Dudikoff

OK, thanks for the update. Was just wondering if it's still coming or it's cancelled or something as there were no updates after the MCG-Pro release.

Can you comment on the MCG-TM status? I asked about a month ago on the last page, but there was no response.

Yeah, I was (unpleasantly) surprised as well; just five years earlier.

This is not a new thing, it's been like this for years. I'd presume the German Air Force disabled any A2G weapon support when they modified the ex-DDR 29's for their service and they reflected this in DCS.

I'd expect it to run well over 30 fps at that resolution and medium details. You could add another 8 GB of RAM if possible.

Sapfir-23MLA variant would be the only option IIRC (unless MLA-II from MLD was installed later on(?), but then they could just call it the export MiG-23MLD).

I missed these updates somehow. So glad to have the MiG-23 done in the game after all (the initial rejection by ED was quite a shock). MLA is a pretty good choice, especially if one with the later mods like CM dispensers and SPO-15. MLD would have had some advantages in close-in maneuvering with the vortex generators and the extra wing sweep position, but these planes were not meant to be dogfighters anyway so the difference is probably not that drastic compared to e.g. a MiG-29. Can't wait for it to be done to try to land that thing, thanks Razbam.

Which is certainly not a surprise in the context of DCS World :)

The ED should add better support to easily define the afterburner switch point on the throttle axis (per module I guess), rather than to play with the axis curvature until you hit the sweet spot for your controller. Falcon 4.0 had it.

I'm not sure how well the strengths of the AC-130 would be served by the DCS at this moment with somewhat limited infantry, soft target and fragmentation effects modeling. Not to mention the AI sniper ground fire.. I'd still prefer the F-15E at this point; even though its appeal is somewhat blunted by the MFD's of the F/A-18C and the upcoming F-16C Block 50, it's still considerably more capable than those in terms of payload and range, I'd expect. Or at least the A-7E which would be a nice step back from these multi-roles (i.e. the vulnerability to enemy fighters would certainly add much appreciated tension to the missions and require better coordination with friendly fighter cover)..

I hope this means what I think it means -> downloading only deltas of the modified files. If so, thanks ED, finally. This will mean a lot to users with limited speeds and/or bandwidth. Edit: After seeing that the 1 GB patch with deltas is followed by another one of 9 GB without deltas, perhaps my enthusiasm was a touch early.

Is there another one? :)

And where did I say otherwise? I just mentioned them as something that was planned in one form or the other (either for the D or for one of the proposed variants like Quickstrike, etc.) and as something which would further complicate the development of the F-14D module; the whole point I was trying to make being that the amount of work required for the F-14D could have been even worse if they developed its A2G capabilities as planned. AMRAAM was tested on it as the funds were allocated for the integration, but IIRC the Navy diverted them to LANTIRN program, guessing correctly the upcoming operational mission profiles (A2G rather than A2A). If only a software update was required (after the comprehensive testing program was completed of course), I think it wouldn't be a big stretch to include it as an option if the D module was developed and it would add another handy feature to it over the F-14B. The biggest obstacle might be the HUD representation of the AMRAAM mode as I would presume this did not get in the manuals.

Can the raven make a guess about the MCG-TM availability? :) Seriously asking, just wondering about some rough estimate, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year..

IRST is basically a D-exclusive because what was carried on the earliest blocks of the A by that name didn't really work well at all and was removed pretty soon (if it was even delivered to operational units?) and replaced by some dummy weight IIRC until the TCS became available. There's also the HUD, better radar with NCTR (which is quite important for the basic Tomcat mission), ECM, MFD's, new navigation system.. Quite enough to improve on the F-14B A2A experience and again not THAT different that it would be too expensive to develop (like e.g. if it had synthetic radar mapping, various smart weapons integrated like Harpoon, SLAM, HARM, etc.). LTS video feed could be projected on the MFD so PTID is not really required, IMHO, except perhaps in the very basic TID emulation mode perhaps just to have a bigger screen to designate targets easier. If I was making it, I'd also sweeten the deal with the optional AMRAAM integration, especially if it only required a software update on the D (ducks for cover).

There already are two switches on the left side on the current prototype design. What the others pasted on that original image are proposals. But, I see they added these four rotaries on the right side of the throttle instead of those rectangular buttons. Are these encoders or just axis? Is there some push button functionality? They look sort of rough, IMHO.

Thanks for the info. This switch between the TCS and LTS feeds is basically how I understood the PTID screen worked on the F-14D before the D05 software update (which I guess supported it through the bus), but regarding the LTS feed being displayed on the old TID screens, it's hard to find documented evidence as most USN budgetary documents which mention these upgrades state that PTID is required, but they don't really go into detail. And since it was a long time ago, people involved with the Tomcats might remember it differently. For example, I did read on some modeling forum that when they interviewed Lt. Charles Zuhovski, a RIO operator from VF-211 (which according to Wiki received Tomcats with LTS pods in 1996 and deployed in 1997 with them for Operation Southern Watch over Iraq) for some decal research, he supposedly stated that he flew several missions with LTS equipped Tomcats which had no PTID screen installed. I found a photo of a VF-211 Tomcat taken by the mentioned pilot apparently, so there might be some truth behind this story.

Can you please share some more details on your findings regarding the LTS image being shown on the TID screen? There was this thread on the forum discussing this same thing and IIRC the end conclusion was somewhat different (i.e. the LTS pod required the PTID screen to show the image; on the F-14D the image was shown on the MFD before the PTID screens from retired F-14B's became available).

That's not technically the question here. Early J-11A which looked like the one in FC3 had no datalink at all apparently, while the datalink was added in a later upgrade, but before that another upgrade also replaced the screen with an MFD. So, the question is whether to remove the datalink as the cockpit matches the early J-11A standard which didn't have it or pretend that it's a later J-11A standard with the DL and ignore the missing MFD. Personally, I'd prefer it to be an optional so both could be used depending on the scenario.

The Sparrowhawk HUD was finally ready for operational use in 2002 so it didn't get that much use IMHO to warrant its development, especially if the F-14D might get developed as a module which had its own modern HUD (compared to that F-14A/B had). From what I've read on some forum, the PTID on the other hand arrived rather late to most of the F-14D's (as it was taken from withdrawn F-14B's or even from some A's), so it would make more sense to have it on the F-14B's, but that would require a separate F-14B module to be developed and I'm not sure if PTID upgrade alone warrants it. The make-shift installation of the PTID in the F-14D was apparently rather easy, but that would only support the TID emulate mode, which I suppose only showed the TID/LTS picture. It was fully integrated by software upgrade once there were enough units available for all the F-14D's, but that upgrade was only available for the last F-14D cruise apparently.

Quite an unexpected straightforward statement, which basically counts as a promise on this forum :) Here's hoping you'll manage to pull this one off.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the answer. That's an interesting question then. The most flexible option then would be to make it as an option by the mission designer, so that if Chinese EWR/AWACS units are present in the mission, it might work if activated in the mission options. It's not that far fetched if the later J-11A U3 upgrade has it and the lack of a proper MFD could be considered an FC3 limitation anyway. So, I'd vote for c) Make it an option for the mission designer.

There are additional aspects here, IMHO, already mentioned. So, again: 1) did the plane keep the Russian export-level DL equipment (as it is apparently mentioned in the Su-27SK manual) which would work with Russian ground stations/AWACS (e.g. if they're in the same coalition in the mission), and 2) if this Russian export-level DL equipment is kept in J11A, than in-flight DL between J11A's of the same flight group (up to 4 would be RL limitation, I presume?) should still work. Still waiting for a comment on this from the OP. Not sure what Chinese ground equipment is included, but if the original DL equipment is still there in the early J11A, then I would prefer to keep the DL functionality and add required Russian ground units to the Chinese coalition making them optional for the scenario creator. But, I presume that currently, the DL functionality is not tied to specific equipment (as we don't have these ground stations in the game), but more to unit types of either EWR or AWACS to be present in the mission, right? Are there any Chinese specific EWR and AWACS units in the game at the moment, anyway?

I presume that TM shifted the philosophy to individual USB devices which can be unified via TARGET rather than to limit themselves to like e.g. on TM Cougar design which connected the throttle and the rudder unit to the PCB in the stick and then was limited to 8 axis per USB device or so (which wasn't enough for TM Cougar if the rudder was connected). In theory, VKB could make a more universal twist adapter (if there would be some modular design with adapters for mounting it to different sticks and a hole for a pass-through cable connecting the grip to the base) with a separate USB connection, rather than integrating it with the electronics in the stick.

I think some additional clarifications might be helpful here by the OP before making the vote. IIRC, the Su-27SK manual mentioned the datalink, so I presume the equipment was still there on the J-11A (given that even the labels in Russian were kept)? Is the problem then perhaps that the Chinese Air Force didn't have the required ground stations and/or AWACS aircraft? If so, I'd presume the datalink could still function between the flight members?