WobblyFlops

Exactly, and developers are still much more likely to make a century series fighter than an Banshee because they are much more marketable. Which means none of this is likely to happen. The issue is that the thread isn't truly about Cold War era Navy jets (because we'll get a ton of that, a lot is already in the pipeline) but it's specifically aimed at Korean era aircraft. I definitely agree that Korean era assets are needed to actually make this work, you'd need appropriate ground units, tankers, support aircraft, even an accurate carrier.

There is a guy on Hoggit who wanted to start a Phantom development and actually went out to contact Boeing to negotiate the contract but they turned him down. All avionics and flight data about modern F-4s are classified because of Iran. As long as they still fly them, I wouldn't expect a Phantom.

The other issue is that some aircraft like the Hornet simply don't have a nav system that models INS only operations properly. It kind of works but the update options are finnicky and bugged. It's a great idea on paper but it'd only be feasible if at the very least the flagship ED modules had working degraded NAV modes with in fixes being possible.

I think it's safe to conclude that we'll never get obscure Korean era jets with barely any matching assets in the game like the Douglas Skyknight, the Banshee or the Demon. You also seem to have a strangely narrow definition of Cold War, you perhaps mean Korean war? If a new developer is interested in the 60s or earlier, they will most likely work on the Century Series lineup first because they are way more popular and requested than these fairly obscure jets.

The suspected issue at least from ED's perspective with this idea is that it allows people to create less than desirable content and that could have sensitive political connotations. Think about Youtube videos where people shoot down civilian airliners to propagate some kind of political goal, it could lead to some fairly negative press for DCS.

And of course the promised TAD updates, which are significantly more important than the radio. If you think adding existing symbology from the HMD to the TGP is on the same level as an F-22 module, I don't know what to tell you.

We don't know how accurate the Eurofighter will be to begin with.

I've found a couple of the lines: "отказала основная гидросустема"-main hydraulics failure "отказал насос расскодного бака"-fuel feed tank failure "Блок РИ-65 исправен" - RI-65 module functional

Unclassified means very very little in this context. The vast majority of documents needed for a DCS level module aside from a few specific airframes are unclassified. But the fact that something is unclassified won't necessarily mean that the information is also suitable for public dissemination. The majority of useful data is under the much larger 'Controlled Unclassified Information' umbrella term, which has things that wouldn't be as damaging to national security were they leaked to the public or became publically known as actually classified documents but their very nature and the information contained within them still makes officials more comfortable if these docs aren't in the public domain. The other issue are export controls. If something is export controlled it may be publically available in the US, to US persons but that doesn't mean that a foreign developer without valid certifications can legally purchase it and even with a certificate, it may be impossible to use the data in it. ITAR and other export regulations aren't necessarily rooted in logic nor do they provide any sort of actual benefit. They can apply to a plethora of different things and even to objects and data that are specifically marketed to civilians in the US, such as NVGs that are manufactured for the general public. US persons can buy them, but they aren't allowed to sell them oversees, upload technical data or videos of the NODs in use or allow non US persons to try them if they visit the US.

Fair point, but remember that there can be a lot of work done for new modules while programmers iron out the bugs.

New aircraft? The early block Rhinos are from the exact same timeframe as our Charlies. Hell, if they want, they could theoretically make an even earlier Rhino from ~2002 that would be less capable in the avionics department than our Charlie. This is true for virtually any modern (and the classified can apply to older ones) DCS module. F-16, Apache, A-10, F-18C, Typhoon, Mirage, Harrier, etc. All are still in service and each and every single one of them have a lot of classified systems and information associated, even if we disregard the obvious CM, ECM, ECCM performance. You'd be lucky with an early Block Rhino, because the avionics are so close to a period correct Charlie that you could replicate the same exact DDI pages and options as our Hornet, and it wouldn't be all that inaccurate. The Goldbook (Super Hornet avionics manual issues by Boeing that details relevant displays and data for a DCS module) is unclassified and SMEs have helped other developers make accurate Rhinos in the past, so it's obviously not an information availability issue. Licensing could be a problem in theory. Don't think that the current Hornet is complete or it matches up particularly well with public information to begin with, so I don't really see this being an issue. Flight model and whatnot is probably a bigger problem, but Wags stated that all the EM charts for the Legacy Hornet are still classified to this day, so it's a moot point. Well, sure, I think a lot of people would want that, especially if it's a two seater. The extra bringback capability and all that gas would instantly make me shell out the 70 bucks for the preorder, even for an E. If it's an F, no questions asked, everyone would buy it. But would it make sense for ED from a financial perspective to make a new product that will basically render an earlier one almost completely obsolete? The Rhino is for all intents and purposes a better Hornet barring some niche areas, even the early ones. So making a Rhino would just cannibalize the Hornet sales and at this point in time it makes very little sense to focus on that. Maybe in the future it would be a great idea, once the Charlie Hornet met the sales numbers that ED expect from the module.

The difference is that both the Viper and the Hornet have thousands pages worth of publically available documentation while all the Typhoon docs are NATO Restricted at best.

If you still have issues with this, can you please upload a recording of this issue with the control overlay enabled? It'd much easier to give additional tips.

If you don't know much about radar in general, definitely read the introductory parts of the P-820 document. Ignore all the T-45 stuff, it's not relevant, but the introduction is a great overview with easy to understand explanations.

I also think that the currently not functional DDI pages should also be included eventually, otherwise it would have been a complete waste to implement them at all to begin with, such as the MIDS page, the BIT page and the TGT DATA page. There are also a lot of smaller miscellaneous items that would greatly increase the fidelity and immersion of the Hornet, and quite a few smaller but very useful features. (All of these have been posted on the wishlist section on their own, so I think it's fair to collect them) I'll list all the features that I can think of for a consumer level product, but obviously I don't expect ED to model these and which ones they should prioritize out of these is up for heavy debates. -The missing HSI functions. We know that they won't fix the incorrect HSI layout nor will the implement the proper TAMMAC functionality, but having the HSI slew mode and slew mode waypoint creation, as well as the GPS page with GPS waypoints would be very useful. -The missing UFC options for the A/C data subpage on the HSI that shows wind data and magvar, which would be fairly useful. -The M4 OK advisory with the associated Betty voice alert would serve a practical purpose. Speaking of which, obviously they need to finish the IFF functions that are kind of implemented but they don't really do anything. Hopefully with the realistic ATC, they can also do a game wide IFF overhaul where the settings you can adjust in the Hornet would have tangible consequences. (With the ability to zeroize the keys and stop responding to M4 for example) Same goes for the emergency transponder switch. -The ability to colonize the CPHR option on the UFC and change between CPHR and CPDP. Easy to implement visual change that could provide practical functionality with SRS. -The weapon release tone function. -Winds data on the stores page. -EMCON and Quick Look functionality and the associated HOTAS functions. -The missing HOTAS functions should be added. -TBST option for the Maverick, which would allow us to reslew after slaving to a designation. (This one is kind of up in the air, may not apply to our specific Lot, but I'll list it anyway.) -Link 4 support and the ability to share data with the Tomcats on the datalink. -Environmental effects on the airframe and the associated ECS features, such as canopy/windshield icing and freezing, fog and smoke in the cockpit, the effect of improper temperature on the pilot. (Would tie in well with the upcoming weather system) -Fully simulated degraded control modes such as DEL and mech. -The missing radar modes. (TA, PVU may get implemented one day, VS is unfortunately confirmed not to come) -Properly working INS update options. -Properly functioning fuzing options and all the associated weaponeering controls, such as JPF for JDAM, delayed fuze, the ability to adjust burst height for cluster bombs, terminal parameters for all the IAMs, etc. -FD bombing mode. -The imcomplete and missing functions on the ATFLIR setup page mainly and the ability to slave the seeker to the HMD LOS. -MUMI page interaction with the DTC. -UFC backup. -The missing cautions and advisories. -HMD alignment. -Proper simulation of the sidewinder coolant and its quantity. -Maverick alignment. -MDATA subpage.

Well, the Viper is the only aircraft in DCS that has the Maverick boresighting modelled, it's also among the few jets that don't have adjustable laser codes for LGBs from the cockpit (in reality the ground crew sets that before takeoff for conventional, older variants that we use). For the Hornet, there's a lot of evidence that certain areas are not as detailed as they are in the Viper, such as Maverick integration, HARM limitations (this one is not as clear cut, heavily debated subject and I don't have the documentation to pick a side) and so on. On the other hand, the Hornet has every button clickable in the cockpit, (so with a tapes on call, you can actually simulate turning them on, even though they don't work) and you can set your desired transponder codes through the UFC, even though in game, the vast majority of the related functionality is not simulated. Also, with the Viper there's still hope that a lot of features will eventually get implemented (and there's a lot more info out there as well), but for the Hornet we have a good idea about a ton of stuff that won't make the cut.

If the underlying radar framework made it possible, it would be a great addition. It would add to the complexity and realism, which is always a great thing. (Same thing can be said about all the other missing AWG-9 features like the radar/missile channels or the PD THRLD knobs) But of course, it's perfectly understandable that you guys are constrainted by the current radar framework of the engine.

Completely agree. The documentation should obviously reflect the capabilities of the in game aircraft, which will always have some level of variance, even if it's done by Heatblur themselves. The real figures are certainly not classified, but based on my testing don't really apply all that well for DCS aircraft. Obviously this endeavour only makes sense once the engine modelling and the flight modelling is complete, which is going to take years. If we're talking about core features, it should tie in with a mission planner that has TOLD planning capabilities and it would have the ability to give you realistic numbers for the in game performance depending on the runway and weather conditions and your payload.

I agree with that. After all, the A-10 HUD fix took them years and it's a much easier fix. Even if ED knew for sure that this is wrong, they'd refuse to change it because that would require them to rework the cockpit dimensions and that requires a lot more resources.

It really is quite simple. Panther knows more about the F-16 than any of us, she is an actual SME, not a random guy that sat in a Viper and doesn't remember what he actually saw. So if in the real jet the RWR, the MFDs and the HUD are visible perfectly from a comfortable position the same thing should be replicated in the game. It doesn't really matter what reality is though, if they indeed modelled it wrong they sure as hell won't change it at this stage, but for fairness sake I'm really curious to know what Panther will say about this once she gets the chance to check it again. I would be incredibly surprised if this was accurate.

Why not? If the choice is to have it on one module or none at all, having it at least on one is vastly preferable. Obviously it would be ideal if every module had the same level of fidelity and standards but historically that has never been the case in DCS, not even from the same developers. The Viper looks very promising with the Maverick and Harm implementation so far, hopefully they will add these limitations as well.

That pretty much sums this guy up perfectly.

My point about Razbam referred to the fact that what you attribute to them (communicating clearly, creating updates) also applied to TG for almost a year and they stopped it abruptly. Straw man. What people argue here is that there are a lot of rational arguments that make the situation look concerning. Wishful thinking is irrelevant, if you rationally examine the situation and the facts you shouldn't be surprised if the project got axed for whatever reason.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Razbam. TrueGrit themselves had a different approach to PR and communications and updates and it abruptly stopped. They don't communicate anywhere, they don't check this forum anymore and don't respond to anyone on their Instagram. Which in and of itself wouldn't be that strange if TG hadn't approached the whole topic of pre release communications completely differently before this sudden silence. It's possible that they don't have any news to share but the sudden and sharp shift in communications is definitely strange to some degree. How long do you think it would take for the person who's in charge of the TG Instagram page to post a short little update stating that they are working on the project and they currently have no other news to share? It would make sense to do this after a sudden shift in communication. This project revolves around the most advanced and most capable aircraft that we're getting in DCS while having ties to the British MOD, who are paranoid enough to keep the English Electric Lightning still classified. The developers also announced the project way too early and their methods of gathering information legally can also be prone to failure. It's 100% within the cards that the Typhoon is not possible to develop after all, projects (not just in DCS) die all the time after the modelling is done to some degree and since it's so classified and they announced it so early, it's a very reasonable and logical conclusion to think that the project can die at any point. Even releasing a module isn't a guarantee for anything, there is a highly detailed addon for another simulator that the developers had to stop selling it to the public due to ITAR concerns. Things like this happen all the time. Their communications regarding that incident stated that specifically the consumer version of the Typhoon had to be cancelled, presumably due to the MOD changing the deal.

That's not how they operated previously. They often posted updates, smaller, not really that noteable pictures, interviews or really anything to keep interacting with the community. There are dozens of people asking them on their IG if the project is dead. Even if there's nothing to report, I would imagine that it's in their best interest to squish any rumors, not to mention that previously they posted a lot and had great PR. People may not remember but there was another DCS Eurofighter in development ages ago (coincidentally it was also somewhat related to official training products) and in fact that was much further along in development than this one and the MOD still iced the project.