Stackup

Bumpety bump bump bump. Phantom delay likely pushes the AI back further, but maybe we see a subforum for the A-6 after the F-4 launch. Eurofighter has had one for years now and Heatblur said they would work on the Eurofighter and A-6 "side-by-side" so it would make sense.

Option? Yeah of course, ED is in charge of all releases so they could delay everything and make the MiG-29 come next. But out of all the possible modules already in testing and nearing release (La-7 and Kiowa come to mind, F4U maybe but less likely), I think the MiG-29 is the least likely candidate since the Phantom is very clearly next in line unless something major goes wrong.

Derailed again. This isn't the place to discuss what was real vs what was hysteria in regards to covid. The reality is that it isn't any more of a factor now than any other illness because the lockdowns are ended in the majority of the world if not entirely. If someone gets really sick, they stay home. Doesn't matter if its the flu or covid or anything else. Now, back to the Phantom.

I can gaurantee you the same slop is present in the primary ADI, you just don't see it as it is a 3-axis gyro, not a 2-axis. Ball or drum doesn't matter, the basic instrument works exactly the same way. Technically, no ADI should allow the aircraft marking to leave the pitch line as the instrument is not designed to show yaw as they are normally 2-axis gyros. However, put enough force on it in one direction, for example a high-G right hand turn, and it will show some slop in the yaw axis. Keep in mind, the primary ADI also functions as a directional gyro like the A-4 Skyhawk's so what yaw there is is hidden by the fact the ball is rotating as you turn. In both cases, the airplane mark is secured to the instrument housing and therefore, fixed( with some vertical adjustment possible). The only difference is that you see the primary ADI rotate as it is also showing heading. The airplane mark stays in the exact same location and mechanical imperfections and inefficiencies as well as gyroscopic forces like precession are what cause what you see.

Well, that was fun guys. Have a Corsair.

and the RF-4B

It comes with Reflected's Paradise Lost campaign for the Huey. Not gonna share his work that he didn't upload for free, but you should totally get the campaign if you have the Huey. It was a lot of fun. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/campaigns/uh-1h_paradise_lost_campaign/

Glad you had fun. A bit condescending, but oh well this is the internet. I can still remember buying games and they just came as is. No EA, no updates, or any nonsense like that. You paid for and recieved a finished game. The game usually came on a disk and you stuck it in the computer or console and played it. Having bought into games like Star Citizen and DCS, I very much understand long development times and that EA is now the name of the game, but that doesn't mean I can't point out inconsistencies irrespective of whether I'm talking about a game or something like car repairs. At the end of the day, both are a product/service that can be paid for which makes how long it takes the business of the customer. I haven't preordered the F-4 so I guess I have no skin in this currently, but there are a lot of things that make me question just what is going on and sometimes having a timeline is helpful to see the bigger picture.

That depends entirely on the module/developer and how much information has been previously forthcoming and what has been stated by the devs. I haven't seen any bickering about release dates for any of the new modules announced in 2022. Even the A-7 which was announced earlier than those has had no bickering about a release date. The main difference I see is that none of those developers have ever really said anything about possible release dates. None of them have ever said things like, "It's releasing this year" or "It's releasing this _insert season_", they've just kept pretty silent and when they do share stuff it's greatly appreciated like Flying Iron's huge writeups at the end of each year. We know software development is subject to random delays and the devs know that too. It also helps that these dev teams are keeping a relatively low profile so the only people that really pay attention or remember they exist are the people who are excited for the aircraft they are making and are interested in discussing it with likeminded individuals. Yet we see some devs time and time again set release windows and then invariably fail to meet those self imposed deadlines. The F-15E was supposed to release at the end of 2022/beginning of 2023 and Razbam (and ED) kept saying stuff like "soon" and "imminent" yet it still took half the year to release. The F-4 was set to release in 2022. Stuff happened and it was delayed. Then in 2023 there was another big push around Heatblur modules with the announcement that the A-6 AI would release during the summer. Since that is locked behind the F-4 due to resources as HB have admitted, that means the F-4 was planned to release sometime in the first half of 2023. Summer came and went with no further information on either the F-4 or the A-6 AI. And then if we go back just a little bit further, I belive there was a comment made by Cobra on Facebook that the A-6 AI and Early F-14A would release towards the end of Summer 2021. I guess if you say "it'll release by then" enough times you're bound to be right eventually. We can't keep blaming Ukraine for all this stuff because Heatblur has said that the war only cost them around 6 months of dev time. Scope creep and bugs likely account for rest of the lost time. We get it, the war and personal issues caused a delay, they didn't however cause the delays all on their own. And then we come to the likely further delay of the F-4 causing Heatblur to miss their Winter deadline. Yes, I am well aware that they have said "We're still on track for our timeframe." but remember, they said the exact same thing in October of 2022. That was well after the war in Ukraine started, they should have known by then that they weren't gonna make it. Took them till late January 2023 to even acknowledge the obvious delay. The last 2 weeks have had no Phantom Friday anything. We've had 2 videos released recently that basically just discuss development features, nothing about actual flying, weapons employment, systems, cold start, etc. They have 10 days left until winter 23-24 ends on the spring equinox. Without these videos and with no release date yet on Steam to allow those users to preorder, it is highly likely we see yet another delay. I'm sure the delay will let the module release in a better state, but it seems like they're trying to avoid admitting there will be a delay to the last possible second despite also saying they would let us know as soon as there is a delay. I'm tired of seeing release windows for things I'm excited for being either outright stated or implied by the devs and then missed, usually with little to no acknowledgment of the delay. I don't have any problems with devs not giving a release date. However, if they aren't going to give one, I don't want to hear them make release speculations, which create expectations that then fail to happen. They need to have better internal communication and maybe a dedicated media person to prevent miscommunications such as the recent "announcement for the announcment of the F-4 release date announcment" that turned out to be not even be an accurate statement as to what was planned. Sometimes no communication other than "we're still here working on it", is the best way to go about things. The community will speculate regardless, so there's no reason for the devs to do it too.

Brain damaged I guess? It is weird formatting that the numbers come after the description, standard practice should be the label first, then the description and list format is probably better than paragraph format, especially as this is the legend for the image. (2) Heads Up Display Indicator. I assume this means what mode the gunsight is in and that seems to be what that stack does so probably correct. (3) Flight Instrument Brightness Knob. That's definitely what that is since it's a knob labeled "FLT INST" and has markings for "OFF" and "BRT" (4) Nose/Tail Arming switch. That's what that is, idk what to tell you. 4 marks a 3-position switch that marked "ARM" with positions for Nose, Nose/Tail, and Tail.

Who knows, they said on the Discord that no video was planned for last weekend. Don't even think we got a screenshot. Makes me wonder...

I was under the impression based on some stuff I've seen in various places that there was a large debate on whether or not the F-16 could carry fire all 4 HARMs it can carry and whether or not it should have the Litening II or the LANTIRN pod. Fantasy vs. reality seems to be up for debate depending on the exact date and block number being modelled. Some things I've seen about the F-18 seem to say that it shouldn't have some versions of the AGM-84 that it does. And then some additions to the Ka-50 also have caused sketpicism as to what is really supposed to be there and what isn't. Not saying these are incorrect, but I have seen information in various posts that seem to have it both ways so who's to say that certain items aren't fantasy? Is it ED because they make the modules? Or is it up to the various SMEs and manuals that may also have conflicting information to the aircraft as presented. To be clear, I only want them to add proper door gun mounts (for doorguns only use) and allow various hardpoints to be removed separately like the line cutters, flare pods, and forward minigun mounts. These are verifiably UH-1H capabilities and as such should be added to the module as development time permits. Why they weren't added in the first place, who knows... As for the other stuff, sure make a new version, I want a period correct version just as much as the next guy, which I also said that in my post but apparently you ignored that part. Well they have, take the F-5 for instance. The AIM-9J has been in DCS since last year and yet we are living in a fantasy world where the DCS F-5 doesn't have access to the AIM-9J when it verifiably had access to it in real life. I would classify not having it as a fantasy. I mean they added the AIM-9P3 to it and that one is newer in game than the J. Then there's the debate on gun dispersion and the accuracy of the gunsight. There's also the various issues with AI weapons like the S-3B. In what world did the S-3B ever field the USAF variants of the AGM-65 like the D? It didn't, it used the Navy versions, which despite being in game already aren't available to the S-3 and instead we get the USAF ones which it shouldn't have. Definitely a fantasy addition. ED can say whatever they want, but actions speak a whole lot louder than words. Simple fixes like adding another correct Sidewinder to the F-5 or correcting the Mavericks on the S-3 are just ignored or take forever to fix leaving those aircraft in a fantasy state.

If we as users could control the scope creep, the F-4E, A-6 AI, and early F-14A would already be released and everyone would be talking about the Eurofighter, A-6, and Naval F-4. But we can't so whether it was a waste of time or not is irrelevant now since they've already done it. But you missed the point with that comment because these failures aren't going to be random. It's going to be based on what happens to the jet, not x component fails at x time because the mission editor says so. The only randomness will be what is broken if the slider isn't set to 100. So it's way more realistic in terms of damage modelling which is kinda the whole point. This is a good thing, DCS is a game yes, but it's also marketed as a simulator so if we get better simulation of the jet, that leads to increased development time and a better product assuming the performance is decent. I was more responding to your statements on full persistence of the jet between missions, since that's not something I really want and it seemed you did. Campaigns are fine for this in my opinion, so long as it only applies to minor damage and not major damage. But cross mission damage doesn't sound like it will be implemented on launch in any case.

So, uh, OH-6 is gonna be great, but are all the modded units in the video coming with it? The C-123 and those buildings especially. I need them for... reasons

Well, there's going to be a slider in the mission editor to determine the initial wear on the jet with an option to start at the reference(brand new) aircraft. So depending on what the mission designer sets it to, nothing or a whole lot. The system also is involved in increased fidelity of damage to the aircraft or components due to forces/damage sustained during the mission. For example, Zabuzard mentioned over-Ging the pave spike because you didn't store it properly. The targeting pod suddenly not working will be very noticeable to the average user. Idk... I for one don't want full persistence anywhere outside of a campaign. And even then, a lot of damage should be repaired by maintenace before the next flight as some damage could be airworthiness issues that prevent the safe flight of the aircraft. Maybe you make it back and land with one of the horizontal stabs missing. You don't want it missing at the start of the next mission and no commander in their right mind would let that plane fly until it was repaired. Or say you bent the landing gear and it can no longer retract. It would be really stupid to break the jet on landing the day before and then come back to do the exact same mission file again the next day(or the next campaign mission) and find that the jet persisted in being broken and I now have to wait hours/days(or the standard 3 minutes) for a realistic repair just to fly the plane again. This isn't Flight Sim, this is DCS. I'm not flying from airport to airport with the goal of simulating owning and maintaining a plane in real life. I'm flying to and from one airport, through AAA and SAMs to bomb a target or shoot down the enemy. It's a different day, a different jet and a different kind of game. Not saying some persistence isn't needed or that it's not a cool addition, but it depends how and to what it is applied. If the next campaign mission requires a targeting pod, but you broke yours last time, do you get a new one? If there are none left, do you get to switch to dumb bombs? Scrub the mission while you wait for a replacement? Most campaigns right now are way too scripted to allow major components to stay damaged. I could see maybe some instruments staying damaged forcing you to navigate differently or rely on other instruments to make up for what got damaged. Or the wear on the landing gear tires and hydraulic pistons. Or a dimmer bulb. And how do you balance fatigue damage? Say you're just flying along quite happily when an hour into the mission your wing suddenly falls off for "no apparent reason." Sure you had some hard landings and pulled a lot of G's throughout the campaign previously, but should that really matter in DCS? And do you then fail the mission just because you flew the plane not quite right a week ago when you did the last mission? Not sure about you, but to me that would be seriously frustrating because I may not have time to just start the mission over and I think a failure like that, while realistic, would be stupid in terms of the game. And then if I did start it over, would my wing fall off again or would I get a brand new aircraft? Am I just stuck at that point and it requires a full restart of the campaign to fix it? What's to stop people from just doing the DCS ground crew repair function at the beginning of each mission? If you never close the mission or respawn the jet(like on a MP server), my understanding based on what has been said is that it will persist unless repaired. So you have that although most servers reset at least once a day.

I agree, though the Avenger fits better since everything else we are getting/have and Marianas WWII is gonna be 1944 as well by which time the Dauntless was pretty much phased out. Could also go with the Helldiver. Now if we get a Midway map at some point...

Not that you guys have any time whatsoever for the foreseeable future, but the Pacific theatre seems to be heating up. Maybe we eventually see something multicrew like the TBM Avenger to fit the 1944 time period most of it seems to be. Jester as a navigator/bombardier and/or tailgunner would be very interesting, plus we don't yet have any WWII bombers much less torpedo bombers in general. Just an off topic thought.

Keep in mind that this system includes things like lightbulbs that aren't the same brightness. Some other part of the electrical system could have a failure that reduces the voltage input to a specific bulb, but it's still enough to power the bulb albeit dimmer than the others. Or some contacts could get dirty or loose causing intermittent power, it depends on how good the maintenance on the jet is. Motors definitely have this sort of degradation and they have said this applies to the Pave Spike motors. One motor could be faster than the other since it is less worn out. Partial failures and wear are definitely not out of the ordinary for various electrical components. As for hydraulics, they've already showcased the sticking landing gear piston that causes judders during gear extension. That would be a degradation even though the component is still serviceable. Problems can always develop between maintence checks, not everything lasts till it times out, especially on a fighter aircraft in active use. If you want to talk instruments, just watch the latest video. They showcase various part failures of the altimeter, e.g. a stuck needle or barrel causing a partial failure of the instrument. Not every part that could break is only licensed to do a specific number of hours. The altimeter gets a check, it doesn't get replaced after x number of hours. Same for the electrical stuff. You wouldn't swap out a G1000 system after x hours because that's not a consideration or limitation on that system. You do checks on it at intervals and repair/replace when things break or go out of tolerances. Bearings on an instrument are another example. The F-4 is analog, which means lots of mechanical and less digital. Older more worn out gryoscopic instruments will not perform identical to brand new parts due to wear in the internal components. That doesn't mean they can't and aren't used until they actively break or go out of tolerances. It either works or it doesn't is true, but degradation is still present even in a system that functions within tolerance. This is one of the reasons why tolerances exist in the first place.

They've said yes, but that Steam requires a release date which they are unwilling to give at this time.

Tbf, if you're looking for the Vietnam missile experience, just fire outside of the missile parameters e.g. the second you get tone. Tone is no gaurantee of a hit with the AIM-9J and the AIM-7E/E-2 will also be fun to mess around with.

For weapons to fail it would have to be while on the jet since once it leaves the jet, ED is in control. Third parties only control how the weapon interfaces with the aircraft, not the weapon's behavior itself.

New year, new bump. I saw the recent AIM-9P3 got added to the F-5, so why on earth wasn't the AIM-9J? And while we're making new missile like the P3, let's go ahead and make the AIM-9E which is needed not only for the F-5, but the F-4E and F-100D.

A-4 can't without SDK access as confirmed by the FAQ. Guided weapons are locked behind the SDK which isn't available for modmakers.

This is why I like Reflected's campaigns. The primary win condition of each mission is pretty much to survive and get back to base, just like real life. It doesn't matter how many planes you shoot down or if you hit the target or never even dropped your bombs. I'm looking forward to see what he does with the F-4 as he hinted at something to do with Paradise Lost, but said a full Vietnam campaign would have to wait for a Vietnam map.

Just take enough bombs that it doesn't matter. Obliterate the target and everything else in the general area. Or use one of the various guided munitions.