Dragon1-1

Sound needs to be improved, but I gear collapse happened to me a few times in the F-14. I dunno if it was flying engagement or I simply brought it down too hard.

I've seen this bug pop up before. Might be a good idea to make a separate report for that one. Last time it was fixed relatively quickly.

While the I-16 doesn't have too any places to fly it, we will soon have Cold War Germany. A WWII version of this map would be good for La-7, as well as many other late WWII designs. So it's a thought, the devs at UGRA are very experienced in WWII area, so perhaps after they finish the Cold War version, they could be convinced to make a WWII one using the same terrain with era-appropriate buildings. A few landmarks will be the same on both maps, though a lot of Berlin had to be rebuilt post-war.

None of our aircraft are LORAN capable, though. I think it was mostly a thing on bombers.

Presumably because it should have been sent via PM, though if you're sure it's a pre-1980 unclassified document, you should tell them so.

You can force the setting in the difficulty options. In fact, you can force it on, off or leave it up to the player, just like any other difficulty setting. Using the Stennis won't work for SC owners, because it gets the full SC treatment for them.

This has a fairly simple solution, actually, just make sure the only allowed spawns are assigned to cats that aren't blocked. Myself, I think ED should prioritize a small feature: require a "salute" before magically turning the jet around in the parking spot. That would help immersion in SP, or simply when you want to shut down.

In M6, the starting positions mean the wingman tries to taxi first and collides with the player's aircraft. The only fix is to manually tell the crew to pull chocks and get out of the way. This positions probably work for Hornets, but not for much larger F-14s. I suggest moving the player to another spot that doesn't have this problem.

Well, it's an FMC, patterned after the Boeing, but will work in the A-10, Chinook and Apache, as well as any future aircraft with a keypad. I ran out of room for peripherals, but if I ever make a transition to a standalone frame cockpit, I'll probably get one for use in these.

I'll add, this is because in CCIP, the radar is locked into providing the range to the pipper. It can't do mapping at the same time.

ED really needs to rethink its policy on making multiple variants. Why the Swiss F-5E in particular? There were so many other versions more relevant to us than this particular one. I don't think they'd all be missing documentation.

This was going to come up sooner or later, so I figured I'd go ahead and start it. Basically, a WWII version of this terrain would be wonderful, we'd finally get some place to fly the Russian fighters, and most of our WWII hangar would fit in as well. After Normandy, Berlin is the logical next step.

On water in calm weather, it can probably be expected to work. On land, in a complex terrain, it should fail if you move it around too much. Not to mention, getting the radar to actually track the ground, as opposed to some false return, takes some WSO work, too. I don't know if it's implemented yet, but moving the pipper around too much should result in a lost lock.

Also, JDAMs aren't as accurate as LGBs, and that's a well documented limitation IRL. They are accurate, but not pinpoint weapons. That's why LJDAM exists, and why it makes sense to bring regular LGBs with our Viper if that's what you need. Cloud cover may be a problem, though.

Apparently, the data is more complete than you'd expect. I have no doubt there will be a lot of stuff left out, but we'll see how it'll end up looking. In any case, that's more than the F-16XL, which never existed as an operational platform, and thus we don't know what it'd have carried. Not to mention, we don't even have the regular Block 40 Viper.

We're not "going theoretical" on the JSF. ED is apparently convinced they can recreate it based entirely on data leaked through videos and other unclassified sources. What I expect is a jet that's accurate with regards to things it has, but there's a lot of nonfunctional features. Basically, "we don't know what this button does, so it's not implemented". They say that they know what enough of the buttons do to make a functional jet. It wouldn't be the first time. RAZBAM's Harrier has a few classified pages marked as such, and even the Hornet has a button or two which isn't planned to be implemented for now, like s-mode for the AMRAAM. The only question is, will the missing features from the F-35 be a few inconspicuous details, or will they be all over the place? We'll see.

Isn't the rearm/refuel menu supposed to represent the "normal" kind of refueling? Hotpit refuel should be something else, with flow rates comparable to AAR, the requirement that AAR door be open, basically the exact same mechanics.

For what it's worth, the expertise was mostly confined to Logitech and Microsoft, IIRC due to the latter having a death grip on the patents that enabled FFB joysticks. It was never widespread and petered out because of that (I think it stayed around in some Logitech steering wheels). The patents have expired a few years ago, which is why we're seeing a resurgence from an entirely different class of hardware manufacturers. However, the solutions need to be created from scratch.

Ideally, we'd have hotpit refueling implemented. IRL, it's possible to literally hook up a hose to the Viper's gashole (same on most USAF aircraft, I think). Basically, "AAR" while on the ground, the switchology is identical. This can be done much quicker than any loadout changes.

Also, how many bombs are you dropping? If you drop a single pair, your chances of shacking the target aren't best. If you want to drop in pairs, you should drop a stick of two, with a short delay. It'd probably be best to drop more, so that you have a better chance of one of them landing on target. IRL, most of the time nobody drops a single unguided bomb, or a single pair, and seriously expects to hit a point target even today. You can refine your technique and eventually get pretty good drops, but pinpoint is probably too much to expect.

USN Phantoms are all completely different from the E. They diverged quite early, B and C were the last ones to be reasonably similar. Both J and S had different engines, different radar, and very different avionics. The S is the closest version to the E that we have, but even its slatted wing was not identical to the E. I suspect we'll get both J and S, they were the most common, and the differences between them aren't very big.

No, that's just what you'll notice trying to fly with real checklists. You can find the full list of things that are incorrect/unfinished, most of these are all similarly minor, but there's still plenty of work to do before the module is out of EA.

One of them is Soviet, the other a modern glass cockpit helo. An AH-1W would bring a Hellfire-capable helo with gauges and the bare minimum of displays, that could still carry TOWs. It'd be a good counterpart to the Hind, unlike the vastly more capable Apache.

Not all BITs work, some are presumably waiting for Jester 2.0, as they're performed with the crew chief's assistance. There's also a bug with the bi-di check, it doesn't quite work like it should, and some oddities with the wing fold handle. Other than that, there are some limitation with how Phoenix works.

It sounds like a configuration issue. 500kph is 270kts, far from speeds at which even a Bf-109 (infamous for relatively high stick forces) should become uncontrollable. For realism, this should be a per-aircraft configuration, taking into account actual control forces at various speeds. I think the gearbox is doing way more heavy lifting on the stick than with the pedals. If the quality remains good, a price war isn't a terrible thing for the customers. Problems start when corner cutting does, but we'll see if that's the case here.