DCS: F-16C Viper

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/viper/

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ends-up-in-jail-over-buying-usaf-manuals

On May 17, 2019, Eagle Dynamics released a screenshot, seen at the top of this story, of the simulated cockpit the company has designed for the forthcoming F-16 module. In the initial early access release of the software, Eagle Dynamics says the update for DCS will include a fully recreated Block 50 Viper cockpit with "Color Multifunction Display (CMFD) symbology, Horizontal Situation Display (HSD) format, and Head-up Display (HUD) symbology" and "Digitally [sic] TACAN [Tactical Air Navigation System] and Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (EHSI)," according to a company news release from February 2019.

Been in love with Vipers since I first saw one at an airshow as a kid.

Having a blast with BMS 4.34, and a DCS version will be a day 1 buy.

I didn't think that I would buy any more of ED high fidelity jets. I just don't want to spend the time learning them. I hardly fly my A-10C, but use the F-15 all the time because it isn't so complex. But, #%&*$#! I'm gonna want this. I'll have to bite the bullet and dive into the manual.
Some exciting stuff hapening over there. An F-8 Crusader. Another favorite. And it looks as though that F4U might be out soon. How can I not get that!?
They're gonna force me to spend some money. I hate that!

I never buy anything from them unless it's in a sale.
That would change however if they had aircraft with relevant campaigns plus a historical map to go with it.
Then I might be disposed to buy things as they come out.

Just about every DCS module I own, I bought on sale. As a matter of fact, I think that EVERY one I bought was a sale item. So I most likely will follow my pattern and wait. But I will get that Viper, eventually.

There are several planes I would like to purchase, I-16, F4U, Migg19 and the Harrier to name a few, but since Ed has never finished the P47, the Me262 from the 1944 WWII kick starter debacle and they let VEAO rip me off for 40$ for the P40 and did nothing about it, I just can't spend any more money with them. The F16 & F14 would be included in that list to buy, but No Thanks, they have lost me as a customer.

S!Blade<><

They follow the same pattern; Release a module then fix it for some time, then release another wishing that people forget the older one with bugs still remaining with it and then just rinse and repeat. Unfortunately that even seems to work.

Yep, SOP for them.

Yeah, I'm drawing my line in the sand on this one.
Way too many unfinished projects and hard broke core issues. That and their nerfed F-16 variant just doesnt appeal to me. Too many compromises. The F-15E either.

They lost me at ". . .will set the standard for F-16 simulation" and "our 30 years of simulation experience". Seriously? You're going to pick a fight with Falcon BMS without a shred of a campaign engine? And I've been around for the majority of their 30 years and it's been unequivocally . . . disappointing.

Which is why I'll wait 'til they finish the F/A 18. (holding breath)

I hope you've got big lungs.......they haven't bothered to finish any of their other modules yet

Kind'o my point

Does anyone remember the 90s... more flight sim companies and flight sims than you could shake a stick at? And then BOOM They died?

Anyone remember why?

It was because: 1) customers wanting something for nothing and 2) Incessant customer whining about bugs and/or imperfect code.

I wish you guys could understand it: Eagle Dynamics is doing us a YYUUUGE favor by providing us this sim, pay modules and all. Its amazing. Especially for those of us who remember the death of flight sims around 2000ish. No it doesnt have every this or that. The modules are incomplete in completion. Et cetera. But it's #%&*$# amazing for those of us who've ben around for 20+ years. This is the time we've been praying and/or hoping for.

We all need to show more gratitude than grouchiness because these guys could just pull the rug and go into other businesses that both appreciate their service and (probably) pay them better.

Jus' sayin'.

Yes, I remember why and I completely disagree with what you said above, namely as those being the reasons why flight sims "died".
I say that it was because:

1- The trend changed - Flight sims became less and less popular while other genres such as FPS shooters became increasingly more popular (taking a big/huge chunk of the market).

2- Together with the above, sims became less and less fun. For example I remember that F-15 Strike Eagle III (a F-15E sim) allowed co-op in the same aircraft (pilot and WSO) while the "sucessor" Jane's F-15 didn't. And then the F-15 sucessor - Jane's F/A-18 - didn't have for example SAR radar which all the two order sims had. And this extends to all other features such as campaign and missions. For example hardly no sims released in the late 1990's had compelling dynamic campaigns for instance. As sims progressed campaigns and their missions become less and less interesting and fun! Well you know, the keyword here FUN. Many around here (namely many DCS fans) seem to forget the meaning of that word.

3- Together with the above, sims became more and more complicated and in most cases unnecessarily so. This had the result of keeping "new blood" (new players) away from the genre.



No, they are NOT! They are doing a disservice to the genre by releasing content which is perpetually unfinished. They are ripping of the customers! And since they are among the last in the genre they are not only keeping new potential players away from the genre but also keeping many/most of the players that want and do play sims away from the genre and above all and with the attitude of fan(actics) such as yourself keeping new potential sim developers away from the genre - for example why would someone risk starting a new company to develop new combat flight sims when all there seems to be in terms of potential customers are DCS fan(actics) such as yourself which only see DCS as the only viable combat flight sim??

Resuming:
- It's attitudes like yours that are killing the genre, PERIOD!

100% disagree with Iamfritz troll?
ricnunes- AMEN That. Omg i love f15III btw

Nonsense.

Do you propose that everyone buys ED's unfinished modules, bug-ridden patches and goes wax lyrical because they are apparently doing us a 'HUGE favour'? I've been around for 20+ years and it isn't amazing at all. It's supposed to be a combat simulator.....it's even in the title yet what we actually have is an excellent start-up button push trainer, a good screenshot generator but some very weak combat and a developer that will probably never realise anywhere near the potential that we all hoped for.

I remember the 90s.



Not sure how either of those things effect profitability. Are you talking about piracy? Or dissatisfaction that led to fewer sales?



On one hand your optimism is refreshing. But on the other I see this sort of attitude as what allows ED to do what they do. I think it's naive



This stance that we should be happy we are getting anything at all is err, not widely held. Again, it enables ED to do what they do. I have analogies in mind, but I'll spare you. Don't care to change your mind, don't think you do either. I've been at this for 20+ years and I can assure you that what ED produces is NOT what I have been praying for. You seem to be saying "Sure, it's incomplete and missing stuff, but have you SEEN it?! OMG it looks so uhmazin'." Because in my view it's missing those elements that make for a great flight sim, the one I've been praying for. DCS isn't it. It could have been. But it's not.




Now you're just having a laugh. You've got the business-customer relationship backwards I think.

Bad missile flight dynamics are the biggest issue combat wise, but what else is missing? Not so good AI squadron controls? I would say inability to handle large scale missions but I haven't tried that in a long time and to be honest those don't represent realistic battles anyways.

It all comes down to if you like to play combat flight sims there are currently only two choices. BMS and DCS.
That's all there is.

And I agree that DCS's business model/practices are crap. But that's all there is and I like playing combat flight sims.
I have the BMS F-16, and also the DCS A-10C, Mirage, F-86, F-18, and Tomcat.

All in all, it's pretty cool.

to answer all those questions......no I won't be buying this hunk of junk for several years.

Nice finally the F 16! Preordered and will buy it for a friend when it comes to steam!

Yes, good to see the F-16 coming to DCS but I prefer the AH-1W or the Mi-24P to have been prioritised before the F-16 was announced.

cobra was announced years ago. still nothing.

Yes i agree with you about this, all those modules you mention is something of my interest and i would get, but would probably have been a bit better if they released either the Cobra or Hind (or both) before the F16!
I keep wanting new planes eventhough i have enough to keep me busy learning for years! Simce last year ive been flying mostly the Harrier and when the Tomcat came i divided most of my flying time between those 2.

But i welcome the F16 and i will find time to learn this too:)

Lol.. one thing is guaranteed when ED release a module - SIMHQ dinosaurs will whine about it incessantly rather than look at the positive side. We get more choices. And that's exactly what they are - choices. Don't like it, don't buy it.

I for one am grateful that there's still a dev out there pumping out flight sims that can play in updated tech. DCS in VR is an experience. Sure it'd be perfect if they released completed modules but I can wait. This genre has taught me patience and if it never gets fixed, well, I'd rather fly something broken and experience it than not having it at all.

They're doing gamers a disservice? Step up and create a flight sim yourself or get EA to sponsor one.

"And I agree that DCS's business model/practices are crap...."

Yeah, but when I'm in the F-86 and I'm trying to bag a MiG-15....or more likey trying not to get bagged by one....the last thing I'm thinking about is their buisiness practices.
The only reason I'm on the fence is that I just don't seem to want to learn these complex models, anymore. I never fly my A-10, anymore, for that reason. I don't want it to be another thing siting on my hard drive that I don't use. But, boy, I like the F-16.

Let's agree, one thing DCS do nice is trailers.



PRE-ORDER

Someone say: "DCS trailers really make me want to buy things I know I wont like".

I and others here don't actually "whine". We just post facts and evidence about ED's dishonest and fraudulent business model (Modules that are perpetually in Alpha state and never finished while more and more of these modules keep pumping up, etc, etc, etc...), full of perpetual bugs that are never fixed, etc, etc, etc...

It's not our fault that you don't like to hear the FACTS!



Yeah right.
Lets look at that beautiful DCS F-16 video:
- When I look at the ground targets being destroyed, all I can wonder is - There's no Air-to-Ground radar!
- When I look at the AMRAAM shots, all I can wonder is - AMRAAMs are a crap and barely work in BVR and only work "more or less" in WVR (and this is an AMRAAM, LOL!).
- When I look at the "Cluster explosions", all I can wonder is - which supercomputer will handle that?!

I wonder if you would defend so hard another combat flight sim made by another developer even if such sim only had half of the bugs/issues of DCS?! I guess not but then I guess that this is the true definition of being an ED/DCS fanboy/fanatic...



Yes, ED is doing gamers a disservice. But guess what? They are not the only ones! Fanboys/fanatics such as yourself are also doing gamers a disservice as well! "Congratulations"...

And why would someone "step up and create a flight sim" when many of the remaining simmers such as yourself only seem to care about DCS?? How can someone (a potential combat flight sim developer) think it will have any chance at all to compete with a sim which is a major cluster f**k and at the same time the most vocal simmers defend it so staunchly and this again, despite being a major cluster f**k?? How can someone compete against such a "paradigm"??

I usually wonder and honestly think that the best thing that could happen with the combat flight sim genre would be for ED to go bankrupt/out of business since I strongly believe that it will only be after something like this happening that someone else will finally step up and create a flight sim!

Wynn's post seemed more middle-of-the-road, than fanatic. At least that's how I read it

I will eventually purchase the falcon. Not as a fanatic, or a fanboy, but as a military aircraft enthusiast

I think it's safe to say most of us prefer to include some A/A action in our sorties. ED still hasn't fixed the flawed code that makes a 30 mile missile (IRL) into a maybe it'll hit at 10 miles AMRAAM. It's been 10 years since ED actually admitted their code is fuxored. Yet still no fix on one of the very most important things we like to do in a combat flight sim. That being said, if they aren't fixing something that's relatively important, do you really think they're gonna finish that module. I mean, since they've already not finished several................

....and especially when there is easy money to be made churning out mission pack after mission pack

They're apparently working on it with the AIM-7 being the first. No idea how far that has progressed.

The only insight about "real world" performance I've heard is that AIM-120 (and other similar missiles) have a notably lower PK than what flight simmers seem to expect. And that flight simmers in DCS and Falcon like to put on unrealistic pay loads that wouldn't be possible in real life or are possible but would never been done due to the severe damage they cause to the aircraft. EX) More than AGM-65s per wing on an F-16.

I'll likely get it but not until closer to the drop dead date on my bonus bucks; which expire in January since I bought the Tomcat back in January of this year right before it went off pre-purchase....but I have to get some rudder pedals as well before I buy anymore modules of anything.

I'm still waiting for AG radar before I buy the Hornet...

And the insight about "real world" performance of missiles that I've heard, namely on the AMRAAM is that its Pk is far, far bigger/higher in real life compared to the DCS...

AIM-120 has around a 10 mile range against fighters in DCS so I think that has a lot to do with it. It looses energy so quickly.

Yes, that's indeed a fact but it's not the only issue regarding the AMRAAM (and perhaps even other air-to-air missiles in DCS).
As an another example, I perfectly remember a situation that happened to me something like a year or two ago while flying with the F-15C in a mission where I decided to shoot at an enemy Mig-29 with an AMRAAM. In this case in particular I decided to watch the missile's flight (even because that Mig was the only enemy aircraft in the vicinity) and what happened next puzzled me even further:
- The missile in this case initially flew in an apparent correct flight profile towards the enemy Mig-29. As the missile got closer to the Mig with the Mig flying a bit below the Missile then the missile flew directly and exactly towards the point where it would intercept/hit the Mig (lead pursuit, just as as expected) then I thought to myself - This Mig is toasted! - but then as the missile was going to impact/destroy the Mig-29 then it happened the weirdest and stupidest thing that I ever saw in any Combat Flight Simulator - Instead of just continuing to fly straight (which would lead to an impact/kill) the missile FLIPPED something like 45 degrees in an upper and leftward position from its current flight path and thus completely avoided the enemy aircraft!! It's even more stupid if we think that the missile at that point shouldn't have that much energy but it flew upwards just like if it was launched at that time!

Expectations in the late 90's and early 2000's were just too high to reach with the available tech at the time. Development took way longer than your average FPS game and the ROI was minimal for such a niche hyper-critical customer base. It really is too bad, as flight sims were just really starting to mature.

Now we have the tech. We just don't have the big companies willing to invest in the products we love.

I'd be happy if someone ported or reconstructed DID's EF2000 in DCS.

There was an F16 simulation where the squadron was based in Turkey. If ED ported that f-16 aircraft, I'd consider buying it. Can't remember what it was called but it was back in the XTree gold days.

I fully agree that a remake of the DID's EF2000 in a new engine would be awesome, indeed!

However I don't think that DCS would be the proper engine for that. If I remember it correctly, EF2000 modeled a very extensive air war with several flights of enemy and allied aircraft flying around accomplishing their objectives and fighting with and against each other and on top of that you had naval fleets (there was at least a quite big Russian fleet with a Carrier and a considerable number of escort ships) and plus of course, the ground units. Such a high number of units/assets would bring DCS to its knees even if such setting was being run on a NASA supercomputer.

I know I have said it before and I will say it again the A2A missiles in DCS are terrible. I just do not get how with the available data on the internet they cant get it right. Its a modern sim of air combat....at least get the bloody #%&*$# A2A missiles right. Off my missile soap box now.

What's the latest on AG radar? I don't visit their forums message boards anymore but aware this has been bubbling for years

Hi Dave, long time no see lol. Hope all is well.

Yes the missles as well as a host of other things are borked, but whadya gonna do. They seem to want the same things we do, they're just not in any hurry to get any of it done.

Best quess is 2 more years.

Hey man how the hell are you? I’m back simming again after a serious long break.

good to hear. hopefully you will have noticed a few changes in DCS after the long break....

feel free to make public those major changes you see after the hiatus.

Well the missiles still suck. The mission editor is top notch. The F-14 is a blast. I love the Persian Gulf terrain. I'm looking forward to the Viper, however shouldn't they finish the other modules first? I think I covered it all.

I'm sure you're correct. However, one can still dream.

Seems as if that is very far from their business model since they just moved a bunch of devs from 18 to "secure" the 16 early access date.
Major mayhem at hoggit even driving Nick out of the woods to make answers/statements and now they (ED) forced bigNewy to register at hoggit trying to execute damage control (no, not if you ask them but that's what it bloody is)

I do think the 16 didn't trigger many to let go of their money and that's why they made this massive effort to the hoggit community (that post they responded to, called "Wall of text" is actually very well written. You may read it here if you have not already done so: https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/d7kp1g/wall_of_text_eagle_dynamics_early_access_problem/ )

To me, ED is using early access to figure out how much dev time they should put into a specific module not risking to add too many features if very few buys it as I do not believe there's a rush of customers when the module is released 5 years later.
I do suspect this also applies to HB since the Viggen activity died mid-range (and soon after that 2018 was announced to be the year of content, haha yeah right - will be interesting to see the F-14 customer base when the same #%&*$# happens to them)


Edit: Anyone still considering putting dollars to the 16 should be fully aware that they will receive the same treatment as the current 18 early access customers just did when the next EA module shows up in one or two years from now (and no, you will still not have a complete 16 by then)

Very diplomatic response by nick. Thank you for sharing then link Oden

And another charm offensive by ED:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/d8vjn9/for_those_interested_or_concerned/?sort=old

My take is the F-16 isn't getting many pre-purchases at all and ED is in panic mode.

Yeah Winfield, he did respond in good manner but being old and bitter like me it falls all flat as a PR stunt (unlike to so many others at reddit screaming of joy getting attention from top-brass and in my world, pretty darn naive reactions).
My DCS wallet remains closed until I see results.

thank you for the hoggit links - interesting read, I registered there once a few years ago but completely forgot about it.

I should change my username to out_of_touch_ about_DCS_in_general



who is nineline? Norm, I remember someone with that name from the early days of Lock On, is he the same ?

did not know that Nick Grey co-founded it, reading his post called my attention to EA, did not even imagine EA had become such an issue and that F/A-18 was not finished yet, seems that it is not.

with 33k members it seems hoggit has become an alternative to more traditional forums like ours, it is an interesting trend although I for obvious reasons prefer forums hosted by websites.

it must be tough to co-ordinate their message with such a fractured community, and hoggit is an area where it is a free for all. this nineline is at least doing something about it.

Does a leopard change its spots?

Has hell frozen over?

I commented on Nine Lines post.....seriously, does he want to be friends with the people he banned?

It's absolutely laughable what has happened at hoggit in the last 24 hours. This F16 has serious flaws if even Nine Line has come out trying to convince people of the changes within ED.

And how many people on Norms post have bought into that BS.

**Edit: I take these words back, never thought i'd see the day I would regret a post like this.

Tom, nineline is the new handle of SiThSpAwN since he made it community manager.

True, reddit subs seem popular but I do prefer simHQ style forums since I find these much better to navigate and tat reddit style for up-/downvoting posts seems to be out of hand - well, I do find the red blocked ones more interesting to open and read so maybe there is some use after all

I'm pretty new to reading hoggit/reddit but man, if we are known to "hate" on ED/DCS I'm not sure what to call hoggit (and their insanity central floggit).

But isn't it telling, now that ED needs to figure out why something is wrong they need to go read on other places than their own forums.

SiThSpAwN also came after my time, don't know him.

I sure prefer SimHQ (and LOF ) to it, too much work to find posts, you must be right about it being negative otherwise those posts by TFC/DCS would have been unnecessary.

It would not make much sense to me to comment on, knowing scarcely anything about DCS - but when you try to release payware when there is freeware like F4, the bar is set pretty high.

found this interesting older article:
https://www.simhq.com/_air/air_100b.html

Carl Norman ! that is the name I was trying to remember

NineLine lifted my ban at ED.....seriously.

I think that as more aircraft are released it will attract many new people to the sim.
The release of the F-16 will bring a wave of new flight simmers in the form of those faithful to BMS.

I don't believe there is a lack in sales leading up to the imminent release of the F-16. I believe it has more to do with keeping ED forums as the go to place for those new to the sim. Comments from members who have been banned or have had issues with moderation of ED's forums would likely prevent new members registering. Hence NineLine heading to reddit to face the music so to speak. I must say, it takes a brave community manager to do what NineLine did over at reddit.

It has been said over at reddit that it is a PR stunt. Any 'free' PR is good for business, all it cost was NineLines time and that speaks volumes especially for the vendetta I have had with ED's moderation team over the years.

The F-16 will sell no matter what state it is in or however long it takes to finish. How many people own the f-5 and never fly it, or the L-39 and can't remember the last time they flew it. I'm in that boat. The F-16 will have a comparison being BMS, no aircraft in the ED lineup has a great deal of competition in a dedicated military sim. Its a bit hard to dogfight Cessna aircraft in FSX, and P3D I don't think comes close to the aircraft level of detail in DCS.

What DCS does need is a Mig-29 high fidelity level aircraft or su-33. The US are getting their aircraft released but with little competition from the Russian side. No one wants FC3 level aircraft these days, even those new to the sim.

The Hind will be the next aircraft I invest in, before the F-16.

Still have the big boot. That is can't post tho warning is 70%.

I hit NineLine up on reddit. If I can be unbanned surely it's worth contacting Norm for consideration mate

I have a ban that will never be lifted. Matt Wagner had one of his tantrums cuz I told the truth about disparaging remarks he said about the community. On a personal phone call I had with him.

Sadly, traditional forums are dying. Reddit and other types of social media have eaten away at forums. I can't think of any new forums that are doing well. The forums that still see a lot of traffic got started over a decade ago. Most games don't even have forums any more and many developers have been closing forums and opening official reddits or use Twitter to dish out info. I think this approach is entirely inferior and the discussion and community quality is nowhere near as good as a proper forum.

But the younger generation has little to no exposure to forums so as time goes they will fade further. Which is disappointing as I see it as regressive.

Have I mentioned that I wish they would fix A2A missiles?

I agree - it is a bad trend.

it is being worked on. I believe that is mentioned by Nick in the link posted by Oden

"Being worked on" is cold comfort indeed - ED has been "working on" the AIM-120 for at least 5 years now

I asked Chizh recently about this for the AIM-120s and his response was this:

"We have in plan the new aerodynamic with new INS and seeker that will be modeled much more detailed. But it is plan for next year."

I believe right now they are working on Ballistic Missiles FM.

Viper mini-update:

Hey everyone,

To get you prepared for the release of our F-16C sometime in early autumn 2019, we are making available an early, work-in-progress draft of it’s Early Access Guide. This is being prepared by “Bunyap” and he’s doing a wonderful job (he is also creating the interactive training missions)!
As we push to release, he will be further updating it and continue to update it during the development of our Viper. Please note that if you don’t see an item in the guide that you expect at release, it mostly likely because the item is still in work and too early to write it up for the guide.

You can find it here:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/documentation/viper_early_access_guide_en/

We hope you enjoy it!

Thanks,
Wags

Bad ass! Thank you for the info....

And a new vid.

And another...

Thank you for posting these.

It's pretty nice to have someone "in the know" around here.

My wallet is currently closed, I wouldn't bother even try to express it at ED forums, but here are a few hints at how to reopen it, hope it may help:

1/F/A 18 needs a ground radar and a working air to air TWS mode. I pre ordered the F/A18 despite my history with ED (customer since Flanker 2.5), but took an oath not to buy anything any more until its state of completion is satisfying.

2/current level of AI comms is not satisfying, AWACS cannot guide an intercept at all, does not manage landing traffic, is very poor at managing take-off traffic, AI wingmen can't say their fuel level any more precisely than "bingo", use afterburner regardless of mission fuel requirements, are very poor at comunicating their actions regarding player or ennemies.

3/very poor 3D models remaining in their early 2000s quality. Just browse the aircaft and you'll see the shocking difference between the sold aircraft modules and those neglected models. I don't ask that they are 100% on par, but on 75% quality at minnimum, while I currently rate at 10 to 20%.

4/very old bugs game breaking never fixed, like the GBU24 that does not guide, the direct impact necessary even to kill a truck with a 1000Lbs bomb, for example. Net code still bug ridden, my RIO cannot communicate with awacs most of the time, host see refueling aircraft with basket extended when clients don't (and game considers it retracted for refuelling ops), for example. I don't even report bugs officially since I rate ED's will too low to fix bugs.

5/optimization. I cannot play on persian gulf with any less than 32Go of RAM. I have hundreds of games, some old some pretty recent, every one of them offers a good gaming experience with 8Gb, very few benefit of 16Go, and ZERO need more. I bought 24Go in addition to my satisfying 8Go ONLY for DCS persian gulf map, this is unacceptable for most people, and I can't recommand the game to anyone but the most hardcore fan for this very reason. The guys I lfy with (small party of 6 to 10) all had the same experience.

6/pricing of modules. I have no trouble myself investing in a 70$ module, thanks to a well paying job, but I can't help feeling this is very overpriced comparing to other sims, and again it is very hard to recommend the game to new players with such a price. New aircraft modules should not be more than 40$, maps should be free in order to not fracture the online community (but I guess up to 10$ could be viable), and sales at 50 up to 75% should occur every year, starting two years after said module has been on sale at full price, be it preorder or not. If the company can't do prices like this I'm afraid its consumer base will dry sooner or later. There should be more maps pretty soon to satisfy the need for novelty, I may add. Currently there are only two military sims producers I can think of, so the competition is not too harsh, however bad management could lead to both die. 1C was smart enough to ask 777 to manage their product to something viable only a on the edge of collapsing, ED should very soon think of it before it's too late, current seduction operation may prove unsufficient.

Anyway, thanks for venturing again into hostile skies, and good luck to ED, wish you success, just not with my money at the moment.

You bet, want to try and see if I cant make it work over here this time, so we can give it a shot.

So let me take a swing at your questions.

1) Our big boss Nick Grey commented on the ground radar over at hoggit, he said this "TWS is being worked on. AGR is not being worked on at the moment as this function is rarely used operationally IRL as it lights up the ac to SAM threat. It is internally considered secondary to gameplay but I confirm that it will be done and is in the pipeline.". So right now TWS is a higher priority than A2G radar, but both are coming. It has affected development on the Viper as well, as far as gameplay vs development, its why you could very well see a working TGP on the release of Early Access.

2) Duly noted. I know after carrier comms is done (hope you have seen the vid on that) ATC comms and such is planned, even looking at separate updates for era-specific comms, obviously as important as it is a big task.

3) AI model updates are currently ongoing, the goal is to get them close to equal that of player aircraft, but such detail takes time, this is shared with models for new modules, updating already released modules like the A-10C and the Black Shark, so its something being done, but its a slow go, so yes, there are some pretty old tired looking models, but it is planned to get them all updated. Not fast enough for everyone, but in process.

4) We are switching to a new bug tracking system, this is making us look at some older bugs, as well as better tracking and managing of new ones. GBU24, I will need to check. Ground vehicle concerns should be addressed with the new damage model, once it's added for WWII, it will move to all aspects of the sim, the ground units need it badly. Cant comment on RIO issues, as I am assuming you mean the F-14, refuelling is supposed to get a revamp, but honestly, I am not sure where that is right now, I will check. I suggest you reconsider the bug reporting, we have been working very hard, especially on user-reported bugs to acknowledged and track them. I know it can be super frustrating though, so I am not gonna try and convince you otherwise. If you have made a report and you want me to look at it, I never mind a PM or hit me on discord, or whatever.

5) while I won't lie and say I wouldn't recommend anything short of 32 to anyone, I know many people playing with 16 and having a good time, 8 is just too little now. Video Ram is also important. With object counts, on the maps themselves as well as mission added units, then them all doing something, through in complex FMs, etc. There is a lot going on. Optimization is always going on, but also, the more people want, the more going on, the more demand for systems, look at different settings like draw distances and preload settings to help here too. As I said, I know many with 16 that say they have no issues at all with PG and other maps.

6) Pricing is always based on the costs to produce the modules, the Hornet and the Viper being a huge manpower effort to bring together. Other modules can be less, FC3 even less. As for sales, we do quite a number of sales over the year. Maps are quite a lot of work as well, as such it wouldn't be realistic for ED to give them away, maybe as the number of maps climbs, it would be an idea to look how this type of DLC is managed and made available, but right now this way of selling them is the best way for the business, with the core game free, and all updates and such to that free, DLC is the only way to keep the lights on. Its always going to be a balance of free content vs DLC, we do our best for the company and making sure it's affordable for everyone.

I hope that answers some of your concerns, I am sure not all of them in the way you would prefer, but I am also passing along concerns to the team from the community, monthly actually. So I dont mind passing along these, and feel free to ask me to expand on anything here, mass question answering limits my answer length, so maybe you want to hear more.


Thanks!
NineLine

Can you ask Nick if he thinks that AA radar isn't seen by SAM systems?
If he do think it does, ask him if all Hornets fly blind to hide from SAM umbrella.

Thanks for taking the time for this detailed answer.

As theOden points out, any reason to postpone ground radar will be hard to get accepted. Obviously using radar exposes one to any detection system, but it's too much of an asset in many a situation (especially against moving ground targets, to this very player, in falcon BMS) to be postponed any longer. Postponing it for 20 years makes consumer thinks ED is incompetent in simulating air to ground radar, and it's quite bad for business.

I'm quite satisfied with the other answers, but I'll open again my wallet based on what's in the game, not promises, as you may have guessed already.

I'll add that caucasus plays OK with 16Go, even with 8 for some players, and probably occasionnally PG will work with 16Go on some systems, but needing 32Go on most.

I'll throw this with little hope, but is there any intent to use a less outdated programming language than lua at some point ? It could help with optimization.

I think its what brings the most gameplay returns, they feel other things are better to bring first. That is not to say A2G radar isnt being worked on in some capacity, only that it's not the highest on the priority list currently.

A2G radar is in works, it's not postponed or any such thing, but with a smaller team, priorities are made, things like TWS are currently higher on the list.

I have 32 myself, I know there are a few people I have talked to on discord and other places that say 16 works just fine on PG, so there may be more fine-tuning you can look at. Ask around, some people might have some tips or tricks for you.

We are currently looking at and working at Vulkan and better multi-processor support among other things.

The thing is, the depiction of GM and GMT modes in BMS is really buffed. If AG modes worked as well as they do in BMS, there would be almost no need at all to carry a TGP, at least when using GPS guided PGMs. There's a reason that engineers came up with SAR, and that reason is that with fighter radar antennae being as small as they are, resolution without SAR is really bad.

Things are different with the Hornets SEA mode though, as that is where AG radar should work quite well. There's even a Harpoon mode that is dependent on the radar.

But no dynamic campaign yet...

Yawn.

Drop all this plane crap and give us a dynamic campaign, ED.

No, not yet.

However it is confirmed planned, and confirmed planned is better than no plan



Source

I too would like to thank you NineLine for venturing into these parts again.
I never thought I'd see the day you would venture back here or see you at Reddit.

Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions asked here and posting the F-16's youtube video's, I haven't been following the release of the F-16 but it does look like it is making good progress.

as for



I can confirm that PG runs fine on my 5 year old PC with 16G and old school I5 3570K

An SSD made all the difference all those years ago. Before the SSD, Mission editor took 10 minutes to load PG

Well maybe today it would run with 16Go, I went tired of poor performance and bought 32Go 1 year ago, as all my buddies had done at the time. I instantly got no more crashes/freezes.

Our last pilot had to upgrade only 3 months ago, maybe since there has been some optimization, that is good news indeed if it plays on 16 Go systems, I won't pull out 16Go to check so I'll have to trust you on this one.

What is this 16 Go stuff?

Ram is measured in gigabytes, or GB, not gillenops.

Welcome back NineLine...good to see ya

Thanks for the detailed info

Yes, and in large parts of Europe it's denoted as Go - a Giga octet ... a byte is an octet.

I'm just back for your campaign you are working

Better than planned, in active development

Dear Pilots!

We are pleased to announce that DCS: F-16C Viper will be released on our e-Shop and Steam on 03 October 2019! Please note that the pre-order discount from our e-Shop will end then.

DCS World e-Shop:
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/viper/
Steam:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1090850/DCS_F16C_Viper/

We have also been reaching out to Steam through multiple channels to extend the pre-order period, but we have been unsuccessful. We will keep trying.

We are very excited to make this work of art available to you, and we thank you for your encouragement and support. We could not do this without you.

Sincerely,
The Eagle Dynamics Team

I assume 3rd Oct if only for Open Beta users and customers running stable can sit still for another 2 or 15 weeks?

All new releases drop in Open Beta first, correct.

I will never understand why you folks call it "release" when you actually ship it to your beta-testers.

Open Beta we have found is the best approach. If something about it cripples Open Beta, then people have Stable to fall back on.

In reference to the above post, the issues with Steam have been corrected, and the discount is available till the 3rd now as well.

In this DCS: F-16C Viper video, we will take a first look at the Litening targeting pod for the Viper. This is an initial version with more features to come in parallel with development of the Litening targeting pod for the Hornet.

We plan to release our Viper on 3 October 2019.

Basic steps for self-lase LGB attack:

Master Arm on
Laser on
CCRP selected
Target tracked on TGP
Bomb laser code and TGP laser code match
Bomb release
Keep out of TGP mask zone
First stage of trigger held to lase

yall just trying to suck me back into flight simming huh?

DCS: F-16C Viper – One Day to Go!



With just one day to go before release of our DCS: F-16C Viper, we wanted to remind everyone that the pre-order discount will also end tomorrow. Based on the Hornet, it will probably be over a year until we put the Viper on sale again. If you wish to purchase the Viper at a discount, you have less than 24 hours.

Pre-order now and save 20% on our e-Shop at:
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/viper/

Or, Steam at:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1090850/DCS_F16C_Viper/

Over our many years of developing aircraft, no other aircraft was as challenging to get the landing gear animations correct as the Viper. We believe the result is fantastic.

Now that the landing gear animation is complete, our external aircraft artist is focusing on the external textures and creating a texture template that we can release after the Viper launch on 3 October 2019.

Yes...I feel the simming flowing through you.......

I haven't bought any module for a while,

if I buy from Steam can I use it in the install I have : which has modules bought directly from the developer ?

You can buy from Steam and transfer it to the standalone.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=229207

Let me know when ED or any 3rd party have actually finished one of the modules....and then I'll have a think about entertaining some of the unfinished and never-intended-to-be-finished content

Ok - easier to buy from Steam as it uses local currency.

We should see the Viper texture template soon, it sounds like the 3D model is now finalized.

Need all you quality painters on the job, so many cool paint schemes out there for the Viper.

What a poor trailer in one day i can do better.i understand that the whole module is of this quality?

Go for it!

Sorry I can not believe that such a company release the most important module make such a hopeless trailer.
These are only cut and randomly bonded shots.
Watch the old amraam trailers, see how make good movies.

Yeah of only we could get him to do these trailers... oh wait...

just another module, no need for drama

Might be best to not judge a product on one trailer

this module will work on my DCS install which has a few years old modules or will I need to have a different install for it ?

You will need to be running the latest Open Beta right now, if everything checks out it should move to the standard version in not too long.

OK - I found it at the DCS website and it is installing it, tomorrow I'll check it

by then Steam will likely have the F-16 available.

another newbie question, since the F-16 I have is Steam, I won't need to have the Steam DCS installed, only the F-16 serial key, correct ?

Its already on Steam, again Open Beta, but yeah, you go into your account with that link I showed, and it should show what you have available to transfer to the standalone, as well, it will remain in your Steam should you want to use it there.

OK! will do it tomorrow, thanks

Must have missed the memo from a year or so ago......

Well for my part I won't be buying this for a while. I am excited for the F-16 in DCS, but ED has a long history of not finishing it's modules. This is not new, and I belive they will once finish it... kind of. Lets look at the past. The A-10C took years to be in a "released" state and after it was so, it still has bugs things that don't work or get constantly broken. Yes it's very playable now, has a lot more features, but it ED has shown time and time again that they are not going to prioritize to actually finish their modules. Now I don't know how much money they actually make compared to their expenses making this modules but people aren't getting what they paid for. And I the business module of pumping out new modules to paying for finishing the old ones, is eighter going to leave a lot of modules unfinished forever or going to fail completly at one point. I think DCS is a great product but it has a lot of "buts" about it. And one of the major ones is certainly the way ED tottaly disrespects their costumers.
Their modules are getting increasingly expensive even without getting increassingly complex. From ED's own description the F-16 and F-18 are rather similar share a lot of developing common ground and are about the same complexity wise. Yet the F-16 is getting a 10 dollar price increase over the f-18 a little over a year ago. The only other product sold by this price was the F-14 wich is a greater complexity product that has a very diferent front/back seat functionality and will eventually include two flyable versions. It's still expensive, but I can see how to justify it. Releasing the F-16 at the same price range feels like money grabing. "It worked for heatblurs F-14, lets go for it!"
Also lets not forget that before the f-18 the release price for modules was 60 bucks not 70, but lets just go with 80 now. Is this ED trying to stay economicaly viable? If that's the case why keep the disconted pre-order period? You are just robing yourself of part of the products? Or is it just psychological tactics to get the sale out, actually realizing there will be few sales at full price?
In any case it feels like money grabing to me, specially considering that the product that the client is paying now won't be finished for a long time and when it is deemed finished it will still have more problems than you can shake a stick at for twice as long still.
But the real disrespect to costumers comes when ED in the most totalitarist way possible tries to silent all "discent". You can say whatever you want about their right to manage their forum however they see fit. But that's actually not correct, because that forum is not only a place for the comunity, it's also their "suport" forum. They can only get away with their practices because they are a eastern based company, what an absolute apawling disregard for consumer rights. Want to see a product forum that respects their costumers rights? Frontier Developments! Elite Dangerous has a lot of problems and I'm amazed at the #%&*$# that get's said in that forum towards the game and the developers. But you know what, they don't get deleted and people don't get banned. Not for fair criticism and not even for unfair criticism. They just take it. "The costumer is always right!" Gess they never heard of that one on Eagle Dynamics.

Long story short? I'll almost certainly still give ED my money, but only in 2 years or so when the Viper is sold at half price. I have BMS and I have more DCS modules than I have the time to learn properly.

^^^ AMEN. F16 will be completed in 5 -10 years from now. Wasted money.

took a while for it to copy from the other install and I managed to bind Steam, the F-16 module is now installed. This weekend I'll give it a try.

thanks !

I purchased this module on Thursday after watching a few vids posted here by NineLine. I have not been able to give it a run as I have a failed ssd and both versions of DCS won't fit on the hard drive.

Due to currency rates in Australia, the module with the 20% discount was actually $95.50AUD.

If it won't be on sale for another 1-2 years it is hard to predict what world currency exchange rate will be. It doesn't look like our exchange rate will improve against the US dollar any time soon.

That is my gripe and has been for some time regarding modules released by ED. It wasn't so bad when modules were 49.95 or 39.95 but I feel for those those whose hobby is flight simulation in this country and only earn a basic minimum wage.


Ed can't fix that problem though

what's it like Tom? post a couple of screen shots if you have got it all sorted please mate

It seems the F-16 just gave Eagle Dynamics a whole lot new enemies of early access, reading Hoggit.
The good thing about early access is that Eagle Dynamics gets a good picture of how much development time they should bother to put into the module in the future.
Only thing is, that is not good for easy target customers that will insta-buy and 2 years later complain it isn't finished only to give up after 4 years with whatever state the module ended up in given the amount of dollars from the 4 years earlier pile of dollars gone by now.

Winfield and Tom, I'm actually disappointed you bought the F-16 already telling Eagle Dynamics this kind of early access is ok.

The level of detail for these modules are obviously way, way too deep for their current developers and in no way financially viable.
One of two actions must be taken, either lower the details/features enough to finish a module in time available for what customer-base is willing to pay or raise the price as needed for estimated cost what they try to achieve.

What Nick Grey is now doing is the first option but not telling the customers, not an impressive move to me.

Another possibility is that Eagle Dynamics are stuck with sloppy developers and given the F-16 release black screen issue (a bloody lua variable) and general cockups always surrounding DCS and most notably the open beta arrangement no one else needs to use this is probably very close to truth.

Just comparing the recent IL-2 update from 1CGS which equals 7 years of eagle dynamics work-results (not really but you get the picture) shipped right out to "stable version" is also very telling that Eagle Dynamics have chosen to hire the low cost developers.

So, maybe the level of detail they look for actually IS doable, but not with their current staff.

Another good point by an alert customer.
Expect nothing less than that the Viper will be put on hold half-way down the runway when the next early access is "released".

I haven't flown any DCS jet since the A-10C stand alone for anything else than screenshots, so my opinion about is of a complete newbie, it looks very good as it is right now







maxed out options with 45-60 FPS

from what I can see the model is very good - hopefully they will release a template soon, the default skin is clearly still a placeholder.

It was released in worse "Early Access" state than the Hornet was. The external lights aren't even functional yet... ED doesn't need to release more modules, they need to hire a competent accountant that can get their spending/expenses in order so they can stop using the "keep the lights on" BS excuse to keep dumping early early pre-alpha products on a gullible customer base. This is the last time I spend money on any more of their products. This was the last straw. Now that they've released this thing, I'm really curious to see how much longer it takes for the Hornet to actually reach a truly finished state, ie Ground Radar, ATFLIR etc.... I'm sick of Wags and Norm spinning BS excuses on the ED forum to the gullible fanboys with more money that common sense. Enough is enough.

Very much so, I noted to the ED brass that the template is one of the most asked for things so far.

Yeah, there is a lot of work to be done for sure, but I love having it out in public right now as opposed to closed testing because there is an incredible amount of subject matter experts out there for the F-16, its really help get some bugs reported, or even clear up some confusion as available manuals arent always very descriptive of how stuff works in the real world.

Indeed this release is not for everyone, Alpha can be a very fair assessment, but we appreciate those that are taking part, and helping in the development for whatever that is worth.

I hope they release it soon - with layers for rivets, panels and lines layers not merged.

I would think so, that is how the Hornet one, and any others that I have used, so I am sure it will be there same for the Viper.

we will see

So the RWR sounds aren't even copied from the F/A-18 but even directly linked making it very silent for customers without the Hornet?
Haha what a #%&*$# - these developers have no self respect.
Embarrasing

That can't be true, can it? Well, you know I respect your opinion Oden, so that's a bit of a shock really. But then again, maybe not so much right?

As a long time F4 player and flight simmer in general, if there were any module in DCS that would light my fire it would be this one. But back when this was all still LOMAC (which remains my latest ED purchase), I recognized that this developer was choosing a path that didn't dovetail with what I want to see in a combat flight sim. Many, many years later and that has not changed, and it's actually further diverged. I look at he DCS jets and think man I'd love to play that! But I know the rest will fail to meet my expectations because I follow it and see.

In essence I chose to vote with my wallet. I chose to not buy these titles because I didn't want to support the model. And frankly I am surprised that so many do. Different folks, different standards, different expectations, different outlooks I suppose. But the number of people I see complain about it all, while forking over their money is hard to reconcile. ED has no compelling reason to complete these modules when folks throw money at them in unfinished states. In my mind ED are masters of the empty promise, because those promises shine so brightly. If everyone is willing to pay for it unfinished, then there is no profit in continuing to finish it. As a business they make decisions based on profitability, not on whether anyone who has bought it is actually pleased with it. Haven't we seen this many times over in DCS? Who here has bought a module at any point in the past and feels it remains undone? It's akin to the mother that complains her son is a smack addict while giving him the money to buy more.

Nineline's recent charm offensive here is clearly paying dividends, so well done. But it doesn't work for me, and that's a shame, because that's a #%&*$# fine looking Viper. ED have found this sort of grey area in-between concept and execution. They have to release something, but it doesn't have to be, or eventually become, what was promised because it's already been paid for. Only when or if the inverse is true, when it's paid for when it's finished, will it change.

Cheers DBond I also bought one module years ago , and I don't want anything else from this trash.one of the worst companies i have ever met.

Well said DBond, I couldn't have said better!

So yes, I vote with my wallet as well since I cannot stand this ED "strategy" (I call it ripping of clients) of releasing eternal Alpha/Beta modules. As such the only DCS modules that I bought were Blackshark, A-10 and Huey (and bought these last two only when they came out of Beta and became "Final").
As such, I won't buy any more DCS modules at least until ED starts finishing modules which I believe will only happen during the 9-day week or on a 30th of February.

What puzzles me is the amount of people who apparently like/love to be ripped of but the human brain is indeed a very complex thing afterall...

So that's why all the youtubers have them, i thought i was going insane, lol. Yeah, only the blinking launch warning with no tone, with the threat volume knob all the way up... Gah, guess I'll be going back to Rift virtual desktop and F4. All those rwr chirps and blips have a character. Maybe even nostalgia.

post a youtube link..

DBond, having had the pleasure listening to you in Falcon BMS reading all info available from OOB and God knows preparing for a mission I am dead sure you would be exceptionally disappointed in DCS with it's TE level at best.
My last DCS mistake was the Viggen, but as a horrible Swede I just had to buy that one.

If, and i truly say IF, the Viper is "done" in 4 years then maybe it could be worth a purchase during Sale but given ED track record I think "done" can mean just about anything but not even close to what we can do in BMS even today.

As i stated before I am convinced they push early access as soon as possible to figure out how much work they can afford to put into the module.
How else are they going to survive financially?
People just don't work for free (well, modders do but that's a different game all together)

I'd rather host a BMS server 24/7 for a few years than see you spend dollars on DCS

Yeah the RWR thing is fixed internally, I think the dev involved was a little embarrassed by this one, one of those crunch time things that slips in the noise of everything else going on. Force10 might be able to feel for this a little bit, reminded me of customers sending files into our shop to have something printed and the forgot all the links to their files

Anyways, I know the Viper release isnt going to win a lot of the people here over, its very Alpha, and will be receiving a lot of love over the next while, I expect it will be Open Beta release again this week with Viper fixes. But I am not going to try and change anyones mind here, certainly it's not in the shape some people would be happy with, we tried to be clear how early it was, but at the end of the day, people want what they want, and we are working hard to get it there.

So far I'm actually liking it.
It's similar, but different than BMS and hopefully will improve with time. ( I keep checking that the airflow knob is in normal every #%&*$# startup)
Find myself trying to do stuff on the ICP that isn't implemented yet but hey, it is what it is for now.
How they improve it going forward will tell the resulting story.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4064789#post4064789

Seriously, when people laugh at BMS F/A-18 for being just an F-16 in other clothes do I have news for them, the DCS YF-16 is nothing but a mod of DCS F/A-18

I bet the only ones saying this is a nice module are the printscreen-simmers spending 78% of their time in external view.

I'm loving the DCS Viper already - the list of its early access features were communicated perfectly well and to me it's awesome already - A-A, A-G TGP capable, Air refuelling, radios, aerodynamics, VR, replays, gorgeous sounds and landscapes, well modelled adversaries... F-16 is one of my favourite things in the universe and paying $60 for such an experience feels like an incredible privilege.

No, no. Best view. Cockpit. For the win!

That's great bisher, but how do I know that's not the remaining 22%?


(haha no need to answer that)

Oh I'm looking forward to turkey skinned f-16 screenshots over the syria map when released....

Brake chute or no brake chute

Thanks mate, and you are probably correct. It's a shame, as I've always wanted the DCS Eagle and of course the Hornet and Viper as I'm a multi-role man at heart. I think I'm a perfect candidate for DCS, just the right demographic, but yet I pass on each and every one. My choice, and I know my single voice will spur no changes, and that's OK with me. ED won't succeed or fail based on my money, but I don't think I'm the only one that feels like I do, so surely there's significant money left on the table by EDs design decisions and development path.




Me too!

Paradaz, it's not like you to remain quiet on the subject mate

This is what I like about SimHq, we can all argue....agree to disagree and still be friends afterwards. Hey sobek ....bisher, that goes for you too.

pucker up ladies.

I've heard all this crap before and got burned by incomplete tat that ED can't/won't complete. I'll entertain modules that get completed and have a combat environment to fly in....if it ever happens in my lifetime. At the moment, it's nothing more than a half-started button pushing start-up procedure simulator and screenshot generator. I've got much better things to do with my time than waste it in this massive loss of potential.



No, you're not the only one......and I don't think ED ever have significant funds due to their utter incompetence. The only time ED probably do have funds is on the release of an early-access....however, as others have mentioned, these funds are instantly spaffed on the previous platform's development that is undoubtedly over-budget, unplanned and stumbling from one problem to the next. Does anyone really think that F16 early access funds will go anywhere else than the Hornet overspend. ED couldn't project manage a night out on the piss, never mind a complex software development and integration activity.

So it's going great, right guys??? Guys??? ...... Guys?

If 'great' is defined as nothing has changed in the last 10 years then yes....absolutely great.

Early access platforms, never finished, no roadmap, no timeline, bug fixes that break functionality moving forward, change of plans, feature-creep.....and then an announcement and early access release of the next platform.

The definition of someone/something making the same mistakes over and over again, not learning from them and not making any improvements is 'incompetent'. I'd suggest that's the word you're looking for.

Well, I would disagree with you, but I am sure that wouldn't do any of us any good. So chaff/flare

You can disagree all you want but until ED actually starts making some positive changes, I have to agree with Paradaz.

The Hornet has been in EA for over a year, still no end in sight... no ATFLIR, A/A radar is still not fully functional, no ground radar (how is it that Heatblur and a free mod team (Community A-4E-C) managed to implement ground radar before yall???..there is NO excuse) and the most recent "patch" shows where the priorities are even though ED stated numerous times that Hornet development would not be hindered by the Viper. Quit lying to your paying customers and yall might not have to worry so much about how to keep the lights on....

I like the DCS model. Early access is what it is. You can wait for the finished model if you want or have it as soon as you can to play with. People complain that the early access modules are buggy, then DON"T BUY THEM! Simple as that. Wait a year or even 2 to purchase them. I would rather have them sooner than later. Gives me more time to learn.

That "logic" is flawed at best. How do you know how buggy a module is until you actually buy it?? They aren't offering free trials of the modules last time I checked.... they aren't exactly advertising how buggy their products are either. The "if you don't like it don't buy it" line is BULLSH&T. Where in the list of the features of the current EA Viper does it list, "oh by the way, we didn't even bother to even finish the external lighting and there is no damage model" I highly doubt they would've released a third party module in that poor of a state.

Um. Research?

To each his own. I think everyone on this board knows what early access means, and understands that things will be missing. But the expectation is that these modules will be finished in a reasonable amount of time. Isn't this where ED falls down? So much so that I've come to see EDs EA as the actual release. I made a comment before about ED finding a 'grey area between concept and execution', and it's early access. By calling it early access they have effectively shielded themselves from the responsibility to actually finish it. If it stays in EA forever, what do we have? Just, 'access'?

You're free to call it like you see it, but for me attitudes like yours are what enables this to happen in the first place.

If someone might indulge me, how many modules have been released and how many are complete? What do the numbers say? NineLine would have this info.

Um. where was ED stating the external model and damage model weren't complete BEFORE the release and BEFORE the discount went away?

Same answer you'd have to research that. I'm not doing if for you

Please don't mock, it's impolite

The answer is NOWHERE. You won't provide anywhere stating the opposite of this but you have no issues shilling for a company that has proven they couldn't care less about their customer base

I know, eh?What the hell? Boy, the gall

From today's newsletter.....



This says it all. Even though ED stated several times the Viper early access wasn't affecting the Hornet work, it should never affect the 'most pressing bugs' on the Hornet anyway - it should always be the highest priority until it's ready for a gold release. This just shows where ED's priorities are and they're desperate for cash, to the point where they drop essential work on the Hornet because they've already received funds for that and focus resources on the next early access mess. To that end, we also know what will happen with the unfinished Hornet and Viper when the next early access is announced... they will be dropped like hot stones and the vicious circle of incompetence continues with the end result being an even bigger selection of unfinished platforms.

I assume we'll also see a new push for mission packs for the Viper even though it can barely be classed as an alpha....and every update will break the missions meaning more integration and regression testing needed on every updated build.

Pretty much. Mix and repeat, "Hey guys, Wags here, look at this shiny new Mi-24 coming soon to Early Access, look at that awesome animation of the landing gear moving..this will make you forget all about the unfinished Hornet.. Viper.. FW190..."

This should be required viewing for everyone currently employed at ED. Its a perfect explanation why so many are frustrated:

We have had an internal discussion about it now, was a great way to get some new ideas looked at for better communication and such, so all the top brass saw it, and are taking notes.

Glad yall are discussing and open to feedback, hopefully this eventually leads to positive change at ED.

Let’s just hope it’s not too late, right now it feels ED is on a slippery slope at the edge of a canyon, consumer relationship wise.

You're completely missing the point if you think it's only the 'communication' that needs improving.

Nope, and I am sorry I didn't list each point out for you, but it starts with communication, and that includes listening to where the issues are from reports made by the front line people, communication from users, etc. That communication covers every aspect of what is good and bad in DCS, and when it is addressed or acknowledged by the team, the communication back to the user needs to be addressed as well. We might be working on an issue, but you don't know it because it hasn't been communicated properly to you.

Well, given that ED have had the best part of 20 years in total and 11 years since Black Shark was released.....the message boards at ED and the forums in places like SimHQ have had plenty of information for them to take notice.....yet they haven't bothered to take anything in. How many years have we been saying that ED simply refuse to learn by their mistakes? I really can't see it as any excuse that ED can say they need to listen to where the issues are and reports from front line people.....their own message boards are fully of complaints - or at least half-complaints, because the nature of the boards and the actions by people such as yourself aren't allowing the userbase to actually make a worthwhile criticism for fear of being banned or censored.

The video linked above, which you say ED have had an internal discussion about basically just slagged the strategy, integration and end product........if that had been done in text on the ED message boards, the ED community wouldn't have allowed it to stand.....and there goes another huge problem that you and ED have created for yourselves.

To be honest, it's irrelevant whether you're working on an issue or not...and not communicating it to the users because the facts are that ED have been constantly 'working on issues' for the last 11 years, and like I've said many times here at SimHQ.........no improvement has been displayed. Whether it's the big 2.5 overhaul, the amount of unfinished platforms, no coherent roadmap, the moving of goalposts and the constant tweak of peripheries such as updating the KA50 cockpit when there are bigger core issues needing fixing, it all comes down to incompetence. I really struggle to see how things will ever improve and all these excuses we've heard before. I mean really....."we have to improve communication"......that could be ED's slogan. I can't even recall how many times that has been stated by ED.

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it, all I can tell you is what I know. And I know that isn't good enough until you see results.

It's the first time you've ever said that I'm welcome to my own opinion.....funnily enough it was my own opinion for posts on SimHQ that got me banned on the ED message boards proving that it wasn't welcome at all so I'll take that with a truckload of salt. Too little too late. When I hear there is a module that can be classed as 'gold' or 'complete' I'll entertain starting DCS up again. I won't be holding my breath.

PS your ban has already been lifted.

Matt Wagner said mine never would be. Still the case? Username: ruggbutt

Seems you don't have an account there anymore (I can't find it so dunno if it was deleted or something else), I was never involved with your go around, I only heard stories (from you here and some from the other side), I think the best course of action for you would be to reach out to Matt directly, it sounds like it got to epic personal and real-world proportions, and just based on that, I don't want to get too deeply involved. Sorry, I can't be more help there.

I guess I could stop by his house, he lives fairly close to me. LOL

I am assuming this is a joke, but I am pretty sure that would not have great results.

I'm guessing it's that kind of joking that got you in trouble before

Recording our personal phone call and threatening to post it publicly where he talked pretty #%&*$# about his customers and especially the squadrons that were flying LOMAC at the time is what set him off. Because Matt wants to look like the good guy in all aspects when he really isn't. He #%&*$# with me for years, tried to get me thrown off a dev team, caused me problems with an E3 event I was to attend for CombatAce and much more. He tried to cause me problems with CH Products when I was working with them. Instead of confronting him I chose to not attend that E3 event. I thought taking the higher road was the better idea. It wasn't because Matt wouldn't and still won't let it go. Just cuz he's in a wheel chair doesn't mean he's a good dude, and he plays on that #%&*$#. Ask Stormin' Norman.

Welp, I think that pretty much answers that.

Yep, sure does. The not so funny thing about it was that the community was up in arms about heavy handedness from the mods on the forum, this was the very first time this had happened. I had posted something about letting cooler heads prevail and I got a PM from Wags asking me to call him. After he told me he didn't care what the squadrons thought I pissed him off by telling him that was a dick thing to say. The next day I posted that I wanted my account removed because of what Wags said, he called me a liar and I threatened to post the audio.

I didn't go looking for problems. He sought me out and acted like a jerk. I don't suffer people like that very well.

I dunno what to say, there are two sides to everything, and it's between you and him. All bans on the forum have been lifted, but this seems to go well beyond that.

So...now the Viper is getting TWS before the Hornet gets its.... you literally can't make this stuff up


https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=244404&page=3

ED takes a small step forward and 15 backwards when it comes to their customers...

It was decided to keep the Radar dev put, for now, it was more efficient in the long run, and much of the TWS work on the Viper is transferable to the Hornet.

A phone call? The plot thickens

Good. Keep the bugs out of our bug, they can work them out in the viper

I was banned by you for asking the VEAO 3rd party contractor with ED where my P40 was and when it would be finished and released. They never did release it and anyone(like myself) that pre purchased the P40 never saw a product released. They never E-mailed me to let me know there was a refund available(1 week only) so I was the victim of what had every appearance of being a fraudulent transaction. When I posted the question to ED on the Forums about what they were going to do to compensate these customers I was banned again. Please don't tell me that is my opinion and I am welcome to it. What I just stated is fact and when I expressed my opinion on the ED Forum all you did was Ban me. I still own a lot of modules from DCS World and I was just looking at the Rata on sale for 19.99$, but then I said to myself, no F-ing way will I buy anything from them. I would love to own the F14, F18, F16, Viggen, AV8B, Mig19, Fw190A8, not to mention the Straight of Hormuz Map, but I WILL BE DAMMED(miss spelled on purpose) IF I WILL SPEND ANYMORE MONEY WITH ED OR DEAL WITH YOU ON THE FORUMS. Hell I haven't even received the P47 or Me262 from the WWII debacle. ED and Ed's Forums haven't been listening to their customers for well over a decade, what would make anyone think that they or you will start all of a sudden now? Add all of those modules up, what is that over 400$ worth? I hope new customers get both sides of the story as you mentioned earlier. There is the rosy picture you paint of how ED has now woken up and really wants to listen to the customers and then there is the actual truth of how they (Ed and you) have run a disorganized, disreputable , disrespectful , borderline possibly fraudulent company and Forum. If Ed finished one half of the Modules they already have sold and released, you guys would probably be the top Sim producing developer out there, but then there is reality. Reality shows a bunch of half finished products that will never see a customer approved finished state. Those are just the facts, I won't state my opinion as Force10 would just have to ban me because even for SimHQ standards it wouldn't be pretty.

S!Blade<><

New interview with "Wags" from Mudspike:

https://www.mudspike.com/mudspike-ama-with-eagle-dynamics-senior-producer-matt-wagner/

I've got to say honestly, I think ED is a sinking ship at this point. Some of the things he claims they are working on...they were supposedly working on years ago.... Basically the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Ground radar was a promised feature of the Hornet and they have no clue when it'll actually be available from the looks of the interview, they haven't even figured out how to render it yet Meanwhile a free mod (A-4E) has it as does the Heatblur Viggen. I don't know if it just complete incompetence or ego that ED just wont seek help from their 3rd Party Developers. Same issue with Multi-crew and the UH-1, they claimed they were "close" years ago. This is also the same organization that couldn't even deliver trains, cows, SCUD etc on time:
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator....Sri3TnRq5UsVU3kKvIEmYQFRcqGbzXMStIzFzLQw

Also their dynamic campaign will supposedly be ready for "beta" in 2021.... 2020 isn't even here yet and they are still no closer to one of the most requested items for DCS.... How is it Falcon 4.0 was able to furnish a dynamic campaign back in the 90's but these morons still can't figure it out???? Updates to ATC...."down the road"...Weather..."down the road"...Fix the night lighting "down the road"... Fix the Yak-52, literally the most uncomplicated aircraft in the game.."down the road".... Is ED full of the folks not qualified enough to get jobs over 1C Game Studios????

I'd be surprised if ED is even around by 2022 at this rate, even the fanboys are gonna eventually start seeing these folks for what they are, frauds.

Morons and frauds, eh? 2022 can't come soon enough for some I'd imagine

At least wags has a clue on where they failed the most.

45 minutes worth. He was trying to do damage control. I was part of the SIMMOD A-10 team, a mod at LOF as well as CombatAce and I'd released numerous skin packs and a series of missions for LOMAC and I was associated with CH products when they'd do their live stuff such as at E3.. So in that instance I was fairly well known, I guess he thought I was gonna be a fanboi. But you can't talk smack about people in the community that I care about and expect me to not call you on it. At one point I almost had my attorney send a cease and desist letter to Wags. I was fed up with how he pulled some strings with Thrustmaster to keep me from being one of the reps from CombatAce sent to review it before it's release. The other guy that was going with me to E3 told Eric at CombatAce that if Rugg doesn't go he doesn't either. So TM didn't get any representation from one of the websites dedicated to the flight sim community. I've been out of it for a while but at one point CombatAce was the place to go besides SimHQ and Frugals. Then I got busy at work (I'm a contractor) and I just let sleeping dogs lie. I decided it was best for myself and for Wags just to let him get away with what he did. I was quite a bit younger and with a temper and that never plays well.

I think that's quite telling as I don't believe for a single minute that ED has a detailed roadmap through to 2021......simply because they change the goalposts so often and allow feature-creep to take hold of a lot of their development. To me, it says more about a dynamic campaign simply not being a priority and a backburner activity if it even is one at all. Combine this with whatever work ED have stacked up through 2020, they are also updating the KA50 cockpit and the A10 cockpit which in all honesty should not even be featuring as an priority whatsoever. There's still no impetus in finishing platforms and fixing the biggest issues.

To be frank, I don't believe a word ED say. They've proved their incompetence so many time in planning, development and testing and I don't believe they have the minerals within their team to actually turn this around. As for improving their communication, we've heard that a million times too, and the increase and quality of updates over a period of time lasted all of 2 months. Ultimately, ED have had 10 years to try and improve things and they haven't shown they're remotely capable. I've given up on the entire shambles but will wait with an open ear for notification that they've actually completed something they've started.

From this description it certainly sounds like you should not have been banned. As for 3rd parties... Did anyone sue Microsoft over problems with 3rd party software designed for their FSX platform? Honest question, my understanding is that as as customer you too have an obligation to do due diligence before spending your hard earned.Thus, trusting VEAO was likely your own fault, sorry.


Mistakes do happen, but you can probably still write to support if you are eligible. I have put $1 towards Ilya Shevchenko's kickstarter and I got a Fw-190 Dora out of it. how much did you pledge?

With regards to ED forums, it is almost like there are two parallel universes - the English ED forums and Russian ED forums. Russian forums are super tolerant, you are talking to the devs directly with community managers being there for just as a sideshow. My feeling is that the Russian core of the team did not even know about the ins and outs of English forums politics, and having found out, they are trying to make things better.



Come on! Ka-50, A-10C, P-51, Dora, Mig-15, F-86, F-5, Huey Uh-1, Mi-8, L-39, F-15C, Su-27, Su-25, Su-25T, Mig-29A/C/G - are ALL finished. That is not to say that there aren't some issues (temporary or semi permanent) wish some of them, but hey! A model of reality is always inferior, almost by definition and can be improved ad infinitum. But that does not mean that those models are not "finished"!
I own a lot of the aircraft above and they are all simply superb - their aerodynamic modelling is second to none, campaigns like "The enemy within" or "Georgian War F-15C" are an absolute blast.

I implore you to forgive ED's poor management of the English forums politics (hey, they are just a bunch of Russian aeronotics engineers, aviation geeks and programmers - that is pretty much exactly what became ED in the 1990's, and what remains ED today. ( BTW An Petrovich, the author of RiseOfFlight AFM-showcased in your avatar- was also originally from ED and his ground breaking Su-25 AFM is still amazing to this day). The Russian guys are unusually liberally minded too, english forums purges go completely against their spirit and I can only say that their language barrier was probably the main culprit in the whole situation. Wags, Nick Gray etc (with all due respect) are not what makes DCS tick.

Which Falcon 4? the one that was in development for 6 years, and which was 2 years past its release date? The one that was full of bugs, and a commercial fail, leading to Microprose going under? The one with on rail aerodynamics, terribad ground tiles (even by late 1990s standards) and no replays even- evidently having put all of their resources into the campaign and scripted systems?

And i am not really knocking one of the true masterpieces in flight sims - Falcon is rightly up there with best of them, but let's not lose perspective here Falcon 4 is not an example a flightsim company should follow.

Further, there is a question of priorities. DCS has physics first approach, and its aerodynamics algorithms were ground breaking back in 2006 with Su-25 AFM and continue to lead the pack to this day. You may not care for physics, you may question this decision and prefer no less ground braking dynamic campaign of Falcon 4, but you too should see that in this imperfect world one can not have ground breaking everything. DCS static campaigns are awesome btw, while being completely absent in Falcon 4, so there is that too.

Um, DCS is a borked mess right now. Has been for some time. As far as priorities - they've (ED) been thinking about dynamic campaign for the past 20 years. By all accounts they're going to keep on thinking about it for another 20.

ED is certainly no example of a flight-sim company. At some point these kind of apologetics just gets old.

It is one sim that financially survived while most have perished. But of course it is run by "morons and frauds" and is no example of a flight-sim company...
When wasn't it "borked"? When was the golden age that you are harking back to?

Dynamic campaign is a complex beast. Made more complex by the ongoing development of the platform with ongoing changes to the AI, weapons logic, scripting, optimisation and so on. And yes, the dynamic campaign was never ED primary focus - by design. They chose to put their eggs into the physics and general core code development basket. And, unlike Jane's, Microporse, Oleg Maddox and so on they are still here, showering us with masterpieces like the Huey, P-51, Su-27 and so on and so forth.

Falcon4 benchmark of a campaign came out with lots of bugs and currently benefits from a static code the core of which remained constant over the past 20 odd years. modern attempts at dynamic campaigns like in IL2:1946, RoF and IL2:BOS are not a patch on Falcon and i personally prefer a good static campaign to any of them.

"Financially survived" but at what cost? Using funds from one unfinished module to pay for further developing the previous unfinished module doesn't sound like quite the runaway success story you're making it out to be. It more sounds like they're struggling to keep the lights on actually. Let's not kid ourselves here...I highly doubt a Dynamic campaign is even possible to code with the ever changing platform/modules that DCS has. You really need an "AI specialist" to code AI routines and AI has been a weak point in DCS's history IMO.

While I understand why DCS has appeal to many...there is probably just as many like myself that don't even fly the modules I payed for and instead...fly a modification to a 20 year old sim. I like feeling like a combat pilot in an immersive war scenario with a lively battlefield. DCS has a LONG way to go to get there...if it's even possible.

You have valid points about Falcon 4.0...but can you explain why so many people fly it instead of flying DCS?

Easy answer: dynamic campaign/atc+awacs+wingmens comms/air to ground radar/no game breaking issues that stay for months after a beta mishap.

And still, despite all this, my modern sim right now is DCS, just because F-14 (fly only this one, when my RIO buddy is available). So let's hope DCS manages its issues as best as possible.

We did hire a specialist with this in mind. Still pretty early on, so I have only really seen meeting notes about it's development, but they are starting at the core and seem to be making a decent swing at it. Obviously time will tell, but it's feeling pretty good to me right now.

I certainly did not imply that ED devs laugh all the way to the bank:) They are making ends meet, they are probably just making it, BUT! They've been doing that for over 20 years. They've adapted to the changes in game industry and survived through rampant CD/DVD piracy, the 2008, the "death of PC gaming" and what have you since then. The early access stuff is just one of the adaptations and I pray they will be able to continue adapting as there is no guaranteed winning strategy in business, every new month brings new challenges that have to be overcome.

New modules development does have to overlap with older code (not just older "unfinished" modules, but with developments in graphics, sounds and general core of the code) as different tasks take different amount of time and various programmers can not be sitting idle waiting for their buddies to finish whatever they are doing. Task flow management is often non linear and needs to correspond with cash flow. How this is to carry on and evolve - we shall see. But the important part for us customers is that, black swans notwithstanding - like the death of Igor Tishin or over a year in jail for the head of avionics programming, their modules DO leave beta stage - with a disclaimer that no model of reality is ever complete by definition. Thus, even if DCS was to stop tomorrow, I would be eternally thankful to all the dedicated aviation nutjobs who made it happen instead of applying their exceptional maths modelling skills at some Moscow investment firm (there are many, it's not 1991).
DCS AI could become really good fun judging by the recent updates with AI blindspots, but on the ever changing platform being incompatible with super elaborate dynamic campaign I do agree and not holding my breath for Falcon4 beater, it'll be more like Rise of Flight in all likelihood. (still ok I suppose, particularly when added to DCS native strengths - physics, graphics, sound, and scripted campaigns with voice overs)

The aerodynamics are unmatched in DCS imo. The fact that stuff like this is possible makes it as deep a sim as Falcon4, just in a different way



There are super immersive static campaigns in DCS (The enemy within being one, but one of quite a few), but as far as dynamic stuff goes - yep, at the moment there are no signs that Falcon is about to lose its throne. I have both on my PC:)

Good post Borsch...some decent points there. I will just add this:



One pretty good strategy is to finish the product your customers already paid you for in a reasonable timeframe. As in...not years. This point alone has surely cost ED some revenue...Fans of ED that would make a day 1 purchase in years past are more cautious now and holding off on purchases.

To be fair, the F/A-18 is an unfortunate outlier, for the most part ED's own modules were quicker to advance (while being less complex of course). I'd hazard a guess that their head of avionics guy ordeal and the passing of Mr Tishin both contributed. At least, ever since the jail drama came to an end, development sped up noticeably it feels. I also remember murmurs on the Russian forums that one or more of their core programmers sold out/quit their job - about two years ago. May have been another factor if true.
It should be worth it in the end:

Although the F-16 is what I truly care about

Force10 has made some quite valid points regarding the dynamic campaign implementation. Many new aircraft modules by ED and 3rd party developers etc to cater for a dynamic campaign to suit every aircraft, it would be impossible to code for every aircraft genre.

DCS world comes with the SU-25 and the P-51D. If ED was to offer DCS world with a dynamic campaign for free, it would be Apache600's dream come true, a dynamic campaign based around the museum relic campaign where the 'free' P-51 can go up against modern day SAM, AAA and still play a part in the dynamic campaign (with invincible set to ON in the settings of course)

It would mean a dynamic campaign for modern day fighters, then a separate dynamic campaign for WW2 aircraft (for the P-51). The WW2 assets would then need to be made 'free' to blend in with the 'free' SU-25 and P-51D. I can't see that happening, not in the near future or in 2022 as predicted for this Dynamic campaign.

This 'MAC' however.....could be palmed off as MAC 'Gold' like Janes longbow gold, Janes USNF Gold etc etc. To make this dynamic campaign actually viable, only a select few aircraft could be a part of the series. Basic aircraft such as what is being offered in FC3 and the newer MAC to be released. That way more consumers would be able to enjoy this dynamic campaign with out having to invest $80 per module that is 'full fidelity' (name taken from VEAO)

Falcon 4 had one dynamic campaign based around 1 aircraft. DCS's dynamic campaign would need to cater for individual aircraft such as the L-39, C-101, Uh-1 etc etc.....it's impossible.

What is possible is including the Dynamic Campaign along side a select few of that aircraft such as what is offered in FC3. Not as hard to substitute the F-15 for the Mig-29 etc and swap out the US forces for Russian forces. If this Dynamic campaign is to be anywhere near viable, it won't associate itself with every available module. It will be up to each 3rd party developer to create and implement their own dynamic campaign to suit their own modules. ED won't cater for the F-14, harrier etc or build a dynamic campaign where 3rd party modules will be easily swapped out from released MAC 'Gold' aircraft.

It has been mentioned that the 'free' mod skyhawk has ground radar already implemented. Good on the mod maker for getting that out for free.....I can't see ED building a dynamic campaign based around 'free' mods or endorsed 3rd party modules. I can foresee ED building a dynamic campaign based around their own modules....such as what will be offered in MAC 'Gold'

If we want a dynamic campaign sooner, we'll we need to press the 3rd party developers for one. ED won't have the resources to implement a DC that includes 3rd party modules. When ED do release one.....it will mean buying MAC Gold or similar titled release in the LOMAC\FC3 establishment. The earnest should not be on ED to create a DC that incorporates 3rd party modules to make the DC successful.

Those developer of the Gazelle have done nothing over the last 3 years....Perhaps they could release the 1st dynamic campaign.....or Apache600 who has done zilch but carp on about how good his campaign 'was'....get cracking on a dynamic campaign.

If people want a DC earlier than 2022 than lobby the 3rd parties for one.

From today's newsletter....



I am looking forward to investing money in this.









**Disclaimer: may or may not be true

Previous post was before the newsletter was released.....

Sadly, Apache600 did not release the F-16 dynamic campaign....

However, A-10 cockpit looks supurb all polished and what not.

The Nimitz update sounds like it is progressing well and look forward to that release when it happens.

Before I forget, good to see Polychop working on the Gazelle. I thought it was a completed unfinished module.

Polychop is working very hard to turn themselves around and address customer concerns. Given what I've seen on the lately, they are making an honest effort to make good, and of course they've got the ball rolling on the Kiowa.

1. If you as a developer are coming to 3d party forums like this one to figure out whats wrong with your company, that's BIG RED FLAG.

2.. No money form me for the Viper until F18 is complete. Diverting development resources away form the Hornet to the Viper IS NOT COOL. I bought the EA Hornet 16 months ago and there's still NO TWS!

3. The fact that A2G radar in the Hornet is on the back burner is very disturbing. As a ground attack platform, A2G radar in the Hornet (and Viper) is VITAL. I use it ALL THE TIME in Falcon BMS, the GMT mode especially. Not making it a priority because it lights you up to ground defenses is lame garbage. What IDIOTs are buying into that?

4. No amount of apologizing and grovelling from NineLiner is going to repair 10 years of arrogance and customer abuse on the ED forums.

I don't think my intent coming here was to figure out what is wrong with anything, my intent in coming here, and was really on my own was to try and mend some bridges. I don't pretend to assume everything is fixable, but I think its worth the effort.

DCS core customer base, the online guys flying in clear blue skies falling for the "TGP is the better option" Nick Grey tricked them into believe and soon enough the brownnosers ran into his arms.
Too many years of reports from 25kft orbiting jets over Afghanistan have made everyone totally forget the zero visibility European Theater and pretty much any region not in desert area and its zero clouds.
As reported/commented here by someone the online competitive community (soon to be ED's only customer group) only flies in clear blue skies due to "not sync'ed clouds".

And no, Nineline didn't come here to build bridges, he was forced here after Nick Grey had a shock reading comments over at Hoggit and suddenly 9L and BN started to interact and post all over the place and 9L started to post here too with this "Great unbanning" being promoted on both sites (most probably other sites too).

I assume Nick consider sales of the Viper module is all time low in comparison to previous modules.

This move is not, in any way, due to these guys good intent but most probably a requirement to keep their jobs.

TGP is excellent AFTER you have located the targets, using the GMT mode of A2G radar for movers and GM mode for statics.

Falcon BMS, (and thank Gawd we can mention that EXCELLENT sim here, you sure cant over at the ED forums under ANY circumstances) models this to perfection.

I dont think its a good idea for ED to pick a fight with BMS; they are going to be rolling out a DX11 version in the not-distant-future with grafix that will approximate what DCS offers and that will keep the BMS community together. There will be no great migration to DCS as someone here suggested. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The BMS community is a long standing hardcore simming group that does NOT suffer fools or half baked sims gladly.

Example: in DCS I need a direct hit from my 1000 pound bomb to destroy a truck? When is that long-standing bug going to be fixed?!? Enough with the DCS EA #%&*$# show. Fix your bugs first.

My guess is the EA-money-tree is done. We are not getting fooled again.

No one told me to come back here.

DITTO!!

Anyone that has a minimal knowledge about military aircraft know that A2G radar is VITAL (and standard procedure) when performing A2G strikes, this for aircraft like for example the F/A-18 and F-16.

Moreover, new SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) modes which most of the most modern fighter/strike aircraft currently have (or are starting to have) will make the A2G radar even more VITAL than ever before, but here I digress.

And as other already pointed out correctly TGP is not an "All Weather capable" sensor, while the Radar is!

Unfortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth, the ED forums are full of "take my money" nuts who will buy up anything ED vomits out. The Mi-24 thread is full of fanboys tripping over themselves to worship at the altar of ED same with the P-47 thread ( also begs the question, who is actually still buying ED WWII modules with the IL-2 BoX series out there actually delivering solid and consistent content is beyond me )

As one former candidate and now POTUS said, he could walk out into the middle of the street and shoot someone and not lose a single vote, that is basically what ED has running for them when it comes to their fanatical fanbase and that is why exactly why they will never actually change.

I don't necessarily agree with that. The pool of die-hards is still relatively small in the grand scheme of sales in an already niche market.

Given that more and more people are turning away, voting with their wallet and waiting to see finished products then ED are in a world of pain if they dont drastically make some changes.

17 people in my squadron. 3 purchased Hornet and Viper. I guess I should upgrade from Win7 to 10 but I think I'll wait till those two modules are complete. Win12 should be getting Service Pack 1 by then.

The hornet has a lot of capability now; A2G radar won't be complete this year IIRC. F-16 needs more patching up - the FM lacks the correct acceleration (probably too little thrust) and there are some things that make A2A annoying (not referring to IFF ... ) but those should be sorted quickly I hope - has to do with ACQ modes and the missile reject switch. Of course, data-link is coming as well.

That covers some basic operation, not sure about more in-depth stuff like nav etc.

Not surprising, probably won't be next year either at this rate. They've changed the reasoning so many times on why they can't complete A/G radar...everything from real pilots don't use it ...it'll illuminate you to ground defenses. ... the current maps aren't formatted properly to allow its implementation... its not a priority.... excuse excuse excuse. Honestly, I think I'd respect ED more if they just said, "We've already got your money suckers"

Actually both FLIR and A/G radar are having tasks done by the terrain team right now, these 2 issues along with a couple of others, such as night lighting have to go through them first.

With Razbam's Falkland map, will progress have stopped on the map while the terrain team complete the issues you have mentioned? Or do 3rd party map developers assist ED with maps like Nevada and the Gulf. This to me would be beneficial to share information between ED and 3rd parties.

For instance, Razbam work on Falklands, ED recode lighting for Nevada, Razbam then have to rewrite the lighting code to suit their map.

As the 3rd party teams would be usiing ED's Terrain Tools, I am sure the info would be passed along in the form of updated tool, I am not sure that it would stop any work they are doing but may require some changes to how they are doing it.

It appears that a statutory holiday suddenly appeared our of the blue and completely took the project managers by surprise meaning that they couldn't release the update they wanted to. I do sympathise with them because how are they supposed to develop and integrate anything when obstacles completely out of their control are put in their way every 5 seconds?

This has got me thinking, it's currently in the planning phase but I'm looking at creating some sort of basic tool that allows multiple people to look at independently.....possibly a mechanism to share it and access or incorporate it within other planning tools and software applications. It could have project information on it, timelines, milestones and even combine resource information to identify what man-power is available at any point in time.

For the early-access phase, I'm going to call this new invention a CALENDAR.

#incompetence

Is it any wonder why these clowns can't develop a simulated ground radar when a national holiday surprises them?

From the newsletter:
"Due to a statutory holiday in Russia this week, the team enjoyed a much needed day off to recharge and rest, because of this, we were only able to release a smaller update."
It's good that ED got their rest, unfortunately the holiday was just that day when most updates are done.

Instead of that nonsense you could also type:
"We only released a small update because we couldn't do better." No?

Where in there did it say we were surprised by a holiday, people asked why it was such a small update, we responded. Issues and features need time to be verified and merged, if we don't have the time, they don't make it into a patch.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator....o5JqbJwzOAtMXP2UdnAfJdgb-WtXWQQnrrh8Dg_Q

This is a newsletter from 2017 that mentions trains, guess what still isn't implemented into DCS World over two years later? Do yall understand why a growing number of your customers are pissed? Is that clicking? Yall haven't even managed to implement AI trains in over two years, how are we supposed to trust yalls word on anything even remotely more significant...

Here is a Youtube vid from Matt's channel advertising an AI Scud launcher over a year ago...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPB...P14DVDflhTn8Ogw9OwsLq01NKC7vvlnLo1L2jils

guess what also still hasn't been implemented maybe they are held up with the cows ...

The second point in that link you posted, the Hormuz map, went from in development to feature complete in that same amount of time. I'd say it's more significant than the trains. Along with APN missile navigation and a bunch of new units.

You can point out that ED has missed initial deadlines/date estimates because it's true, but the trains weren't well received by some and it wouldn't surprise me if part of their absence is due to that. I'm not sure they make a great example of ED's capability as a developer.



From a newsletter around the same time:

"All terrains updated with improved file structure and adjusted shaders. In particular, the detailed area of the Persian Gulf map was expanded north and east. This includes the airfields at Shiraz and Kerman, higher resolution terrain mesh and textures, new and improved shaders for trees, expanded road and rail network, new agricultural areas, and new towns and cities. While the detailed area of the map is now complete, we do plan to add additional airfields and landmarks within the area over the next few months. Additionally, we are working on new units to populate this map like the SS-1 “SCUD”, Rapier and SA-2/HQ-1/S-75 SAMs, and the HY-1 “Silkworm” anti-ship cruise missile"

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3579278&postcount=152

Every unit except the SCUD has been released.

Exactly the point......why schedule a release around a statutory holiday when key resources won't be available? I suppose there will be a major release pencilled in somewhere around 26th December or 1st January? Honestly NineLine, introduce ED to a calendar.....it may come in handy one day and assist with their planning and they'll be able to pickout dates to avoid. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't rocket science and every single software developer (apart from ED obviously) tend to take these sort of things into account. Actually, given that ED don't have a road-map and don't have a clue when specific tasks will be initiated, employed and resourced a calendar is absolutely no use at all.

Well, DCS Hornet doesn't have an A2G Radar and it also doesn't have a TWS A2A Radar mode. Those are two of the most (combat) important capabilities if not the most important capabilities of the real Hornet when it comes to real A2A and A2G combat.
So if a Hornet without such capabilities is considered by you to have "lot of capability" then I would really like to know what would be for you a Hornet that doesn't have a lot of capability??

So now you are mad because we released something at all? There were some critical fixes in that patch, I really am trying to understand what you are mad at. The size and scope, and why where wasn't more module-specific issues addressed were due to a shorter week, but we had some critical fixes ready, one for a crash, and another for performance issues and we didn't want to wait to release those. So I am trying to understand why you are mad about this, I am just totally missing it right now.

Back in my day there was no such thing as radar. We used you hang out of the cockpit and drop sticks of dynamite on the target. Geez people these days have it easy, need a radar before even attempting a precheck. We used to whinge having to adjust the gun synchronization.....these days its "we can't even fly with out the radar"

Top Gun flies inverted to flip the bird and take a photo, in my hey day, Top Gun was flying inverted and dropping dynamite into the German Cockpits. We didn't need radar for that nor did we need a movie to reenact our war efforts.

It's quite clear why ED and the mods struggle to understand the fundamentals if you can't comprehend what I'm getting at. No, I'm not mad 'something' was released.....I'm frustrated that ED still are not learning from previous mistakes. If ED know about about statutory holidays, then they know that the amount of resources are limited......so why even have a scheduled release in that time-window in the first place? That still shouldn't stop critical fixes though, they should be continued to be worked on as a priority.....however, ED wouldn't need critical fixes if they actually tested their releases and fixes properly because they wouldn't slip through the net in the first place.

If that's not bad enough, they have the gall to complain about the holiday preventing the bigger/scheduled release from happening in the first place. Seriously, which clowns are in charge over there, it's almost comical how incompetent they are.....I think I remember saying a similar thing about 5 years ago and guess what, ED still haven't made any improvements and like I said we'll probably see a carbon-copy of excuses come Xmas/New Year because ED didn't have the foresight to appreciate that people might just have a few days off work.

Are you not even the slightest bit embarrassed on their behalf?

Could it be the enormous SA enhancing capability of the data-link, the anti-radar capability with HARM, stand-off capability with JSOW and plenty of ability to drop guided weapons? Man, I just don't know.
Lately real pilots are telling us they call TWS 'Track while lie' and 'don't really use it' ... it's funny that you're trying to pawn these things off as the most (combat) important capabilities.

No, I am quite happy they were still able to get a patch out this week, even with it being a short week. But thanks for the feedback.

I hold no grudge against Ed. I just post my story here and there so people will see that Ed is not to be trusted, as you said, and that after being a customer for over 10 years, probably more, I am over it and will not do business with them again unless something actually changes. As I said, right now there is over 400$ sitting on the table that ED will not see as part of their revenue, and that is actually a good thing as I am past due for a new build of an up to date Rig. So, there is a plus side to me not doing business with ED. If they actually take the modules I own to a finished release candidate state that would be a good start. If they actually made a commitment to each Module to have a set finish timeline with progress goal markers and then actually come close to fulfilling those commitments, that would be a good start. As ED is now with, pre purchase this and we will finish it when we get the time, that is just a disappointment waiting to happen.
Anyway, I respect what you are saying, I totally disagree with you and I will not buy anything from ED anytime soon. As far as the Forums getting better, I hope you are correct, but I seriously doubt it will happen, especially if nineline continues to be the lead moderator over there. It is not a problem though as I very, very, very rarely open that Forums anymore.
So know this. The only time you will see me post a message like this is when I see someone posting how great ED or DCS is and how they are such a reputable company and that DCS World is such a great Sim. Through my OP you can see that this is not my experience and I just like to share that so that maybe someone else will not make the mistake I made and waste their money.
No hard feelings anymore, it is just life in the big city.
Thanks for showing me that it is really only any customer's(in this case it is my fault) fault if they trust ED and then get ripped off. I think this will help a lot of people to see just how Ed operates and that the customer is ultimately in control of keeping themselves from being taken by the likes of ED or any of the third party contractors working for ED. Sorry this response is so late, but then again I very, very, very rarely come into the DCS thread on SimHQ.

S!Blade<><

Blade (and other's)

all points considered, VEAO are long gone. Yes I am still upset about the hawk that never got finished but I did not blame ED for that one. I never got involved with the kickstarter or lay down any money for VEAO's snatch and grab antics on kickstarter. I saw 1st hand how the IL2 dev kickstarter project went south which led to DCS continuing the development for the WW2 fighters (and honoring the kickstarter). Venting over at the ED forums about the IL2 dev pulling the pin and ED picking up the pieces earned me a warning. I can honestly say that if I posted the same comment I did back then now I would not be warned.

However, the condemnation of NineLine in these forums has gone on long enough. I am actually surprised that Force10 has not already stepped in to warn members here for the barrage of attacks that NineLine has had to put up with, yet he comes back and weather's the storm.

I have been warned several times in the past not to directly attack members but to counter with what has been posted. Long time members would know I have previously been critical of ED's moderation team and I have had moderators here at SimHQ tell me to pull my head.

NineLine agrees here and elsewhere that the moderation team have sometimes got it wrong. SkateZilla (thankfully) has come back and posted in these very forums after a long hiatus but you don't see me attacking him outright for his previous moderation stance that saw me banned at ED's forums.

Personally, disagreements are going to happen here and every where else on the internet, let's try and be civil about it and not personally attack other members. After all, NineLine is a registered member here and has been for some time.

I'm sure your 'real pilots' are correct, now ED only needs to deliver the news to air forces around the world. It's sad that they have been using such an inferior technology, idiots! I suggest a formal letter to air forces of the world with big red title "TWS SUX NOOBS" on it.
These the same pilots, I assume tell ED how aircrafts' behave and suggest flight models, yeah those flight models which after being 'correct' in initial release must be tweaked 10 times in next two years?



Another letter needed to tell AFs that A2G radar isn't also worth investing to aircrafts. Man what were they thinking when designing these planes?!

I'm glad that ED steps up and sets the priorities correct, that should show them.

Well, that pretty much confirms to me regardless of any bluster about improving things and making the communication better that things aren't going to change. If you and ED still can't acknowledge that things can improve and errors of the past won't be used as a lesson to learn from then you're never going to improve and won't be turning this sinking ship around. More and more people are voting with their wallets now and demanding that the products are actually finished. It's quite clear there is no intent to do this, it's certainly never been mentioned as far as I'm aware. If you're just happy to see basic fixes getting pumped out and excuses made why progress isn't being made then that becomes a glowing reference to the mindset and ineptitude on show by the company and people associated to it.

I'll bow out, I hope you enjoy your time as one of the community managers while it lasts because as long as the mindset described above and the continuation of the ridiculous early-access strategy continues then the pincers of administration will get ever closer. You all have yourselves to blame.



Nineline requested feedback and he's getting it. ED are allegedly trying to improve things......but as you can see, they still refuse to accept critiscism. Given that Nick Grey is blinkered into the strategy of early-access being the only way they can fund the continuation of the 'World' it's pretty clear things aren't ever going to change.....other than more and more customers will not buy into it until it reaches the point that it becomes unworkable as a business. They're clearly not far off it or they wouldn't have been forced down this route in an attempt to make it look like they've suddenly come to their senses.

Yes VEAO is long gone with mine and many others money. Ed could have, and still could, reach out to those who were taken advantage of and make some apology and/or some offer of reconciliation for the bad alliance that occurred under the Ed/DCS umbrella of DCS World. They did nothing, but the people that were upset by the whole episode and posted on the Forum about it were given various bans. Of course my posts, and many others were not very polite and nineline was probably correct in handing out some of the bans that he did. To keep this clear, my posts were not vicious attacks on any one person at VEAO, but they were quite blunt and black and white as to how I viewed the situation. The point is that ED did nothing but ignore the situation, not even an apology. They just shrugged it off and kept rolling on and locked the threads and banned the users to stifle the anger this caused. That is bad business and really bad PR with your customers.

As far as nineline, I have no personal vendetta against him or any other moderator at Ed. I have made no personal attacks against him, but I do not have confidence in what he says at this time. The proof is in the pudding and I will observe and see if he and ED can make good on what they are saying now. Not that what I think makes any difference, it is just where I am at personally with observing ED/DCS/Forums. If they can turn the ED Forums around and make that Forum a place where the Community can correspond and help to make DCS a better sim, then more power to them. That would be a step in the right direction for Ed & the Forums. I am a diehard lover of all things CBFS and even FPS and Tank Sims. I wish nineline nothing but good fortune in turning the Forum around and also ED good fortune in figuring out that they must complete their modules to make a customer out of me and probably many others. I am always lurking in the shadows and watching, no that that matters, but I will come back if the right things happen. You have to earn a customer's trust back within your Forum and your business practices.

BOS is a good case study for them. I was an early access customer of BOS and despised it and felt completely ripped off. I was quite outspoken about it on the Forums. Once Jason took over and they used the next 4 years(Bearcat's prediction) to turn BOS and then BOM around, I was an ardent supporter. I am still an ardent supporter even with TGBS prevailing flaws in AI. In all fairness they have acknowledged the need for AI changes and Jason has an employee working on it. The reason I am a supporter is that Jason and that Community can have the discussions of what TGBS is doing great along with what is needing to be changed. TGBS Forum had a very similar lock down as ED has had on Forum members posting, and Jason has maneuvered himself and their Forum moderators through this and there is quite good communication going on over there now. This has been a very good demonstration of how to turn a hostile customer base around and win the approval of that customer base back while taking your product into a top tier successful business. I hope Ed can follow suit, but to be fair and honest, they are not in that position now and IMHO I think they know it. Back to the shadows

S!Blade<><

Yeah, you just babble on sir.

Regardless if "real pilots" use it or not, both aircraft have these systems do they not? Yet they have not been implemented nor is there any timeline on when they may be implemented, especially A/G radar. For the Viper, its only been a month so ok, fine but the Hornet ....seriously, when exactly is it acceptable for customers to be irked they paid $80 for a module still stuck in early beta going on almost 2 years now???

I'm impressed with how NineLine is handling the harsh criticism as well.

He is representing the developer, and as long as the harsh criticism is focused on the developers actions (or, his actions as a community manager) then it's valid. If it gets to be personal attacks...then it's a problem.

Most folks around here know there is no love loss between ED and myself (still have a 70% warning level )...but I think the re-hashing of old wounds is getting tiresome. This is just my personal opinion. The problem is the money aspect. I've said before...I have seen good friendships end over $20. It will make someone not let things go...forever.

I have been seeing words like "fanboy" being thrown around...let's not do that. I really don't want to ban anyone, but you ALL know better...don't go there.

The do have them, and they are being worked on. On the Viper you do have SAM at least, which is considered to be superior to TWS.

I don't care what is "considered superior". I want the module (Hornet) to be complete with the features it was advertised to be getting when I purchased it well over a year ago.

Even if that is to be the case on the F-16 (namely pre-Block 60/70), that's definitely not the case with the Hornet which as far as I know, doesn't have SAM mode. The Hornet uses TWS mode for multiple aircraft tracking and this mode in the Hornet is a very good one which it can even prioritize up to 8 targets.

And even regarding the F-16, define "SAM considered to be superior to TWS"??

On the Viper, SAM can be better than TWS in terms of scan rate but on the other hand SAM doesn't track multiple targets (it only shows the relative position of targets in the area). So and for example, with SAM you can only obtain flight direction information (track) of a single target while with TWS you can obtain this same info for several targets (even on the Viper). As such "SAM considered to be superior to TWS" is quite relative.

Correct, it has LTWS instead which IIRC is not good enough for L&S. Same reasons as TWS.



Longer dwell time means getting an accurate vector reading at the time the target is scanned. This is in constrast to TWS which requires several hits to build a vector and from there on the vector is composed of the average direction computed by where the hits appear. Add to this radar ambiguity that isn't present on any of our simulators, and SAM is much superior.
If we then get into ECM and CMs, STT/SAM is further much more resilient than TWS where TWS can confuse tracks if two contacts cross paths relatively close. Even a heavily maneuvering contact can cause its track to time out while creating a new one.



SAM can track up to two. This is a game, so YMMV with all these modes. IRL they don't care about TWS multi-target for the most part since contacts are sorted and you have everyone in the flight STT a contact. They don't care about tripping the RWR either - that's what I got from relatively short conversation, so there are nuances I didn't have time to clarify - this, however, was the prevailing attitude WRT TWS: Use for specific briefed situations, otherwise WTF are you using that.

I could see going after bomber/strike gorilla with TWS.

In any case, I'll just re-iterate that TWS builds tracks from successive hits and due to how tracks are built and maintained, it is quite vulnerable to interference by anything in the track radius including other aircraft, countermeasures, ECM etc.

I'm not saying the ED modules shouldn't have these features - they should and they will - just saying don't build them up to something they're not. I get it, I used to do the same thing, then new info surfaced.

I think GrayGhost is ahead currently by half a point.

How can you say that TWS (on the Hornet at least) is not good for L&S since this is the mode that a Hornet pilot will use the most/more often to release an AMRAAM against an enemy aircraft??
The Hornet can only "illuminate" and fire at targets with an AMRAAM either with TWS/L&S or STT. For obvious reason, this is done the vast majority of times with TWS/L&S (for example due to not triggering enemy RWR as opposed to STT).




Of course that TWS requires several hits to build a vector since SAM mode doesn't build vectors for targets at all, except for the L&S targets!
As opposed the Hornet TWS mode (APG-65 and APG-73) tracks and thus builds vectors for several targets (I don't remember how many but it's a dozen or so if I'm not mistaken) and can prioritize and "tell" to the pilot which are the eight (8) targets with the highest priority and thus more threatening. In this line of reasoning, it can tell the pilot which target of them all should be the most threatening and it should allow multiple AMRAAM engagements (more than 2 at the same time) something that SAM is "light-years" from accomplishing! So and then again, in this regard TWS is "much superior" compared to SAM.




I'm sure there are ways or techniques to limit the impact that EW can have of TWS and the ability to track targets.

Anyway, suffice to say that in terms of the more modern aircraft such as the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale (and this not to mention the F-22 or F-35 which work differently due to sensor fusion) their pilots use TWS - They rarely seem to use modes such as RWS, not to mention SAM. I not even sure if aircraft like the Typhoon and Rafale have RWS modes while none of the aircraft previously mentioned seem to have SAM. And BTW, the same also applies to the F-15 (including F-15A/C and Strike Eagle variants).

Bottom line, if the SAM mode was as good as you mention than I'm sure all other modern aircraft would have it, don't you think?

But the fact is that no other aircraft seems to have SAM mode. And one of the reasons for this is that you seem to misinterpret what TWS mode really does. Basically and as you previously said TWS requires several hits to build a vector, yes that's true. But what happens when the TWS hits a target without the necessary number of hits to produce a track?
The answer (which again seems to be the point you're missing) is that it builds a track/target but without the vector or resuming, just like the SAM mode would do! So basically the TWS is a SAM mode with more capabilities or looking on the opposite perspective SAM is a TWS mode with much less capabilities. And perhaps this is the reason that no other aircraft apart from the F-16 seem to have such SAM mode and preferring to have TWS instead. Resuming, TWS not only shows targets as "trackfiles" with vector - TWS also shows simple target tracks as a RWS or SAM modes would do (which requires the same "amount of hits" to produce, independently it we're talking about RWS, SAM or TWS).
Or even putting things into a 3rd perspective, a well capable radar (both in terms of hardware and software) can have a TWS which does the exact same things that a SAM mode would do (but again with far more capabilities) but of course with much more capabilities on top of that.

I said LTWS.



Prioritizing is for easy use. The pilot already knows and decides priorities by himself.




And STT will still be better at it. I don't care about your speculation.



They use SWT which has more in common with SAM than it does with TWS. Not that any of those are particularly similar to each other aside from superficial resemblance.



Funny thing, my information comes from a beagle WSO active right now. He's active in DCS as well. They use STT on the old mech-scan radars as well as RWS to determine general formations, target heading and cut-off angles etc.



Nope. In the end, maybe it's not necessary at all.



So? F-16s TWS might be particularly weak for a bunch of reasons. Incidentally, I've got the eagle's radar manual in front of me and it does have a SAM mode.



No. They don't even do close to the same thing.

LTWS is essentially a RWS layout/interface with a TWS "back-end". It shows targets like the RWS mode but once or when the pilot slews the TDC over a target that same target will show up like it would in TWS mode. But again in the "background" LTWS is a TWS - for example it still prioritizes the 8 most threatening targets like the "normal" TWS does.

I can imagine that modes like either LTWS in the Hornet or SAM in the F-16 would be useful decades ago when the processing power and overall hardware and software capabilities were very limited. But now in modern times with much better hardware and processing power and software do allow detailed modes like TWS to work just as well as more traditional modes such as RWS, not to mention SAM or LTWS.




Yeah right, makes me wonder why those "fools" at the US military such as the USAF are pushing to sensor fusion which allows the aircraft (like the F-22 or F-35) to show the pilot vast and extensive information details (which goes well beyond prioritizing) and all of this when "the pilot already knows and decides priorities by himself" beforehand? I guess that sensor fusion is for easy use as well. Guess you could also add air-to-air missiles, EW systems that deploy ECM and Chaff/Flare automatically and so on... to that list as well




Yeah right, apart from triggering the target/enemy aircraft's RWR/ESM like a freaking Christmas Tree, the STT is indeed better...




Care to share that (F-15) manual? Thanks in advance.

... which is not considered adequate for guidance. You have to go to TWS for designation and guidance.



No one cares what you can imagine. That sort of thing is king of making up capabilities that don't exist based on an incomplete picture.




Wow, you're on a roll Sensor fusion is about SA. SA helps you prioritize better. TWS priority is about missile firing order and for very good reasons the pilot has a target step/priority reassignment switch.

I don't particularly care what priority TWS assigned to the contacts that I have already sorted and assigned specific targets to specific aircraft. If I haven't sorted something, I'm in trouble and TWS prioritization isn't going to help me there.



They're not concerned about that. I know we covered this.



No, you're welcome. Not everything out there can be shared, for a bunch of reasons. At this point I'm not even sure I should post a snippet.


This conversation isn't going anywhere. Find yourself an RL fighter pilot that you can talk to, I'm not going to argue this stuff with you. You'll get information that you don't have to argue about that way.

You may find something here:
F-15 manuals

So now you're implying that TWS is better but without admitting that it is better. LoL



Here, corrected it for you. Speak for yourself and not for others. You may not care about what I think/imagine but others might.

You see, as opposed to you that want others to believe in you just because you say things such as "I spoke to pilots..." or "I have the manual..." and this without showing any evidence of this, my thinking or "imagination" is based on the ABSOLUTE FACT that TECHNOLOGY EVOLVES and as such a technology (such as TWS) that had limitations yesterday, today it doesn't have them anymore (because and again, technology evolves and this is specially true for electronics/hardware and software).

It seems to me that you're stuck in the 1970's and this at the same time seem to fit your narrative as a staunch almost fanatic follower of ED/DCS.




So TWS with its much better and detailed information display about all the targets ahead doesn't give the pilot a better picture?? And a better picture doesn't mean a better SA?? LoL, you're a piece of work indeed

Oh and by the way, when the pilot sees a bunch of targets and know which ones will be fired at and at which order, this gives the pilot a much better picture of what lies ahead of him or resuming gives the pilot a much better Situational Awareness or SA. That's the objective of TWS mode (compared to other modes)!

The diference about TWS and SA is that the information shown on the former comes solely from a single sensor alone, this case the Radar while the information from the later comes from merging data from several different sensors (such as for example, Radar, EO, IFF, AWACS, etc...). In the past this "merge" (SA) was done mentally in the pilot's head while the most modern aircraft automatizes this process and shows the merged information to the pilot (again automatically).




And now I retort what you replied to me earlier/above: I don't care about what your care.
The objective of TWS mode is to provide the pilot a much better picture using the radar and thus providing the pilot with a much better SA. Target prioritization and target vector provides a much better picture and therefore a much better SA to the pilot compared any of the other modes (RWS, SAM, LTWS, etc...)
And better SA is always better for the RL pilot and not necessarily you hence again that I don't care about what your care.




What do you mean by this?? You mean that "your pilot" or "pilots" are not or wouldn't be concerned at all by alerting the enemy RWR and as such would be using STT without any concern and use it instead of L&S??

If this is the case then sorry but it's becoming increasingly hard to believe in anything you say! Now you just sound like the ED guys and their justification for not having the implementation of the Air-to-Ground radar as their top priority for the Hornet and F-16





You know, those manuals that you're talking about are all over the internet, right? Just look at mdwa's post!
So I'm pretty sure that posting a link (or sending it by PM) won't be a breach in National Security of anything like that...

Bottom line is:
- You cannot (or should not) just come here and argue with someone who's been posting you facts and say that those facts are wrong just because you talked with a pilot. I can't speak for others (as you've done) but after this, I surely cannot take you seriously.
- Finally, who told you that I don't communicate with real pilots?

Thanks very much mdwa for the link!

From now on, be careful! You'll probably have "black helicopters" flying/hovering next to your window

I have all of the ones that he has, and stuff he doesn't ... and isn't all over the internet.




You're not posting facts. The joke's on you.

I don't have any.

The theory behind TWS has been understood well since the 1960s (it was developed by NASA for the Apollo programme). There's really not that much that more processing power and memory can do for you on a mechanically actuated radar. The biggest progress has been made in the field of antenna design and power electronics, resulting in PESA and ultimately AESA antennae, which allows much faster beam steering and even splitting of the radar beam.

Some of the theory behind TWS

I was thinking with all the griping about the delayed update why is there silence when it is released?

DCS: F-16C Viper

Jettison will no longer break SAM designation or STT Lock.
Added damage as a result of an overload of G-forces
Track While Scan (TWS)
Data Link (Link-16 with MIDS)
External Lights (wip)
Countermeasures Dispenser System (CMDS) manual option programming
Fixed countermeasures rearming.
Fixed dispensing on both press and release by wall dispense button.
Corrected RWS Contact Symbols. Now contact displayed as a small square with velocity vector.
Now radar scan area centered about cursor.
Radar cursor is drawn below friendly and foe contacts - fixed.
FCR tracks bugged target up to 20 degrees outside antenna limits - fixed.
FCR cursor jumps from page edge to center even at max/min range scale - fixed.
Added missing SAI pitch trim scale and arrow on the knob.
Corrected antenna elevation axis.
Added 300 gal centerline fuel tank.
Adjusted payloads drag.
MFD Clips text on SMS page - fixed.
The eject sequence animation has been adjusted.
Adjusting the seat animation by height corrected.
Added radio-commands for radar usage to wingmen.
Improved cockpit interior lighting at night.
Added MPO test function.
Added AUTO Steerpoint sequence function.
Long press of the NWS/MSL Step button will now cycle the missile type.
HMCS enable/disable corrected such that it is only DMS switch aft now.
AoA indexer lights control added.
Tadpole (sherm) logic adjusted.
Adjusted engine nozzle animation for short, fast throttle changes.
Added Steerpoint and Heading autopilot modes.
Steerpoints now start at Steerpoint 1, there is no Steerpoint 0.

Probably gets in the way of their narrative.

I'd like to see ED add the inaccuracies of TWS in ... I suppose people who complain and call it a bug at first, but this sort of stuff is the real differenciator between an MSA and AESA, among other things.

Either way, the switchology mechanization is nice to see. Now I'd love to see TPOD/RADAR/JHMCS/Link-16 integration for A2A

Nothing is a 'bug' it is either "not implemented yet" or "it missed the current update" or perhaps, "not applicable to the block aircraft which [said RL ED endorsed pilot] system was tested in"

if C.W Lemon did not mention it in a video update (or his books [author's note: not that I would invest in any of the books]), than it must "not be implemented yet". From what I see....many people take these RL pilot words as gospel and gripe in all forms of forums that if 'lemon' said it, then it must be true.

However, if you want the truth you will need to buy the Spectre series.

There must be a disclaimer published by ED if they are going to endorse these RL pilots to test these aircraft and publish video's on their opinion of how realistic these modules are.

A prime example of this disclaimer is, now I can not confirm if it is Gonky or some other RL noob. There was a bloke who is an actual F-18 pilot who posted video's of his flight experience both in RL and in DCS world. His mate was a 'RL' harrier pilot and they tested Razbam's harrier but in the video....this 'RL' pilot had no idea what the fk he was doing. They ran a systems test to dump fuel, yet the RL pilot couldn't remember any of the functions within the sim or how it worked in RL. I'm not having a crack here but if ED are going to endorse RL pilots to sell their modules or 3rd party modules, perhaps tell them to test the aircraft before uploading video's so they do not look like utter noobs. This in turn leads to the die hards reference these noobs in arguments on the forums.

Seriously, flying a plane is like riding a bike. As long as you follow the check list every time [and speak aloud the check list items], yell "clear prop" before turning the key, you won't have issues. CASA may some day call you to a staging area for assessment and you don't want to look like a fool.
I can not fathom how simple tasks can be forgotten when it comes to RL fighter pilots endorsing simulated aircraft. Perhaps dumping fuel does not take place often, however in the video....many of the commands are forgotten, just a shame I forgot who it was and when the video was posted. What I do remember, it was posted by some RL hornet driver where comments were based on his head positioning when pulling back on the stick. The breathing stood out in the comments, although he was at his home desk and commenting on the aircraft for the 1st time.

If you know the video or the RL hornet driver I am talking about, help me out because I can't find it in my watch history.

There are plenty of acknowledged bugs.



I know that Wags had been burned before by someone claiming to be an RL fighter pilot, but wasn't ... this was quite a while ago. AFAIK Wags checks credentials since, at least as far as EDs SMEs go.



Unfortunately I don't know it.

The guy was Lex Talionis. Goes by the YouTube name of Lex.
Interesting that all his videos have been removed. All that remains is what is available in this post here

First of all, sorry for taking so long to reply but but I haven't been able to visit the forum lately.

Secondly and about you post, I have to say the following:
Really? How about combining modes (which I previously mentioned)?
For example, you can read the following in the F-16 MLU manual about the APG-66V2 (a Mechanically Steered Antenna or MSA radar, mind you) on page 126:

"TWS has been enhanced with a submode called SAM Multi-Target Track (SMT). SMT can simultaneously track up to 9 targets in the TWS scan volume and perform RWS SAM on a bugged target, which can be located outside of the TWS scan pattern."

So as you can see, in the modernized APG-66V2 mechanically steered Radar the TWS mode can be combined with SAM (which the "other gentleman" has been bragging so much about) which means that you can combine the advantages of TWS with SAM, all of this due to updates which are obviously and only possible due to advancements in technology such as processing power and memory.

As opposed to the "other gentleman", I'll post a link with the manual (F-16 MLU) which I'm referring above, here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwK-B4mRQeNLYUdSaDJjRXN1UlU

For what's worth a "pure TWS" mode (without combining with other modes) may have its disadvantages (never said otherwise) but guess what, so does RWS and SAM modes have their disadvantages (you can read about this in the same manual above) which is something that the "other gentleman" seems to ignore such as the TWS having the advantage to give the pilot a much better Situational Awareness, something that even ED admits with the latest TWS Hornet video description.

Finally, yes it's true that PESA but above all AESA radars brought big (massive in the case of AESA) advantages over MSA radars but you simple cannot dismiss the advancements that processing power and memory brought to even the MSA radars.
In the case of PESA, it's advantages are not that big over MSA, specially when compared to AESA. Yes, PESA has advantages over MSA namely being electronically steered (as opposed to mechanically) which has the advantage of faster scan rates but otherwise the technology behind PESA is similar to MSA.
AESA on the other hand is quite a different and much improved "beast" since it allows for example to have modules to emit on a certain frequency which other emit on other frequencies and the modules are programmable.

SAM isn't so much a new processing mode as a different scanning pattern, sort of halfway between TWS and STT. So yes, more memory and processing power may have opened up the possibility to combine those two, it does nothing to alleviate the main drawback that TWS has though, which is that while the antenna scans the rest of the box, the target may maneuver so heavily that by the time the beam hits it again, the deviation from the track is too big and the track gets dropped.

TWS works ok-ish if you reduce the size of the box that is being scanned or you increase the steering speed for the beam so updates are more frequent. More processing power can not magically account for slow steering and therefore not enough updates per time. There is no way to predict what the pilot of a tracked plane will do at any given moment. TWS can only assume where the plane will be given its state when it was last scanned. If the state changes, then the track will accumulate error. This happens a lot more IRL than is currently simulated in DCS.

Sure, but you seem to forget that it's not only the TWS that has drawbacks (correct me if I'm wrong). SAM and RWS also have their share disadvantages which in many/most situations likely outweighs the TWS drawbacks.

And please again, look/read the F-16 MLU manual that I provided above, namely page 126. In this page you can read the following:



So, while RWS/SAM have the advantage of better maintaining target track for vertically maneuvering targets, this is done by having a reduced search coverage compared to TWS and of course a much smaller number of targets that can be tracked. So both modes have the following disadvantages compared to each other:
RWS/SAM --> Less/reduced search coverage and much smaller number of targets that can be tracked.
TWS --> higher probability of breaking target track for vertically maneuvering targets. (horizontal maneuvering targets shouldn't pose a problem for TWS)

So two (2) main/big disadvantages on the RWS/SAM side versus only one (1) on the TWS side.

And you can also read in the same page that TWS has another big advantage over RWS/SAM:



This means that if you're tracking an enemy aircraft using the TWS mode the enemy won't likely know that it's being tracked (namely when compared to RWS/SAM modes) which means that the probability of the enemy aircraft to perform evasive vertical maneuvers (for example in an attempt to break track/lock) are much lower compared to RWS/SAM and thus drastically reducing the TWS main drawback/disadvantage.


So and bottom line:
- Every MSA radar mode has its advantages/disadvantages and IMO (backed by the F-16 MLU manual) it seems that TWS offers more advantages compared to RWS/SAM than otherwise. And the TWS mode which combines with SAM (called SMT submode of TWS) seems to be the best/"most interesting" of all these modes, this when it comes to the F-16 MLU (and Block 50/52, I'm sure of).

When it comes to attacking targets, SAM is superior to TWS.



It's actually reduced coverage compared to RWS. Increase TWS coverage, lose track intergity. Simple. A 2 second revisit time allows you to deal with a 6g maneuvering target. You'll also have issues with 120s trying to sort targets if you launch on multiple and the tracks are coasting through each other for any reason.

Altitude in TWS is determined by which bar scanned the target ... so if it's detectable by a couple of bars guess what -that altitude's going to change constantly.

SAM dwells on target sort of like STT (though more likely it's a mini-raster), but for a very short time. Just enough to get accurate altitude and vector information. It revisits the target on schedule, interrupting the search pattern and then coming back to it, so your search pattern loses some integrity.
Either way, as the distance is reduced, STT becomes preferred as it can deal with maneuvering targets better than anything else. And that distance is anywhere between 10-20nm, depending on tactics, radar capability etc.



We've already discussed this. Real pilots don't worry as much about triggering RWRs, they themselves not being perfect instruments anyway, and likely saturated in a real EW environment, unlike their ungodly ISR-like capability and 'silent skies' that we have in games.
The other guy already knows you're there, he knows you're engaging, so what if you lock him up?



Why, is he brain-dead?

It's amazing how quickly one forgets how certain tasks were completed in a particular aircraft. If you learn to fly a different aircraft, *all* of the previously learnt procedures are thrown overboard. You *have* to in order to make way for the new ones. It really is like a memory dump and starting all over again. Trust me, it is not just me. I once found myself doing a simple engine start on a new type. For some odd reason I tried to remember how it was done on my previous type (which I had flown only weeks before). For the life of me, I couldn't recall the steps and I felt really stupid. I'm not saying you have to learn flying all over again. However, the sequence of actions to manipulate the various systems or follow certain procedures vary greatly from one aircraft to the next and they're the first things that get thrown overboard when you're learning something new.

So, just because an SME cannot recall certain things that he had done routinely for many years previously doesn't mean he's a fraud...

I don't know why I keep at this since you seem to be a lost case.

Anyway, SAM is not necessarily superior to TWS when it comes to attacking targets!

Again for the "millionth time" TWS allows the pilot to engage much more targets at the same time when compared to SAM. SAM in the F-16 allows the pilot to engage two (2) targets at the same time tops. Also in the F-16 TWS allows the pilot to engage up to 10 (TEN!!!!) at the same time. So here's a HUGE advantage of TWS when it comes to attacking targets, this compared to SAM.

At the same time TWS doesn't trigger the enemy targeted aircraft's RWR suite which means that the these same enemy aircraft are likely to not know that they are being engaged and as such won't execute evasive maneuvers and deploy countermeasures (until it's too late) and as such ensuring a much more successful attack!
SAM has much more chance to trigger the enemy aircraft's RWR (as you sort of "admit" down below) which means that the enemy aircraft will soon know that it's being engaged and as such can employ evasive maneuvers and deploy countermeasures soon which means that the attack is much more likely to fail!




Go read the manual for Christ sake!

So lets see. First you talk about a magical (F-15) manual which supposedly supports you rhetoric which nobody else ever seen. Now I posted an official F-16 MLU manual which fully supports what I've been saying and you dismiss what it's written in the manual! Way to go for a discussion indeed
Guess that you're one of those who don't care about learning about anything usefull - you are just one of those guys that want to always be right even when you aren't...




What the f**k are you talking about?!
When you're being tracked by modes like STT and even SAM, the RWR will light up like a freaking Christmas Tree and this well before the actual missile release which will INEVITABLY prompt the enemy pilot to perform evasive action which can defeat the attack. As opposed TWS won't trigger the enemy RWR which means that a successful attack with a missile like the AMRAAM is likely to be much more successful.
Guess that terms like "sneak attack" or "alerting the enemy until the very last moment" are completely alien to you, go figure

Also your:
"Real pilots don't worry as much about triggering RWRs, they themselves not being perfect instruments anyway"
rhetoric is indeed for laughs! Yeah RWRs are so useless and unimportant to the point that every and all combat aircraft nowadays have such suites, go figure genius!





Well if you don't understand what was being explained to you earlier on then it starts to become clear who's the "brain-dead" here, that's for sure!

You're only a month late to the party...I forgot about this thread.

What aircraft are you referring to that you 'had flown only weeks before"? in your post?

Who are you referring to as "brain-dead"?? It's not quite clear to me.

This is making it personal ricunes. You should know better...next time I'll have to do more than just give you a warning.

As it is modelled in sims, you are correct. With its RL limitations, TWS can not be trusted to successfully guide a missile. As GG has explained, in TWS there can be huge altitude ambiguities. You don't have those in SAM because the target is essentially STT locked for a short time, giving the radar the opportunity to determine the exact height of a target.



Unless they are flying fingertips off each other, it is a given that TWS won't be able to cover the entire box that contains those 10 aircraft without constantly dropping tracks. If they start maneuvering, TWS stops working unless you have very short refresh times.



If the manual states this, then it is either a mistake or willfully wrong. There is no way that TWS can have a larger coverage than RWS. It could hypothetically have equal coverage, but in practice that just doesn't work.



Nobody said that RWRs are useless. What is being said is that RL pilots don't depend on their classification as much as sim pilots do because RL RWRs aren't as perfect in picking up locks, etc. A RL pilot has enough SA to know he is in range or not, he doesn't wait for the RWR to start going nuts, he just reacts on the actual situation. If you are in range of a bandit that is hot on you, you should expect a missile in the air. TWS isn't a sneak attack. The bandit still sees you are there. If it magically made you not appear on his RWR, things would be different. However, he knows you are there and if you are in range, a competent pilot should expect missiles, whether his RWR indicates STT or not.