Hatman335

Do you think the aircraft would be flyable by average players if they don't add DAFCS at all to early access?

Not calling it 'force trim' and it not existing are two entirely different things.

I'm just speculating, but I think they are referring to the functions of the 'CD rel' switch. As for not being available in EA, they said that hold modes aren't going to make it in either, so the DAFCS itself will be limited.

Exactly, we could definitely write something like that specific to DCS, but if the module is in limbo, it could be a total waste of time.

No one knows when it's coming. It could be coming shortly, or it could be coming at the end of the year, or even next year. We've had 4-5 different release window estimates in the past. It's basically it. Customers are the necessary evil for companies. When regular users actually get the module, people will be struggling, complaining and finding bugs (or think they are finding bugs, but in fact they are just simple user errors). Dealing with that takes time, effort but doesn't generate any extra money. Content creators require some managing and help but they are actually generating much more money than individual users, so it makes sense why companies prioritize them instead of sending it out for regular users.

Tactics, techniques and procedures.

I have thought about eventually working on a community 3-3 but with the future of the module being somewhat uncertain, I don't want to bother. I'll work on the project once we get some sort of good news and further updates.

Bug.

Is the IR variant of the AGM-130 planned as well in the future?

Amazing to see such sensible comments that clearly explain where the issue really lies.

I know that, but unfortunately people have a great way to twist any small possible ambiguity into something that they want to hear. People want the F-4 to run really well on any system. A single word in that entire message can perhaps be interpreted in two different ways, yes, I fully agree that if someone reads the entire message without wishful thinking and bias can clearly see that Cobra is saying that currently it runs worse than the F-14. But people are emotional creatures and they ignore the context, just focus on the single word that could, in theory mean what they want it to mean and now there's a debate about this on Discord once every day.

Since a lot of people argue about this particular line and think you're saying that it currently runs better than the F-14, could you please clarify what you meant? For a given system, on average, currently at the time of writing this message, does it run better or worse than the F-14?

Heatblur already blasted through like the last 5-6 release window estimates. It's clear that for some reason, their estimates are not accurate at all, so believing in the 'Winter' deadline is just a way to set yourself up for disappointment. Expect sometime this year, but I doubt even they know when it's actually coming out.

The new logic in newer suites that you guys are referring to is the ability to create a moving target track with the acquisition cursor function. That will calculate a lead impact point and it will have the ability to automatically lead with the laser. This wasn't required to be effective though, Strikes dropped plenty of movers with the old school method.

Sure, but the current discussion is about why someone would think that the Russian government is in fact rational in this instance.

That's not what my argument is about. Tavo89 pointed out that this restriction on the side of the Russian government is irrational and has no practical purpose. GGTharos retorted with saying that Tavo89 (and by extension, anyone from here) isn't qualified to judge how the Russian government is worried about their safety. I strongly disagree with this, the argument about the aircraft being a completely open book to NATO is a very good point that demonstrates that them worrying about their safety regarding a video game module is an irrational position since the US has had access to the actual aircraft and they have been extensively used in NATO countries. The argument that you're responding to has nothing to do with ED and their decisions, only with the decisions and attitude of the Russian government.

The first assumption is that ED could use German or other European data to model the jet. Now let's look at the facts. US pilots have been on exchange tours with the Luftwaffe after the German reunification. NATO allies like Poland and Hungary has operated the type.US pilots also did DACT against Hungarian Migs. Explain to me, what 'secrets' would a full fidelity module allow the US and NATO uncover through DCS that they couldn't uncover using the real jets?

Hell yeah bro, never stop fighting the good fight. I hope ED change their mind on this one.

Dunno, I don't speak Russian. You may have better luck asking about the laws on the Russian forum. I do know that Chizh has commented in English that due to the current state of affairs they are not willing to risk it and that's good enough for me. Since every dev knows that Russian jets would sell well, if the possibility is there, someone will eventually start working on it. This of course also depends on whether or not a dev team would think that a 70s era Mig-25P was a financially smart business decision to develop, which may not be the case at all.

When the potential risk of "trying to get things done" is an unpaid vacation to a Russian prison, it makes sense why people tend to be more cautious. If the Russian government does not allow the Mig-25 to be modelled, trying to find a sneaky way around it is not the ticket to a long and happy life.

Nah, he's the FLIR man. We need him to rework the FLIR and general seeker behaviour all across the sim.

@Vibora I apologize for pinging but I have seen you on several occassions reading the thread, would it be possible for you to comment on which variant is planned or is this still something that you can't talk about or it's undetermined? Thank you in advance.

There's no evidence that a Su-22 is in development. A 9.12 is not modern. That's almost a 40 year old platform.

Thank you guys. Is the implementation of those modes similar to the 2000C? Meaning you get CCIP with high drags and CCRP with low drags and the CCRP mode uses that diamond to visually designate your target, or is it a different implementation?

So do you think that even the M won't have CCIP/CCRP?