Dragon1-1

With nuclear weapon operations being as classified as they are, I doubt we'll ever see nukes in DCS, even without devs being opposed to them on philosophical (and, I suspect, performance) reasons. Nukes on MiG-21 are completely fictional, while it's reasonable to assume that arming up the nuke would be reasonably simple in older aircraft, actual weapon mechanization is strictly classified even on very old platforms. I think we know how they dropped the bombs out of Enola Gay and Bockscar, and that's it. For what it's worth, though, nuke deployment=/=end of the world. That's a tired old Cold War trope, really applicable only to one matchup: full strategic warfare between US and USSR/Russia. Aircraft-dropped nukes in particular are typically of tactical kind, true strategic weapons would be carried by cruise missiles, aside from ones on ICBMs and subs, that is.

I want a local dimming version without controllers, too. I'll see if I'll end up pulling the trigger on this (probably more towards Xmas than now, hopefully the shipping deal lasts), but I'm leaning towards buying it.

It kind of seems like just a harebrained way of implementing a payment plan, like for any big and pricey appliance. However, it also seems like a way to skirt consumer protection laws that apply to those plans. Honestly, I don't know what to think. On one hand, it looks kind of suspicious, on the other, it looks like a deal I could take. It does make it annoyingly hard to calculate the final price plus VAT, when I run the numbers, it's still quite noticeably on the steep side (about twice what I paid for the Reverb G2). Anyone knows how long their free shipping offer is going to last? I couldn't find info on that anywhere.

I'll be surprised if the Hellcat comes out. Marianas, maybe, they did show some WIP pics from time to time.

Note that the Black Shark is unique in that not only was it the oldest DCS module, made when keyboard players were a serious consideration (hence keyboard support is somewhat better), but module, like the real helo, has more automation than the most advanced Western designs. You can basically fly it by pointing the autopilot where you want to go. Other helos need analog controls much more.

Not this year, apparently, but we'll supposedly get some news soon. I'm not surprised, let them take their time.

The panel is typically still there even if the IR lamp is not even installed. It just does nothing. Also, if ED ever adds this functionality, the panel will work. Also, when it does work, the L-166 is perfectly adequate - provided that you enemy fields missiles that can be fooled by a blinking IR lamp. It's not at all difficult to fool a Redeye, or a Strela-2, for that matter, but the L-166 has an advantage over flares in that it's not expandable, so you can operate it continuously. Preflaring only works for a limited time, as long as you have flares. See my previous posts. They use the conical scan technique, which is still AM ("AM" refers to the way signal is processed, not the way it's generated), but more sophisticated than primitive spin-scan of Strela-2 and Redeye. Conical scan can't be fooled by a simple IR strobe. This is why in the US, the ALQ-144 was quickly upgraded to ALQ-144A, while the L-166 was simply abandoned and often removed as useless deadweight.

Nope, all the missiles you listed use conical scan seekers, which is more advanced and completely invulnerable to being fooled by a simple IR strobe (which is all those jammers are), even leaving aside the fact that a helicopter-mounted jammer would not be tuned for them. Classic spin-scan was only ever used operationally on a few MANPADS, where simple electronics this technique requires were a must.

Well, I guess if they were going to Afghanistan, then Strela-2 was enough of a concern that Ispanka could have come in handy. That said, spin-scan missiles are pretty dumb, they have no flare rejection capabilities, so if Strela-2 was implemented, it wouldn't be exactly difficult to counter. That said, if ED ever does add any spin-scan missiles to DCS, maybe then they can be convinced to revisit Ispanka (and also add its US counterpart, the original ALQ-144).

Myself, I can't wait for the upgrade. Looks like I'll be getting the MiG-15, too, just in case they decide to touch it up as well. The F-5 is such a sweet piece of kit. I guess they're not making the A model because this would involve some FM development. The FM is explicitly being ported from the older F-5, which is probably a huge time and effort saver. Also, things like Mavs or Bullpups would require avionics coding, whereas here they just need to fix some outstanding bugs, not code an entire system from scratch.

It would have worked only against Redeye and Strela-2, neither of which is in DCS. Ispanka was specifically designed to counter spin-scan IR seekers. It would have done precisely nothing against either more advanced conical scan seekers (nevermind modern imaging seekers) or the manually guided Blowpipe. It's a very simple system exploiting a specific vulnerability of the spin-scan technique, and it was more or less phased out when the missiles it worked against were. I think only the housings remain on most Hinds.

Were those K models, though? Or late war G variants?

You can tune it for your type of stick to remove the deadzone, but in general, CAT III is heavily limited, particularly compared to how things work in older jets. Viper has small wings and a single engine, the FBW system allows it to be safely flown with a very heavy payload, but you pay the price for that. Flip the switch to CAT I and it suddenly becomes a very different plane. Also due to small wings, the Viper doesn't like being slow, particularly up high. Keep the speed up and AoA reasonable, and it flies just fine. If you get behind the curve, though, it turns into a pig. In particular, if you're trying to fly the CRUS page parameters, both max range or max loiter put you in a rather unfun flying regime. Good for ferrying, or getting back to base, but don't use this for anything tactical.

Also, can the automatic turnaround be turned off when the mission is complete? After all, if you're going to shut down the plane and not take off again, it'd be immersion breaking for no good reason.

I wonder if it's because it was the first basket tanker on the US side. The model was recently updated, but the old one was much older than the other two. I'm not quite sure on the timeline, but Hornet missions are, for most part, quite old, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it was simply all they had to use for it.

Also, I'm not sure which tanker this is, but try to learn on something that isn't the S-3. That one is the hardest tanker to take gas from, mostly because the envelope is tiny. Learn on a KC-130 or a -135MPRS, then progress to the S-3.

It's very much not realistic, and it's not even that difficult to stay connected. IRL, a boom exerts some force on the jet that resists any drifting, and while a hose does not, the envelope is reasonably generous on most drogue tankers. It's challenging, but most pilots, once they get it, don't have problems with it.

Mind you, unlike in DCS, a real enemy will not stay "marked" like that for long. Since most of them know what that plume of colored smoke is for, IRL they'd make every effort to be anywhere but at the position indicated by smoke. There are plenty of ways to lay smoke, but it needs to be combined with suppressive fire for best effect. Sometimes you'd mark your own position instead, or even a spot on the no man's land, and then talk the aircraft on using smoke as a reference.

At that distance, TGP. Tomcat and later Phantom versions had a TV camera for this exact purpose, and on the Viper, TGP does that. VID is much easier if you can zoom in on your target.

Worth noting that EGI is the newer system, despite the Hornet being technically an older jet. Vipers did get the EGI, too, it's just that the ANG ones (and ED has modeled an ANG jet) got it after 2007. EGI would have been able to spool up in half the time it takes INS to do so, for instance. So our Viper is still stuck with equipment not far removed from that on Gulf War era Block 30, while the Hornet has what would have been the most advanced navigation system available in 2002. The problem with INS is that it predates GPS. As such, when the GPS unit was added to the Viper, it had to be wired into the INS system somehow, and that was accomplished by coopting the "fix" procedure. While it would automatically take GPS fixes and generally try to keep its position accurate to within 200ft or so, it's not the same close coupling with GPS you see in the Hornet. The jet navigates using the INS, and it uses the GPS to keep it reasonably accurate, but you do not get the pinpoint accuracy you get with EGI. It's always a good idea to get your target on TGP so that you're sure that you're dropping on what you think you're dropping on, anyway. One mistake in data entry and you could drop on a hospital across the street instead of a terrorist hideout.

It does not "confirm" a single damn thing. As a rule, don't ask AI about anything specialist, it spews BS way too often, and the more specialized the subject, the more often it's wrong. When it's correct, it's by accident. The real reason that oil dilution is applied before shutdown is completely unrelated to any of the above. You have to remember that you're injecting fuel into the oil sump. Fuel burns, and much more easily than oil does, at that. As such, it was recommended to idle the engine until the oil temperature got below 100F before applying the diluter. In theory, in a hot engine, the fuel will evaporate. In practice, the oil sump would occasionally catch fire if that rule was not followed. Injecting the fuel on startup, when the engine was warming up, not cooling down, would have a greater risk of fire.

Yeah, the forum staff sometimes do that when they want to pretend it's no longer an issue. In some cases, there had been many locked threads on the same, "fixed" issues. It doesn't mean anything was actually fixed.

Radios are implemented as, well, radios, so non-diegetic music setting won't affect them.

No, you are not going to. In fact, rewriting ME would likely save you even more in long run, considering your modules typically include missions, too. Right now, ME is difficult to use, the scripting is brittle and putting together anything but simplest missions is an exercise in frustration. Both campaign creators and users would be well served by an updated editor, and you could probably drop a lot of technical debt as well, helping the coders. Time spent working on a replacement would be well spent indeed.

I'll add that modern 30mm rounds have the same problem. An A-10's strafing run should look like you're hosing the target area with high speed hand grenades (the amount of explosive is similar in both cases). Likewise with Russian aircraft guns, they fire big shells, too.