NytHawk

The JF17 was built with much less information on it, and it turned out to be a great module. The development of the JSF is by far the most public of any fighter aircraft in history, and LM really loves showing off its capabilities, and their own simulators on it. Sure, ED will need to take liberties in many aspects of the development, but frankly I don't see an issue with that as long as performance is believable. The F35 compared to everything else in the game is going to be an absolute spaceship in terms of capability, so i don't see how being slightly off in performance is going to make a major issue.

BN confirmed its FF in the ED discord.

Well there are several dozen hours online showing F35 simulators being used, i'd imagine much of the modelling for the F35 will be based off of them. The F35s development is by far the most publicized in history, and they also released quite a lot of real world demonstrations of sensor capabilities. You have to remember the JF17 was developed and released, with MUCH less real world documentation around it. Sure, ED will need to take some liberties making the F35... but i feel like it has the potential to be a great module regardless.

This is where i would make a VIP from any reference steerpoint (such as bullseye), and then make an offset aimpoint to said target. Wags has a basic video of this, and it is mentioned in the F16 manual.

Can you send a trk file, or elaborate on when this usually happens? I have never had any issues with the HTS apart from when i had borked my INS by forgetting to set it to NAV.

AS-30Ls can definitely be lased by a JTAC or another aircraft. But there is zero evidence (to my knowledge) of them being integrated onto any mirage except the EQ.

I don't disagree with you posting photos here, however several people do feel like MiG-29 discussion is drowned out... which is respectable. A dedicated thread for posting images would be great imo, however i don't think there is anything objectively wrong about posting images here. No need for anybody to be getting angry.

The HAF manual states that the F100 powered Bl.52 can be started using any JFS position, while the F110 powered Bl.50 should be started using START 2. All CCIP standard aircraft have high levels of cockpit commonality, and it has gone to the extent of sharing the JFS switch.

I am aware of the limitations in a doppler-only proximity fusing system, that's why it would be useful to have a fixed range around the aircraft in which the missile will always detonate. Obviously we don't know what this minimum range is for the AMRAAM, but frankly it doesn't matter in terms of gameplay knowing that its current detonation radius almost always results in an instant kill.

After some research, it appears the VT fuze (developed in WW2) overcame this issue as it triggered once the doppler shift of the received waves dropped below a certain threshold, and when the amplitude of the returning waves went above a threshold. As you and Default have inferred to before, this would be the optimal way to consistently destroy, or heavily damage aircraft, If this technology existed back in the 1940s, I'd say its almost certain it has been implemented on missiles like the AMRAAM.

The great thing about a 1960s setting (in my opinion), is that basically everything has a chance. Most fights are determined purely by who spots the other first. The speed alone of the F104 will allow it to choose when it engages, and let it GTFO instead of dogfighting.

That's your issue. Currently, the F16 is the only aircraft which requires you to boresight your AGM-65s if you intend to use TGP handoff. You don't need to boresight your mavericks if you are using BORE/VIS mode.

Might be a redundant question, but have you boresighted your mavericks? You need to do that on every F16 cold start if you want to use TGP handoff.

Do you mind elaborating on what each component of this equation refers to? Especially knowing at least a part of it appears to be written in Russian, which many of us don't speak. Also in an assumption that this equation is relevant to the effective range of a warhead against specific aircraft, I personally don't see how would this educate us about how proximity fuses are programmed on specific missiles?

Most airfields in DCS should have some static trucks in which you can boresight mavs to

My goodness, what an idea! Why didn't I think of that!

TMS down is only for vertical scan, or entering NO RAD state when currently in an ACM mode. (Screenshot from page 348 of the latest manual version) If this does not line up with that is happening to you in DCS, please upload a .trk file.

I'm not sure what you mean by toggle? Do you mean that the HUD goes back to the NO RAD state whenever you're in any ACM mode and press TMS aft? To my knowledge this is intentional, and its always been like this.

Yeah, but its not as funny killing ships in the Viggen as it is with the C101

I'm assuming when you say external tanks, you mean the underwing bags? As you only need CAT III for A2G ordinance or wing bags.

Interesting

I was being careful about maneuvering too much because the AIM-9B is obviously quite easy to outmaneuver. Before this update, the amount of flares i deployed would have been absolutely overkill in any situation. Your video definitely does show the 9B falling for flares, however at 0:41 i think there *may* be a possibility of you maneuvering too hard and exiting the 9Bs seeker FOV and then just tracking flares normally. I am not an expert with the 9B obviously.

Here is a .trk file of an AI F4 shooting an AIM-9B at a player controlled F16 spamming flares while in a gentle turn. 9B_FLARE_NOEFFECT.trk

Will upload a track shortly.

Just did a few tests with an AI F-5E shooting a 9B. It will consistently still hit when you are manually dumping flares as fast as possible in the F16 using afterburner while doing a very slow turn.