upyr1

I'd love to get some updates here

I understand due to the nature of EW some things will never be modeled, however, I know some time ago there was talk about an EW/IADS module. I know that's gone silent, however I'd love to see something worked out so we could have AI jammers, Wild Weasels and a better AID

Improving DC's AI so we have an integrated air defense system would be ED's job, so I didn't mention it here. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done I'm just saying its ED's job not HBs

Yes. Same with Heatblur's shades. The tint code works for the mig-21

This is why I'm specifically asking for AI Weasels, as I expect that EW is too classified for an FF Wild Weasel and even if I am wrong about that, I'm not sure if there is enough interest to justify a G module (I'd buy it if it were possible). Anyway as an AI asset, we would get the G in DCS with the minimum effort. The only things HB would need to worry about with an AI G is changing the payload and antennae on their E model and ad a line about an HTS if it would change the AI's behavior.

Any idea on when the historical mode bug will get fixed, now that we have both F-110s I plan to build some 1970s missions with historic mode on.

It would have been nice to have Jester AI

Thanks for posting and the awesome modules.

Depending on your point of view that would be the best and second best possible outcome. Best, as I think the F-15E would benefit greatly from the inclusion of Jester and Iceman, second best becuse it means the Razbam situation didn't get settled.

It depends on whether or not you want to see the Jaguar in DCS. If you do then ask away, the worst thing that will happen is no developer will work on it the best thing that happens you'll have some developer contact you to be a tester. The Jag would be cool.

I'm not reading too much into it. I have studied Russian a bit as well, and I got the impression the person posting simply doesn't have an answer . I'm also not reading too much into anything from Razbam that isn't a flat-out yes or no. Developers come and go all the time. Anyway This question really isn't about the specifics of the Razbam/ED disputes as much as it is about ED's general policies if a developer leaves and Razbam simply got me thinking about it. I hope the situation can be resolved soon. I don't know how big DCS is for Razbam but I don't think it is a small slice of their pie. So it would hurt everyone involved

Taking over a module would be a challenge, however losing a popular module would be devastating to DCS. I hope the mess with Razbam gets cleared up

I am hoping to get the answer from ED. Right now if a developer leaves DCS, would we be SOL? Would ED take over their modules or could another developer do so? For example if Razbam dropped could Heatblur potentially take over the Strike Eagle?

Awesome job, So far my wishlist of what I would love to see added Enable Jester to fly while refueling- it might be considered a cheat by some but the backseater had controls and I've read at least one F-4 pilot say it was easier from the WSO seat Add jester context function to the AGM-65 (if this is already done but I'm just missing it let me know)

The only usaf fighter in dcs that might be able to make a carrier landing would be the F-4. Even that is questionable because the landing gear are different The F-16 or F-5 should have their tailhooks ripped out

Someone else has brought up the issue of hard wing vs slated I will also bring up the fact that Robin Olds flew the F-4C and according to a late Phantom pilot I followed the later variants had a slightly lower thrust to weight ratio do to more avionics. I would agree we need someone to provide some feedback here. I hope we can get a Greek or Turkish pilot to comment on the flight model.

Unless I am missing something becuse I didn't read the manual, it doesn't seem like we can get Jester to operate the AGM-65, any plans to add this ability?

I was wondering if we could pick a favorite helmet?

I hope that @NineLine or anyone else on the ED team could answer this. What gets modeled for an AI plane flying SEAD? For example if would it matter for the AI if an F-16 has a HTS?

I would like to see them removed from the list but show based on the user's performance settings

I have heard you couldn't fire the gun pods and nose gun at the same time. Last night I was flying a Chico load out and was able to do that. So I added a third gun pod. So was the F-4 pilot not remembering things right as he never saw the need or is this a bug?

the Dog sabre would be awesome. Seeing the Italian nickname was Kappone I hope someone does a livery with Al.

I used to follow a guy who flew the Phantom from the Midway. He was with the vigilantes so that may have been him behind the stick of one of the birds in the video

https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html states that The Block 50/52 is the current production version of the F-16 Fighting Falcon. It features the Improved Performance Engines, either the F110-GE-129 for the block 50 or the F100-PW-229 for the block 52. The F100-PW-229 is lighter and more powerful than earlier F100s, and had been flying at Edwards AFB since mid-1990 in test ship #81-0816. Both engines are rated at 29,000lbs of thrust (129kN). This version first appeared in late 1990. It was unofficially designated F-16CJ/DJ for the same reason as the Block 40/42 unofficial designation. The first Block 50/52 F-16 rolled out of the Fort Worth facility on October 31, 1991 (#90-0801). Production of this version is still ongoing and will be expanded well beyond 2005 with the latest aircraft delivered to Greece and Israel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the F-16C block 50 and 52 entered service after ODS Looking at https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article7.html the block 40/42 could carry HARMS though it looks like they were added later An article written ODS or shortly after https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0791weasels/ it looks like the available modes were limited

True, but the Solomons would still be a good map.