Dragon1-1

That doesn't help him, though. As far as I understand, it's not a one-off thing, but rather that he's interested in a small part of what Supercarrier offers. Free trials don't really help with that. They also don't apply on Steam.

Depends, if Aerges made it, we'd have a chance for multiple versions. The oldies might also be easier to find data and license for, Dassault is said to be notoriously difficult to work with regarding anything that could be regarded as modern.

That and the Super Etendard, another major player in the war, and in Falklands, too. I hope someone takes that one up (and not the 90s upgrade, please).

First of all, the MiG-21bis module is ancient. As it happens, MiG-21 did, in fact, carry Grom missiles. Just not the version we have. Magnitude 3 probably assumed that since the older variant could carry it, so could the bis. It turned out it couldn't, but it's too late to change that, because several missions use it, including official ones. Sea Eagle, likewise, isn't completely fantastic for C-101CC (they were tested for Chile, but never actually ordered), and it's also a module that predates the latest ones by quite a bit. Standards have changed since then, and HB has never been ones for compromises. Not to mention that integration of those other weapons with the jet was known, which is not the case for the Iranian ones.

I think that an NS-430 unit should be doable. It's not the exact one they had, but in spirit of those modifications, particularly early Polish ones.

That was the question, though. If all you want is a decent looking carrier, Stennis works.

The free version of Stennis got updated to SC standard, I think.

You sure you didn't bump the recce switch on your stick? It blanks the HMD hands on.

You all have it good, anyway, you preordered everything and are just waiting now. I'm on Steam, so I have to wait for them to actually announce the date to even submit a preorder. And no, I'm not switching, despite problems I do get good deals in my own currency out of it.

We do need a rework for boom physics, along with upcoming hose and drogue physics. I don't know far along that is, though, nor whether improvements to the boom are included.

Shame, it's an amazing piece of kit. I have one, but I bought it used.

Do note, I've heard opinions that the planes in the civil sim feel too lightweight, as if they had no inertia at all. It does have a vastly superior air current system, including modeling of thermals, but for that to work in DCS, a lot of optimization would have to be done on the turbulence system. We already have a vector field simulation of wake turbulence, and that's pretty good, but it's underutilized, presumably because something like, say, a WWII bomber formation bogs down the sim immensely with it turned on. Before a more complex turbulence system is added, those performance issues would have to be addressed. It would be a great thing if we had it, not just for aircraft, but also for things like bombs. We'd get more realistic accuracy with unguided ordnance, particularly high altitude level bombing. It'd be important for low level helo ops, too, as you'd have to react to updrafts and downdrafts acting on your helo. Good old flying in bad weather, or air support in mountains, would become more exciting, too.

Besides field mods, Ukrainian MiG-29s flying today aren't too different from the ones from the 80s, which is causing some problems on the battlefield (not unlike what DCS players always complain about, Russians have Fox 3s and they have only Fox 1s). At most, they have a commercial GPS unit stuck on top of the HUD repeater.

We don't know, but given the Phantom is coming and fuze customization is already in, we'll probably get it someday.

Some of us like to make do with imperfect or obsolete kit. Particularly things like the Hawk, which, if we could ever find docs for it, would likely be rather interesting to employ. The R-73 would actually be superior to Sidewinder variants carried on the Phantom (it was the missile that spurred the AIM-9X development, after all), although depending on how well Iranians had integrated it, it could have some interesting limitations, too. I'm mostly interested in Hawk on the F-14 because of its role in Iran-Iraq war, which is an underappreciated conflict in the West. Especially in a dynamic campaign based on the conflict, Western weapons would not be infinite (although that particular one is too early for Iran to have R-73s).

I think ED is slowly refreshing some of the models, but there's so much actual military hardware still in that level of quality that it's probably going to be a while before they get to civilian assets. I hope that the "new product" that high poly AI models will be a part of helps speed that up, though. Heh, I remember those. My father still has a pile of tapes with old sea shanties somewhere in the house. Other classics like Dire Straits, Dzhingis Khan and Goombay Dance Band, as well. I remember times when there was always a bunch of those in the glove compartment. Probably all demagnetized by now. Grandma even had a spiffy revolving rack for cassettes, it's probably still stashed somewhere as well. And yeah, the Cybertruck almost have been designed in that era. To think that not so long ago there were exited ads about how the new generation of cars was so smooth and aerodynamic...

Might be because that one wasn't on video. It was for Hush Kit magazine, and I only saw it in written form: https://hushkit.net/2020/04/07/interview-with-the-greatest-living-fighter-ace-f-14-tomcat-pilot-col-rtd-fereydoun-a-mazandarani/ He talks at length about flying the F-14 and briefly describes the Hawk adaptation program, in addition to detail on each of his 11 kills. From what you say, if it wasn't for sanctions, he'd probably love to work with HB to keep the IRIAF Tomcat alive in some form.

...do you realize how hopelessly naïve it is? Do you really think it's not possible to get bilked on a Chinese-made piece of crap sold as a premium product? No, you do not "get what you pay for" if you're not very, very careful. Because that expensive, "premium" piece of crap works just enough to make sure you can't return it as defective. Even more often, premium price simply gets you a badge and some blinkenlights. If you think those things are worth $1000 or more, be my guest, but I'd rather have the same guts for a lower price, thank you. Except that's not what I'm talking about. Did you ever happen to buy poor quality for a high price? If you don't know what I'm talking about, you certainly did. Then, you get the bitterness of poor quality alongside the realization that you paid top dollar for it. The only consolation in that case is a fancy badge, and perhaps another quote from before most manufacturing got offshored to China and Taiwan. Like "a fool and his money are soon parted". I tend to do a lot of research before buying every component to avoid being played for a fool. Particularly in computer components, if you educate yourself about memory, for example, you will find that under the fancy trims, RGB and brand logos, there is a small selection of chips made by a tiny handful of companies. The chips are the same no matter which brand you buy, despite the price range being vast. More expensive=/=better quality. Buying high performance memory chips in an unassuming box is generally cheaper than low performance ones from a "gaming" brand. Same applies more or less to everything else, from kitchen appliances to power tools (and don't even get me started on the racket that are luxury cars).

When it comes to computer components, you don't always. Also, as I said before, performance that doesn't translate to the game isn't, as a rule, worth the money. Most of us aren't buying that kit to run benchmarks, they're buying it to run games. Games typically have their bottlenecks elsewhere. You can get near-top level performance by being smart about how much you pay for what. Brand name components are especially suspect (although I must admit to getting convinced to pay a little extra for pretty lights). Optimizing the cost of a given rig is a form of art, too. This is actually good advice, with a caveat that you should look out for worn out components (particularly when buying used) and known lemons. With a good eye for a deal you can make a PC that will run as well as one that would, if you bought as a unit, cost more than a small car.

Very detailed and well-sourced rundown you have here. Care to elaborate further? What systems does the CH-47F have that are on the same level of sensitivity as Link 16, ECM pods, or Longbow radar, just to name a few examples?

I wasn't asking about Fakour, I was asking about the Hawk and the engagement on 16.09.1984 when they were supposedly used to kill a Super Etendard.

Yup, Iran-Iraq War is underappreciated in the West, as far air conflicts go. There was some serious air fighting going on there, and a lot of cool stories that don't get told often in English. It got real ugly on the ground, but then, so did Vietnam. I could name many Phantom legends other than Robin Olds. Hoot Gibson, for instance, or Dick Jonas and Charlie Huff. General William Kirk, too. Admittedly, all from the Wolfpack, though this might be because they tended to hog all the frags that had any chance of running into MiGs. That said, non-US Phantom drivers are indeed much less well known.

It does, but it's not weapons or heavy ECM, the sort that tends to cause trouble in a combat aircraft. Many of the things you can find in CH-47F are also available on civil aircraft. MH-47G is a whole other story. Quite frankly, I would have preferred the D model. It's far more iconic than the F.

They don't take guesses, they leave those functions unimplemented. That said, there shouldn't be a whole lot of that in the Chinook. It's a transport helo with very little fancy tech.

Possible, but the AWG-9 is a ridiculously powerful beast of a radar, so I don't think it's that. Ultimately, the parameters of Hawk's seeker are documented, and so is the power of AWG-9 (which HB is already simulating). Unless Iran modified the seeker significantly (this is where documentation comes in handy, although mind you, that was pretty much a dirty wartime hack), its performance can be determined from existing docs. We'd need to know what Cooper used to estimate that range in order to say more, however I think that the reason is different: guidance. Hawk doesn't loft, not the version Iran has, anyway. This would cut into the range quite a bit, maybe not get it down to 12nm (unless we're talking sea level performance), but a 20nm effective range, I can easily see. The Super Etendard in the incident mentioned likely didn't maneuver much, the kind of RWR they had supposedly has trouble detecting the AWG-9 properly. I wonder if Colonel Mazandarani has shared any information beyond that one interview. He was quite involved with making the Hawk work with the F-14, and this information is pretty much only of historical interest at that point, both systems in question are obsolete by now. I don't think Iran has forgotten this war like the West had.