Skysurfer

I agree with Mike here. I wouldn't get too hung up about exact config and equipment in that regard. We already know the ALR67 blisters, old gun vents etc. will be an option or added later on to more closely reflect the B and late A. I'd much rather see actual fixed to mising textures or wrong cockpit instruments / typos than adding or correcting the model for a very specific A or B config. Not only does this add a lot more complexity and work but also requires a ton of time and fine tuning that could be spent elsewhere (and is needed).

Most likely.

Tell me more about how throttle controls AOA. I advise you look up the definition of AOA.

It's unfortunate that an unintended code adjustment and resulting bug doesn't get fixed for 6 months but I wouldn't call it too big of a deal even in BFM (adapt and fight different, act as if you had stoes on the jet). We know they are working on it and it'll be fixed and in the same ballpark it was before eventually. If I learned anything from HB by owning the Viggen and Tomcat is that you need a *LOT* of patience.

You have an ICS volume knob.

Yeah I don't think the last patchnotes actually made it in - probably next patch.

This might be a file corruption or failure to load on your end (happens in dcs sometimes) but I'll x-check it myself and report back.

I mean, there usually as a set timer for the fuze to arm etc. the missile won't make a hard turn just off the rail or right next to the aircraft. This also might be another DCS limitation since our missile API is very limited and seemingly only tailored towards the amraam and sparrow, amraam even less so since there is no HPRF to MPRF.

Thank you very much! This is what you call proper product support.

Not armchair pilots but actual pilots who have flown over bodies of water countless times. My biggest gripe with the current depiction is the lack of height perception since the reflections and light interaction looks fake and you can barely see wave patterns from altitude. This was not the case pre 2.7 hence why no one was complaining. You can still see wave patterns etc. from a flat angle and down low (around 1000 feet and below) but once you get higher you lose the reference. And once again, this was mostly fine pre 2.7 - no need to post countless pictures of bodies of water to concoct some new "actually" argument.

I mean given there is no additional data, I guess. Unless someone gets the official radar parameters and punches them into the basic radar range equation for x-check.

You can't change that. Afaik it wont loft at very close range (5nm) and yes the MH is currently the only reliable one.

In fact I am (default cockpit). That's probably why then.

Last time I flew the thing they are looking normal on my end.

This is all regarding the 14. They work on the Hornet.

This is known and already reported. I guess sometime down the road they'll get to it.

F-117 confirmed!

Yup, no issues with the MH, the M and F will not guide if fired >10nm. Within 10 they seem to work just fine however.

I mean we already know one of the three is going to be the A-6, an attack aircraft.

I mean justice in terms of visual, system and flight model fidelity. No one comes close to HB in those aspects.

Guys, just imagine if Heatblur did a Su-27S Flanker - perfect counterpart for our era Tomcat.

The manual actually notes that the limit speeds of 800CAS below 30 block can be easily exceeded if not careful. Having spoked to a current Viper driver he said the same - there technically is no limit to how fast the jet will go (no, the canopy will not melt or break) and the engine won't get damaged. M1.3-1.35 can be and was flown in some instances and after a quick inspection by MX no damage to the airframe or engine was found. With wing tanks you are limited to 550CAS anyway, which you carry 99% of the time anyway. So even though the chart you can find online only goes to M1.2 at SL the jet can easily go faster physically.

Hopefully we'll see said improvements in the next major patch.

Good stuff and great to see that you guys are taking the needed steps for a bright future ahead. The mention of the two new jets planned or in the works does indeed spark the interest in most I would say. I'll be the first to say it here but bet is a naval F-4 and perhaps an F-111. Needless to say I can't wair for the Forrestal and judging by what is mentioned in the roadmap will USS Saratoga be included as well since it won't require large adaptations or re-modeling?

Cobra, I appreciate the honesty and still truly believe you guys are a the top of the game currently but having been a supporter of your products from the very beginning I simply had to express my honest thoughts on the way things are going - partly because I truly care about your modules and this hobby. Now, things like the JESTER awareness calls are neat but in my opinion things like missing textures (TCS, LAU-7) or the correct engine instruments for the B as well as fixing some typos and gauge logic in the cockpit should have a much higher priority. I do understand that this is driven by personal passion and artistic motivation but I think the majority would agree with me that these smaller "nice to have" features are rather low on the list of urgency. I also think an option for "boring Jester" would be much more requested since not everyone wants to hear a "420 blaze it" call while dogfighting. I personally find Jester a lot more distracting in BFM/ACM than actually useful - apart from the "he's on our six" call obviously. Again, I think everyone is awaiting the day we'll have a feature complete and mostly polished Tomcat with the correct FM, cockpit peculiarities and advertised "goodies" so to speak. For the future I think it would be rather advisable to be careful with release timeframes or even dates based on the past occurences as it just leaves everyone waiting, twiddling thumbs in the anticipation for something which won't actually come. Not neccessarily because we are impatient but because we are quite passionate about this hobby and excited for long-awaited features and improvements.