Dragon1-1

Well, it'll be easy to build a cockpit for, at any rate. Especially for VR. Just stick a giant pane of acrylic onto the console, add the ten or so switches and buttons on the side consoles, the gear handle, and there you go. That said, it would be nice if there was actually a way to somehow bind an IRL touchscreen to the one in the F-35. It'll be the first touchscreen aircraft in DCS.

The US Eaglejet also has the wiring in question, and all the software needed to use those bombs. The only thing preventing US Eagles from dropping bombs is pen pushers at the Pentagon not giving them any. We in DCS should be fully able to ignore the pen pushers and do so anyway. Remember the F-16 quad HARMs debacle. A typical US SEAD combat mission would not carry that many (with US Vipers you'd hardly see anything but bags on those inboards), but in some squadrons the pylons were wired for them. In this case, no US squadron uses the wiring in question, but that doesn't mean the wiring doesn't exist. I'll let people better versed in the jet to throw manual pages around, but someone from ED mentioned that it's more capable in air to ground than Su-27.

While our Eaglejet is USAF, we could want it to stand in for any number of foreign operators, including Israelis, who definitely did use it in that capacity. Again, if it is in the manual, it should be in DCS. Eaglejets were and still are wired for it, mostly because getting rid of that wiring would be a huge bother for no gain.

We have two maps that feature Israel. Even if it's not the Israeli version, we should still be able to fly the missions that they did, too. Also, I'm of the opinion that if it's in the manual, it should be put in, no matter what the doctrine says. I think air to ground is in the Eaglejet manual. Yeah, from RAZBAM. There's a little problem with that right now. The ED module, for instance, is quite more likely to be actually completed.

I just hope they reconsider air to ground capabilities (other than strafing with the gun, that is). APG-63 had good air to ground modes, and the F-15 was cleared to carry bombs, though it hardly ever did in US service.

I don't know if you're aware, but Lambo makes SUVs now, too (the Urus)... The Eaglejet actually had some pretty nice air to ground features for its time, it's just USAF specifically didn't use them very much. Israelis did, though. It should at least be able to carry some dumb bombs.

Well, there's that very prominent shot of one in the 2025 and beyond video... The Stinkbug is a bit of a one trick pony, but it's all right for 3rd party. I have relatively little interest in the flying iPad, but if a good enough campaign comes out for it, I'll probably buy it. Of course, I have to finish the ones I already have first. I'm more interested in the Eaglejet.

Or at the very least, actually read the description of what's being sold. In countries with functional customer protection, at least, if the seller ships something different than what he said he's selling, you can get your money back, especially when going through a platform of some sort. However, if you buy something that's openly stated to be a picture, spare cooler or whatever, you've got no one to blame but yourself. Turns out that reading, especially when paired with comprehension, is a useful skill to have. It's perfectly possible to get a good deal with some random gamer who is simply upgrading to the 50 series, but it requires some due diligence. I wouldn't mind if it was only scalper bots getting caught on this sort of thing, but the picture scam, at least, has a long history, maybe as long as online auction services. I remember that story being told about cars at one point long ago. It seems that every time there's something expensive that's in high demand, that sort of people come out of the woodwork.

This is the Harrier, and I don't think they had any problems tanking from Hercs IRL. It's just that its probe is located unusually far back, and DCS doesn't adjust for that. The calls are correct-ish for the Hornet, but the Harrier is in a very different position while tanking.

Just to make sure, the hats are short throw, like on almost any other stick, not Winwing-style long throw? They look like the standard 4/5-direction tact switch setup.

OSes are perpetually "in development", they actually charge full price for Windows, and yet release major updates, sometimes removing functionality (something few games in EA would have gotten away with). If OSes were released like games are, you'd never see something like scrubbing WMR from Windows, or any of the plethora of useless "features" they keep adding. Quite frankly, it'd have been better that way. The others are only constrained by the difficulty of making major updates to physical pieces of hardware. The "move fast and break things" philosophy from the software world is already increasingly being applied there, with similar results - a quickly thrown together base that is then developed around, resulting in fundamentally flawed designs. EA would have been a logical next step, if that pesky physical reality didn't intrude.

New textures would be nice, as would be correcting some cockpit geometry. The damage model will eventually be replaced entirely, they have the new DM working for WWII aircraft, and it will, at some point, come to modern jets.

It was present, though. As long as it's not actually classified, it should be eventually added, IMO. I'm fine with "low priority", but "not planned" implies the plan assumes leaving out some features of the real thing for no other reason than them being little used. One thing I like about the A-10 is how complete that module is. It has a lot of pages which IRL are hardly touched in flight, but are nonetheless nice to have in the one situation in which you'd want to mess with them.

Looks like we'll get some news about it in the 2025 and beyond video, on Jan 16th.

Definitely past. We do like flying the "state of the art" airframe in a given period, and it's unlikely we'd get ones for modern day. Besides, most conflicts these days are asymmetrical in some way, if they involve a significant air force at all. Mid-2000s already has that problem, with no viable peer opponents for Western airframes. So... 80s all the way.

Also note, modern phased array radars will give you no lock or launch warning (recall how the SA-10 works, if you see the FCR on RWR at all, assume you've been launched at). Being tracked by a friendly ship is not a cause for concern, and if you're not looking at it, you're not going to spot a launch. So this likely came out of the blue for the pilots. I assume the CG crew had been high strung due to cruise missile threat, which doesn't give you a whole lot of time to react. It's no excuse for messing up, but it does make it more likely. Either way, I don't envy the guy who fired that shot, or the captain.

That shouldn't matter, the flares are ejected upwards and much brighter than a plane would be from the front. If they're not physically obscured by the fuselage, they should be able to decoy the missile pretty well.

The question is, to what? I'm still on Windows 10 2H22, because I don't want to brick my G2. A VR headset is an expensive piece of kit either way, and nobody offers the combo of price and features that Pimax does. I plan to keep using the G2 for now, but at some point, I'll have to update the OS. It doesn't seem that there's anything but Oculus and Pimax doing anything in the low end of the market.

Now that's interesting, it'd be nice to see it on the Iranian version. Makes sense, too. Iran got its Tomcats before US crews started disabling the vanes. I guess they never figured out they weren't worth the trouble (then again, operating them ashore might have changed this equation a bit).

FYI, it's very much possible to get eye fatigue (which manifests as "sore eyes") from looking at a virtual sun, particularly in VR, but also with a screen. Generally, when things are hard to see, the brain makes an effort to make things out regardless. Doing that for long enough can cause various symptoms, such as sore eyes or a headache. I could go on as to why it's like this, but I think most people will understand that the easier it is to make out details in the image (which a visor would help with), the less exhausting it is to look at. And yes, I have a master's in biophysics, just in case anyone wonders. EDIT: Since the jerk seems to have had his post removed, I amended this post to make it clear I wasn't being mean to the person now above me for no reason.

The X3D series is unique. They do not have the raw single core clock speed of other CPUs, it's good, but not amazing on those chips. What they do have is copious amount of cache, which allows cutting down the time the CPU spends talking to the RAM. This has an outsized impact on VR because much of what CPU does in graphics heavy applications, such as rendering for a 4K headset, is slinging texture data back and forth. I don't know how those specific CPUs compare in actual in-sim performance, but I do know that tests focused on clock speeds only may give a skewed impression. Pushing for highest possible clock rates and core numbers makes sense if you do something that requires raw speed (such as heavy duty maths), but if the most demanding thing you do on that rig is DCS, then the X3D Ryzens might be the better choice.

This is not exactly a major functionality change, it should easily be possible to built on top of the existing system. As far as I understand, the hard part wasn't defining the paths, but getting the system to work in first place. Extra paths and a manual switcher should be quite simpler.

It doesn't need to be dynamic, they would just need to add alternate paths for those spots, that would be enabled if the bow cats are blocked, or rather, if the proper flag is set in the editor. Going with fixed routes doesn't mean you can't have multiple routes for multiple use cases, just add a "blocked bow mode" which would make the aircraft be directed to 3 and 4 instead. This is not an exotic use case either IRL or in the sim.

I noticed that it's explicitly advised not to place statics in a way that would block cats 1 and 2. However, it is not uncommon IRL for aircraft to be parked there, and for only 3 and 4 to be in use. Will that option come at some point?

I feel like that's true of just about any high end base. Desk mount is a must for Winwing, too, otherwise it's awkwardly tall. From what I've seen of the others, the same is true of them as well, except maybe the Thrustmaster. A cam-based gimbal inherently takes a lot of vertical space, and you need fairly stiff springs for a proper feel, anyway, meaning that you'd need to either stick it to the desk somehow (Winwing's misbegotten suction cups) or have a ridiculously heavy mounting plate (TM's solution). You need a desk mount, which is easy enough to build yourself, if you're the tinkering kind (a 3D printer is nice for this, but not a must), while if you're not, Monstertech has a selection of mounts. For what it's worth, for my stick and throttle. I used a bunch of 20x60 v-slot profiles, two cheap steel plates from a hardware store, two toggle clamps from Aliexpress (cheap ones often used in woodworking), and 3D printed mounting brackets originally designed for TM hardware. Monstertech has a fancy coating for the plates, I used felt pads of the sort you stick on the bottom of chair legs. Had to cut threads into the ends of aluminum profiles, but otherwise, assembly was uncomplicated.