Exorcet

The border with a hostile nation could very well be considered important to defend. If you prevent the crossing of the border, you've essentially protected the rest of the country without needing to deploy missiles everywhere.

If the missile is modeled correctly, yes. The MIM-104 slows down far faster than the S-300 though, and the effective range is tiny for what is supposed to be a long range SAM system. The missile that the Patriot replaced had ranges up to 100 miles. This doesn't mean that the Patriot has the same range, but having around a 3rd of the range seems questionable. We can also look at the placement of Patriots in the real world: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_topics/20130207_130207-map_nato-support-to-turkey.pdf From NATO, it seems like The Turkey/Syria border is covered primarily by a pair of Patriot sites. The distance between them being ~120 miles. That could imply a 60 mile effective range, otherwise it would be possible to fly between the Patriots without risk of being attacked.

I'm pretty convinced that the problem is actually the drag on the Patriot. Unfortunately I don't have information indicating what the real value should be, I've tried to ask ED to confirm if the drag value is correct as is according to their info, but I never got an answer.

My statement was under the assumption that we had both, so we could switch at will to fit the desired scenario. If we only got one, then yeah the choice would have to be more deliberate if the desire was to fill as many historical roles as possible. I can't say anything about the chance that we'll see the frameless canopy, just pointing out that the virtual plane doesn't have to be bound by the same rules regarding scarcity as the real plane. Indeed it might end up being too much work for Heatblur to consider.

The missile should only be affected if your radar performance is degraded (ie you lose lock on the target). If that does happen the missile will go for the target's last known position, but the chance of it missing is greater. I haven't tried jamming in the Hornet recently so I'm not sure how it interacts with the radar currently, but you should be able to test that.

How common it was doesn't really matter for a simulation though. We could have the option to fly the common configuration, or the rare one. Neither is more correct. What I'd consider a bigger factor is how much work it is for Heatblur to make another model for the plane.

Randomized unit positions are needed, but there is a problem with truly random placement in a zone, not everywhere in the circle is going to (or should be treated as) a valid point. Units could end up on buildings, on mountains, in rivers, in trees, etc. If we do have this feature it needs to do a little bit more than just randomize positions within a zone. I think it might actually be preferable to define spawn points instead of zones and have the points be selected randomly. These points can be kept in reasonable locations to avoid the issues of a purely random in zone spawns.

External tanks are an important and limited resource. You typically don't want to drop them, even if they are empty. That said there is a waypoint action option for setting flights to drop tanks when empty. You can try adding this option to your flight in the ME.

X Plane can use live weahter (I think MSFS can too) so I don't think the wind interacting with terrain is fixed, but dynamic like the rest of weather. I should also clarify that when I said the other sims model "this", I was referring to wind over terrain, not the grid method I was suggesting. The grid method would make sense to precompute currently since DCS doesn't have varying weather.

The missile will switch to HOJ mode, lofting will not work, and there is some discussion about reduced accuracy against jammers in another thread.

If you want CFD on terrain and cities, yes real wind is expensive, but that's not the only option. The terrain can be broken up into large grids classified roughly as moutains, plains, city, etc and have different wind effects modeled. Also, X-Plane and MSFS model this for terrain.

Agreed. It should be easier than it is for the E with Razbam as they had to do all the FM work from nothing. ED has a FM for the C without CFT's, working on a FF Eagle might leave them enough time to do a CFT based flight model. I also wouldn't mind seeing some of the proposed FAST packs beyond extra fuel for what if scenarios.

You can't jump, only accelerate time.

To drop bombs from the E, one needs to own the E. If they only own the C, then that's their bomber I guess. Beyond that, why not? Maybe someone has a creative pre E scenario where C's are performing ground attack, or they're using the C as a stand in for export Eagles that have done more AG.

The AI doesn't use fuel when not moving.

Check your bindings. There are multiple options for MSL override. One is a button press, that one won't let you deselect the mode with the same button. The other is a switch, I think it's under the category "Special for Joystick". This one deselects MSL when you release the switch.

How do you challenge misinformation? Errors might not be intentional, but without discussion they may go unchallenged. Reviews may also benefit from multiple points of view. We don't have a dedicated review section, put there are topics asking about modules and discussion seems to work well enough in them. The forum more or less does this automatically and the same could be said for reviews in topics. As they age they get pushed further back in the forum. New activity can revive and update them, or new topics can be created. With that it sounds like the desire is for professional review, or at least pretty formal ones. At that point it might just be better to have dedicated reviewers so that reviews don't have to be constantly monitored to make sure they meet standards. Just a few ideas to consider.

X-Plane is on Vulkan now. I was somewhat active on that sim as it was transitioning and it gave a pretty decent boost to performance.

When you add a ship (or most unit types) to the map, you're actually adding a group. By default, groups have 1 unit in them, but you can add more by increasing the second number in the "unit" setting. This is explained in the DCS manual. All units in a group will follow the same waypoints.

This should be fixed, but until then, have you tried not setting them to uncontrolled and blocking their path? That way they would be spawned and active but still won't move.

So that I'm not bothered by seeing the Air Force flying a Navy plane out of airbases.

Yes, if you go back far enough you will see suggestions that have been implemented into the game. I do think this section could be more organized though, perhaps with ED highlighting a few ideas that are feasible and then letting the community choose between those ideas which are the most important to implement.

Hence, the warning about the list not being complete. I didn't feel like typing every single option out, so I just listed the general view type for each F key and mentioned that the controls list can be used to fill in what's missing.

It's not a case of choosing one or the other though. While I do take note of fuel flow, I don't just stare at the engine panel in the cockpit. In a way you could consider the FF reference as a step in recovering if the throttle ends up getting out of control. At the same time though, what works for one person may not work for another.

There was a user made benchmark some time ago, but this was for DCS 1.5 maybe? I don't think I've seen it used for a while. We could always make another, and keep it updated as DCS changes. On the other hand though, with DCS being free to play I don't think a benchmark is completely necessary. If someone is having performance issues, they can record and share a track with other players in an attempt to resolve performance problems.