New move in favor Aim-120? No R-27ER LA while they have it?

30 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Would be grat if you could share what are the mentioned capabilities, since I don't fly this aircraft.

 

When it comes to Russian jets: I think that era was over as soon as the first custom module came out. In LOMAC/FC all the fighters were kind of simplified and in a way balanced out. Fast-forward to today and we have servers that are mostly a playground and eventually we ended up in F vs F situation. In this new era the Russian fighters are completely obsolete since they are missing those detailed features from RL. Not to mention that most of the MP public servers have toy settings, like external views and such. 

I think if ED were the only ones doing the development, we would have some sort of balance, but like this - hardly possible.

The main examples of which are the AGM-62 Walleye on the F/A-18C and the ability to bring and fire off four HARMs in the F-16 despite what actual USAF maintainers have said.

Actions like this by ED really undermine the level of authenticity in my opinion especially with relation to the F-16's example and if that's as low a standard as ED would like to stoop to then it makes perfect sense to apply this to all planes in, like giving R-77s to RuAF Flankers and justifying it because export Su-27SK's can use it or AIM-132s & IRIS-Ts to the US F/A-18C despite Australia and Spain being among the only countries fielding such a modification, Harpoons on an F-16 because of their presence on say Greek and Taiwanese planes, Grom-Bs on a Russian Mi-8 etc etc

Seems to me like a double standard and I'd like it for ED to go back to being by the book on every plane mostly.

On 12/6/2020 at 7:07 AM, dundun92 said:

Exactly what are you so upset about that you felt the need to bump a several month old thread to call me a "conspiracy theorist" for pointing out facts? The guy IS talking about conspiracy theories, he wasnt factually reporting anything. He was complaining about how ED has supposedly made the AIM-120 better/make ECM nonfunctional to intentionally made the russian equipment obsolete. Literally taken from the OP "...Just to have an idea of the impact of this new bias..."  "...Also seem at low altitude the missiles behave worst so at this case will be better keep low flight. Seem developers want to set an air dominance in very high altitude since ECM keep in the unrealistic 50km not affected then the only option left if terrain cover..."

You can argue about culture all you want; the fact is that this was FAR from an actual bug report and is just another in the long list of missile complaint threads with no supporting info other than the fact that he expects his 1980s R-27ER to somehow take on a 2000s AIM-120C on equal terms.

So now youre gonna tell ED how they have to to run their company

(and its not that I dont fully disagree on the balancing point, but srsly calm down)

 

Thank you for asking. Because I came to this forum and specifically this thread to learn from people like you but I found what looked like at the moment like someone having a valid complain and getting barraged with information rather than being convinced that he's actually wrong by demonstration.  Which is exactly why I took a few days to even look back at the thread.

In summary I think I was VERY confused and made the wrong call and ended up making accusations that simply did a disservice to my learning. To be honest I got too invested in the argument and forgot to look at the bigger picture while trying to push for an argument that would fly over most people's heads instead of actually listening to what they were trying to say inevitably getting insulted in the third person and called a charlatan by someone who didn't like what I had to say so they could disregard my point, whether my point was made atrociously or not straw manning is a great way to shut down communication. In comparison, you replied and continued the conversation and so I'm replying back because you actually asked questions over and over again to try to see the other side's point and that is actually quite uncommon.

Here's what I learned:

There is MORE than on DCS world so to speak, this is not a gaming experience where design decisions are made on the principles you'd expect in regular games. On the other hand, there are obvious ways around that ONCE you become aware of how the game is ACTUALLY structured. It doesn't matter how much you know about Military technology, there's a way to find out.

 I was side blinded, my perception was distorted by the decisions I made when I joined the game. Given that I  liked ED's past products I was partial to siding with those products. 

As I started writing this I realized that the quality of modules can really define your experience and that there are many external factors that define what ED can and cannot do which I can't really make my mind up about. For example, how come there are "realistic" models of Western planes (not only American) but none of Russian? Is it ONLY related to ED's geopolitical situation, disclosure agreements, available information?

The date and age of certain factions/products create a whole level of disparity that apparently can't be made up for on the developer's side and has to be taken into consideration as part of the responsibility of the player, but for that the player must be informed.

It would seem the learning curve of the game is high and you would only be able to fully enjoy if you're at least AWARE of the intricacies of the product or if you come in expecting such things to happen. 

Rather than complaining here is a suggestion of partial solutions that might help level things up but that are entirely up to ED to decide to take on.

1.- Gamer ranking/server ranking: The 2.5.6 version now awards medals for single player missions and AFAIK DCS ALWAYS counts your flight hours per plane on a profile basis. There's no reason this data couldn't be leveraged to throw players against each other whilst in the zone of proximal development. 

2.-An "Introduction" process to DCS where you're given awareness of things. Simply stating what's obvious now(thank you @Cmptohocah)

:

On 12/9/2020 at 3:25 PM, Cmptohocah said:

Would be grat if you could share what are the mentioned capabilities, since I don't fly this aircraft.

 

When it comes to Russian jets: I think that era was over as soon as the first custom module came out. In LOMAC/FC all the fighters were kind of simplified and in a way balanced out. Fast-forward to today and we have servers that are mostly a playground and eventually we ended up in F vs F situation. In this new era the Russian fighters are completely obsolete since they are missing those detailed features from RL. Not to mention that most of the MP public servers have toy settings, like external views and such. 

I think if ED were the only ones doing the development, we would have some sort of balance, but like this - hardly possible.

On 12/6/2020 at 7:15 AM, dundun92 said:

Is this even serious? Yes, all of us who actually want a realistic sim actually do care about facts, unless of cource you want DCS to become Ace Combat . YOU may not care about facts but a lot of us here do

Welll...

It wasn't my idea...