Skysurfer

They are a bit too "faint" in most cases and could need some improvement. Having a sonic shock/pressure cone effect would also be quite nice.

I think the patch on the 18th should solve it (hopefully) - DCS doesn't just purely revolve around airquakers and SATAL and if you have a problem with it on your server simply "ban" or disable the Phoenix for Tomcats and make them use Sparrows only. In fact, if RWR's were even remotely realistic on other modules you'd get a simple "spike" warning until impact in a PDSTT guided Phoenix. Same applies to R-33's or any Monopulse or PD guided Fox 1, generally speaking.

Has to do with IFF.

Maybe. They are reworking the Hornet pilot alltogether as per one of their recent newsletters. Utilizung the new skeletal model and animations.

Interesting. Wonder why they haven't been implemented on the Hornet and 16 yet?

ACLS isnt working across all ships and modules in DCS currently. Pending fix from ED is needed.

Something I think you guys might find interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20100615180813/http://ausairpower.net/engines.pdf

Very good update indeed! However, I'd really like to see this "Update flight model for ground effect, takeoff pitch effects, auto-pilot based on FPM, touch and go handling, and other remaining flight model issues" being adressed and fixed for the next and probably last major update this year. The ground effect fix is nice but the go-around pitching moment, and flap induced pitching moment are still fairly significant.

Which "GBU" are you using? If it's the 24 it won't guide.

I agree, this needs to be adressed ASAP. Among other various lights in the RIO pit that are BARELY visible during the day.

How has this still not been added???

That's a post from 2015. I highly doubt we'll get them as they'd require considerable aerodynamic work as well. Please show me a source that states they were a thing until the 90's. All SME's I've heard talk about them said they were removed or deactivated very early on.

"Some of these include, across the three variants: Removal of fuel pylons Bullet fairing for TCS ALQ instead of TCS (IRIAF 95-GR) Early Gun vent / plate Fuselage RIO step strengthener panel (optional) Alternate front windscreen defogger array Early duck-tail ALQ-/ECM bulges MBU-7/p Mask MS22001 Mask HGU-55 Pilots (in lieu of HGU-33)"

Copy. I will do some tests with the new API missiles and see for a fact if lookup is still a thing.

No on the glove vanes, those were barely used operationally and either welded shut or removed from the factory alltogether. And yes if you read carefully they mention that removing the TCS will be optional for the early A's and the IRIAF cat. will come without the TCS by default (only ALQ and light).

Theoreticall yes. This would make it active off the rail but still receive mid-course corrections as long as a lock is held.

For now yes. Which is totally fine as long as we get a high quality Forrestal with basic functionality. However, it would be cool to have the other ships they mentioned in the past sometimes next year once the main development cycle comes to an end. I do understand however how much work it is to model all the island and texture/equipment differences of the various carriers of the same class.

For a notch in DCS, you need to do two things for it to be effective. Slow down to < M0.4, reduce closure to a minimum (put the missile on your 3-9 line) and preferably drop chaff. See, the way proportional navigation and missile guidence works in DCS, missiles will take lead if a target is flying fast or beaming the missile with a high angular velocity in order to achieve the desired intercept point. This very "lead" the missile takes creates such a geometry that now makes it very hard for the defending aicraft to create the desired 0-closure rate aspect. The slower you are in the notch the less "lead" does the missile pull and the easier it is to achieve the desired effect. Older Fox-1's in DCS will usually easily go for chaff and/or break the lock in a semi-decent notch unless you revert to something like flood mode or pulse etc. Active missiles can re-acquire you at any time if you leave the notch too soon or are simply too fast, creating said offset geometry. It would also be desireable to test this with another human player in a MP environment since the AI doesn't really use the same missiles and code more often than not.

Thank you for your valuable input, much appreciated! :thumbup:

Nice! Glad to finally see progress on this one. As a sidenote with the PH ACT switch flipped in the RIO pit and PDSTT SARH guidence the missile should still be active off the rail and receive SARH/DL correction as long as PDSTT is maintained, correct? At least that is the way I understood it.

IRL there might be no such thing, in DCS there 100% is. It simply does not matter what is behind you. EDIT: Ok, just watched your tacviews, you are NOT notching or defending correctly in most cases.

I havent found 54's to be harder to notch in a lookup. In DCS this really doesn't seem to matter. In a lookup, getting the right angle might simply be harder. I'll take a look at your tacviews later on.

Outstanding news! I guess all thosd delays and all the patience is going to be well worth it in the end. :thumbup: A few questions regarding some outstanding issues though: - will the remaining few internal and external lighting issues be resolved soon? - last year you spoke about the Forrestal class carriers consisting of 3-4 ships being shipped (no pun intended) with the Tomcat. Is this still planned with just the Forrestal coming out first or do we "only" get the Forrestal? - when will the proper -B F110 engine instruments be implemented, among various fixes in the B cockpit? Thank you for the great update and I'm glad to be a part of this wonderful journey!

Has been for over a year now. And they still are changing the amraam around constantly. We shall see down the road.

Would be a very welcome addition to DCS but from a pure "multirole" and capability perspective a Su-27S/P would be much better. One can only hope I guess.