Exorcet

Before being built something has to be designed. The information defining the product can all be there even if there isn't a physical example. You can of course argue things like improvements or fixes being found during construction, but the errors in such a case sound more like fudging that you're OK with and less like making something up. Simulation doesn't have to follow history exactly, they are two different things. In the case of DCS we also have control over what level of historical accuracy we want to follow. Missions can ban the plane completely or they could only have 1-2 slots for it. You could even make a test and evaluation campaign for a single prototype. I feel like so long as the plane was defined in detail, it can fit pretty well in DCS. Although in this case they are saying it was built in small numbers anyway.

Does the number built really matter? How many combat scenarios in DCS are fantasy? I don't think it's much to ask for on the playerbase to just use a slight alternative history setting where J-8PP's were built in numbers. Also having any J-8 may make it easier to introduce other versions later on.

Although I'm not sure where it will fit into my missions yet, I'm excited to get the J-8II as a module. It seems like an interesting aircraft to fly, I also want to see how foreign variants of the Sparrow like Aspide end up performing.

I agree, this is one of those things that just won't be easy to get right until we're plugging our brains directly into VR worlds.

So you don't crash. Honestly I'd prefer it returning to F1. It's easy enough to press F11, and without adjusting the F11 camera there is nothing to see in many cases, especially with air to air kills. It all flies off screen. On a side note there seems to be more ED feedback in the wishlist area. It's much appreciated.

The question is reasonable if you don't know much about missile guidance. I don't think Raviar is making any claims but only asking for clarification. IR missiles can't measure distance so it might not be clear how they determine lead. Proportional Navigation relies on line of sight, so range isn't needed. This allows IR missiles to lead their target without a radar or range finder. So it is possible for the mentioned the missiles to fly lead, although if they are completely accurate compared to the real missiles, I don't know myself.

People bring this up so much, not just for tanks but aircraft as well. How often does it happen? If it's a big deal DCS already has a jump feature for planes. Tanks and whatnot could be individually controller or tank platoons could be assigned to a player, giving you 4 tanks to jump into and play with. It really depends on the mission. The air battle can be huge, but the ground battle might be local (ie WWII over all of Europe vs D-Day being in a small part of France). The ground forces don't have to operate from the airbases. Bringing a FF tank to DCS would require a lot of work yes. It's not realistic at the moment, but we can do better than CA. I think tanks at the level of something like War Thunder would work in DCS, the biggest change outside the tanks themselves would need to be the AI so they're not all seeing snipers. I also feel like this is the path to higher fidelity ground forces. It will be a long, long road, but we might get there one day.

The pilot can specify. "On my 12 O clock" vs "On your 12 O clock" If you're referring to AI wingmen in DCS, when in formation I think it's all relative to you since they should be flying the same direction.

It's hard to understand what you're trying to say at this point. I'll just say again that you can't get accurate acceleration from TWR and you can't eyeball drag from the size of an airframe. I mentioned 40,000 ft because the Eagle charts only exist for 10,000 and 40,000 ft and at 10,000 you have structural limits to contend with. Acceleration is still pretty similar at the lower altitude though.

You don't seem to understand that I'm not guessing or making estimates. I am giving you the measured accelerations for both planes. The only error is a small one from trying to figure out what exactly is a fair comparison when the aircraft manuals have different formats between them. As for your physics, you left out half of the math. TWR barely means anything when drag and dynamic thrust aren't accounted for. And you can't account for drag by saying "the F-16 is smaller" the numbers matter. Even your TWR numbers are weird because first, your 50% planes are somehow better than empty, and second what is average takeoff weight and why is it relevant? The Strike Eagle's payload is huge. The "average" could be much more than a typical F-16 payload, which would skew the comparison.

I just want to point out that the next mission doesn't have to start from the same parking spot. If anything the jet might get moved around for maintenance/servicing etc between missions. It would be cool to be able to seamlessly pick up from the exact position between missions, but I don't think it's necessary. Also I think I'd much rather have a slightly different airbase if it came with improvements. For example, on Syria many parking spaces are too small for even mid sized fighters and some airbases have very little parking spaces. I am very willing to give up 1:1 identical bases if the Sinai map has more/better parking for instance.

No, it's the thrust-drag to weight ratio. These numbers don't make sense. You didn't use physics, you ignored over half the math by leaving out drag and dynamic thrust. I looked up the charts. The F-16 doesn't accelerate faster.

The setup took quite a bit of time, during which the plane was all over the place, and this made the track even longer because of the need to rejoin the tanker. The track could be made shorter by doing what I mentioned before, or you could try setting up autopilot to fly level while you manage switches to minimize the chance of lost/corrupted inputs.

Unfortunately your track did not replay properly, I couldn't see any odd tanker behavior. Perhaps try a shorter track, you can use time deceleration or active pause to set your cockpit faster.

I'm fine with things as they are. Let fatigue be something the sim flyer has to deal with, not the virtual pilot. The reason why being the disconnect between the fatigue of the simulated pilot and the lack of feeling of fatigue in the person actually flying. I really hate when simulators try to model these things and get it wrong, which is almost a certainty because there is no way to get it right.

The F-16 isn't faster than the F-15 according to manuals, they have about the same acceleration. Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.7 is about 170 seconds for both at 40000 ft with a comparable AA loadout. The manuals for each plane displays acceleration slightly differently so it's hard to get an exact comparison, but the F-15C and F-16C are basically equals, it's not like the gap between 16 and 18 where one can say that the F-16 is hands down superior in acceleration. The Strike Eagle's performance depends on payload but the 229's help it overcome the drag and weight penalty of the CFT's and remain competitive.

It doesn't. In general they are close in performance. The Eagle can carry a lot more though, so it gets penalized when heavily loaded.

The F-16 is a bit faster when the E has CFT's, but they're pretty close. It looks like the gap opens up as altitude increases.

I've noticed this too. When I want to put a somewhat difficult SAM on the field, I often end up using the SA-2. I know ED was going through missiles and adjusting parameters, but I've lost track of what is considered done or not. The SA-2 is very low drag which gives it great range and agility, where as missiles like the Patriot and SA-11 fly like bricks.

Groups of planes fly in formation by default. You don't have to do anything, unless you want a specific formation. Can you provide more info?

Strange screenshot. The Eagle can't rail launch Sparrows.

That the topic seems to come up so much may hint that it's more of a concern than it appears. Only a portion of a portion of a portion of players are going to even find the poll. How many people respond to the average wish list poll anyway?

This is airframe dependent. Modern radars have lookdown capability and aren't bothered much by ground clutter. The ED radars are an exception, but ED has said they will revise these radar, so I expect them to improve. Even with current ED radars, you can still attack from above, you just need to maintain a shallow angle. As soon as you've launched a missile, you no longer need to stay high (although sometimes it's good to retain height) and can dive, removing concerns about lookdown and ground clutter. If you happen to be in a plane that has look down issues, then you will need to descend. Starting high can still be an advantage though, as you can trade altitude for speed. Flying higher also generally helps range and endurance. If you're looking for a perfect situation to start off every engagement, you're not going to find it. If the other plane you're trying to fight is good, it will try to make problems for you. Your job is to find advantages to use for your own gain and to create problems for your adversary. You listed a few common tactics in your first post, instead of trying to blindly apply them, determine if they are feasible in your current situation and which would provide the largest advantage to you. BVR is complex and dynamic, you can't boil it down to a simple 3 step process and learn it in a day.

Here is one way to combine them: Start high and fast, then shoot After shooting dive and turn away Maintain missile lock as long as needed, then turn 90 degrees or more to avoid incoming missiles.

On the one hand it's a lot of work, on the other it means DCS isn't going to run out of modules any time soon. It's a tradeoff in a way.