Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've seen this document cited as evidence for the DCS F18's sustained turn rate. Just be aware that this is a document that was written for congress to dissuade them from funding the Super Hornet by comparing it to the Legacy Hornet, so it comes with a little bias. It also isn't a NATOPS manual, it was written by the General Accounting Office. Another problem is that there are no EM charts for the hornet in it, just claims that it has 19 d/s turn rate with no G specified or DI or weight. To my knowledge there are no publicly available EM charts for the Block 20 hornet, so ED is doing their best approximating the FM with what documentation they have.
  2. The Navy procured a few F-16 variants (designated F-16N) for their aggressor role. It had the gun removed along with some other things to cut the weight down as much as possible. The Block 50 we have in DCS is heavier than the earlier blocks but it is still underperforming slightly in STR and ITR, but the big factors are incorrect AOA and G in certain regimes. ED knows about this and are working on it. Once they release the new FM I have a feeling that OP's tomcat problem won't be much of a problem anymore.
  3. You'll need to look up 'cursor zero'. When you move the tpod it creates a delta from the original steerpoint. Once you cursor zero the steerpoint will be back to it's original position.
  4. @uboats A few months ago someone posted in the general discussion thread that the JF-17 blk 1 and 2 are currently using EEGS, along with having pictures of the HUD as well. Has Deka looked into this? EEGS would make BFM in the Thunder much more interesting, and bring out its potential even with a negative angled gun.
  5. Yep, that's why it's a good idea to not launch a fox 3 when friendlies are near. There's also a bug with how the enemy's ecm + chaff interacts with the 120 even at burn through range.
  6. coolneko


    Guys are struggling because the STR and ITR are still off, along with gloc occuring so quickly. The FM is unfinished, ED has said so themselves. It has nothing to do with blk15 vs blk50. Obviously the A is more maneuverable. I think a blk30 would be easier to make using the cockpit textures that we already have and would also help provide that 'pinnacle dogfighter' viper too. Unfortunately it wouldn't fit for early 80s coldwar scenarios though, but the F16a would require remaking most if not all of the assets from scratch.
  7. The only problem with the 120 that I've come across is that when you drop a track before the missile goes active it will quit functioning altogether. If I'm not mistaken the way it should work is if you drop the track before pitbull it should still guide toward the the last known location of that track and go active. Currently you need to support the missile all the way to active for them to work. I haven't had any problems with firing on multiple targets in TWS as long as they didn't drop from the radar before the missile went active.
  8. If they were options then that's completely fine, but don't act as if those options you presented are the same as adding an option to remove one aspect from maverick operation in the viper. Your entire argument is based on the fact that if we let the viper have the maverick align option, then ED will abandon reason and allow anything as an option. How is that a logical conclusion unless you have no faith in ED? At the end of the day ED is the arbiter on these issues and I trust that they won't add in any of the things you proposed because they make absolutely no sense, and neither does the idea of an 'option domino effect'. Do you honestly think that after the boresight option is introduced, someone will ask for the viper to be able to fly into space, as long as its an option and ED will allow it? Or that the phoenix will be added to the list of weapons we could load? Do you think that ED won't be able to decide where to draw the line? You're right it is the exact same argument, but yours is in bad faith. You know ED wouldn't add anything like them into the game. If they were options they wouldn't. Like I said before, your previous examples aren't equivalent to an auto bore option so trying to get me to agree and then call out hypocrisy doesn't really add up. Okay. I'm not 'arbitrarily' allowing one but not another. The examples you brought up aren't anywhere near the same as an auto boresight option, and your conclusion that the addition of that option will lead to a cascading effect of ridiculous options doesn't connect. That's why one makes sense and the other doesn't. It seems that the only reason you want to leave it out is because A) you don't believe ED has the ability to decide what is a quality of life change and what isn't or.. B) You don't like the idea of a player having the ability to play your game the way they want too. As if all the examples I gave you were pretty absurd, right? (except for magic IFF, I would like to see an option to turn that off back in the game)
  9. You're making a lot of assumptions. The point is they're having fun and not taking it seriously. People play DCS for a lot of different reasons. You don't have to act as if you're participating in a milsim event every time you play the game. Saying that a boresighting option will lead to the F-16 being able to fly to mars or adding weapons that were never loaded is completely a slippery slope argument. Nothing fundamental is changing about mavrick operation in the viper with a boresight option, while all the examples you've given are fundamentally changing how the viper operates. If I would have only responded to your post saying it was a fallacy, then you're correct, but I didn't. I also addressed the other points of your argument. The only reason I specified that particular point is because another poster did the exact same thing earlier in the thread. If drag modeling was removed by having an air-start jet, and you were asking for an option to remove it for when you're on the ground so you could take off and fly into space, then the reasoning would follow. The F-14D had GPS integrated INS (I think) so aren't you just asking for the F-14D? This is the most reasonable comparison you've had. If heatblur wanted to add an option to turn off INS drift I wouldn't argue. I also wouldn't come to the conclusion that said option would eventually lead to the tom being able to tunnel into the mantle of the earth though. Why arbitrarily decide that an air-start is acceptable for auto aligned mavs, but a ramp start isn't? Adding a boresight option and having the viper be a hypersonic spaceship aren't equal concessions, and I don't believe ED would be making random choices along the way for them to be connected. If you honestly think that having an option for boresighting is conceding the position of DCS being an accurate-as-possible flight sim, or that such an option would lead ED to be unable to tell the difference between quality of life additions or incorporating vapid ridiculousness then you should have them remove all unrealistic options in general. Invulnerability, infinite ammo, flight model and avionics easy mode, disabling G effects, less than 60 second rearm and refueling, completely repairing an aircraft in the time it takes me to make a cup of tea, magic iff etc.
  10. This is just a slippery slope fallacy. Nothing about having a boresighting mav option would detract ED from making the F-16 as accurate as possible. Again, its an option. The end goal, and most likely what the majority of players will use is the F-16 in its most realistic state. I'm having a hard time understanding why there are people so vehemently against just having an option in the game. There's already options for invulnerability and infinite ammo along with others turning off accuracy in the sim. As for consistency, you're right. Adding an option will take resources and development time, which could possibly introduce bugs into the game and delay modules getting out of EA, which are things I don't want. I honestly wish they would just integrate MAC into DCS as a single product, but at this point I'm more interested in why even the possibility of an option can elicit responses like this: I don't think you know what the word gaslight means, my guy. Let me try to come at this from a different angle than just the unlearned player. Lets say someone wants to set up a multiplayer mission, where you take off hot from the ramp with unlimited mavs and go see who can kill the most T72s. Everyone that plays in the server already knows how to boresight the mavs, and how to operate the viper efficiently, but just want to screw around in a fun mission. What's the problem with boresighting being turned off in this scenario?
  11. I think an important part of the argument is being lost: If an option was presented for boresighting, then your experience wouldn't be affected because you wouldn't use it. So where's the harm in allowing an option? All the arguments that I've seen in this thread against optional boresighting have boiled down to 'I don't like it when you don't play the way I do, so don't play'. To be clear, in multiplayer, any options like these would obviously be up to the server, and I personally think that most wouldn't allow them. So why not allow someone who wants to run BAI in singleplayer liberation, or a custom mission or whatever, the option to play how they want?
  12. It seems that for you, learning the systems of an aircraft down to the finest detail, and trying to master them is what keeps bringing you back to DCS. I'm exactly the same, that's why I play DCS, because its the only game that I've found that has this kind of in-depth simulation. The thing is, if we could bring more people into DCS that maybe are intimidated or otherwise uninterested in the fine details, but for all intents and purposes, want to fly in a beautiful simulator, we should. Just because we like to take DCS to the furthest it can go doesn't mean that every person that wishes to play has to also play the same way we do. If there are options, like auto boresighting mavricks, or anything else that could make the game more accessible, I don't see why we should be against it. More players means more money for ED, which hopefully means more resources for them to spend on their development staff to make DCS a better game. The coolest thing to me, about having the entry to DCS be easier, is that the people who do play the 'easy way' may eventually want to truly operate the aircraft and be willing to learn, which brings more people into an already niche hobby. DCS is a game. Its a pretty accurate combat flight simulator, but its still a game.
  13. If call of duty added an aimbot option that you could use in single player, who cares? I think the thing you're missing is that any of the features could be removed via option. It's an option. So is you want to play singleplayer in super easy mode. Go for it. Multiplayer would be different, I honestly don't think those options would be allowed on most servers, but that's not the point of the argument. Allowing people to choose how they play doesn't affect the 'spirit of the simulator' (that's pretty subjective btw). There's already an invulnerable option, and an infinite ammo option, and options for labels.
  14. The realism of dcs is what got me hooked as well, I'm right there with ya. But if you think that anybody who wants an authentic as possible experience will be affected in any way, by any easy street options, you're just wrong. You can turn them off if you don't want them. Keeping dcs 'pure' seems like an argument that has nothing to do with the product and everything to do with the playerbase. You dont have a say in who can and can't play the game. Let people play how they want. If ED decides to make an 'easy mode' aar option, great. I won't ever use it, and I won't really worry about who does.
  15. See: edgy gatekeeper Why don't you want more people to play? Why does their play style matter to you? You can just check all the 'as realistic as possible' boxes and move on.
  • Create New...