Jump to content

LaFleur

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LaFleur

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 03/05/1990

Personal Information

  • Location
    Athens, Greece

Recent Profile Visitors

358 profile views
  1. @Wags @BIGNEWY Let's hope ED sees this thread and reconsiders the incorrect "no evidence" tag.
  2. What is this "no evidence" tag? There is in the NATOPS manual. Also, I've seen many credible people here talk about this particular functionality, and it seems strange to me that ED is unaware about it.
  3. Indeed the F-16 feels draggier in BFM but that's not a major issue. I don't really do BFM since there is rarely a merge, and also merges should be avoided if possible. So yeah, it doesn't bother me that much. I believe there are more serious issues that need to be addressed first. But that's just my opinion.
  4. I couldn't agree more. People keep bringing up a quote from Mover, but forget that the Block 30 and the Block 50 perform much differently. Also, the F/A-18A and the F/A-18C Lot 20 are different planes with different engines... ED has done a good job, I believe, with the F-16s FM (although pylon damage and G stressing stores is not modeled yet), but there is still room for improvement. Let's be patient and enjoy the F-16 - that does 9G at 1.2m with external tanks, takes no stress damage, and its radar detects contacts from 80 miles away, while having the weakest radar IRL comp
  5. I got the same issue. Instructed 2 different time Jester to set waypoint to home base and DCS crashed instantly. Those are the only 2 crashes I had in DCS 2.7.
  6. Yeah. I'm ignorant about the technical aspect of the radars and their specs. Thought this would give me an approximate estimate of each radars' performance. Let's hope ED has the info and the means to implement realistic radar detection ranges for other modules as well, not only the F/A-18C...
  7. I understand that the photos might be tampered, but from my experience with sea, of which I have a lot, the color looks like exactly like the GoPro footage.
  8. To be honest, I don't know what you are talking about. Yesterday, I was able to soft lock an enemy, high aspect, F-16 with TWS from about 70Nm away. The F-16 is overwhelmingly overperforming according to the real world specs.
  9. That's interesting.. How about the rest of the values?
  10. From the little I fiddled around with settings, I didn't see any difference with High, Medium or Low in the water settings. I believe I have calibrated the gamma good enough so every surface and reflection looks realistic. Messing around gamma settings to counter the oil-like water look, isn't a fix to the problem, for me at least. Don't get me wrong, I like the new "texture" of the water, even though it lacks waves, but I found it to be unrealistically dark. If it had a little more blue in it, it would be good awesome.
  11. Thanks for the info! I hope ED sees this and implements this feature. It's so simple but yet incredibly convenient.
  12. Wow! Are you sure about this?? This is the only thing I found frustrating during BVR in the F-18; having to go to SA, slew the cursor around to find this highest/fastest threat, then back to ATTK, slew again, fix the antenna elevation, soft lock, Press Auto in TWS. So many things to do, and buttons to press, when in the F-16, you just slew the FCRs cursor around while glancing at your HSD. If this is true, a simple feature like that (which exists in the F-16), will make things much easier for the pilot!
  13. I mean.... Guys... The problem is not just waves. After the update water looks like an oil spill...
×
×
  • Create New...