. There was a proposed F-15F. It was a single seater F-15E. Never built.

AA Mode and the switch do the same thing. I use them both. One to have one radar set up saved, and other to have another radar setup saved. It's the fastest way to switch.

Send two planes to carpet bomb the runways. ParallelBomb.miz

Well technically a base can be closed off to anyone but designated units, so it should be a base setting rather than a universal one. Still neutral coalition does need work. Neutral sides can be aggressive (attack anything in their airspace) or passive (just hold fire all the time) in real life, so having options to mimic that in DCS would be nice. AWACS will declare neutrals as hostile always in the sim, which is annoying, misleading, and needs to be changed.

I don't think modern is quite done. Modern aircraft share more hardware but are diverse in software for example, this allows for the possibility of add ons such A-10C II or BS3 for the existing aircraft. Then there are also export versions and modernized Cold War fighters. Export Hornets and Vipers have some nice features that our modules don't. I also personally want to see modernized F-4, F-5, MiG-21 etc to go along with their older counterparts. DCS also lacks anything from a few nations such as India, Japan, and the UK. Not to mention that looking at the long term, the list will expand as classified material expires.

Do you use the insert button that shows up in the attachments window? This inserts your image as an image, otherwise the forum tries to insert it as text.

The B-17 and B-29 predate nuclear weapons. There is no comparing them. The B-52 is a post nuclear aircraft, and like just about everything in the USAF in the 50's it was built with nuclear weaponry in mind. This doesn't change the fact that it never delivered nuclear weapons in combat. This make the point about how many dogfights the F-15 has been in meaningless, it doesn't imply anything about its ability to dogfight. Factually the process began before the MiG-25 was even know to exist in the US. Curiously the F-15 was never required to reach Mach 3. We know the US knew how to get to that speed, however it was deemed less important than having maneuverability, especially since Vietnam was fresh in the Air Force's mind. The F-15 was created because militaries don't get complacent. The instant that F-4's were rolling off production lines is when someone started thinking about what would replace it. That doesn't mean that the MiG-25 wasn't an important influence on the design, but the F-15 was never meant to be a dedicated MiG-25 equivalent or counter. It didn't even have different weapons from the F-4 initially. There also weren't any planes that would "easily outmaneuver" the F-15. Everything in the 4th gen is fairly competitive with each other including the F-15, MiG-29, and Su-27. F-15 pilots were told to avoid dogfighting MiG's in the Gulf War not because the F-15 couldn't dogfight but because that was the one area where the MiG wasn't lagging behind, especially with R-73's. Partially right. The F-15 was designed to win at BVR to avoid dogfighting, but it's also designed to dogfight if the BVR win isn't achieved.