gnomechild

I would agree if this required any real effort but it is quite literally three lines in a text file. If Heatblur is opposed to it because it's silly and dumb that's totally fair but doing this would require effectively no effort. Not doing it would ruin mine. Checkmate

null

I will not repent! Thank you! Y'all really are amazing. I understand it's a packed schedule and a silly request but even considering it means a lot.

My understanding is they're all the same except the USAF nose gear doesn't extend and they have slightly larger tires

Yes. I'm really hoping for an F-4B + J combo pack but if we only get one I'd like a B

We've got DMAS, Early A/95GR, Eurotrucker, and A-6 at least before we see our beloved Navy Phantom. I am not patient enough for this. Getting the F-4 onto a boat is one line of lua, so whatever is needed to tell DCS it can ride a catapult surely can't be too difficult.

I think it would be really cool and fun if we had the option to plop the F-4E onto an aircraft carrier and the catapult could work, even with no animations. Probably wouldn't work with the super carrier but who cares. Before people come in here with "it's not realistic" etc, don't bother I don't care. Facts: The Navy variant of the Heatblur Phantom is YEARS away Naval aviation is the coolest and most badass form of aviation The F-4E Phantom II for DCS World by Heatblur is amazing and I want to fly it off the Forrestal. This would not diminish from the realism or depth of the simulation in any way because mission makers could just not put it onto an aircraft carrier and nobody would even know. Thanks for coming to my thread. Heatblur, please consider this. I know it sounds like a joke but it really isn't

Bumping this. This would be really great to have especially with the F-4 having optional ALE-40 removal. We can get a decent handful of jets in a mission now with Aim-9B/R-3S and no countermeasures. Would love to add the F1 into that

Hey fausete, thanks for the reply! That's good to know. Is there any plans for failures related to long flight times above maximum allowable airspeed? Or would that mostly just lead to maintenance concerns that aren't relevant in DCS?

Yeah. The mach limit stuff works well and is clear. And I suppose inlet temperature is obviously a much more serious / immediate problem than RPM. I'm just curious if I'm supposed to be able to fly around at 800kts indefinitely. Not from a FM perspective, I think that's right. I don't expect the manual would tell pilots to not exceed 700/750kts if it wasn't possible due to drag. I just wonder about the engine damage in game cause I have no idea how to actually kill the engine lol

In the last patch, there was this item in the notes for the Mirage F1 "Implemented engine destruction due to engine overspeed." I was curious what this engine destruction was and what the parameters are as I was not able to damage my engine at any airspeed. The F1 manuals list maximum allowable speeds of 700kts < 20,000ft and 750kts > 20,000 ft. Now, I UNDERSTAND that these airspeeds are precautionary and related to engine life and health and are not "you die" speeds of instant destruction. I am simply asking for clarification for what has been added in DCS. I was able to hop into a mission and fly at max speed, sometimes up to 810kts, with zero negative effects until I ran out of fuel. Thanks! F1 800kts.trk

I have a server with external views enabled, but F10 map visibility is set to map only. Before last patch, every external view only showed your own plane. After the latest update, clicking F4 multiple times cycles through every aircraft on the server.

For 12 bombs and wing tanks you'd still have to take TERs with three bombs, which wouldn't be compatible with sidewinders without the SWA. You sure you weren't reading about Navy Phantoms? The USN jets had different pylons that did not need the Special Weapons Adapter to mix TERs and Sidewinders

Loadouts with partially filled TERs (specifically with one of the side rails open) should allow the carrying of sidewinders without needing the SWA. For example in the photo, when I try to add an aim-9J to the rail over the empty spot of the TER, the whole thing is removed.

Are you using the clickable FC3 mod? It can cause issues like this. In general if you're having weird issues like this you should remove ALL your mods and test again before reporting

This should be bold face at the top of this post tbh. This more or less guarantees they will be bugged for anyone trying to use them in multiplayer

This is amazing. Absolutely love to see this. A rising tide and all. Great work and thanks for the detailed write up. Super interesting stuff!

DCS in general has needed these for a long time, but with the CH-47F around the corner we need some good towed artillery / field howitzer units included in the base game to be used with this helicopter. Building and supplying artillery firebases is probably one of the best known associations with the Chinook and right now in DCS the only way to get a field gun is through the WW2 Assets Pack. Would love to see some included in the core game and with some more modern options like the M114, L118, M777, etc.

All good, just wanted to make sure they were seen and discussed somewhere. Thanks

@BIGNEWY, I think these questions might have been missed. But this is something that really really needs to be brought up internally in order for the upcoming logistics work to be fully usable in a multiplayer environment. Not just for the Chinook but for all future logistics aircraft.

The pins should be removed from the seats before you ever take off

You mentioned you're playing in Multiplayer, are you using the chat window? And have you bound your jettison button to any keys? I have noticed that the binds for the jettison covers and buttons still work when you're typing in the chat in multiplayer which can cause a surprise

So... No white paper? The Cyrano IVM is a very mysterious piece of equipment for us without access to the good documents lol

That's so cool! What a neat detail. And yeah I personally really love the option and how it was implemented for maximum flexibility for players and mission makers

Is this just for the purposes of M-2000 to F1 interrogation or was mode 4 actually lacking in the real aircraft? I'm assuming it's just a DCS thing but I have read before that the F1M got upgraded Mode 4 IFF. I assumed that was just an updated transponder but now I'm curious if it was the first time it got Mode 4