Killshot0597

It most likely won't because of classified info. If it does make it to DCS, I do hope True Grit has access to said information. You must understand that in order for something to be simulated accurately in a flight sim. Developers need a lot of information, information that might be classified and not for the public to see. This is the primary thing that stops ED from making something like an F-35 and we have modules like the F-18 and F-16 that are from around the mid 2000s era.

Absolutely not, DCS and MAC should be separate from each other as their principles are almost opposites of each other. What you are describing is essentially Game Flight mode and Game Avionics mode being turned on. Look at how many servers have those options enabled. I still doubt we will see anything classified on MAC, I really believe it is ED interest to turn it into training wheels to help new player potentially transition over to DCS. As we all know how steep of a learning curve it is. So it wouldn't surprise me if owning a module in DCS would also give you a module in MAC. People might feel daunted to start with DCS so they start with MAC, then transition over to DCS once curiosity settles in. Or they might not. Either way, ED gets to sell more modules and that potentially means more aircraft for us to play with.

what do you mean by this? Personally, I don't care much for MAC. I love DCS for how realistic it is so MAC isn't something for me at all. I'm going to make a guess that MAC will basically be DCS with Game flight mode and Game Avionics mode on. Whatever modules they develop for DCS will probably also be available for MAC. Perhaps newer more classified aircraft will be on MAC too and that might be good for those interested but if it isn't up to DCS's standards then I hope it stays in MAC.

You are right on the A-6 and Bo-105 but the sea harrier is only AI at the moment with some distant plans to maybe become a module. Mig-29A is so far only planned and I never even heard of am Su-17 officially. All we have that i know of with regards to the Su-17 is a potential teaser by Leatherneck. We have no confirmations yet. Yes more cold-war stuff is welcome, however we are starting to stray from the topic at hand.

No it is definitely not, DCS is a sandbox covering many eras....not just F-16 and F-18. I understand the 120 still has room for improvement, as of now they aren't actually that bad anymore. Lately I've been enjoying almost perfect 1-1 "kill per amraam" ratio. As of recently I have never had a situation where an AIM-120 has gone dumb off the rails. Just maintain lock and fire at the correct ranges and they'll hit. Too far and the bandit just evades them. I suggest you download tacview, it's very good at teaching you how to fight, you just review your flight at the end of each sortie so you can learn where you went wrong. As far as I'm aware, the AIM-54 still has it's issues (someone correct me on this). While the SD-10 uses similar coding to the AIM-120 (at least this is how I understand it). This is why when the AIM-120 was suffering from the bug that made it go for chaff, the SD-10 was suffering with it.

As much as I like the idea, it is already too similar to Marianas to offer us anything worth while.

@upyr1If you didn't know there is a G.91 module being developed by Inda Foxt Echo, Leatherneck's F-8J, Flying Iron Simulation's A-7E, Mig-23 by Razbam, Mirage F.1 by Aegres. Pretty good and diverse roster of early to to mid cold-war era modules under development! Also of note is a Mig-17 by Red Star simulations. With Red Star Simulations they are aspiring to be a 3rd party and aren't official yet, so at the very least treat their Mig-17 project as a mod as of now.

As of the moment, given that (to my knowledge) AI use SFMs. I would actually love to have AI only Super Hornets in the meantime. It'd give carriers a realistic looking flight deck post F-14 retirement. At the moment I think this is a more reasonable request to make to ED.

Dassault Mirage III AI asset to go with South Atlantic Map.

If you wanted weapon diversity go to the F-18, when will people understand that these restrictions give a module character of sort. If all modules were as capable as the next then modules would lack individuality. I see nothing wrong with ED sticking the their chosen variant. Edit: On a side note, I've mentioned this on other threads, but having many different systems from many different variants would add even more complexity and dev time for the module. It takes long enough as it is to develop 1 specific variant let along an amalgam of multiple variants.

AI on Cat 1 & 3 launch together as with AI on CAT 2 & 4. Provided they are set to Take-off from Runway.

It should never be a thing for the C. Call me a purist if you like but I like that ED is sticking to the specific variants. Having started my simming days in F/A-18 Korea, then a large chunk of my simming in IL-2 Sturmovik (the old sim). I've come to understand the value of making a flight sim as realistic as can plausibly be done, of course we can't get it to be 1 to 1 to IRL. However, compromising realism for the sake of appeasing people to get what they want is a slippery slope that no body wants to be on. I do agree that we as a community should pressure/suggest to Heatblur to make the KA-6 flyable. This would give the community a flyable tanker while preserving realism. This would also open the doors for potential modules that are also tankers, like the S-3 for example. Or even in the distant future once we get Super Hornet module, ED would develop it with the ability to have a buddy tank as well! Unfortunately, I don't see it in any way financially feasible for ED to create a dedicated module for tanking like a KC-135 for example. It'll have to be bundled in with an aircraft that is also capable of doing some kind of offensive attack with ordinance.

I for one think that if the information is available then it is time to model the Super Hornet. As of now it seems it's only possible to create a module for a very early variant of the super hornet. Which would essentially be similar to our current C Lot 20 but bigger in all dimensions, more range and 2 additional pylons. It'd have access to the same weapons the that our current module already has. Do we really want that? No, it will never be 100% accurate to the real thing, for on we will never have a proper Electronic Warfare properly modelled in DCS, that's a whole aspect of a modern war that DCS will never be able to simulate. Now for something like the aircraft and the rest of it's systems (excluding the EW suite) we could wait for more information to be declassified to perhaps grant us a more modern Super Hornet. After all, the Legacy hornet we have is still being developed and far from complete. That being said, can we all just be in agreement that we shall at least wait for ED to completely finish the F/A-18C Lot. 20 before they even consider making an F/A-18E/F module. After such time has passed we might get access to more modern / newer weapons that would then have been declassified. Sounds like a more interesting module to me. As with everything in Flight Sims, have patience.

There is some logic in DCS for a push back, it's done in the supercarrier for AI that are being parked. Also if you set an aircraft to land, rearm & refuel then take-off again. They park like your in-mission screenshot. Then pushed backwards to taxi on their own to take-off again.

Dassault Mirage III AI asset to go with South Atlantic Map.

Did you check the Tacview? I'm referring to after pitbull. The missile was almost perfectly on the M-2000's 90 degrees. At that point the launching aircraft's radar doesnt matter. And it is possible to notch the AI, i do it pretty frequently. To add, in the tacview the M-2000 was being very stingy with it's chaff. You'll need a lot of Chaff + notching to trash the misisle

Of course it's relevant....the missile has it's own radar too.

Let's also note that specific details about it will most likely still be classified.

This is an amraam, not an aim-54. Even then, if you were on a lower altitude you'd be more obscured by the ground clutter. On co-altitude you could still notch a radar but is much harder since there is no ground for the radar to get clutter on. If the radar is coming from below, it should be impossible to notch it.

Then I am blind for not noticing, as I always review my flights with tacview every time and only noticed it recently

AIR is used with the DSU-33 Fuse, you see it on the main menu picture of the F-16 I would think that if it was set to AIR without the DSU-33 fuse, maybe it's supposed to shatter on impact? Since bombs shattering isn't a thing in DCS, it just does less damage? Also maybe if it was set to AIR, the bomb explodes on impact VS penetrating then exploding inside?

I would say it isn't implemented. The fact that it doesn't work with flaps in full just indicates it isn't Approach mode at all.

For some reason AI crank now after firing a missile, I might be blind but I'm pretty sure this wasn't the case a few months ago. There seems to have been some improvements just not publicly it seems. ED seems to sneak some changes in from time to time.

SA-5 SAM site teased in this screenshot just below the cross hairs.

You weren't in the notch, not only do you need to keep the emitter 90 degrees to your left or right. You also need to mask yourself with the ground clutter, you were co altitude with the missile so the missile had no other radar returns besides you. Also, if you had an ECM on, the missile could just be homing in on your jammer (I don't know if the M-2000C has any kind of ECM).