Stackup

Awesome! Where did you get the E-2B?

Where have you paid for the MiG-19S? The only reason I brought up the Tu-95 and S-3 is to show you that, yes, Razbam could've used less polygons. What they have is really good except that one spot that isn't aligned and shows a vertice that runs the entire length of the airplane. If you look at the smooth shadow gradient on the upper surface of the nose, you'll see that it is only "not round" in that one spot. It's still WIP, I wouldn't worry about it. Also, if you look closely at the current MiG-19P, the model is about the same in terms of using straight lines to make a circle and I almost think the S is a bit smoother aside from that one line you brought up. In any case, none of this will be visible once the textures and mapping is completed unless you decide to zoom in reaaaally close.

In today's newsletter, ED said that the F-15E is in the final testing and validation stage and they expect it release a "few months later and perhaps sooner" after the preorder date of February 15. Doesn't give me high hopes for a Phantom release before this summer, especially since all the talk so far in newsletters has been Strike Eagle. Unless Heatblur does a surprise unveiling with no preorder for the March or April OB updates, I don't see how they can release before the F-15E at this point.

Well seeing as those images don't have the roughmets/texturing yet your statements are premature. Also, really? It's not rounded? I don't think we're looking at the same images... If you want to complain about low polygon count and things not being round, take a look at the current state of the Tu-95 Bear or the engines on the S-3 Viking before you complain about the "angles" on the MiG-19S. The stuff you see now will likely be hidden when they actually texture the model.

Nope, but I assume there is probably a mechanical lockout that prevents it from moving. The geometry of the "hook stowed" position also changes between gear up and gear down positions due to the hook being mounted halfway up the tailwheel assembly. With the gear up, the hook will be in a more level position, while with the gear down and hook up, the hook is angled up towards the tail. If there isn't any kind of lockout, the actuator would likely try to force the hook out the doors and through the tail wheel resulting in something breaking. It could even bring the plane down given that in the up position, the hook assembly is very close to the elevator control linkages.

The tail hook is integrated into the tail wheel assembly itself. The tailwheel doors cover the whole assembly including the hook bar when the gear is up except the hook itself and a small part of the tail wheel. This prevents the hook from being extended unless the landing gear is down. You can see how it connects to the tail wheel assembly in this image and also the notch on the bottom of the tail where the hook end is visible when the doors are closed.

The skin is great! I had it downloaded already, but when I saw it in the development screenshots I got all excited becuase the NACA ducts are so well hidden I thought it actually was the old gun vents so props to you for the effective illusion.

@WolfHound009I don't believe they have said anything beyond it's something they are looking at doing. The last I've heard was actually IronMike's response to you on the F-14A early 70's/Iranian Version forum. I hope they make it removable to simulate the earlier versions. A couple posts up from this screenshot, IronMike says the block numbers are just general to distinguish the various versions, not to tie them to any specific real life jet, i.e. Iranian -95GR will be labeled as -95GR but still basically be the -135GR(Early) with the aforementioned payload limitations, but not whether stuff like the TCS pod will be removable. I have seen screenshots of the DCS F-14A in the favorite screenshots thread with the TCS pod and the fuel tank pylons removed, but the poster never said how they did it. Hopefully they are looking into this even if it isn't in the initial release of the Early A.

Wait just one second, where on earth did you hear that? The early F-14A we are getting will indeed have the TCS pod and whether or not it will be removable is still up in the air afaik. They do plan to add the Aerodyne bullet cover for the TCS pod but in a similar fashion to the fuel tank pylons, they have not confirmed it's removal anywhere. Edit: Ah, ok I see on the skin that they have just painted the old gunvents over the NACA ones. Still, please tell me where you saw that the early A will not have the TCS pod/have it removable, because the only version I am aware of that this should even apply to is the Iranian bonus version and they have said that it will be a -135GR(Early) and not the -90/95GR that everyone seems to think it will be because that's what the real Iranian Cats are. Instead it will just be their early A with payload restrictions and TCS deactivated but not necessarily removable, just as the fuel tank pylons will not be removable.

Was looking through the WIP screenshots on the DCS website and stumbled across this image of the Tomcat. Is this the first WIP shots of the Early A that have been released? Sure looks like the original gun vents to me, but what do y'all think?

I'd avoid using dystopia in this context and replace it with fictional. Having or not having a single piece windshield for the F-4 has nothing to with the collapse of society and people living in fear of the government or some other entity. Since there was limited use of the single-piece windshield, it would in fact, be simulating those exact airframes making your point about "not simulating" invalid. However, unless I'm mistaken, the versions of the F-4E we are getting are not the same as the version that recieved the single piece windshield which I believe wasn't limited to the F-4E anyways among the few airframes that recieved it.

No they are not. Correct, they scanned an F-4F because they had one at a museum close to them and it's really similar to the F-4E with all that's missing being the rear fuselage tank iirc. They are doing an F-4E with the DSCG package and an F-4E with the DMAS package and have yet to announce which specific naval variant they are doing.

Remember, this is DCS. "Soon" could mean years if they even decide to do a D model. Look at the F-14. It took about a year after initial launch to finally release the first iteration of the F-14A. Basically all the A model changed in its initial implementation was the engines. It released as essentially just the F-14B we already had, but with TF-30 engines. Of course the B now has it's digital engine tapes and there are more differences but we're going on 4 years since release. Every project and company is different, but don't expect that minimal changes makes it quick and easy to release a different variant of an aircraft. There could be difficulties in changing things such as the refueling system that we don't know about and it's not as simple as just changing some numbers around.

You can always ask the same thing in their Discord, not sure how active they are on the forums. It would still be a decent amount of work to get it correct as the exterior model and the cockpit layout would need to be altered, not just the refueling system. Also, this is their first DCS project and they may not want to expand the scope right now as they also have a lot of other planes they are working on for MSFS as well so it's not like this is the only thing they are doing. Maybe we'll see it in the future, but I don't expect an A-7D to be announced before the release of the A-7E.

Nobody can legally get the information required to do modern Redfor jets, especially the Flanker. ED almost got to do a MiG-29 9.12, but that fell through recently. You know, the original Fulcrum? Russia doesn't just hand this stuff out you know. As for what Heatblur should do? They should release the F-4E(when it's ready of course), get the Viggen and Tomcat out of EA, and then finish the rest of their announced modules: the Eurofighter, A-6 Intruder, and the Naval F-4. Then we can discuss what comes next. The F-111, assuming they can get the data for it, makes perfect sense given Heatblur's current and future lineup of two-seat American aircraft and with Jester 2.0, I expect we'll see plenty more two-seaters from them in the future.

Maybe the WSO's name will be.... Talon, because that's the AI's name. Call me unoriginal but they've already named the AI, why would they give it a different one?

I guess you use what you got lying around , didn't know that's how they made those fuse extenders. Edit: Coincidentally, do you think we'll get the extended fuses in DCS? Or is it more likely we won't get them until we have destructible trees/environment?

Honestly, that's probably pretty accurate with a full payload, but I expect it's more maneuverable than we think when it's only got the two Sidewinders. Not that anyone should do any dogfighting with it because I doubt that would end well given it's purpose built for light attack.

Maybe this is another reason the F-4E is releasing before the naval variants. Unless they're just going to fudge the bridle like the A-4 mod or even make it just visual like the VSN F-4B mod, they must have another carrier(or variant) besides the Forrestal class in the pipeline of unannounced items they have according to their most recent update post. Maybe they'll do a one-off like the Midway although only having one specific carrier we can use the F-4 on is not going to be the best option. Especially since the Supercarrier module is the only one in DCS allowed to have the animated AI deck crew.

Since we don't have a weapons list from HB yet, does anybody know anything about these cluster dispensers? The only other place I've seen them is in the A-4 mod as the CBU-1 and CBU-2 dispenser pods. Maybe the Skyraider will carry them too.

So basically it's really close to finished but they aren't working on it in favor of things like the F-15E. Understandable I guess, but the release of the S would convince me to finally buy the MiG-19 as I'm not really interested in the P version. The S also looks better imo as it doesn't have the radar domes in the nose. Makes it sleeker. Hopefully they can release it after the F-15E before they get too stuck into another module like the MiG-23...

+1

Preorders start February 3rd!

I'd really like to see some liveries from VA-81 Sunliners and VA-83 Rampagers from one of their cruises aboard the USS Forrestal. From seaforces.org on VA-81, From July to August 1974, VA-81 operated from USS Forrestal in the vicinity of Cyprus following a coup in that country and its invasion by Turkish forces. Surveillance and cover missions were flown by the squadron during the crisis. VA-81 embarked in Forrestal from May to June 1981, operating in the eastern Mediterranean following Israeli reprisal raids against Syrian missile batteries located in southern Lebanon. These would fit great on the Syria map in my opinion and help flesh out the Forrestal deck.

Nobody has made any distinctions though which is why I'm speculating the way I am. I won't pretend I know anything that goes on behind the development of DCS or what happened with the SD-10, but I will say I have absolutely no wish to see things be "consistent". I just want these modules and weapons to be as accurate as humanly possible so as to have the most realistic experience possible. I don't want balancing for PvP or anything like that and Heatblur has said they never change things for this which I appreciate. Who makes the changes is really irrelevant as long as they are accurate to the proper source material they have access to.