Skysurfer

Yeah use power for descent rate. You still can flare a bit on a field landing and personally I never had too many issues with it. The FCS can be a little wonky at times though, especially on a bolter / touch and go.

Fair enough! Not a far stretch to be honest. Currently waiting for the new clouds and Forrestal to come out to fully enjoy that campaign.

Oh really. Will the current B one be changed to that one then? Sure I read something along those lines.

Fingers crossed it will be in the March patch. As the SC has kinda been abandoned by ED and needs some serious changes/fixes.

Speaking of the A campaign. I hope you consider using VF-11 or VF-31 birds off the Forrestal since those squads actually operated from that ship.

Just out of curiosity, will this be addressed for the March update?

Yeah I really do hope all of these bigger issues get fixed and the module finally leaves EA with all its promised features. Would be the best case for everyone and allow them to fully focus on the Tomcat. I have quite frankly stopped flying the Viggen since 2.5.6 released as there were too many new issues.

Do you have a tacview or video example showing this? In all the years flying the Tomcat I have never had a TWS launched amraam give me a launch warning before it went active. Or even another AIM54. If the guy launches at you in STT you'll get warning straight away, anyway. So there are quite a lot of variables in play here as you can see and being a bit more specific might help.

Yeah, your discord nametag doesn't seem to work either. As in, friend requests are disabled.

Would be a nice touch for authnticity on some birds but very low prio. if you ask me.

Nice theory-crafting going on here.

90km is roughly 45nm, so why not? Most FC3 radars seem to be slighly or even largely (in the case of the 15) underperforming. Meanwhile ED's F-16 can pick up a Flanker at more than 80nm.

Good to know, thanks! Just out of curiosity, will the next major FM tuning be the final one for the Tomcat as its nearing completion?

Wonder if this is what might cause the ghost-tracks sometimes.

Sure.

I mean, he 54A is already active off the rail, regardless of mode below 10nm. The missile is capable of receiving active commands from the WCS in various instances so it's not a stretch, regardless of not having an actual mention of it in an official document, to assume that the much more advanced C would have this capability. Isn't the PH ACTIVE switch exactly that for a PDSTT shot? Active off the rail with mid-course corrections?

I flew the 29 with the T16000 stick for more than a year with only a 20 curve to the right and deadzone of 3-4. Worked like a charm.

I think at least for the TID repeater the font changed and the lines are fairly thin and thus barely readable when zoomed out. Haven't noticed any significant difference in VDI and HSD brightness personally though.

Will at last the transsonic drag at high alt. of the 14A be fixed for the next patch? That is a much bigger problem than some small DPS deficiency.

A Prowler or Growler carrying Mav's now? I want whatever you are having, sir.

I wasn't specifically referencing your post but the general discussion here. Realism is also a broad term and there's people that will argue with you that there can't be any realism in a game / desktop simulation etc. - to which I can only sigh and leave the conversation. Obviously a game/flightsim wont even grasp the complexity of real ops. or the phychological and physiological effects on you and your body while operating an aircraft, let alone in a combat environment. What can be done however is having accurate systems, loadouts and general cabalities which all work according to the manuals / SME's and have a flight model that is somewhere within +/- 5% of the real, charted performance data. Like, not even a fixed based sim will do much more than DCS when it comes to all of that apart from having a physical, hardware interface for muscle memory and better procedure training and obviously potentially delving a lot deeper in the more classified subsystems. As someone who works on these in the commercial side of things I can draw a fairly good comparison, coming from the days of FS2004, FSX and now P3D. I understand people wanting 4 HARM's, for various reasons, for their missions and fictional scenarios but they also need to understand that the real jet which ED have decided to model can't fire/deploy these from said pylons. Maybe some foreign, export version can but not this one. I'm sure ED's upcoming stand-alone product "MAC" will cater a lot more to those people who just want a more arcady, simplified approach while retaining the same graphics as DCS. Moral of the story - you'll never please everyone.

I love how this entire thread has snowballed into a discussion about what DCS is or should be. Everyone has their own preferences, which are all equally valid. It's up to ED which direction they want to take the game and whether they want to stick to the "more realistic" approach with their FF modules. As a reference, not even Prowlers or Growlers carried/carry more than two HARM's operationally - I wonder why.

Bruh... Yeah let's implement a profanity filter for the PC crowd so they can continue simulated killing in their perfect world.

Forrestal kinda had one going too.