Stackup

The solution to this is easy, just set the AI to not use chaff and flares. This will work on any AI aircraft that makes use of external countermeasure pods and does not allow you to set the counts to 0.

I never said that the MiG-17F was FC3, do not put words in my mouth... I'll rephrase, the MiG-17F will be my first full-fidelity Russian-built aircraft and will likely be the only full fidelity Russian aircraft I will buy unless Razbam finishes the MiG-19S because I have no interest in any others and I will not be buying stuff I am not interested in. I like the MiG-17F because it fixed a lot of the problems the MiG-15 had and is equipped with an early afterburner as well as the part it played in the various wars it was used in. I've also had the privilige of witnessing a 3-ship formation flight of MiG-17F's at sunset after a performance by Randy Ball in his own MiG-17F who was joined by the other two for the formation and that was a really cool experience and made me want to fly one in DCS. Dude, seriously?? Please check your reading comprehension, I know English isn't your first language and can be difficult to learn from what I've heard, but that is not at all what I'm doing here in any way shape or form. I'm not crushing any module or blaming anyone for making the module they wanted to make! I get that these are all passion projects majority run by small teams that only have access to certain information, we won't have every variant of every aircraft ever, and so on and so forth. Seriously... All I was saying was that if you are going to point out aircraft for being the incorrect versions for a specific war, you should point out all of the aircraft that are incorrect versions for that specific war. That's it. Nothing more, nothing against you personally or anyone else, nothing like that at all. If you list aircraft and point out that some are incorrect models for the Vietnam War, you should point out all the ones that are incorrect for the Vietnam War, because otherwise some people will think that the ones you didn't point out are correct when they aren't. Edit: For the record, I fully intend to use all the previously mentioned aircraft to simulate Vietnam as much as possible in DCS. Even the AI that aren't the correct versions such as the KC-135R and B-52H, both of which I have made skins for to create approximations of KC-135A's and B-52D's and G's. The Forrestal is a later refit than Vietnam. Still using it. Supercarrier definitely doesn't fit. Still using it because no other carrier has animated deck crew. No correct escort ships. I use what is already in game or find some mods. And so on. We use what we have because that's all we've got, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to know they are not historically correct.

No they haven't, it has been stated to be an 80s variant with the in game label of -135GR Early. Even the Iranian version is not correct for this. Don't believe me? Ask LanceCriminal, the guy that does a lot of research for Heatblur and is in the know. He's corrected me and multiple other people about this before, you wouldn't be the first. The G wasn't in Vietnam so the version year is irrelevant. We know enough. Every single screenshot has the TRAM turret installed. TRAM was only first added in 1974 and didn't become widespread until the 80s. That's irrelavant anyways since the mere confirmation that it's an E model means it doesn't fit Vietnam as the E never served in the war. I'm aware, not interested. Only got the FC3 ones in the first place because at 50% off that bundle is a great deal and buying the ones I wanted separately would have been more expensive than the whole package.

If you're gonna call out the F-5E, MiG-21bis, and MiG-19P for being the wrong versions... The A-6E, F-4E, A-7E, F-104G, UH-1H, and the Early F-14A are all the wrong versions for Vietnam too. All of these aircraft as released/planned are coming with post Vietnam updates, some being decades later. The A-6E never served in Vietnam even though it had entered service towards the end(stayed stateside to avoid the technology getting into the wrong hands iirc), with the A and B being the only A-6's flying combat in Vietnam. We are receiving one from the 80s/90s to match the F-14 and given the presence of the TRAM turret in every single screenshot of the A-6 to date and HB saying if they can do the latest version (90s SWIP) they will. The F-4E is coming with post 1974 upgrades including the newer digital RWR to replace the analog strobe system it had during Vietnam among other things. The A-7E will be contemporary to Desert Storm despite debuting during the Vietnam War and will have the updates that come with being from the late 80s early 90s. The F-104G is another wrong version, we need the F-104C for Vietnam. The UH-1H did serve at the tail end of Vietnam, but just like everything else mentioned has upgrades from after the war such as extra windows in front of the doors, WSPS, the radar altimeter, and flare pods. The next F-14A we are supposed to get (-135GR Early) also did not serve in Vietnam as it will still be an 80s Tomcat and not the first cruise F-14s that flew cover for Operation Frequent Wind in 1975. Razbam has never made a MiG-17PF and I assume you know that and probably made a typo because of the topic name. They made the MiG-19P and have a semi-completed external model of an S that has not been talked about recently and all development on Razbam products has been halted anyways so no reason to expect it anytime soon. If it ever comes, it will substitute for the Shenyang J-6 as that is a license built copy of the MiG-19S which was used by the North Vietnamese. Not to say these all of these aircraft won't be used as half-decent subsitutes given we will likely never get all the contemporary versions (same goes for the WWII era), but if we're gonna call out aircraft for being the wrong version, let's do it right and cover them all. The only aircraft that fit the Vietnam War exactly are all still in development, those being the A-1H, F-8J, F-100D, and MiG-17F. Hopefully we hear something new about the MiG-17F from Red Star soon, gonna be my first non FC3 Redfor aircraft.

I'm sure they'll fix it. We were told the F-14 drop tank pylons would never be removable and now they are. TCS pod was the same way but now it seems that may be removable too. It might take them some time, but I'm sure it will get corrected.

Good news, the AIM-9J is finally coming to the F-5 with this Tuesday's patch!

Not sure why you're responding without quoting the guy a month later. In any case, we are getting one benefit of the preorder on Steam because we get the preorder price of $60 for the first week after launch.

This is quite funny to me as well. This reminds me of the time I was told being irritated about delays meant poor people shouldn't play DCS and that talking about it was childish. Funny the different things people think are acceptable and proper to make complaints about. Missed timelines and delays, or the name of a fictional character in a video game being the same as another fictional character from a movie.

I'm aware, this has been covered multiple times, hence why I said the NAVAL variants could do it and never mentioned the E once. Edit: If you've got a different source, I'd be interested to see it, but only a few early C's ever used the naval pylon (LAU-17/A) and the D never did, both recieved the same (MAU-12) pylon the E had since they were USAF birds. This means that along with not supporting the Sparrow, the USAF birds couldn't load Sidewinders and a TER at the same time without using the Special Weapons Adapter. The MAU-12 was also incapable of ejecting the inner pylon, unlike the LAU-17 which could. https://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-f-4-inboard-pylons.html

This video has some good shots of F-4B's launching on some kind of ground strike mission. Note how the naval variants of the F-4 can carry Sidewinders and a full TER of 3 Mk-82 bombs at the same time. Also some A-6's and an F-8.

Well, we're recieving an RAF skin since the guy that developed the radar requested it. Only skin coming with it that's labelled fictional. Unlikely they make any others and I won't be using it personally since I don't like how short nose skins look on long nose Phantoms.

I sincerely hope it's faster, the A-6 seems to just keep getting further and further away

Hmmm, Heatblur F-101 perhaps? Maybe in 20 years or something, lol.

I'm confused, where have you been the last decade or more? That hasn't been the purpose of early access in gaming as a whole for a long time now. The purpose of early access in modern gaming is to allow customers to use an early version of a product before it is completed and to allow the developers to get cash flow to continue development of the project. In other words, there's no gaurantee you will ever recieve a finished product if you buy early access because you have only the word of the developers that they will continue to develop the product and eventually finalize it. So, if the devs are true to their word, eventually the product will be considered "feature complete" and you'll have everything you originally paid for. If not, and development stalls or becomes uncertain, the Strike Eagle for example, the product may become abandoned and you're stuck with the last version they gave you. In DCS alone, we have the F-15E, F-16, F-14, Mirage F1, Apache, and multiple other modules still in the early access release state as they are not considered finished products by their developers. Many other games use the early access model as well, this shouldn't be some brand new revelation to anyone.

You're correct. My response was more general since others in here were complaining.

What a silly thing to complain about. His name is never even said out loud in game anyways, it's just a label on the control wheel and a better way to refer to the system instead of something bland like "the backseat AI". No one is stopping you from calling him whatever you want. It's a program that just so happens to be named Jester, and it'll be called Jester in every single two-seater aircraft Heatblur make, including the A-6 and naval F-4. No reason to change it.

That would be because Nineline already answered it.

Thanks for thinking of us Steam users Heatblur! Appreciate it!

I'm not seeing the C-123 in the documentation images or in game. Is that pushed to a later release to get it flying?

Maybe. Time will tell. I sincerely hope that Heatblur can turn their mountain of a roadmap into a more molehill sized pile sooner rather than later. They've got at least a decade if not more of planned projects and that's just what we know about.

So you admit you do in fact budget for this stuff though. Itemized or not you have money set aside for it, thanks for answering. Again, no one wants to talk about preorders here but you! And here we come back to ad hominem and baseless attacks. When I purchase the HB F-4 is absolutely none of your business (although I've already told you when that will happen) and it's none of my business when you spend your money either or what you spend it on unless you bring it up. The last thing I preordered in DCS was the Mosquito. Not doing that again, there's just no point. I'll say it again since you obviously didn't read it the first time. When HB actually has an F-4 available for download, then and only then will I make my purchase. I will be flying a Heatblur F-4. Whether I still decide to get the F-4E, wait for the naval variant, or buy both is completely up to me and nothing you can say will affect my decision. Release delays happen to more than just the F-4 you know... Where's my A-6 AI? Or the F-14A early I paid for when I bought the F-14? The customer has every right to complain when a company tells them something is coming and then it does not, end of story. Will it make the product come any faster? No probably not. Doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to talk about it or have to spend money (which I have for the F-14 btw) to have an opinion.

Yeah, I have that installed too, but something like this should be a part of the module itself. The whole thing is in need of a rework anyways like A-10C II and Black Shark 3. And I wouldn't say no to an additional earlier variant.

So you don't budget at all for "fun/blow money"? That should be a part of your budget no matter how big, and you keep forgetting to differentiate between major and minor with your generalized "financial decision". Edit: Also, why do you keep making this about preorders? No one but you has been talking about that. We're in here talking about the history of delays Heabtlur has had, given that this topic is about the most recent delay in the first place. I haven't preordered and have said as much previously. Heatblur is also giving out refunds no questions asked. I wouldn't take advice from some random guy on the internet anyways, especially if you think a preorder should be treated as "throwing money away" and not something closer to the truth like "future investment". Because that's what it is. You don't get anything if you throw money away and if you do then it wasn't thrown away in the first place, it was given in exchange for future goods and services.

Okay, let's be pedantic then. Finacial decisions by definition involve money. There's no minimum amount of money to consider something financial. So long as money is involved in a decision, it's financial.

No Early Access? Wishful thinking, but hopefully this goes well and starts a trend to get rid of EA and ship complete products on launch.