Eviscerador

Is this a simulator or not? My problem now is not that the Sniper is bad (coming from the Lantirn on the Strike Eagle, it feels like a GREAT improvement) but that the litening is just too good in comparision. Also, the Litening V4 from razbam has X16 digital zoom where you can watch the face of a Stinger trooper from 25 NM, where all you should be able to see is a smudge.

Guys, I just tested the Sniper TGP and I have to say that you did a wonderful job with the video filtering. The digital zoom feels like a digital zoom, the video processing of the XR feature is top notch. You really feel like you are using a real TGP with flir instead of a reskin of the F2 camera on the MFD. Now my question is, are you planning in updating all the older TGP, mainly all the different litening implementations on ED modules as well? Or will the litening remain as a superior pod just because you have unrealistic focused and sharp digital zoom and sniper will be just for SIM hardcores and campaign developers? Because as it is now, the Sniper is inferior to the litening (and don't start me with the litening v4 of the razbam harrier) because on those the "digital zoom" is sharp and the flir cam is just a reskin of the TV cam, all sharp with no halo or smudges. The lantirn is ok in both implementations (tomcat and eagle) I'd say the FC4 images can stay because that's legacy code and should be a nightmare.

As far as I'm aware, the Litening implementation in the Hornet is the one the Spanish Hornets have, not the Marines one. They should be similar but remember that the Spaniards have full access to the hornet avionics and they develop their own stuff a la israeli.

I think they already said that if they find proper documentation their idea was to remove completely the Litening pod and leave the viper with the Sniper and the Lantirn as it was supposed to fly in 2007. But they need to find proper documentation and SME to confirm everything so it is unlikely. Current TGP is a mashup of litening and lantirn UI and features.

Great squadron and great people! I'm very fond of the memories flying with the RNLAF 313th. You train hard, learn a lot and enjoy one of the best and more immersive experiences DCS can offer you. Do you remember that Caparzo video called Eli 21 where a viper group does SEAD the good old way? Been there, done that, hunting SA 3 and SA 6 with just guts, terrain, CBU 87 and several mates lobbing HARM and Mavericks at the site, the PolAF 6th covered the skies and the 494th Mudhens (unfortunately disbanded right now) zoomed around and delivered thousands of pounds of freedom and democracy to the target. It was glorious. Don't be afraid about the requirements, they are somewhat flexible if the FNG (that's you!) is proactive and brings good manners and the correct mood to the team. I've been there, I know. Join our Discord! Ask! Enjoy!

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.

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.

Concerning the elevation, you have to consider that all IP and RP elevation parameters are DELTAS. So if the target is 2368 MSL and you want the RP to be at the same altitude, you have to set the elevation to 0ft (no delta) as you can see when you set the elevation to 2368, the real MSL is as expected, 4736. I was using the VRP function just today and I didn't find any issues, but I will test it again tomorrow.

I have just tested it with Mk82 and GBU 10, all stations loaded and it works like it should. Quantity drops the number of bombs you request, depending on the number of stations selected they will be dropped in one or several pulses. - 5 stations. qty 3 => drops 1 bomb from 3 stations at the same time - 5 stations qty 10 => drops 3 bombs from 3 stations, then 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 from the CFT the wings seems to be the last ones to drop. So qty works like in any other plane, is the number of bombs released. If you selected 5 stations, qty 3 and all of them dropped, might be a bug. I couldn't reproduce it though.

The radio options for presets, mainly the "manual AM" button that you need to adjunst for bypassing the FM radio bug are NOT SYNCED between seats on multicrew. Both crew have to go to UFC, radio presets menu and press the button independently or it will stay in FM for the guy who is not doing it (mainly the pilot) It's already reported to RAZBAM discord but I'm doing it here as well for double check.

Placing the TSD in the colour display helps a lot.

Yes, that's true. But most if not all missions and servers depend on units to be DESTROYED. Sure you can lob some MK20 over a sam site and degrade the radars to the point they are not a factor anymore, but for the mission, they are still up and you still need to kill them. Same with the lonely BTR82 hiding behind a bush in the perimeter of an enemy airbase.

That's more a problem of DCS damage model and mission scripting than a RL capability. For MP it's always easier to just depend on units for capture, points and triggers. Doing that with statics where you could need bigger bombs is more cumbersome and most people just avoid it. I'd love we would need GBU 31/3 for hardened structures, or the incoming mighty GBU 28. But most of the time you don't, all you need is a lot of small precision munitions to clear BTR, tanks, IFV and APC from said capture zone, hence lots of GBU 12-GBU 38, CBU 97 or APKWS are the weapons of choice