sparrow88

Keep in mind that most of the stuff we know about Eurofighter was made public before the announcement of cooperation between HeatBlur and TrueGrit, and obviously they have completely different information policies. HB always keeps their cards a little bit closer to the chest. Comparing development progress based on what both companies made public is very tricky.

But both A7 and A6 will also require these changes, and both HB and FlyingIron expressed the desire to have pods on these

Recently I stumbled upon this: https://books.google.pl/books?id=oeJuJtjK4k0C&pg=SA1-PA22&lpg=SA1-PA22&dq=phantom+buddy+refuel+pod&source=bl&ots=N0bmwopeIN&sig=ACfU3U3IAyB92A2UbX1nggKasgaT02FxGw&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGw_rWsOP1AhVppYsKHafWB_AQ6AF6BAgcEAM#v=onepage&q=phantom buddy refuel pod&f=false Basically it shows that navy phantoms had the ability to carry buddy refueling pods. Do we know if HB is goin to implement that as well (obviously not in the E version, but later on)

Is this mission available somewhere to download? I would gladly perform some tests too. Also it seems like a nice tool for practicing coordinated turns

Hey, it seems that another HB aircraft will also feature multicrew... F-111 maybe?

What are those unique capabilities?

...will have their controls out of sync with the guy who was in control, and need to go through a lot of steps to do something that needs to be instant and, worse: which needs to be controllable by both parties at times. The problem here is that it can't just be one person at all times, at least not if it's done right. In your face! It turns out Huey looks exactly like I imagined.

I guess new modules generate revenue, and weather system doesnt.

And thats why I only drive F14 and F18, and perhaps harrier in the future. F18 can do everything except STOVL, Tomcat does less but has multicrew and has no FBW so theres a big difference here. Harrier does stovl so I can do missions from farps. I will buy A6 or A7 only if they implement buddy-refueling capability, and EF2000 with IRST. So yeah - zero interest for F15C from me.

These polls are useless. Most people will always click yes for a new aircraft.

Following this logic the mystery aircraft may not exist at all, because there was no official announcement LOL.

Hmm didnt they say in one of the interviews that some work regarding full fidelity Mig29 is already being planned?

For me brain melting means something that is widely thought to be impossible to implement - like Rafale due to Dassault stance on IP, or F117 due to lack of info regarding its RCS.

There can always be 2 options, one initiated by the current pilot- slow one that allows controls to be synced manually, and fast one, where co pilot just takes controls in whatever state they are in during emergency. Still nothing brain melting.

It can be any multicrew plane because apparently the multicrew alone makes it brain melting. If thats the case, I will be very disapointed.

But its not a very difficult problem. Whoever says "My plane" via the radio menu, controls stick, throttle rudder etc. In the ctrl+enter window you can have position of both sticks so 2nd seat can adjust his controls before taking control to avoid sudden jerk caused by different stick positions.

Good job on missing the point entirely.

Do we actually have any confirmation that this is because of Iran? I would think that its because the IRST used on D is somewhat similar to those used in the super hornet.

This would be my understanding as well especially since I saw this bit in the docs:

Just tested that. I fired at a big target from 20 miles in PSTT and broke the lock immidiately. Phoenix went straight for a while then suddelny turned like a GBU when it sees laser and got the bomber.

Have a look at this photo (linked rather than embedded because it's pretty big): https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/2e...d6b2a40bc9.jpg Take note of the variety of controls available to both the pilot and the WSO. Note the different instruments that both can see at the same time. The problem is that it's not “simply” two cockpits where you can unrealistically reach over with your 2-meter arms and flick switches from the back seat, but a lot of shared and linked controls: what happens on one side must by necessity happen on the other side because they're the exact same control. In particular, this causes issues with such fundamental things as stick, throttle and pedals. No controls in the F-14 are shared. Some are mirrored (being able to critique the RIO's typing skills); some are interconnected (fighting over whose TACAN should be used); some are highly dependent on each other (melting the radar because the clown up front forgot to put the air on). Some things are easy to do — even if completely unrealistic — because it's just a binary state: switch is up or down, and the pilot and the mutant-armed RIO can get into a clicking contest over it, but it's easy to decide the state. But how do you deal with the situation where the pilot throttles back and the WSO throttles up? How do you make it make sense from an input standpoint, from a display standpoint, from a control-of-the-aircraft standpoint etc etc? The aircraft that have tried this before (e.g. the L-39) even have specific “I have control” intermediation controls, and it still didn't work properly. The (in)ability to mediate between pilot and copilot where both can control the flight inputs is what has made Huey co-op a far distant dream for over half a decade(!) Making that work in a way that even remotely makes sense and doesn't lag out or generally break things would be a huge achievement. The F-14 was a watershed moment, and yet it is very simple in comparison. It would open up functionality for a whole bunch of modules that desperately need it, but where the technical challenge was just too great. Just the number of modules alone that would finally be finished if side-by-side co-op could be implemented would qualify as “mind-melting” in this case – never mind getting the actual aircraft. Thanks, I thought F111 second seat is similar to A6, but it turns out its more like a Strike Eagle in role.

Does that mean that in PSTT we can just fire and forget immidiately, regardless of the range? I assume in case the lock is lost, it would just go straight until its own seeker finds a target?

Please explain like I am 5 why its such a big difference between WSO to the side and RIO in the back in terms of sync problems.

I will repeat - human RIO can click on human pilots cockpit in the Tomcat already, simply by moving the camera.

What game would you call a simulator then?