Furiz

Listening to this makes wanna fly it in DCS : Some interesting stuff in there.

@BIGNEWY Nice, and what about 2 rocket pods on single TER?

As you can see in his videos for example, I think they are sometimes on I've watched through 5 or 6 of his carrier recoveries and I think I saw a glimpse of that light during daytime, but anyway if its there it is very hard to see.

I also think that MAC should be its own game separate from DCS and I don't see how it will connect with DCS given it will probably have different flight models, if MAC would connect with DCS in multiplayer we would have one set of aircraft (DCS FF) flying by one set of rules and then the other set of aircraft (MAC) flying by another set of rules, its like connecting DCS with MSFS (I don't fly msfs but I guess the flight models are simpler than the ones in DCS, correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see any valid connection there. And I don't see why flyable redfor planes are necessary to have in DCS other than for PvP for which we need balance and those FC3 planes are not balancing anything either way. Plane simulation should not be about balance in my opinion, it should be about giving us the representation of an aircraft as real as it can be, and if we go by that realism there is really no balance, cause every aircraft has its own performance stats, and real world designers didn't really think of balance when they created those aircraft. So PvP as competition can't really thrive in DCS, we can have PvP but it will make everyone use one aircraft if they want to get that prize since DCS is trying to make realistic representations not balanced arena. Altho, don't get me wrong, I do like redfor aircraft and I would like to have them in FF. And I like having them in DCS cause from time to time I like to jump into that FC3 cockpit and fly around in those aircraft. I'd also love to see more AI aircraft in DCS from other countries such as EU (Rafale, Gripen, EF is coming), China (all their variants of flankers J-10, JH-7,) Korea(FA-50) etc etc there are lots of aircraft that we miss in DCS as AI. All we fight in missions / campaigns and in MP are flankers and fulcrums. I know AI modeling is also long process but we can wait;)

I think you might be having other issues like system ventilation or air flow that need attention cause I ran Apache with 2060 super with no problems like you described.

That might happen since those modules would be much easier to learn than FF modules, and not everyone wants FF modules or is not into that kind of fidelity but they want some military plane action. Later on they may get interested in FF modules, I think that was EDs idea regarding MAC, something that would bring more people to DCS.

Sorry if you cant handle the truth, it is sometimes harsh, but that's not toxic, I think you are more toxic than anyone else here.

lmao as soon as someone wants to say something he is toxic extremist, what does that make you then? I mean you are calling people names... Cause people think, we all have the same rights to express our opinions, for example you are exercising your freedom of speech and with it you are risking being offensive now why shouldn't I be able to do that? Enigma makes video promoting his cause and rightfully so, why shouldn't others have the right to be able to defend their cause? And its only you that is attacking people here with calling them toxic and extremists, you are not the master of this universe sorry, please re evaluate your words first before calling someone else toxic and extremist. I hope you can understand what I'm talking about.

You have to be on the correct frequency as the tanker, you can find his frequency in the briefing or sometimes in the kneeboard. Then you have to choose the correct radio to talk to tanker usually UHF. After that it should respond. We don't have your track so we don't know if you missed some step.

I don't do that in one mission tho, I was thinking of separate missions. Yeah and there was one more Enigma server which I don't see anymore, it wasn't rly full as first one and then there is thousands of DCS players which chose not to populate those servers, you forgot about that. If everyone wanted to play there the other server would be full. Then look at SPQR server with Enigma formula, its empty... That is not true, lots of servers are trying to enforce some rules, like don't take off taxiways etc that FC3 (and I don't care population) players tend to do a lot and they annoy others with their behavior. Many avoid playing on free maps cause of more people that don't care on those than on paid maps etc...

This guy made a airquake PvP server with 60 tik tok users battling to infinity and now thinks everyone thinks like he does, he is a good video maker that's for sure. But he is forgetting not everyone wants a balanced PvP game, there are other games that go for that. I think that many many people fly in DCS cause of high fidelity of those FF planes and we love it. I really enjoy just taking off with full preparation from Nellis and going for a course around Nevada fly to tanker and drop few bombs and return to base, with as much procedure following as I can and know how to do. I don't need adversary balanced for this. And If I encounter adversaries I don't expect them to be on pair with my jet, they have their advantage and I have mine and I try to use my advantage as best as I can. In real world there is never a fair fight and that's what DCS simulates. I love to loiter in the air coordinate with and wait for SEAD/DEAD flight to do its job so I can run in drop 2 JDAMS on some bunker that is my target. sometimes it will take an hour, in the meantime I'll watch the air battle on my HSD or SA page and cheer when red contact fades from being shot down by our escort. Or I'll do the SEAD/DEAD job while other flights prepare to run in. I love modern jets cause of lots of systems I can fiddle with inside them, and I'm happy with every new update to them. We all know documentation is hard to come by, and that module development takes a lot of time and we are fine with it. That's what I love about DCS, and that is why I'm here and I'm sure many others are too.

It's the end of the world and you know it...

Who wouldn't want this beauty, give us Blackhawk!

Yeah you are right, it's something to do with indicator, will need to compare gear out and lights in the cockpit.

Another with Greek F-16 start of the video you can see gear going down.

@NealiusFound this video, landing gear demo starts at 0:13 you can see how fast they go down and up. Maybe something for ED to check.

You find out about Software Tapes in F-16 and they brought here: https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article2.html

We have USAF F-16C block.50 with tape 4.2+ around year 2007. On the pic is Israel F-16 Barak, don't know which block they used.

Rafale please pretty please One day one day far far away

Fair enough Certification demands testing and testing and most importantly money I guess it might be the reason US vipers cant have smart weapons on inner pylons. While it, according to ED, can carry gbu24 on 4 and 6, I guess separation is not the issue.

As far as I know our F-16 is not certified for those weapons on those stations, and they never carried GPS munitions on 4 and 6, can you show some public evidence of what you claim?

How about you make like skywalker22 suggested and THEN we try to proove otherwise?, since obviously no one can proove anything here and his suggestion actually makes some sense

Yeah... that's not really true, and I doubt designers overlooked something like that, as skywalker22 says there is absolutely no logic with current implementation. Computers back then would have no problem with RWR display, our Viper is from 2007 not from 1980. Even the F-5 can do it.

Is this gonna get ignored?

Oh I thought this was W.I.P. so I didn't make a report, well good that you did @skywalker22