PhantomHans

Any idea if the AGM-45B will ever be an official part of the 4E module? Played around with it unofficially and I think it's better. It's actually hitting maybe 50/50 if I can keep a radar locked on me till impact.

You know. Sometimes, you have to wing it a little bit. If they would add it without the datalink and simply say "Datalink classified, it's not here." then that would be perfectly fine by me. You don't get the datalink, but we get the jet. If they would add it with a fictional "This is close to how it works but not exactly it" datalink, then that would be perfectly fine by me. You don't get the datalink, but we get the jet with A datalink. If they would add it with the US datalink, "Hey this one does the thing, but it's not really right", I'm still OK with that. We still get the jet, and we get a datalink. They could do that, and say "You'll get the right thing later, when it's declassified, in 40 years". But some people just can't compromise, and so, they get to have nothing instead. ETA: What I think they should do, is to do the best job they can. If they decide to make the J-35 and/or JA-37 as playable FC3 level modules, I will purchase if the price is right. If they have to leave something out, it should be declared that it was left out, and explained why it was left out. If they decide to do a substitution or to just "make something up", then they should declare what was done, and explain why. That's all. I think in a simulation it's perfectly acceptable to say openly "Hey, we didn't really know how this worked, it's all classified anyway, so, here's our best guess, this is why." and give it a shot.

Wait until they find out about Tritium illuminated clocks...

Same here, and... I would be glad to pay money for a JA-37 without datalink, or with a fictional datalink to perform the function without revealing classified secrets, with a datalink just taken from the F-14 module, etc. Anything, really, to get the JA-37 into the game. In fact, I would be perfectly happy to pay for an FC3 level cockpit and avionics module of both the J-35 and JA-37, provided that the weapons, radar, and flight models were up to DCS standards. Meaning that basically, I want to interact with the radar in a realistic way, I want the radar to perform in a realistic way, I want the jet to fly and maneuver in a realistic way, and I want its weapons to be employed and to perform in a realistic way, however I am willing to overlook simplifications and omissions elsewhere. I'm hoping that the Kola map will allow a campaign builder like @Reflected to cook up some REAL good stuff for us in the future... One of my first flight sims was Fleet Defender. Three of the six campaigns in it were centered around the "North Cape", basically that map extended a bit further south than what we have in game. Those of you who had it will remember: "Fighting Withdrawal" - The Soviets attack south through Norway, hopping from airbase to airbase, while TU-95s try to locate your carrier group. Failure to keep them away means TU-22s and TU-16s attacking your carrier group in large numbers. On land, NATO fights a losing battle and tries to escape. "Return to Norway" - Your carrier group comes back, this time with another CVN, with the goal of sinking the Soviet fleet and assisting amphibious landings to take back Norway. Failure means large numbers of land based strike fighters like SU-17 and SU-25 coming after your fleet with TU-16/22 not far behind. "Kola Strike" - Attacks against Soviet bases on the Kola peninsula. I say remake it. Those had F-14s flying CAP and Intercept, and escorting F/A-18s, A-6s, and A-7s attacking land and sea targets. Norwegian F-16s defending their home bases. Sweden and Finland were neutral in those scenarios, and Swedish Viggens and Finnish MiG-21s would attack any airspace violators. The Soviets had MiG-29s and SU-27s protecting their air assets.

Dumb question but....Does it need the flashlight shined on it first? lol

I'm guessing the Soviets/Russians just haven't found this to be a requirement. But wasn't there a derivative, SU-30something, that could do drop tanks?

Just curious here, am I supposed to be waiting for the INS Alignment? I'll admit, as much as I love the F-14, and all of the other aircraft in DCS, I can't actually be bothered to do the start ups myself. I always just use the assisted start up hotkey. That leaves me waiting for quite a while for the INS alignment, which can...Take some time...

For some reason, I want to say, in a prior patch version I think he would allow you to progress all the way through it sitting in parking.

What kind of range are you talking? At longer range the bandit could be beaming you, which I think I have seen the AI do. That will, if you maintain lock, make your Rmax suddenly drop due to the loss of closure and your ASE will collapse. At shorter range it's possible he has gotten inside of Rmin but I think you should also be getting the Break X if that happens?

Glad to hear that. My machine is doing okay with FPS, it's just randomly choking and crashing lol.

I'd love to get that, but somehow I feel like getting a 9.12S or 9.13S is going to be a lot more difficult. In the meantime offering some of the capabilities of the FC3 9.12S in the otherwise 9.12A module might at least mean people can fly the full featured one with newer missiles. Provided that it's a totally separate AC so it can be excluded where desired. Would also be a good home for things like AGM-88 or GPS bombs on MiG-29s like we've seen recently. Stuff that you can't really model accurately right now. Make it a bonus module, heck maybe even make it available offline only. Perhaps it's too 'fudgy' for all the purists who don't want their AirQuake infected by anything less than 100% realism, like making educated guesses about how an R-27EP or AGM-88 on a MiG works.

That's perhaps the most maddening part about this whole thing, the way the missiles guide. I tried loading 4x and making my F4 invulnerable so I could keep a good radar signal and watch them home in. Watching them randomly wander off and hit trucks and launchers is kinda...Yhea...

Invulnerable and unlimited ammo, coming in straight from 20,000 ft so I don't stop getting a good lock on me, 26 Shrikes to kill the SA-3 track radar. These are worthless trash right now. They'll guide towards the general direction of the radar but them actually hitting it seems like a matter of luck.

Heatblur UI starting to look like the cause of my problems. If my firewall blocks it as malicious and kills the task I have a crash instantly every mission immediately at the start. If I allow it then I just crash randomly.

You're getting hits? I'm having a harder time dodging SA-3s than SA-6/8/10 lol. Probably going to just abandon this and use MK82s or Mavericks. I'm getting close enough to use bombs but if I try getting a Shrike to do it's thing I get wasted.

If this exists I'm an idiot and don't know it. I'd like a way to create and activate a Jester config file for both F-14 and F-4. A file to tell him, in one command, for example: "I want TWS Auto, chaff on program 1, flares on program 2, bombs single, ripple quantity 4, ripple timer 100ms, fuse nose and tail, CCIP mode." Basically a way to tell him to "Set it up how I usually like it."

Are those logs still useful/valid if opening them causes Winrar to throw an unexpected end of archive message? I think I have a ton in there but all are .rar files.

I thought I noticed better performance in narrow scan than wide. I was gonna say something but...I wasn't sure. Makes me want to ask a few things... First, can we get an even lower tickrate or can we get a "Low CPU" model that's DRASTICALLY simpler and lower demand. Second, as another separate option can we get a configuration file to limit the jet to narrow scan or make it default to narrow scan and prevent Jester from going wide unless told?

I'm on an OC'd FX8350, so, yhea...Could be something else. Other than my random crashes, so far I'm reasonably happy. Reduced Tickrates seemed to improve my stability and fps slightly. I'm not familiar with OC on that chip... On air I would, after making sure something else isn't the problem, if you can OC it, do so very carefully and very mild.

What's your current CPU cooler? Air or liquid? I wouldn't expect miracles, but, for now, if you're OK with overclocking it a little bit you may get it atleast playable.

So, I'm playing on an older setup, I have HEAVILY slashed graphics settings, but find I'm able to keep 30+ FPS quite easily and often enough to get to my 60 fps limit. That said I am having very frequent random crashes. I'll be flying along with no problems or stutters, and suddenly DCS freezes. Only happens with the F-4 module. I'm noticing large numbers of HeatblurUI running at these crashes. DCS rarely offers me the chance to do a bug report. And the weirdest thing is that when it's the DCS "DCS has crashed" report instead of the Windows "program not responding" one, about 1/2 the time I can alt-tab back to DCS and keep playing. I'm hoping there's going to be a fix for this in the future even if it's going to come at the cost of sim details or something.

They did lots of other weird stuff but didn't they also "slant load" the inboard pylons at some point? 750s on the bottom and inboard TER mounts leaving room for one AIM-9 rail and missile each side?

I've had this same issue as well but I'm also just getting poor radar performance out of Jester. Flying at 13,000ft looking for targets at 15,000 to 20,000 he can't seem to find them until WVR.

Way back in rue days of LOMAC, EM was an ER with more range. EA was an ER wirh R77 seeker head. IMHO while the regular 29 shouldn't get things that are rumors or it can't actually use (As a 9.12A, I think somebody said only 10 got the R-77 launching upgrade), I think perhaps having a separate aircraft that can use them would be good for balance on some servers against modern NATO aircraft even if nothing else is changed. This may also include guided AG weapons not normally carried by a 9.12 model.

I remember reading a thread somewhere in here about R-27ER/ET/P/EP/EA/EM and R-77 for the full feature MiG-29 and the general consensus being that it wouldn't get them. That's accurate and that's fine. But at least for the time being, can we perhaps get a second one labeled as "Experimental" or something like that to allow access to those type of inaccurate or questionable weapons? That way servers can simply exclude the entire A/C that may have inappropriate features, but in SP we'll have the option to include hypothetical upgrade models of the 29 in missions.