Dragon1-1

DCS F-14 throttle is mapped to the common detent position on HOTAS sets people use, as to make controls assignment convenient. This doesn't mean it's linearly mapped to the cockpit animation. The Tomcat has an unusually large AB zone, since most people don't have their physical controls set up that way, it makes more sense to make it correspond to that and not to the lever in the cockpit.

Keep in mind this is still less finicky than the real thing. Early Mavs aren't the easiest weapon to use, they're great if all you had up to that point was dumb bombs, but compared to more modern weapons, it's not easy to get a good lock at a decent range. That's what makes the Phantom so fun to learn.

Interesting, though it's still in the early stages. They'll probably need to wait for ED to model the Earth's curvature, too, or their jet will have trouble taking off.

If you guys feel like beating that drum, I've bumped a thread regarding that: The more likes and replies it'll have, the more it'll seem to ED like it's a hotly requested feature, so keep spamming the thread.

With even more realistic campaigns coming out, and DC on the horizon, we could really use this. I can think of a lot of things to do with it, such as altitude restrictions, no fly zones, or simply enhancing the mission makers' ability to browbeat the AI into acting how they want it to act. In particular, if we could set those limits in DC, it could be useful for forcing AI to avoid known MANPADS and AA fire. The more "manual overrides" mission creators have, the better.

For what it's worth, I do remember seeing a USAF document describing a list of signals for formation flying without using the radio, including various types of turns (although this was a modern manual, probably the good old Korea BEM). That said, I now checked CNATRA P-1242, which deals with formation flying, and it states signaling a turn is an optional step, so it seems that USN indeed doesn't typically signal turns. Indeed, the aforementioned CNATRA document specifies quite clearly that any maneuvers in close formation are to use a parade rate of roll, which the DCS AI is incapable of. According to some T-45 learning materials I found, it's about 10 degrees per second, I doubt it's much different in the Tomcat. Dunno what the USAF uses, but probably something like that, too. If we could force DCS AI to roll at that rate, flying with them would actually be enjoyable.

Will that be implemented into other campaigns as well, such as Zone 5? IRL, it's not just the Phantom that used similar signals. Anything tighter than a check turn would usually be signaled by the flight lead, and usually with the aircraft itself, not on the radio. One thing that annoys me a lot with DCS formation flying is when I'm nicely saddled up with my AI lead, sitting there on his left wing, and he suddenly makes a break turn into me. A visible warning would make this sort of thing go a lot smoother.

The question is, whether we'll get a mostly modern version and it'll just be waiting for Meteor to be put into DCS, or whether we'll first get something more along the lines of an early Eurofighter, which will then get upgraded to the latter version. In the latter case, HB will likely do something similar to the Tomcat, with separate early and late versions. In the former, we'll just have the later one. In either case, though, we know it'll be an older jet with the later upgrades retrofitted.

No, but it just means there's much fewer of them than with aircraft that I can readily come up with a challenging scenario for. More than that, it likely means that a DC will be unable to generate very many. I think that the F-35 will end up simply not appearing anywhere but in its own, dedicated campaigns, and on a handful of servers for F-35 vs. F-35 fights.

It's not, complaining about it is nonsense, but you want your fighters to be OP IRL. That means you'll get to dominate the battlespace with them. DCS can definitely be competitive, just like things such as Exercise Gunsmoke can be. In any case, it will be very difficult to design a mission where the F-35 will face any sort of challenge, seeing as it'll be essentially invisible to all mid-2000s and earlier sensors. Sure, missions that are a walk in the park can be fun, and you can try to make fuel management challenging, or go with an escort mission, but the fact remains we can expect the F-35 to have very little trouble overcoming any opposition up to and including the SA-10 and the Eurofighter. It's simply a jet from a different era, just like one doesn't normally expect a MiG-15 to shoot down F-16s unsupported (yes, you can shoot down anything if you bushwhack it, but you need to find it first).

I don't think we're getting a fully fledged 3F, though. We'll probably have a frankenjet that is mostly a 2B with some 3F features.

I've had no problems with customs (other than being slapped with a tax I didn't expect), but I guess this varies by country. Yeah, Winwing sends everything in separate boxes, it makes sense, but I guess it's a bother if you have limits on how many boxes can be in the package. That said, this situation with customs is ridiculous. For how much they charge for shipping, UPS should do better than "oops, tried once, didn't go through, let's haul it all the way back to China". In general, ordering from China these days will be difficult in many countries, and if you're in the US... try to get a ticket out while you still can, I guess.

Yeah, and that's why you generally don't see MiG-15s and F-86s flying around where Fox 3 platforms are around. The only thing they could do in such an environment is act as bombers against undefended targets. A realistic F-35 will be to the MiG-29 what the MiG is to the F-86. I know, but this doesn't stop the F-35 from being OP. It is so IRL, but since we have no other 5th gen fighter, we end up with a plane that can basically eat everything in the unit list for breakfast. The only uses I see is either an F-35 on F-35 scenario, or an SP campaign tailored to provide some sort of challenge.

A US pilot in the '58 wouldn't see the cockpit of his brand new jet all scratched up, though. Aerges had hinted we aren't just getting the G.

No need to make the F-35 more OP, I think. It'll be bad enough trying to fight it without radar.

Actually, at one point I did, but I don't remember what it said, just that they weren't particularly open to releasing anything from the supplement. It was a while ago, at any rate, Iran's Tomcats were still flying then. I don't remember where, but I do recall the SAR mode being, at one point, singled out as a feature of AWG-71 that complicates its declassification.

Really looking forward to the Iowa. Would that be possible to include that particular ship in the core assets? It might not be fully correct for modern era, but it is the same ship that would later escort tankers during the Tanker War. Of course, ideally we'd get a modern Iowa based on the WWII model later on. There are problems in life that can't be solved by liberal application of 16" shells, but it's a short list.

Note that drones, if enough of them are used, could allow the F-35's stealth to be nullified. The radar energy that hits it doesn't disappear (except what is absorbed by the RAM coating), it just gets bounced in another direction. If you put radar receivers on drones spread around the airspace, you may catch a radar wave that's been reflected off the F-35. Since the drones would be datalinked anyway for control, using them as distributed radar receivers is a logical evolution. Combined with a missile that would use a visible light/near-IR camera combined with some sort of AI image recognition algorithm (possibly located on the launch platform), this could be a very effective way of handling stealth fighters.

If it's bluewater ops in otherwise unfriendly territory, then yes, you're boned. You would be IRL, too. You'd probably eject close to the boat and have a helo pick you up. This looks like a near-worst case scenario in carrier ops (worst case would be the boat actually getting sunk).

That's exactly what happened. It's as stupid as it sounds, and multiple people admitted that, but that's US government policy for you. A lot of F-14 material, including spare parts and potential museum exhibits, was destroyed rather than risk them possibly ending up in Iran. This particularly applies to anything related to F-14D. The lengths the US government went to prevent anything F-14 related from getting anywhere near Iran are downright comical. For instance, they removed the PTID and radar scope from an F-14 exhibit because they were "sensitive material" (despite the fact if Iran wanted a better display, they could've bought one on Aliexpress at that point). Some of that could be people in the government being butthurt about the USN's most iconic jet being flown by its sworn enemies, ones who hate the US largely because of CIA's meddling, to boot. Thankfully, this is a unique situation, other US foreign policy failures didn't end up with their enemies getting their hands on their most advanced combat jet. Breaking news: government policy is inconsistent, nonsensical and/or just plain stupid. Film at 11. I think the issue might actually by the SAR mode. Two F-14Ds can combine their radars to form a single, enormous antenna, and the range on that is huge. The whole point is to deny everyone (not just HB) the ability to guesstimate real capabilities of the AWG-71. Also note, the real problem is that this information will be in technical docs for the radar, which is also where you'd find all the other juicy details. Sure, the government could redact the docs and only give HB parts that are not sensitive... or they could just blanket-deny the whole thing. Guess what is easier to do for pen pushers at the DOD?

Luckily, HB is not ED, they had always had higher fidelity standards than ED did. We may not get the AWG-71, but we know that what we do get is premium quality. For what it's worth, the argument about Iranians is what the US government says to, or used to say to, anyone asking questions about the Tomcat. That said, AFAIK even the Iranians aren't flying the Tomcat anymore, so I don't know how it is now, but the Pentagon bureaucracy isn't exactly known for its responsiveness (though it might be worth shooting them some FOIA requests, just to see what they'll now say). That said, I think we've got another way around all the secrecy problems. Just get Musk hooked on DCS and soon we'll be swimming in formerly classified aircraft documentation. Either that, or he gets shot trying to muscle in on some secret squirrels. I can see no downside to this solution.

Easier than a real gun, at any rate. Honestly, if even pepper spray is banned (it's not in my country, at least), your best bet is probably to take up crossbow shooting for sport, and get a legitimate license for one. As lethal as a gun in the right hands (in fact, against body armor often more so), reasonably quiet (and most people can't recognize the sound of a crossbow shot, anyway), and you can reuse the quarrels. If nobody saw the guy come in, nobody will ask questions when they don't see him leave. Of course, that only works if people you're living with share your view of the matter. That said, what's currently happening in Scandinavia is very much atypical. In the UK, for instance, criminals rarely have guns, same with most of the EU. It's always best to hide, call the cops and not resist against an armed criminal. However, if that's not an option, it's best to strike first and kill him quickly. In this situation, being alive to deal with the paperwork counts as a victory. Also, the "survivability onion" we all know from military theory can be applied to home security as well. If the thieves think that you either have nothing to steal, or that your home will be too much effort to break into compared to others nearby, they'll leave you alone. Most street criminals are lazy and none too bright, and so can be deterred by a garden variety reinforced door with a decent lock, and some shatter-proof windows if you live on the ground floor. Those that do have a functioning brain and the equipment to defeat those tend to target businesses, not private homes, because the former tend to have way more things worth stealing. The really smart criminals usually just get into politics these days, and shooting at those tends to be frowned upon, however much they might deserve it.

I don't think that it means that HB can't make a 3D model and configs for the older weapons, just that the ED will control the code after that. Several modules have otherwise unique weapons, I don't think ED is making them, just maintaining them.

I know, but my point was that as long as ED gets the button pushing part right, campaign creators will give us the rest. Seriously, give campaigns a try. You might have plenty of experience flying real SIDs, STARs and working with real ATC, but how many times do you get to fly a legendary carrier fighter in a realistic military exercise? Speed and Angels is the RAG training, and then Zone 5 is essentially a TOPGUN course, both quite compressed (although in practice, you'll spend quite a bit of time practicing to pass each scenario), and only held back by some DCS AI quirks. In both cases, the guys voicing the instructors are played by people who were instructors IRL, and they know a thing or two about how things worked back then. While I guess you could do the same with the F-35, I'm afraid it'll simply leave all potential opponents in the dust. In the F-14, you have to work for your kills, and even winning a fight against AI feels good. The Phoenix is not an AMRAAM, but it's got some tricks up its sleeve, so you can beat more modern jets if your BVR game is good. The F-35 will just blow things out of the sky with little opportunity for them to fight back. I'm sure campaign creators will find some way to challenge the players, but it's a flying iPad, not the jet from Top Gun.

This is where tear gas guns can be useful. In countries with gun control, the invader is unlikely to be armed with a real one, and most people crap their hands when you point something that looks like one at them. And if they don't, you still have a reasonably effective, area of effect (important in high stress situations) weapon the use of which can be difficult to prove once it wears off. If the invader is armed, it's not too great, but still better than nothing (or even than an otherwise powerful weapon that you can't use effectively), and you're much more likely to survive against a blind gunman than against one who can see. Even in the restrictive jurisdictions, an attacker obviously armed with a deadly weapon would have a hard time winning the case.