Creampie

Here is the biggest concern one, 2 PL5s, 2 BRM pods (the weapon with the most drag on the JF17,) Same parameters, Syria, 35k, 20c 40nm Speed of mach 1.01 (0.09) slower than 2 SD10 & 2 PL5s

You can ALMOST hit mach with 2 SD10s, 2 PL5s & 2 GB-6 SFWs (0.11 slower than the subject in question....., 2x Dual rack SD10) Same parameters, Syria, 35k, 20c (40nm trip)

More testing, Both of these test are something the JF17 can not do in full burner. Same parameters, Syria, 35k, 20c - Flight time of 222nm Mach 1.33) (0.22 mach faster than a 40nm flight) null Same parameters, Syria, 35k, 20C - Flight of 222nm Mach 1.11 (0.01 Mach faster than 40nm)

I noticed some really bad drag issues with the JF17 top end speed quite some time back and never really got around to testing it. Never really needed to test it, but I don't think this is as intended. I know that the RD-93 isn't the most powerful engine & these jets don't neccasirly need to be too far above mach anyway. Below are 4 screenshots showing the fuel, speed & loadout. My question is, Is this amount of drag intentional? If so, Why? It doesn't seem to make much sense that you lose 33% of your top end speed by adding the additional 2 missiles & their pylons. I've got some testing yet to do with other weapons and will post them as well when I get a little free time. In this screenshot, With 100% fuel, we are at 35k on Syria with the temp set to 20C, Max speed of Mach 1.55, Single rack SD10 and dual PL5s In this screenshot we are 51lbs of fuel, 35k feet on Syria with the temp set to 20C, Mach 1.57, Single rack SD10 and dual PL5 This difference is a little irrelevent to my concern, As we are approaching top end speed anyway, But just for testing I wanted to see. In this screenshot, FULL FUEL, 35k, Syria, 20C, Dual rack SD10, Dual PL5s, Speed of Mach 1.10 And the last screenshot, 51lbs of fuel, Syria, 35k, 20C, Dual Rack SD10s with dual PL5s and a speed of Mach 1.15

Moved

Some pylons will show -1, some will show 1688, See post;

Any word on this?

There is a bit of an issue with lasers codes sometimes no applying to pylongs, ensure it doesn't say -1. If it does, just update to 1688

Thats seemingly good news? Would be quite annoying just spammed silent AMRAAMS on some over performing mechanic.

"Balance" Holds no value in a simulation environment other than taking away from you are trying to produce, a simulation. But I get your point of it!

I would imagine the handoff would be a bit difficult considering different bands between AWACS & Host, no? Even if that is inaccurate its likely not reliable if I had to guess.

Yeah it 100% doesn't make sense to leave things probably easily fixed by the developer broken for such a long period of time. This goes for many of the Jeff weapons unfortunately, 802 still bonked sometimes, ls6100s, LD10 supposed to be getting its explosive mass slightly increased... Respectfully ED just can't handle the work load & like you said leave it to the devs, If their concern is approval. surely it is easier to do an approval process to help keep code or whatever uniform, thats fine.

Why is it not possible for Deka to take back control of their weapons? Mainly things specific to the JF17, BRM, SD10, 802, etc. I don't understand why this method is being used, They are all weapons designed by Deka and should remain in their care. @BIGNEWY

It's for radio control, Currently not supported in DCS edit: Only UHF, Not VRC

Bump Are there plans to make the new weapon available? @BIGNEWY