Zabuzard Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Will it be possible to turn the feature off entirely, or disable it for a mission in the editor?Kindly check the manual. You can check an option to use the "Reference aircraft". That will cause the Phantoms to spawn with "perfect" values. However, they will of course still be subject to the system while you fly them.If you think you have to constantly fly high G turns without correctly stowing your pod, you have to live with a pod that is only half as good as it used to be. Thats the consequence of flying outside of intended parameters and misusing things. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freehand Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 Interesting, this is the only module I have never bought on pre order think I will hold back until after release see how it all pans out. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Kazansky Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 7 hours ago, Zabuzard said: Kindly check the manual. You can check an option to use the "Reference aircraft". That will cause the Phantoms to spawn with "perfect" values. However, they will of course still be subject to the system while you fly them. If you think you have to constantly fly high G turns without correctly stowing your pod, you have to live with a pod that is only half as good as it used to be. Thats the consequence of flying outside of intended parameters and misusing things. Will those wear and tear issues be saved in the track files of DCS or/and will there be a log to distinguish bugs from features? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zabuzard Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 Will those wear and tear issues be saved in the track files of DCS or/and will there be a log to distinguish bugs from features?It will be persisted in your track files, yes.We are planning for later during EA to add a way to inspect the values for players as well. Details on that at a later point. 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
average_pilot Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 Looking forward to eventually being able to export and import the wear and tear state as I see fit. That feature alone will fit with my... "playing style" really well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatman335 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) On 2/18/2024 at 4:21 AM, Cobra847 said: We're working really hard to ensure that performance is reasonable on launch. Currently performance is under the F-14 benchmark, but we've not done final profiling and optimization just yet, so we hope to find more headroom. Since a lot of people argue about this particular line and think you're saying that it currently runs better than the F-14, could you please clarify what you meant? For a given system, on average, currently at the time of writing this message, does it run better or worse than the F-14? Edited February 23 by Hatman335 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon1-1 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 I'm pretty sure that when they said the performance is "under" the F-14 benchmark, they meant it's worse than the Tomcat. They're likely referring to FPS you get in the cockpit, not any particular system. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatman335 Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 2 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said: I'm pretty sure that when they said the performance is "under" the F-14 benchmark, they meant it's worse than the Tomcat. They're likely referring to FPS you get in the cockpit, not any particular system. I know that, but unfortunately people have a great way to twist any small possible ambiguity into something that they want to hear. People want the F-4 to run really well on any system. A single word in that entire message can perhaps be interpreted in two different ways, yes, I fully agree that if someone reads the entire message without wishful thinking and bias can clearly see that Cobra is saying that currently it runs worse than the F-14. But people are emotional creatures and they ignore the context, just focus on the single word that could, in theory mean what they want it to mean and now there's a debate about this on Discord once every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoodI Posted February 24 Author Share Posted February 24 14 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said: I'm pretty sure that when they said the performance is "under" the F-14 benchmark, they meant it's worse than the Tomcat. They're likely referring to FPS you get in the cockpit, not any particular system. thought under meant better Wishlist:f4e,f4j,f4g,f4e aup,f8,f6f,f4u,f15e,ah1g/w,fr fireball,a7d,g91,jaguar,f1,ch53e. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
average_pilot Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 (edited) On 2/24/2024 at 3:43 AM, NoodI said: thought under meant better Me too. I found it weird but I didn't give it much more thought until it was later clarified. Now it makes more sense. Edited February 27 by average_pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramstein Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 IRL, brakes were <profanity>ty.... fuel tanks developed leaks easily... very thirsty... often lost ordnance from bad or worn parts... misfiring sidewinders ... but the good, very dependable engines.. very little high issues... faster than a ...mofo. Very few flap issues.. carries a lot of heavy weapons.. almost always brought crew home. Before the F models. These are what I remember from active duty flight line. 2 ASUS Strix Z790-H, i9-13900, WartHog HOTAS and MFG Crosswind G.Skill 64 GB Ram, 2TB SSD EVGA Nvidia RTX 2080-TI 55" Sony OLED TV, Oculus VR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts