Eviscerador

The main issue here is that they need to tweak the RCS depending on the number of pylons and ordenance and my educated guess is they still haven't started the work on the revamped RCS system.

I suppose they will do something like Razbam was planning to do in the Mudhen, launching bare bones and then upgrading the different weapons and loadouts.

Most likely server owners will set the external pylons of the F35 to always on to boost the RCD to manageable levels. Also, do you really believe people will fly with just 4 AMRAAM or 2 AMRAAM and 2 GBU31? We will see beast mode all day That being said, more AI opponents with the same level of tech would be welcome. Like a J20 by Deka, super hornets or SU57.

I will only say that I chuckle a bit everytime anyone brings the "warthunder" meme to this module. I had the pleasure of talking with one pilot who tested the lightning simulator when they were offering it to our air forces and all he could say was: "it's like playing a video game, ace combat, warthunder, you name it. Everything is on the helmet display and you click on anything and you have all information available at the ready" So yeah, a realistic F35 is closer to ace combat UI than to our current 4th gen birds interface. You don't need to know how the aesa radar works, just what it can do and how it shows on the display, which is open source.

That already happens today. two of the most popular A2A modules are flaming cliffs ones mixed with full fidelity hornets, vipers and tomcats.

Most Razbam Devs have stated that if the time comes they are happy to return to their child and finish it. Most of them were freelancers hired per project, as it is normal in this market. Of course they first must be paid for their previous work. When will that happen? A legal procedure can take years if no party agrees to a friendly agreement. Whatever happens both parties are pretty screwed, specially if more <profanity> keeps hitting the fan and spreads out of the forums/Reddit/discord.

Data Transfer Cartridge. Think of it like it is a USB pendrive with all the mission information that you plug into the plane. But all military, very big, boxy, sturdy, unnecesarilly complex and coded.

The F16 does have a system similar to the F18 in which you can introduce PP coordinates in the mission computer for the bombs. But it is not implemented, supposedly it will come with the DTC.

Just a heads up that this is not corrected. I just put the liveries in my custon liveries folder at Saved Games and everything works now, but by default it doesn't work. It is a pity, because the campaign skin is really cool.

I'm pasting here some info about the Package Q strike in the Desert Storm war. The biggest strike by F16 in history. Just to show your team that even if the F16 is not a warthog, it can and it had survived hits from SAM and AA fire in the past. On pilot survivability, both the vipers shot down that day (one by direct impact from a SA3 and another one by a glancing hit) had their pilot survive, one of them even flew 150 miles until the engine failed. Currently almost any hit to the plane means the pilot is dead (mostly because all weapons aim at the pilot head instead of the CG of the plane) Here is the recap of the damaged viper transmission. We don't expect the Viper to have the same level of survivability than the A10C has, but something in the middle between that and being a paper plane like it is now.

It works in the way that you are hit and you die. But for example look at the A10 damage model, now that's a proper damage model. Same the Ka50. I'd love the viper to have that kind of detailed damage model so we can have an excuse to use the EPU and other auxiliary emergency systems the viper has.

So it is not complete. It has a re-evaluation planned and might or might not be released due to lack of open sources. I hope you also re-evaluate the roadmap post accordingly

That I can understand but then why does it remain on the roadmap? If we are not using lantirn because legal and open source reasons, then just remove it. You can't say it's complete when we are using a litening with made up symbology that might be similar to Lantirn one. Lantirn is IR only, lantirn doesn't have mechanical zoom, just two lenses and a digital expand mode. Lantirn resolution is worse than litening by a lot. And above all, when I put a pod on the arming screen it says "Litening pod" there isn't any Lantirn available to fit in the jet. Saying the Lantirn as a completed feature in the roadmap is just false advertising. We don't have a complete lantirn. We don't have a Lantirn at all. Just scratch that from the roadmap, just cross out the feature, explain that it is not coming due to lack of open sources and everything is fine. Pushing "complete features" which are non existent is not the best PR strategy when ED is now in a PR battle with one of its 3rd parties, which coincidentally have developed a Lantirn. I hope the company reconsider this issue.

Eh... I just checked the roadmap and why is the LANTIRN on green but we are still using the Litening/LANTIRN frankenpod?

You are correct. For IP the altitude is also a Delta and in case you want to put it in negatives you need to press the M-SEL button.