Morri

As per Uboats they are working on some docs for that

This isn't a thing on the table as given the fact it's announced means that ED is happy with what DIS has shown info wise so far. I think we should give them some time and see what they have info wise. As far as we know the project was cancelled with 2 fighters built to some state of completion sent back to China, we don't know what happened to them or what was done to them after that. So lets see what they have gotten from 3 years worth of investigation.

@PLAAF As I saw you're the man that knows his stuff for the J-8 variants and such, From all that I've read , it constantly says that J-8IIs were flown over to be upgraded as part of Peace Pearl but I can't figure out which variant was the one that was to be upgraded , so what is the base from which the PP is built? I'm assuming probably the B variant. Have you got any info on this?

Max we'd probably get would be a J-10A as B has an AESA radar that well, frankly we'd never get in DCS because its classified as hell and the code base definitely couldn't handle it. Also if anyone hasn't seen it, Deka put a hint on their Bilibili, simply the year "1968", which discounts J-10 probably, leaving most likely, H-6 (First Flight of domestic made), Q-5 (Believe started production this year) or maybe a j-7 or early j-8.

You can HOJ in both the F-16 and JF-17, unless im misunderstanding your point. Both ariframes are able to track a jam strobe at further ranges AFAIK then they would a normal target, they only get range at 25nm(could be off but its close to this?), while you do not get range and such (all jammers in DCS are noise jammers, though thats not realistic, its how it is, so think of it like someone shining a big torch at you, you don't know how far away they are, but you know the azimuth ) you are still able to launch on it. It will have severely reduced pK due to a lack of range therefore no loft or proper leadbut will still be able to hit, (without a launch warning btw). HOJ is missile dependent not airframe dependent. EDITED As for the comments made on Exploits, Coxy is merely pointing out a running joke/issue about how some players will claim something is an exploit due to a lack of knowledge on a subject. To Break this down into two points, by couldn't see him I'm assuming all you saw was a jam strobe which as mentioned is lockable and shootable. So in your case he may have shot HOJ. Also unlike the F-16 the JF-17s jammer is capable of operating simultaneously to the radar, this is realistic and similar to the jamming pods on the SU-27/33. If my points don't make sense or I misunderstood you , just ask.

Ah thanks, nice to know that they released an early access module and then moved most devs to the apache. Tells you priorities. I would expected them to prioritize the existing paid for one rather than just develop a new heli

It's quite painful to see that not only does the apache have its voice lines done, it seems to have voice lines done for up to 4 separate wing men, each being unique. Seems like the Hinds VA should have been finished before hand. Even if just the basics

As far as they have said a few times, this is the first step to moving to the new API, but they can't proceed until its in, then they can mess around and get the guidance onto the new API. EDIT: What he said^^

I mean could we not get an F-8IIM. it's an export variant that never went anywhere. It's old enough and isn't in service. Maybe something we could get. It's just on the edge of cold war being able to mount R-27 Fox 1s and such.

The issue is, that ED uses tracks for debugging so there is infact, a monetary incentive to fixing them, as they are hilariously unreliable at the moment. Meaning I could send a track of a flight where I encountered a bug or strange behaviour and it might not appear in the track or might appear 50%. As tracks only seem to account for inputs and so the longer the flight the more the SNR increases. This is why in some tracks, you crash when you actually pulled out of a dive etc etc. So if ED insists on only taking tracks as debugging tools, they should be made reliable.

You mention the possibility of porting TVC withe FM to an MKI, is this a consideration as a possible FF (if documents for it appeared) or would it be for an AI?

It's an image that was circulated through some discords, as a possible leak. It looks like the details page of a FF file. If it's real could be just the testing that was mentioned in this thread earlier I believe.?

Oh thats my bad, I meant to type Harpoon not Harm lol, Even with that patch just there for the 52B they won't engage missiles fired from planes or from Ticonderogas

Haven't been able to replicate the Chinese 052B firing it's 9M-317s against incoming harms, it seems to never engage, whether the missiles are targeting the ship or flying past to strike another ship. did you have any extra settings or parameters set? Just trying to balance fleets for a campaign and would like to use the 52B. Thanks

It would be very nice to have this feature, maybe just adding as many features as they can from the block 2 and 3