DSplayer Posted May 18 Posted May 18 24 minutes ago, hotrod525 said: DCS is game design for entertainment, you and i simply dont share the same vision of that, it's okay. They took liberties on other modules, i dont understand why they could not on this one, specialy since we will not have much of the fancy stuff. Module developers, even ED, can't just manifest something out of nowhere. The F-35 that is in service today doesn't even have HARM or AARGM integrated yet. With absolutely no information to work on unlike other instances, ED can't just make the largest assumptions to put the HARM or AARGM on our F-35. 2 Discord: @dsplayer Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro Resources I've Made: F-4E RWR PRF Sound Player | DCS DTC Web Editor Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14
EricJ Posted May 18 Posted May 18 4 hours ago, DSplayer said: Module developers, even ED, can't just manifest something out of nowhere. The F-35 that is in service today doesn't even have HARM or AARGM integrated yet. With absolutely no information to work on unlike other instances, ED can't just make the largest assumptions to put the HARM or AARGM on our F-35. This Homepage | Discord | My Files | YouTube 'Nearly everyone felt the need to express their views on all wars to me, starting with mine. I found myself thinking, “I ate the crap sandwich, you didn’t, so please don’t tell me how it tastes.”' - CPT Cole, US Army
EchoOneOne Posted May 18 Posted May 18 6 hours ago, Muchocracker said: You can question the selection of timeframe and block selection. Throwing a tantrum and demanding they add/do things are not accurate because of flawed "logic" helps absolutely nobody. I can't understand why ED even specified what block and timeframe the F-35A would be. This aircraft is enough of a frankenjet in real life. Block 4.1/.2 airframes fly with 40P01 software that was meant for IOC Block 3F. If Lockheed itself does not have power over it at times, why should ED do so, especially given the lack of public documents and information about the fat amy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 5 hours ago, DSplayer said: Module developers, even ED, can't just manifest something out of nowhere. The F-35 that is in service today doesn't even have HARM or AARGM integrated yet. With absolutely no information to work on unlike other instances, ED can't just make the largest assumptions to put the HARM or AARGM on our F-35. 35A is already ongoing software upgrade to be capable of employing legacy HARM on external STAs. "Once a dragon always a dragon"
antiload Posted May 21 Posted May 21 I agree with hotrod525. Going forward, some level of artistic license may be necessary when designing modules, their systems, and weapons. Personally, I enjoy a mix of modern combat—whether it’s stand-off engagements or the risk of close-range encounters. At present, AI-launched cruise missiles behave unrealistically by flying in a straight line, and some incoming assets rely on ‘best guess’ specifications. I understand that some players prefer strict simulation accuracy, but ultimately, the choice to use these systems remains with the player. Expanding options and enhancing missions and scenarios will only serve to make an already great game even better
Recommended Posts