WobblyFlops

Nineline said that such features (additional TAD, HUD and datalink symbology and functions) may not end up being implemented anyway because they stray too close to sensitive areas.

Not sure why people think a Super Hornet is necessarily any more modern than the current Hornet. You guys know that Rhinos were in the fleet in the mid 2000s, right? The A-10CII, the Harrier, the JF-17 and even the upcoming Typhoon will all be more modern than such a Rhino would be. Classification and opsec issues aside, the biggest problem with a Rhino (or any additional separate Hornet module) is that it would end up cannibalizing the current Hornet.

As far as I'm aware, any Rhino regardless of blocks are category VIII ITAR items, (alongside the F-22, F-35, B-2, the new F-15, etc.) which makes it virtually impossible to do any kind of DCS level simulation. Avionics are one thing, but Rhino specific stuff like engines or flight model would also be a huge issue. It's probably more realistic to hope for an A-10 type upgrade to our legacy Hornet which may introduce newer block USMC C+ jets or 2 seater delta variants. Highly unlikely but probably more likely than a Rhino.

This is 100% a strawman argument, no one said that. What people said is that subjective feel cannot be used to override documentation. Ideally both SMEs and documentation are available but as always the actual value you get out of these depend on the specifics. SMEs are not created equal, just look around how much time Victory has spent on helping HB exactly nail the performance of the Tomcat. There are a plethora of potential confounding factors even if you have an SME who's trying to help; hazy memory, unfamiliarity with using PC based peripherals in general, (which may lead to things like inadvertantly too agressive inputs), and even just the fact that putting this experience into words that the developers can use to tweak the product is a completely different skill in and of itself. And that's talking about dedicated SMEs. Someone messing around and taking a cursory glance can only determine things that are really out of whack but subtle inaccuracies that only present themselves in certain configurations may not be easily apparent without extensive testing.

As evidenced by the ED manual, when it comes to the Hornet, datalink configuration options are deemed to stray too close to sensitive areas so I highly doubt we'll get anything like even the A-10.

DCS implements some things where the NATOPS would apply while there are many, many other areas which aren't implemented. Unless we have the chance to extensively test the module, we can't know in advance what will be implemented and what won't.

There are a lot of features that aren't simulated across the board. Every feature that they add has to be carefully examined to see their cost vs the benefit.

Every addition to the base game is a question of available resources and return of interest. Every developer asks how difficult and resource intensive it is to implement a new feature and how relevant it would be. The vast majority of DCS players are either flying around with the F10 map. People who would be anywhere near interested in this type of feature are probably incredibly miniscule. Hardcore squadrons already have a solution for this. Why would ED implement a feature that most people wouldn't even use?

DCS modules by their very nature are going to be simplified compared to the real world counterpart. Certain pages, functions, limitations and techniques may not apply and without having the product you simply won't know what will apply to the game and what will not. Using the real manual to learn about a video game product is a pointless exercise and we haven't even touched on the very problematic legal aspect of your suggestion.

That's true, but for the dynamic and flexible workflow the guys wanted to utilize pretty much requires a sensor designation. As for real life, I don't see what sort of advantage it would bring over inputting the coordinate into the weapon itself, either in the jet in a dynamic situation or through the DTC when going up against preplanned targets.

The real Hornet can address each weapon individually and undesignate shouldn't clear the TOO coordinate. If you have a designation, it should automatically populate the TOO mission of the selected stations or if no station is selected, the priority station. Undesignate before stepping should be a crucial step when employing against different targets. This part can be proven. The anecdotal part is what I've been told by a Hornet pilot is that TOO employment is highly discouraged due to the increased TLE that's associated with generating coordinates with onboard sensors or designations. But regardless of the real life tactics and procedures, the aircraft's avionics regarding IAM targeting don't work as currently depicted in the game.

DoD distro statements aside, it also has a restrictive ITAR stamp on it, which is probably an even bigger deal.

Sure, it would take less work to commit to a C model Eagle and deliver it in full fidelity than making a module from scratch, but as I've said, it's a game of resources. Would it be profitable enough to actually do it? Only ED know the answer. In the past, they've addressed that it wouldn't be worth it for the reasons I've outlined and considering that there are many aircraft they could be working on without these limiting factors I can understand the decision. There are more than enough comments on SMEs on the Razbam Discord, like the one I based my previous response on. Reaching Mach 2.0 or being limited to 1.6 is not a relevant limitation at all. There are limitations on what the Strike Eagle can do kinematically but top speed isn't one of them. BFM performance sure, that would be relevant. But the issue here isn't deciding whether or not the F-15C would be different enough from the E that would make the experience different enough to offer a different kind of gameplay. The issue is whether or not it would sell enough that it would justify spending the amount of resources necessary to make both of them.

The behaviour and performance of the radar and avionics are drastically simplified. At the very least, the cockpit model would have to be done from scratch. The systems are so simplified that it would be virtually nothing that would carry over aside from the flight model and some limited symbology if they want to aim at anywhere near the expected level of fidelity. It's very comparable. WSOs (Notso especially) clearly explained that on the Razbam Discord that in an air to air configuration it's basically equivalent to a C model in BVR. BFM is going to be different (it'd still far from being defenseless though) but in air to air even with CFTs being factored in, a well modelled Strike Eagle is going to be fast enough to take first shots against anyone aside from maybe the Tomcat (but it will have drastically superior radar to the Tomcat so the advantage is obviously still there at the end of the day). It will have the ability to dictate the terms of engagement and it will have the advantage over every other jet. This is what I meant when I said it will practically simulate the C model close enough. The point of the Eagle is that it has better kinematics and sensors than anyone else in the 4th gen arena. The Strike Eagle will have somewhat worse acceleration but it will still be good enough so that it will be the most capable BVR aircraft regardless and the kinematics are still good enough to preserve the Eagle's traditional advantage. This isn't me saying this, it's Strike Eagle SMEs. That's simply because a lot of people frankly don't know what they are talking about. Mover and other real life pilots explained that the heavier weight is offset by the better engine performance and the higher wing loading may have some effect but ultimately it's negligable.

There are a couple of more obscure aircraft on the list like the Buccaneer and the Super Etendard (although these would be much more suitable for DCS than many modules that either released already or being in development) but the vast majority of that list is full of incredibly iconic aircraft. Not trying to be offensive here but maybe it's more of a you thing rather than being indicative of the mass appeal of these aircraft. Seriously, Thud? F-104? Tornado? F-111? These are very highly requested jets with a non-insignificant international appeal. Sure, but does that justify the amount of cost if there's already another Eagle that can kind of perform in a comparable manner in air to air while being an air to ground powerhouse? Especially if there are many other aircraft that don't have any kind of representation in the game.

The last I've seen them talk about this, BN said that it's something they would like to do but it's not confirmed that it's possible as of yet. Just because the data is out there and can be acquired from NATO sources (which isn't a given depending on the country, I'm from Hungary and I know for a fact that all maintenance manuals of the Mig-21Bis were still classified in 2011, Poland may have similar regulations) that doesn't meant that a Russian MoD will allow the module to be made. There is a wealth of data out there about the 27 as well but having the data in and of itself is useless, especially if the vast majority of your developers actually live in Russia.

ED aren't interested in the C model because it's only air to air and that may negatively impact sales and Razbam are making an E, which if you squint enough can be used as somewhat of a stand in for the C. In BFM maybe less so but for BVR certainly. I heavily disagree with that. The aforementioned F-111 is just the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of iconic European aircraft like the Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer, EEL, Super Etendard just to name a few. And if they change their mind about the Century Series, there are a ton of options, ranging from the Hun, the Thud, the aforementioned 104 and maybe even the Six but that's very unlikely. (Bruce Gordon would be an incredible SME for the 106 and it's completely unclassified at this point). For WW 2, a P-61 would be a pretty cool choice and of course the almost confirmed Hellcat. All these projects could last for the next 20 years. And in the far future, if DCS is still kicking in some form (which isn't exactly unlikely considering that ED has been the only combat sim developer consistently staying alive in the last 20 years) a lot of things become possible. More Cold War era Soviet jets, upgraded blocks, Super Hornet, and so on.

With those considerations in mind, better to wait for ED's manual. Not to mention that we don't know which systems, procedures and features will be implemented in the game and which will be not. If you were using the real manual to study in advance, it's entirely plausible that you'd waste hours upon hours learning about functions or MPD pages that we'll never get.

I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, the limited things I know about the dangers of ITAR is stuff I have to know for my job and it's mainly to allow us to stay safe. In general, ITAR restricted material cannot be exported or acquired by non US persons or persons without valid certifications. So if you're a US person (citizen or company) you may be able to legally access the manual. Now whether or not anything will actually happen if you download this from the internet regardless is a different question that's probably best not even discussed on this forum.

The vast, vast majority of documentation regarding aircraft, even modern ones that are depicted in DCS isn't classified and never was. Classified manuals can't leave the vault, so in practice they are much more difficult to study from and there is pretty tight regulation around their handling and the entire process costs money. So things that are only classified if the informaton they contain can cause damage to national security. Tactical manuals, exact performance figures and limitations for weapons or sensors, EW stuff. However, just because something isn't classified it doesn't necessarily mean that it's legally available. ITAR is one of the well known issues and it can affect manuals from the 70s or even earlier. There's no FOIA equivalent, it doesn't have to contain actually damaging information and usually it applies to very old manuals as well. The -10 is an export controlled item under ITAR, therefore it's illegal to download or host. And the forum has additional regulations about ITAR restricted items, any information that is only available in one of these documents (and there's no other legally available source) cannot be shared or discussed. Not being classified doesn't even come remotely close to the level of hurdles you have to go through to legally access documentation.

This depends on many things, it's not that simple. MPRF filters by both range and doppler, so to get rejected as clutter, not only does the contact need to match the relative closer of the ground, but its range as well. Plus, in real life, digital receivers can utilize dynamic notch thresholds, which won't necessarily notch out the main beam and zero doppler freqs completely, they can have the treshold set above the predicted ground return and allow the contact to not get filtered if the return exceeds the set treshold. This depends on SNR, so a tanker notching you at close range can still be picked up, even in a look down. To simulate this at some degree of fidelity, we'd need to have a proper SNR simulation with RCS that's more in line with real specs, changes with aspect and loadout and the SNR takes into account the RCS, the range and of course the ground returns as well. He wasn't replying to you with the part that you quoted. One of the easiest ways to deal with all aspect targets in modern radars is MRPF waveform, which filters by both range and doppler and has drastically better performance against all aspect targets at the cost of reduced detection range. PRF ambiguities aren't really simulated in DCS in detail though, but this part is.

Very unlikely. Supposedly even the Mig-23 is only possible through some export contact of one of the devs and if it were up to Russia, even that would be impossible. These regulations will probably tighten up on both sides if we look at where the world is currently going from a political point of view. The Mig-29 is still something that they are looking at and it may be possible but based on context clues, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The Hornet isn't what I'd call particularly user friendly, the avionics are better integrated, it has the unique AZ/EL display which can make things seem more intuitive, plus it's one of the first legacy platforms with actual sensor fusion, however some of that isn't replicated in DCS properly, mainly the sensor fusion capabilities. The Viper is a top notch, high quality module, and the real aircraft is famous for its pilot friendly design. However, many idiosyncracies in the Hornet are DCSisms, or workaround for certain bugs. If the Hornet's air to air radar got reworked and MSI was properly implemented, save for the Eurofighter, nothing could compare to the Hornet when it comes to SA and presentation but this comes with the cost of a more cumbersome interface and significantly worse HOTAS integration. As it stands today, it has many bugs, simplifications and problems which means that ultimately, you barely get more capabilities but it's significantly more cumbersome to use. Since the current Hornet has many issues, the Viper is basically on par when it comes to capabilities but it has a massively better pilot-vehicle interface. For air to air, the HOTAS integration is butter smooth, very intuitive, the information is presented in a digestible way and you have much better kinematic performance at your disposal. In the Hornet, you have to manage your PRF, your radar modes with either the TDC or push buttons, in the Viper, you don't have control over the PRF and you can change modes with the HOTAS. Air to ground is still in favor of the Viper but the advantage isn't as prevalent. The VRP-VIP function makes pop up attacks a breeze to conduct, it will have a dedicated toss bombing mode (toss cues in auto mode aren't implemented for the Hornet) and the master mode logic is highly superior, which is very relevant when doing self escort missions. The Viper's CCIP mode is pinpoint accurate, the Hornet's CCIP cross has been bugged for like 2 years and can't give you an accurate solution. In the Hornet master modes are hardwired to bring up certain pages (although some functions are missing and the left DDI shouldn't necessarily change what it displays but regardless), in the Viper, you can set it up in advance what page should each master mode bring up, and the transition is seamless. You can be in air to ground master mode, react to an aerial threat with a quick swap to MRM/DGFT then cancel the override and return to the air to ground mode exactly as it was. Seamless transition. The Hornet should have drastically better IAM integration but this is also not exactly simulated. We should have the ability to address specific bombs, upload coordinates and do a PP quantity release, with much better symbology on the HSI to aid in this attack. The Viper will cue the IAM to the SPI and it can't directly sent specific coordinates and proper SPI management requires a bit of practice. The properly implemented IAM logic of the Hornet would be superior here but as it stands, the Viper is probably easier to use even in this category. The SMS in the Hornet is much better, the Viper uses buttons on the actual MFD to input numbers to things like bomb interval, while the Hornet uses the UFC in a very logical manner. However, the Hornet's laser switch resets itself, so you have to manually control it. The Viper's Maverick integration is more involved and it requires actual boresighting, this is missing from the Hornet, but slewing with a designation isn't possible so it's a bit of a toss up. The cluster bombs of the Hornet are much more difficult to use than the 97/105s of the Viper, which are probably one of the most powerful and capable weapons in the game. The HARM simulation of the Viper is much more detailed and in depth and the Hornet's is more simple to use due to better integration (some modes are not simulated in DCS) but ultimately, when learned properly, the Viper has the edge with the HTS pod in capability but it's going to require a bit more practice to utilize. The Hornet has a couple of advantages. The RWR is repeated on the HUD and the JHMCS, which makes it easier to scan for threats in less congested environments but the RWR filters aren't simulated, so it can be problematic if a lot of contacts are around. The JHMCS datalink integration in the Hornet is drastically superior, it allows you to visually see PPLIs, enemy targets, unknown targets and it's also highly costumizable. The designation logic is probably easier to wrap your head around than the SPI system of the Viper, the latter is somewhat easier to mess up. The ATFLIR is probably a bit more intuitive to use but the Litening on the Hornet is incredibly wonky when compared to the Viper. Markpoints are a pain in the ass in the Hornet because you have to cycle through all your waypoints to get to them but they are much more user friendly to use in the Viper. The air to ground radar designation drifts in the Hornet (it shouldn't, it's a bug) while it works perfectly in the Viper and the quality of the image is also better and easier to interpret. For navigation, the Hornet's ability to visually see the course lines instead of a traditional HSI makes it a lot easier to use for beginners, but programming new waypoints, rolex times, TOTs and other features are a bit more complex and not exactly intuitive at first glance. The moving map is pretty useful but you can't slew it and you can't use it to create waypoints at a specific location, so its usefulness is not that particularly good. If the slew and waypoint creation functions were implemented in game, it would be a pretty big advantage but as it stands, it's kind of a niche capability.

There's absolutely no chance that the data you're referencing is accurate. There's no way in hell that the 68 or the 73 (or god forbit the 65) have a comparable performance to the APG-70 or the AWG-9. Not to mention that empirical testing of an early version of the APG-63 also shows drastically better performance that what's depicted in those chars.

And just in general better radar modelling. Proper channelization, dynamic RCS values based on loadout and aspect, SNR based performance in the notch for radar with digital receiver, channelization, atmospheric effects, PRF ambiguities, the aformentioned sidelobe modelling, every radar utilizing a probability of detection value for a contact like the Mirage, adjustable antenna gain/noise floor through the API, imperfect azimuth resolution and proper doppler proccessing, mutual interference and I could go on and on. And if we're at it, the Hornet's radar requires a substantial rework. The amount of bugged or imporperly simulated functions are really really high, even when we're talking about basics like trackfile correlation or radar memory logic. Having an API that makes it possible and easy for other developers (and ED themselves) to elevate the sensor modelling fidelity is another very important part of the future of DCS, considering it's full of aircraft that highly revolve around sensor usage. And I don't just mean radar or RWR but things like the upcominc FLIR rework (TV missiles would also require some tune ups when it comes to realistic behaviour anyway), more limited targeting pods, IFF and better jamming simulation.