yngvef

Considering most of the other warbirds are all late-war models, I assume this one will be too. But that is just a guess.

Those defending the sounds seem to be misunderstanding something. Yes, the idle sounds are okay-ish, at least when parked on the ground, not moving. I've never stood right next to a Harrier with its engine running on idle anyway. I've also never been inside the cockpit of a Harrier that is running its engine. But that's not what the main complaints are about. At least not from my point of view. Try a high power flyby (F3 camera), or hovering seen from an external camera at a distance. It sounds absolute trash. When a real Harrier is hovering a few hundred meters away from you, you don't hear a "tone", all you hear a wall of white noise, almost like an afterburner. Anyone who's ever been to an airshow should know this. The flyby (something I heard a LOT during NATO exercises where I live some years ago) also sounds like any other jet plane. From the front you'll hear some different tones from it, but from the back it sounds like a jet plane, with more or less just white noise (no discernable "tone"). The white noise mayb have a higher frequency (thinner sound) than maybe an F-16 or something and a bit less volume, but that scrawny "meowwwwww" when it flies by in F3 camera in DCS sounds like complete and utter crap and anyone with ears should be able to hear that. All those talking about how they used to work with Harriers must either have bad recollection or, more likely, are misunderstanding what we are talking about. And yes, I am fully aware that we can't get the full "experience" of hearing a real jet on a computer. But ALL other modules sound more realistic than the Harrier.

Yep. But don't worry about the fanboys. They, as well as Razbam themselves, never read the forums apparently.

My worry is that Razbam doesn't care about this. They've known for a very long time that their sounds are bad, but Razbam official never comments on it.

Yes, please! That would be so much better. Making it sound like it actually has a jet engine rather than the embarrassment we have now. Anyone who has seen real Harriers on airshows or something knows that they are absolutely deafening when hovering.

Let me just add to this post. External sounds on the Harrier are so crappy that I almost never fly it. It's a cool plane but I just get so annoyed whenever I want to enjoy it from any external viewpoint. It's the absolute worst module in DCS when it comes to sounds. It's nothing like the real plane and flyby sounds especially terrible. Also, when standing still on the ground there is zero difference when moving the camera around the plane. It doesn't have different sounds regardless if you are looking into the nozzles or the intake. And ANYONE who has ever seen a real plane of any type knows that they sound vastly different depending on where you see it from. If Razbam never fixes this then I have severe doubts about ANY of their upcoming modules as well. And the fact that they've barely made any changes or fixes to this for years makes it even worse. It's not like the AV-8B is a new module anymore. In fact, I can't believe that ED accepts such low quality sounds in a sim that they've tried to upgrade the sound quality in for years. Just compare to EDs own planes like F/A-18 and F-16 which are sounding pretty decent. Ofcourse a game can never truly capture the sound and feeling of powerful jet engines, but the current harrier sounds like a vacuum cleaner. They CAN do better.

There is currently no way (that I know of) to sit in the front seat of the Apache and having George AI in the backseat in multiplayer. This works, as we all know, in single player by simply pressing 1 and 2 to switch seats. The buttons don't work in multiplayer, as the other seat is kind of another client or something. Also, you can't spawn directly into the front seat without a human in the back as it is not clickable in the list of roles. Only way currently to be in the front seat in multiplayer is to have another real human first spawn into the helicopter (and get the back seat) and then requesting multicrew for the front. But, as Wags said, they are working on it being possible.

I was about to add my +1 to this when I saw that Wags sayd they are working on it. So I guess I'll just say thanks and hope it comes soon. Being able to play multiplayer with a couple of friends and everyone gets to man their own TADS and let their respective Georges take care of the flying sounds like a lot of fun! Doing coordinated strikes with hellfires and guns and such. Also, just for good measure: +1

Haven't flown this for a while and discovered that there is no sound in cockpit (or at least only a very distant weird sound). Don't know how long this has been a problem. External sounds are also weak and strange and sound like the plane is behind you (or something) when doing a flyby with the F3 camera. Buddy in multiplayer had the same experience. What's the status on this?

Yeah, 1943 was just an example, not really a thought-out suggestion

They should have decided on a specific year, say 1943, and made modules of planes that actually operated in the same time frame, as well as fitting AI planes for the same period. I think it would at least make more sense if you intend to have the different modules fight eachother.

My impression is that 3d model and texturing is the smallest part compared to the work-hours required to create the flight model and systems simulation (MFDs, radar, targeting systems). Particularly on something as complex as the F-15E. I remember ED posted a list of the work-hours required to create the F-18, and it was something like 40 work-years total or something crazy like that. And the F-15E is definitely not any less complex than the F-18. As we've not seen a functional, interactive cockpit yet, I remain highly cynical about the possibility of a release in 2022. Still images of external and internal model and a few basic weapons doesn't really show anything. Like that image of the F-15E dropping general purpose bombs that was shared in the other thread on the 29th of december (i think it was). Sure, it's nice to see that it can drop bombs at all, but considering the extreme level of complexity of precision weapons (and the large selection that the Strike Eagle can carry), it tells very little about the amount of progress being made. I mean, slick Mk-80-series of bombs are probably the simplest AG munition there is, as they have only a basic free fall ballistic and there are only a few sizes of the same bomb type to choose from. It makes sense that this is the first AG munition you implement as it is probably the easiest, but if that means they still haven't started with all the PGMs that this plane can carry, then we are a very very long way out still.

You may well be right, and I hope you are. I'm just very cautious about getting my hopes up that we'll see this plane in 2022.

The fact that it only appears to fire a single AIM-7 Sparrow gives me a feeling that it's just a reskinned/remodeled stock F-15C. I don't know, it just feels empty. If it was anywhere near release I'd expect at the very least to see some basic A/G HUD symbology by now. It's also the other small things, like the fuel gauge showing 22600 lbs in all the clips and pics I've seen. Which means that either the fuel consumption isn't working or the gauge isn't working. It just doesn't feel finished. A nice 3d model is not even half the job on modules like these, and unfortunately it seems that a nice 3d model is mostly what they have so far. After 9 years of disappointment, I've gotten quite cynical I'm afraid.

Although I was happy to see some clips of the F-15E in the 2022 and beyond video, I am concerned that the "Strike" Eagle didn't release a single piece of air-to-ground ordnance in that video. It still feels like it's a really long way from being finished, despite the hype in that video.

It's a pretty good module and the Harrier is a fun plane, but the external engine sound is absolutely horrible. It doesn't sound like a plane at all.

Had a multiplayer session where a buddy landed on the DCS Supercarrier CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln after spawning and taking off from the new Forrestal carrier. He had damaged his plane after a failed landing attempt on Forrestal, so the landing gear was not fully extended and he had black smoke coming out the end. When he caught the wire on CVN-72, you could see a "wire" being drawn to the other ship's arrestor gear as well! I don't know if this is a bug with Forrestal, Supercarrier or something else. If it's posted in the wrong section, I apologize, but it's hard to tell where the problem comes from. Both of us could see the same graphical bug in multiplayer.

My biggest criticism of the Gazelle is the external sound. It does not sound correct at all. And the lack of different sounds from front and back sounds really weird with any helicopter. I hope they put some effort into the sounds of the OH-58. In my experience, lacking good sound makes me fly that module a lot less, just like Mig-21 and the Harrier.

Couple of questions. Are you using any curve on the control axis? I find that adding some makes all planes/helos more forgiving. Also, make sure that the autopilot channels for pitch and roll are enabled, otherwise it is much harder to fly. Besides that, it is a bit more twitchy than the Mi-8, but nothing too bad in my opinion.

In my experience it happens every time we fly multiplayer. It's pretty annoying and makes us fly the warbirds less because it looks so terrible when landing. Every plane may glitch into terrain for a second if landing hard for example. That is a classic multiplayer issue as I guess there is some interpolation going on where the client is trying to predict where the other planes will be next moment, and if they make a sudden change, there is a bit of lag. Same as a plane rolling extremely fast may look like it is "glitching" a bit. But as you can see in my video, the planes that sink or float are doing so for a long time. Even until stopped and while taxiing around. I hope it gets looked at. The fact that it's exclusively taildraggers that suffer worst makes me hope that the devs can find the bug. We've tried running "repair" on all clients as well as the server PC. None are running mods except some addon liveries.

Bumping this to show the edit and new video in original post.

Yes, the autopilot may make the problem worse if it has a bug. But I can see on the control overlay that the stick starts responding a couple of centimeters before it reaches the middle after trimming. It is then interpreted by the game as a small cyclic input, but as the stick is moving towards the center at this time (I'm letting it go and the spring centers it) it gives just a "nudge" of cyclic in that direction before the physical stick is centered and the in-game cyclic is where I set the trimmer. But obviously, if the autopilot is misbehaving, then that would probably make things worse. Either way, I would love more options for setting up the trimmer mode so we can adapt it to personal preference as well as different sticks and equipment.

I have seen it, but thought it was just a natural effect of transitioning from forward flight to hover flight. Just like the vibration in the Mi-8?

For flying with a spring loaded stick (Thrustmaster Warthog), I find the "Central Position Trimmer Mode" to be the best. The basic principle is that when you press the trimmer button, the in-game cyclic position stays frozen at that deflection until you re-center the physical stick. Once the physical stick is centered, it once again controls the cyclic, but with a new "center" position. Normally this works just fine, but on the Mi-24P I have the problem that the stick control re-enables too early, meaning my physical stick is not fully centered when it starts controlling the cyclic again, giving the cyclic a "nudge", causing instability. When trimming for hover just before landing, this can be very annoying as you don't want a sudden jolt of cyclic at that point. It seems that there is a threshold for when the physical stick in considered to be "centered", and that threshold is too big (at least for me). I would like an adjustable slider in the specials menu where we could choose how close to center the physical stick has to be to re-enable cyclic input. Adding curve to the axis makes the problem a bit less, and I'm sure adding deadzone would help too (but I hate flying with deadzone, as it gets really twitchy in my opinion). But the best would be a slider where you can choose how much stick input is required to re-enable the stick control.

Either a small menu popup to choose those things, or the ability to set a "solo" flag for the helo in the mission builder, so you can jump between seats in multiplayer just like in single player.