PhantomHans

Tbh, while I understand that a 2003-2023 Era map is likely I really hope we get a 1990 version.

I pre-ordered the F-4E a long time ago, and TBH it along with the F-14 are probably the modules that finally convinced me to make the jump from the Wings Over Vietnam/Europe/ETC series by Third Wire and try out DCS. Six months ago I would have been screaming and yelling that I wanted to see F-4B/C/DF/G/J/N/S/F-ICE variants as well and that I was ready to hand over my credit card for them immediately if they'd work on those modules. Things are a little different now but since I'm stuck with it I'll see what I think of it when I finally get the F-4E to fly and go from there.

Was just messing around with the F-15C against some AI MiG-21Bis and... I have to say I expected getting a guns kill on a MiG-21 in an F-15 to be easier, not for the MiG-21 to be apparently faster and more maneuverable. What's the best way to handle the F-15 in close? I'm coming from having mostly flown the F-14B and apparently they're very different when going for guns kills.

Because we don't have the exact version of the F-14A that Iran has, I thought it would be better to stick with "Official" weapons for the current F-14A. I would expect that the actual dedicated Iranian one would come with that, when we eventually get it, but for the time being I think it would be nice to have some earlier weapons options on the F-14A that we DO currently have. This would serve to both better replicate the older missiles in Iranian use today and allow for better recreation of very early F-14A operations using the jet we currently have. I wouldn't want to see the weird (and possibly propaganda more than functional) things the Iranians bolt on it, but I wouldn't mind seeing the current 14A get the option to load AIM-7E's and early rear aspect AIM-9s like the USN AIM-9D/G/H series and perhaps some of the early USAF AIM-9s in Iranian service like the J. Perhaps it would have been better for me to simply label this "Early" weapons pack.

Just curious but has there been any evidence of the use of older AAMs on MiG-29 series aircraft? I always wondered this as there are many third world nations (DPRK...etc...) with large stocks of older Soviet built hardware, and with the crazy stuff that Iran has done (Soviet AAMs or US made SAMs hung on F-14s, even if only for show) was there ever any usage of older Soviet AAMs with newer platforms? Things like MiG-21/23 era weapons like the R-13 and R-24 series hung on MiG-29s?

There was, several versions ago, an Iranian weapons pack that added a few oddball Iranian weapons to the F-14 as well as earlier AIM-7/9 missiles. I am not that interested in the use of HAWK or Russian built missiles on the F-14, but can we please get the addition of some earlier AIM-7 and AIM-9 variants officially and permanently added to the F-14A/B? For example at least some of the AIM-9D/G/H/J/N/P series and AIM-7E? In the case of the AIM-7E at least the AIM-7E-4 (or E-3?) was purpose built for the F-14A and the USN AIM-9D/G/H series would certainly have been compatible and used early on. I feel like these should be easy and safe additions both for earlier USN F-14s and Iranian variants.

Can I just ask, how would the A-7 lovers feel about getting the A-7D with the A-7E cockpit in it? Personally I want the A-7 series for AI companions to my F-14s and upcoming F-4E, but I would like to have the D and maybe even A and/or B versions, even if they're fudged a little bit. Kinda like how I'd love to have a flyable navy F-4 some day. If it meant I had to deal with an E model cockpit or not have it at all, well..."squint harder"?

On one hand, I'm surprised too. On the other hand, those missiles have to take wear and tear from the catapult launches, practice dogfights, and carrier landings, right? Maybe they kept flying them in areas where they thought weren't likely to need to actually use them in order to save wear and tear on newer AIM-120s? But then again, that photo of AIM-9X and AIM-7 together, why not an old 9M...I could be wrong entirely. Also...I'm not opposed to the 18E/F/G series, I think we need them eventually so it's not really even a question for me, but I'd rather see some more cold war classics first even if they came in as AI only. A-6, A-7, EA-6B, F-4B,C,D,F,G,J,N,S (probably not all of them), F-111/EF-111, so Cold War scenarios don't have so many modern aircraft or substitutes.

Eh, might be, might not be. Tanks are and should be vulnerable to blast and overpressure, and a 500lbs bomb could definitely do the job if it were close enough. Much smaller HE charges in the right place will definitely kill tanks. Of course there could be mitigating factors in favor of the tank. Like thickest armor towards the blast, bomb partially buried in jungle mud before it went off, vegetation absorbed or broke up the blast, etc. Maybe he had even managed to eliminate the crew but the driver died with his foot on rhe gas and it just kept rolling? I wasn't there, I don't know, I'm just guessing. Generally I think you see anti armor weapons like HEAT CBUs and AP projectiles used not because HE won't work, but because HEAT CBU or an APFSDS could do the job better. More likely to get the kill, ability to bring more to the fight etc.

I didn't realize it till just now but this was sort of done already. "B-17 II: The Mighty Eighth" didn't model individual peculiarities but it did simulate aircraft being damaged after a mission and either needing to be left out of the next mission or repaired using limited time for urgent repair, or otherwise flown damaged.

Part of me feels like I should scream and yell and stomp my feet, yell about better uses of development time, or shout you down to try to prioritize what I want instead of what you want... However let me just add this: I like the suggestion and I wonder if, over the course of a long campaign, this could be used to simulate wear and tear to a squadrons aircraft? For example if you fly #201 in your first misson, it may have no peculiarities. If you over-G the airframe a lot, push the engines too hard, and make a very rough landing, when you fly it again two missions later it may sometimes have a sticky landing gear, need more trim, run a little rough at idle, etc.

I think you'd have to have a way to force disable it for multi-player. It's not the same as unlimited ammo or invulnerable but, still, level playing field and all.

BUT WHEN I SAY THAT I AM OPEN TO A QUICKER SIMPLER SOLUTION YOU CLAIM THAT IT SHOWS I DON'T WANT IT AT ALL?!?!

I'm just gonna...There was a word in there that, had you understood it, you'd realize... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preferred

I don't want any of those things and we don't need it. Get better at making missions, we don't need dynamic campaigns go play F4 if you want that. Damage models are all speculation you can't prove that it's wrong. My poll says 75% of the community wants fuzzy mirror dice instead of that stuff. That's some sarcasm but tbh that's what most people in here sounded like to me.

Yup. This. As I said before my preferred method would be something that could be turned up or down to accommodate various skill levels. Hopefully eventually I'd get to a point where I did it all myself. If ED said "The best we can do is let the AI take control. Ask to be cleared contact and the AI pilot will fill her up for you." I would also be perfectly happy. If it means I can fly the campaigns (that I paid for) in the aircraft (that I paid for) and at least get to watch it happen 1st person and hear Jester deliver his one liners, hey, not exactly what I wanted, but good enough and I would gladly say "hey they did something, time is money, Yada yadda." And move on. You can't understand why I would want that? You can't understand how or why I'd rather do that than to just go "LOL UNLIMITED FUEL" and completely turn off part of the physics for the entire flight? But no. Instead of something helpful, a bunch of people told me to try harder. Yhea. Thanks.

We have aids that change the game physics to make it easier... Game flight mode, unlimited quantities of fuel and ammo, never take damage, icons to spot them easier, radio callouts to tell you when to shoot, scalable enemy skill levels... Hey man seems like there's actually plenty of ways to change the game to make dogfighting and bombing easier. I'm glad you're an expert on the right way for me to play the game though, and an expert on what other people do and don't need. But I think it's a little sad that you can't just be content with not using an aid, you have to prevent others from even having the option. I'm not here to play virtual fighter pilot. I'm here to have some fun offline in single player. But you seem to be against that, and you can't fathom why I would want my money back in this situation? Nailed it.

I thought unlimited ammo was the aid for learning to bomb? And wouldn't you say setting enemy aircraft to Rookie and making yourself Invulnerable with unlimited cannon ammo is the aid to learn air to air gunnery? Neat! Now where's the aid to make the basket bigger?

How can you complain about me not using gameplay aids when you come in here and defecate all over my request for a gameplay aid?

There's plenty that has irritated me besides that. But I think that together with the "we don't need difficulty options, you should just get good" attitude here, was what killed my interest.

Right?! Now I just want my money back so I can leave and everyone will be happy! I completely understand that you don't want new players here. My mistake!

If anyone from Eagle Dynamics would like to take this opportunity to stop by, I'm ready, willing, and eager to take a full refund and never visit your lovely community or game ever again. Clearly it is not a product intended for such horrible novice arcade players as myself and we aren't welcome here with our fool ideas to support new and unskilled WarThunder pilots. I can't imagine why I'd want to be part of this when I can cancel my pre-order for the Heatblur F-4 and buy WT instead. Clearly more fitting of my low skill level.

Hey look there you go! A chance to do something useful!

If you'd set your mind to programming the requested feature rather than being a gatekeeping nag, it would be done by now.

If I had wished for advice I probably would have been thrilled.