Salty Buckets

So does the F-14B now accelerate better? Just clarifying since what I felt, it does feel like the aircraft is quicker than it was before.

The issue is, With the implication of this addition, ED is then making a statement to the community that they are not concerned with realism and are now more focused on "gamifying" DCS, which would not only upset more than half the community, but also be implied that other sorts of things that give the player handholding to this scale are now possible additions in DCS. That is the issue I have (and many others in the community would agree) with this, is that once something like this happens in game (which it probably won't for the foreseeable future) it means that ED is looking to turn DCS more into a game (which yes, it is a game) than a simulator. They've already technically hinted at it with them caving to the community with adding x4 HARMs on the F-16C, but luckily, nothing of the level of something like auto A2A refueling in-game.

The issue is, while being realistic, ED will not add this to the base game. It's as simple as that, and to an extent, why are we still talking about it? ED has already confirmed that this will not be added. The more I realize about this topic (and in a broader spectrum the DCS Wishlist as a whole) is simply a bunch of daydreamers that, in most cases, will never see their ideas come to fruition. Gamifying a simulator is already a red flag for me since if ED were to add this to the game, it would be a statement to the community that they are more invested in lowering the learning curve for new players instead of making the sensors, flight models, and what interacts with the player in-game as accurate of what is capable in a commercial sim. And the argument for developing an "easy" mode for DCS is simply ridiculous. The amount of time and money that ED would lose in investing into, not only an "easy" mode of the game while also simultaneously trying to now still support a, what you all seem to call a "hardcore" mode of DCS is just silly. They have much better things to do than appeal to, what I see, is a niche part of the community that is asking for this. That is a fair point, yet this is not really a sim set up to teach. It's a game at the end of the day, and no one in these forums are training to fly an F/A-18C or F-15C and train to A2A refuel for the first time. It's something that I stressed above that I will restate: both ED and the 3rd parties have better things to like fixing visual bugs, continuing to work on the AI combat, make new modules to earn more money, etc etc etc. than trying to implement this idea of having autoguiding an aircraft into contact or this new idea of having rings to guide your plane in that, mind you, seems to be an issue that could be easily fixed with research and practice.

And just going based off of what we have in DCS, what do we have in game that has been gamified to a point where, as what I've seen recommended in this channel, (which, mind you, would take time away from the developers who are trying to appeal it seems more to what you call the hardcore-only experience) would auto-guide your plane into aerial refuel and contact? What's the point at that point? That's why I stress that this is a simulator, is because ED treats it as so. They even backed this up moreso when they deleted the gamified versions of FF module's flight models. Support of FC3 has completely ended and ED has said multiple times that they have no plans of adding more to FC3 other than minute changes and bug fixes. The only thing, like I stated before, that I can see even slightly corresponding to what ED has done in the past for, say, the Supercarrier is have a pop out window that exactly copies the line-up lights that are on the tanker you are refueling off of. And that's really all is "needed" for people who have worse resolution, and it may help some folks that struggle seeing the line-up lights while tanking. Huh, idk how I missed that, but yeah lol.

TBH aerial refueling for drogue tankers is easier IRL than it is in DCS. Without proper cable physics, and the basket basically being unfazed by the laws of aerodynamics and wind, it's a cakewalk in DCS and honestly does a poor job of depicting and often confuses many people of how hard basket refueling is actually like in real life. IRL, you have to deal with the basket moving away from you when you get close, the possibility of the cable skip-roping and then proceeding to tear off from the basket, etc. I do agree partially that there could be a pop out window in DCS for refueling, but only an enlarged version of the lineup lights, nothing gamified to guide you in. And all it takes is time and practice to get refueling down. There should be no need for a gamified version of A2A refueling, or anything else of its sort in DCS. This. Is. A. Simulator.

Iirc the AIM-7M did have the capability to still track with CW guidance which would make it capable with the F-4E without PD radars? Does the CW guidance degrade the performance of the AIM-7Ms overall performance if operating in CW guidance? But I think I'm getting off track here and may have phrased my question wrong. I'll try to rephrase my question: Does Heatblur plan on adding the AIM-7M to the F-4E?

As I am not well versed on the Brick as other aircraft, I've heard some hearsay and observed in some manuals about how the F-4Es could only mount up to the AIM-7F. Is this true, or did later F-4Es of the late 80s receive AIM-7M capability? Thanks, Salty

As the title suggests, there seems to be missing coloring on the Mirage F1 Iranian Liveries refueling probe along with a corruption of a new Iraqi livery (only for the Mirage F1EQ) named "Irak Air Force Blue Scheme" (no, I'm not spelling it wrong). Of course, this is something minor, but I thought I might as well report it here. I have attached pictures of the missing coloring on the refueling probe and the missing texture for the new Iraqi livery, thanks.

Sorry if this question has already been asked, but I assume we'll be getting Hill Grey schemes for the F-4E as well? At least for the DMAS I assume. Hope to see some Turkish F-4s in the two tone grey as well in the base game!

"The Tu-104LL-2 (reg CCCP-42454), the second of two LM-104-518 avionics testbeds converted from Tu-104 type airliners by NPO Vzlyot to evaluate the MiG-31’s weapon systems, primarily its Zaslon PESA radar but also the R-33 long range air to air missile." ED when? Thanks

MiG-25, thanks

As Heatblur recently released pictures of the long awaited oxygen gauge for the F-14, I've noticed and also consulted with others that it seems that the one Heatblur modeled is slightly off. It seems that in real pictures of the oxygen gauge that it was slightly tilted to make it easier for the pilot to read. Is there any supporting evidence that the oxygen indicator was not tilted like it was in the irl picture I've posted? I know this is a VERY minor thing and is very... Rivet count-y, but was just wondering if this was intentional or not.

Source: It has become evident to me that the F-14B and even possibly the F-14A Late that are currently in game have some inconsistencies with some "documentation" I've run into. (Now, before I continue any further, I know how much Heatblur has on their plate currently, and this is not meant to be a plea to Heatblur to add/remove these controls in the cockpit to make it more realistic, it is simply a means to bring some light of what (I assume) our B in real life looked like inside the cockpit and see if myself or even others on confused on what type of B is in game). It appears by the video and picture I've sent that the ECM OFF/ORIDE switch has been completely removed (which I assume is due to that being used for the AN/ALR-45 RWR) and the addition of an Oxygen gauge. This F-14B does not have a PTID in it, so I ask, is our F-14B in game an earlier version than the one displayed in this video or is there another reason? Also, a bit of a side note for those who are more knowledgeable, when was the Oxygen gauge added into the F-14s? Thanks!

Very true and very well spoken. Also, thank you lunaticfringe for that video, that does clear up some speculation that I had on my side. One of the issues I've been encountering with the -54C specifically is its vulnerability to go for chaff. I do not have a tacview to share since I'm slightly unfamiliar with how to find tacviews in DCS, but I usually fire at around 35-40k @mach .9-1 @20 miles, and the missile has enough energy to hit the target (and it does go active if I am firing in TWS), but, like you said captain_dalan, the missile is still well defeatable, especially to chaff from what I've found, which, especially with the -54C, is sad to see. I am, of course, not saying that all of my shots should hit at the parameters I'm firing at, yet 50% PK with the -54C? It's somewhat hard to not think something is abit funky.

So am I the only one currently that thinks the new loft angle is abit unrealistic?