Stackup

Or maybe, IronMike and Zabuzard have confirmed on the Discord yet again that there will in fact be a preorder on Steam and it will in fact be the same discount as everywhere else. Just a thought. Maybe people should, idk, check with multiple sources before posting something that is no more than a poorly informed opinion.

The answer to this is the same as the last hundred times it's been asked... Yes, there will be a preorder on Steam. No, it is not ready yet because Steam will not approve without at least a guess on a release date which Heatblur is obviously unwilling to give them since the product page still says "Coming Soon"

I thought that was just an A and B model thing. If the C model could do it, why can't ours? All the other FC3 aircraft that can have them.

All as in more than 1 default skin? All I see is my custom skins, the ones I downloaded from userfiles, and the campaign ones that haven't been updated yet.

Mag3 new screenshot from Facebook.

Thanks for the clarification, I only know how it works in general not all the little details.

The FAQ is your friend. Q: Will there be a Navy F-4? A: Yes! Our Phantom journey only begins with the -E. However, owing to the complexity of the work and investment of time and effort, it will not be included in the DCS: F-4E product. We’re instead choosing to focus on providing the most content rich F-4E we possibly can, and then set our sights on further telling the legendary story of the F-4.

The key here is single target. The Sparrow is a SARH missile (semi-active radar homing) and needs a constant positive lock, for example an STT (single target track) will work while a mode like TWS (track while scan) that can be used to fire Pheonixes or AMRAAMs won't work with the Sparrow. The target is painted by the radar and the Sparrow looks for the return from the target to home in. Therefore, if you're in the Tomcat and launch a Sparrow on a target and then lock someone else and fire again, of course the first missile is trashed, you stopped painting its target. The only limit to how many Sparrows an aircraft can fire at a single target is how many you are carrying and if you can maintain radar lock. This works in the F-14, the same as it does in the F-15, F-18, and eventually the F-4.

It's probably not a bug, but this isn't the place to ask anyways. The Tomcat is made by Heatblur and they have their own entire forum section complete with a specific bugs & problems section for the F-14. https://forum.dcs.world/forum/258-dcs-f-14a-amp-b/ I don't normally use waypoints in the F-14, so the only suggestion I can give would be to make sure your HSD mode switch is set to TID and not NAV.

Has anyone managed to get custom refueling pod textures to work for the S-3? And if so, how?

@Flappie You're welcome, thanks for the reply. Yes, that all looks correct except for the failure mode. I believe that the amber light would be off in that scenario as the "hydraulic failure state" renders the pod inoperable, which should eliminate the "ready state" logic the amber light is tied to. This would be because if the pod systems/electronics recognizes that fuel cannot flow(due to hydraulic malfunction) and turns the red light on, it should also then be able to recognize that it is not "ready to go" and turn the amber light off. I am not entirely sure about this one as I couldn't find more information on the hydraulic failures or internal systems, but logically speaking the pod would not be designed to show "malfunction" and "ready" signals at the same time in order to prevent confusion.

Well, currently the E we have in game was recently renamed as the AIM-7E2 which we should be getting for the Phantom. However, it is still using the AIM-7F/M/P external model and does not look how it is supposed to in more ways than just being gray instead of white. Heatblur has confirmed they have redone the external model but has not released any screenshots of it.

The light position and signal logic is incorrect on the D-704 buddy store. In DCS, the Amber light is above the Green light. This should be the opposite. On the logic side, the Amber light comes on when the hose is deploying, this should not happen until the pod is in a "ready" state, i.e. the hose is fully deployed and the system is ready. When the hose is fully deployed, the Amber light stays on, and the Green light turns on now too. This is again incorrect as the Green light only comes on when fuel is flowing to the Aircraft, so it shouldn't be on until and aircraft is hooked up and fuel is flowing. Finally, once the aircraft is hooked up and pushes the hose in a little bit, as should be necessary for the fuel flow to begin(and the green light to turn on and amber to turn off), all the lights start blinking. This is incorrect as only the Amber light should blink, and it should only blink if the pilot has pushed the drogue too far forward causing fuel flow to stop and the Green light to go out. The Red light only turns on when there is a hydraulic malfunction inside the pod preventing fuel flow. So in other words, unless adding tanker failures into DCS is planned, the Red light should never turn on. So in this situation, the Amber light should be on as it is, but the Green light should not be on as fuel is not flowing. In this situation, the Green light should be on to show fuel is flowing and the Amber light should be off. I can't show blinking in a screenshot (that's what the track file is for), but here is all 3 lights being turned on and blinking. In this situation, if the pilot has indeed pushed the drogue too far forward(which in this case I highly doubt it), only the Amber light should be on and blinking to signal this. Here's a real D-704 pod showing the correct lighting layout with Green in the upper left and Amber in the lower left. The Red light is in the correct spot already in DCS. And here's an article again explaining the proper signal logic for the lights: https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/06/things-under-wings-inflight-refueling.html "The green light on the upper left indicated that fuel was flowing to the receiving airplane. The yellow light on the lower left, when steady, indicated that the store was ready; when flashing, it indicated that the receiving pilot had pushed the drogue/basket too far forward and fuel flow to the probe had stopped. The red light on the upper light turned on when there was a hydraulic failure in the store so fuel couldn't be transferred." If this could be fixed that would be great as the pod lights are integral to performing aerial refueling and correct positioning as well as whether fuel is flowing from the pod. D-704 Incorrect Pod lights.trk

https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/06/things-under-wings-inflight-refueling.html This is a good summary of the D-704 refueling pod and includes the light indications for both versions. In DCS, the S-3 has the later version with 3 lights. The light position and signals are incorrect in DCS. Here's how it should work: The green light on the upper left indicated that fuel was flowing to the receiving airplane. The yellow light on the lower left, when steady, indicated that the store was ready; when flashing, it indicated that the receiving pilot had pushed the drogue/basket too far forward and fuel flow to the probe had stopped. The red light on the upper light turned on when there was a hydraulic failure in the store so fuel couldn't be transferred.

Well, now the description.lua issue has been solved, I started the VS-32 CAG bird. It's pretty rough right now, the leading edge of the vertical is split into at least 8 segments which are not always close to each other or in places that make sense resulting in alignment shenanigans. I also still haven't found the tip top of the tail for rudder or stab either.

@seb37 Scorch71 figured out the S-3 lua and posted a VS-28 skin on the user files section. Glad we have people in this community who are able to figure this stuff out. Finally able to paint the S-3 properly! Scorch71's livery: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3334224/

Yes, but we were discussing reconnaisance in general. Which is why I brought it up.

Hopefully we see the AIM-9E eventually because I believe Grinnelli confirmed it for the F-100 and it fills the rather large gap between the B and J.

Hopefully we'll get some form of reconnasiance feature with the TARPS pod instead of it just being deadweight. Maybe it just outputs a screenshot with the TARPS symbology on it or however the pictures looked. Although an RA-5 would definitely be an interesting aircraft to fly. RF-8 could be good too.

Wait, if the E doesn't fit the elevators were the RF-4B's just stored on deck at all times? AFAIK those are pretty much the same length. Could be wrong though.

No I am not kidding and you must be terribly misinformed, they never ever promised an F-14D and have repeatedly stated as much so often that it has become a meme at this point. This is an actual example of "We'd like to do a D and B/U, but we do not have the information necessary to do so to DCS standards". The F-14A-95GR to my understanding was the block designation given to the Iranians, where did you hear that wasn't real life? They have also repeatedly said the Iranian F-14 is a bonus version (Which wasn't in the original announcment I might add) and is going to be the Early 135GR with some systems disabled, not an exact replica of an Iranian Tomcat. Me and I assume others as well. For those who don't buy the E because they wanted a Naval F-4, there's Heatblur's market to make and sell one. And as Heatblur has repeated, the Naval and Air Force Phantoms are different enough to warrant a separate module. They would know more about that subject than either of us since they are in the business of making modules and listening to their customers. Others besides you have expressed very strong anti-F-4E sentiments and very pro-navy F-4 sentiments. They have seen this and knew it would happen which is why they already beat you to the punch in the FAQ stating they are making a Naval F-4 as well. The same thing happened with complaints about Jester, now we are getting a much imporved and scriptable Jester AI. the same thing also happened with the IRIAF Tomcat where there was much clamoring for one and they added it to the F-14 as a bonus.

I'm really tired of this "it will never happen" or "it was never promised" BS. You are verifiably wrong and if you would just read the FAQ you would realize this. "Yes!" is a promise, not a maybe... If you want more reciepts about possible release times and how much heatblur cares about the naval F-4, here you go. Here we see Cobra saying that the Naval F-4 is "not a distant afterthought" And here we see that the subforum itself is DCS: F-4 Phantom, NOT DCS: F-4E Phantom like the current posts within that forum. The subforum is not specific because it will cover ALL phantom variants released by Heatblur. Now let's jump over to Discord where IronMike talks about pricing and reiterrates it will be a separate module(different aircraft) and why they will be separate. And finally we're back to Cobra with the news (which shouldn't really come as a surprise) that the Naval Phantoms "will take precedence once the -E is complete and out of Early Access". Wow, so just like with the F-14, they aren't really working on mulitple versions at once, they are doing the E, and then once they're done with that, they will work on a naval variant. Is the naval variant coming after the Eurofighter and A-6? Likely yes as Ironmike confirmed that the current release roadmap is F-4E, Eurofighter, and A-6E with the naval phantoms to then come as Cobra said after the E exits Early Access. Again, we never see the word "if" in any of this, it's always, when, where, and how which show just like everything else that they have promised a Naval F-4 and intend to deliver on it. So just learn to be patient and wait, just like everyone else is doing for every other DCS module that has been announced already and taking years to develop with little news. The A-6 for example, which was announced before the F-4E and before Heatblur took over the Eurofighter, and we still don't have the AI model. Or the 10 year on-off development of the Strike Eagle. Or literally any other DCS module for that matter, this stuff takes time and whining NEVER makes the module you want release faster.

We really need our own A-6 forum section. (I know IronMike said it wasn't time yet but still, cough, cough pretty please ) The Mirage F1 has an optional glare shield (sun visor tube thingy) for it's radar scope and the backseater in the F1BE version has the same thing(although that one isn't removable afaik) for the HUD. It will likely be optional if they do add it and they probably will if it was common enough. I will say you don't need it at night and the A-6 is an all-weather day/night medium attack aircraft after all. Like you said, some people might not find it fun, but it will be simulated as much as possible, this is Heatblur and DCS afterall. I prefer piloting myself, and Jester is getting a serious overhaul with 2.0, but the BN will have to do everything like in the real jet, same as the pilot. It's not like a hard and fast rule that you have to stay head down, but there was a lot of navigation done soley based on the radar picking out reference points on the ground, especially in the earlier models so staying head down for that is more important. One other note, the pilot didn't have an MFD, it was a VDI similar to the Tomcats. The BN/bombing computer could send steerpoints to the pilot to ensure proper headings during navigation and bombing like you said. I do think it's a bit funny/cool that the A-6 VDI display had little clouds in the sky area. I believe that the box in the middle of the screen is the course marker and the triangle below angled with it to help the pilot visualize the flight path and corrections.

The persistence of wear and tear is mainly for campaign and mission makers, not the wear and tear system itself. It is a base feature of the F-4E and as such will be active for all F-4E's unless the feature is disabled by the mission designer. Having the wear level persist between missions in DCS only makes sense during a campaign. I can design a mission to be flown over the Marianas and one to be flown over Syria, and I certainly do not want the F-4 I fly over Marianas and wore down the components in to be transferred over to Syria where I then have the same damaged components. Maintenance is a thing and I shouldn't have to tell DCS to virtually maintain my virtual aircraft with virtual tools outside of requesting repair on the runway. This is why leaving it up to the mission designer like they are is a good thing.