Skysurfer

Thanks! That'd indeed be a great idea.

Nice, great find!

That is indeed very odd.

Just git gud brah.

Simply put the Phoenix isn't a Sparrow and you can't compare the two. Also, where do you get the 50% Pk claim for the later 7M? Source please.

Which, should not be the case? Read Victory205's take on it in another thread.

Yes. But it'll take some time.

Oh well, thanks for being honest at least! I do hope you guys reconsider your future projects in this regard and realise that having two modules in EA at the same time + giving release window promises does not seem to be a good idea. Excited to see the Viggen finally leave EA and fly the heck out of that thing again nevertheless.

Can only second this. This all started happening since TWS-A got introduced. Locks were pretty solid and you could roll, maneuver and keep the target at gimballs fairly easily and reliably, without seeing weird double-tracks etc.

Looking good! Any previews of Cyprus?

Might be an issue with FFB. Stay above 600kph and you should be fine. If you can please record a video showing exactly what the problem is.

Don't get too slow obviously or you'll get wingrock. Ground effect is very much a thing in DCS so I don't know what you are talking about. I have been flying the 21 in DCS for many years now and NEVER had any problem with he FM (even the old one) - you fly the speeds, dont bust limitations and most importantly, don't suck.

Yeah, I still have no idea why we even have an E-2D in the game since that one only entered service IRL fairly recently. HB most likely wont do any more AI units in that regard but Razbam could technically adapt and re-vamp their E-2.

I don't think HB are a developer who would just make stuff up and not pay attention to detail. Do it properly or don't do it at all. I'm fairly certain we migh see the Saratoga and potentially the other ships much later down the road, maybe even together with the A-6.

Known issue.

Same for missiles being fired as far as I can remember.

Even having the two former (Forrestal and Saratoga) would be more than welcome. I think only a small number of users will care much about having all 4 ships. I can see them being added with the A-6 though.

If there is steady progress, content flow and now new bugs are introduced / main ones are addressed I don't see a reason to be in a rush or even obligated to meet a deadline. If it's done with passion, it's going to be good. Like, if we see more liveries + fixes for the A, the early A's and the Forrestal fairly soon as well as maybe the A-6, it would be more than a welcome milestone.

And they specifically said they focused on bringing the Viggen out of EA in March rather than the Tomcat. If we see the eraly and IRIAF A + the Forrestal we can be happy at this point. There's indeed still quite some work to be done and the devil is in the details.

Whatever. Maybe next time try to chose better words or be precise with your "questions". You literally accused HB of making some shadow-changes making the missile not give you a RWR warning. To your quoted statement above: It lireally already does that in TWS - you can now even control the range it goes active at to some extent. This entire discussion was based on some SME input by Klarsnow (who is a real life WSO/ECMO if you didn't know) and some more documentation that people have found stating its component numbers/types leading to some more assumptions regarding its possible PD-STT behavior. Obviously we probably will never know for a fact since all of the hard data and documents are classified or have probably beed destroyed/locked away somewhere.

X for doubt.

So you come here with having no case or factual evidence and expect everyone else to be "arsed"? People in here have done numerous and rigorous tests with all types of missiles in the past to get statistical and hard data on their behaviour. Also, I don't get what you mean by "does not go active on its own" - every fox 3 can do that. The whole reason for this topic is whether the 54C (specifically) is supposed to receive an active signal when launched in Pulse-Doppler STT beyond the 10nm mark. And again, below 10nm or in P-STT it is active off the rail regardless of range with the seeker looking at the last known position of the enemy target at the time of launch. The RIO can even set a target size in the back and command the missile to go active earlier and later giving one as little as 3 seconds if it is set to "SMALL" aka. fighter sized target. Currently there is an issue with the INS on both the AMRAAM and Phoenix where they wont go actve or even won't de-loft if you break the lock too soon. What should and should not be is not for you to decide and should be left up to our SME's here at Heatblur and ED.

Sub 10nm, in pulse STT or in ACM the Phoenix is active off the rail (maddog). How do you know what mode he fired it in? A maddoged fox-3 wont always give you a launch warning off the rail, only once it picks you up and if you maintain the same flight trajectory when the missile was fired. Like, I have done this exact thing with amraams in the past of firing one off maddog without a lock into a group or the direction I expected the guy to be in, with decent success. Please simply record a short clip of that said tacview engagement or cut it down to just that engagement and upload it here.

And we have asked you to provide facts, proof, evidence, or literally anything in response, which you simply ignored and are now trying to deflect the topic at hand to avoid any constructive discussion. This is not how this works, buddy.