Skysurfer

Seems more plausible but I'd really need a source for that.

Not to my knowledge. Just a regular export 9.12 without IFF.

Go back to your hole where you belong. Show me the EM chart of the 29 you are speaking of - actual hard data not some youtube video. Most airshows arent flown at "corner speed" or max sustained rates etc. let alone the same conditions or comparable weights. We have data for the 29A (9.12) from the GAF manuals and those match DCS reasonably well. 9.13 (29S) should have only slightly more max AOA and controlability. Again, apart from youe YouTube video please do provide the performance charts or any factual reference to form a well-educated, fact-based and rock solid opinion. EDIT: And OF COURSE it's your own video. Nice evidence crafting my dude.

Yep, much needed and also needs to be a fully custom module specific for the USAF Viper, not just a copy and paste from the Hornet.

Is the delay based on issues that were encountered during testing or do you simply need more time to implement Hornet features etc. to make the release more fleshed out and put that specific module "out of EA"? Just curious.

Late model (missiles in general) have dual chanel INS with GPS integration.

Could also be done via the ME as an option? Alternatively via the ground crew comms menu (similar to flares or codes in other modules)?

The C isn't smokeless either, only reduced smoke. At higher alts. all missiles will contrail as well.

Probably never knowing that the Hornet still has untextured parts.

At what altitude? You can do 1.2 on the deck or 1.6 at medium altitudes no problem. There is simply a drag/thrust bug higher up.

There is a bug currently where there is way too little thrust / too much drag from 30k feet and higher. Try the same at 26k feet and you'll see.

Ctrl + E x3

No I think the developers said that themselves. The only diference will be the pylons on the wing stations.

The differemce is the rack afaik.

I think some artistic freedom and more "hollywood like" stuff is perfectly fine for a DCS campaign. In the zone 5 capmaign you wouldn't be shooting actual bullets and see the guy go down in flames. It's there to make it look cool and be exciting.

Nope, in DCS those have the same drag per missile as it's a limitation of the sim. So it'll probably be too high for the tunnel stations and too low for the individual wing pylons. Just gotta live with it.

Correct, 9G airframe and no real AOA limit.

You could probably line up the ADL with the pod designation and maddog it within like 5nm but I don't see how the pod would feed the missile enough data to actually guide it. It's just a totally different system. Th A-A mode isn't really meant for searching and is by no means an IRST. Sure, if you visually spot contrails you can point the pod to it and get e better, zommed look at the flying object but that's about it.

Agreed. We better see the early and iriaf A's + Forrestal + FM fixes in the next one. Long overdue.

That's assuming constant PLA (MAX AB or MIL).

FF increases with MACH/IAS.

It's technically not even a russian missile. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/russias-most-feared-air-to-air-missile-is-actually-kind-of-a-dud-ebebe8b28f4f https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/what-made-russia’s-deadly-r-27-missile-so-good-173300

Below 30k it's a non issue - above it's almost as if you hit a wall. Mach is a function of temperature and you should be achieving higher mach numbers higher up. It definitely is a bug that got introduced with the 14A.

We dont have a strict 2005 Hornet anyway. There's features in the DCS thing from like 2013 and later.

Nontheless currently there is too little thrust or too much drag from like 30k feet and up. You can barely get a clean jet past M1.2 in some instances.