statrekmike

On top of having a (rather essential) option for a three position T1 switch, I think it is also quite important to have (like other applicable modules) a means to bind the throttle stop/idle so that those with Warthog throttles can bring the throttle in and out of the stop position.

Having the ability to edit the frequencies attached to each preset in the editor is pretty important as it will reduce the difficulty involved in accounting for every possible airport/airbase ATC frequency (both in current and future maps). Right now, not every ATC can be contacted due to the lack of presets that account for their specific frequency. Perhaps a good compromise would be to add the same preset editing tab in the mission editor that every other plane has but with perhaps fewer presets to edit (maybe fifty for comm 1 and fifty for comm 2).

Could you give more information? Are you landing properly? Are you crashing the plane during the landing process? I have done a fair few landings in the module and have yet to lose wings or anything like that.

There is a chart included in the in-game kneeboard.

The big thing that concerns me is that if this is turned into some sort of dynamic multiplayer tool, it won't have a ton of utility outside of that specific kind of scenario. It would kinda make the pod useless for anyone in more isolated co-op groups or just those who favor doing single player and designing their own missions.

Just did some tests. The pod does work when you do a hot start but if you put it on any of the viable hardpoints in the mission editor and do a cold start from the ramp, the pod's alignment process will (as stated in other posts above) not start. This does kinda make the pod a no-go and while I don't want to tell you how to do your jobs, it is probably something that should be near the top of the bug fix list at this point since the targeting pod is such a big part of that aircraft's air to ground role in general.

I would try to ween yourself off from using auto-throttle in air refueling since it will create more problems than it actually solves and thus will make it harder for you in the end. No matter what aircraft you fly in DCS and regardless of its auto throttle capability, it is a good idea to put some meaningful effort into learning good, steady, and precise throttle control. It may seem really difficult at first but it doesn't take long for it to "click" and before you know it, you are doing throttle corrections automatically without thinking about it. When I set out to learn refueling, I found that my formation flying (and thus throttle control) was not really where I thought it was. To correct this, I spent some time just flying formation with the tanker with the hud off. In order to get good at this, you have to learn to judge your speed relative to the tanker by eye (without knowing how fast it is going or how fast you are going). With practice, you will be able to see if you are closing or falling back and once you are at that point, you will be able to vary precisely control speed, anticipate throttle changes, and keep up with formations without a lot of thought. Using auto-throttle is really for either long distance transits where you staying at a specific speed is desirable or when (aircraft permitting) you are doing landings and the auto-throttle helps you stay on speed (not all auto-throttle systems will do this). Air refueling will require too many small changes to speed and while using auto-throttle is not impossible, it will actually make things harder for you.

Since it is a pretty big deal overall, I do think it is important to be honest about where the F-16 module is at this moment. Eagle Dynamics tried a somewhat new thing by releasing it in a very early access state (even compared to previous early access releases like the Hornet). This means that quite a few sensors, systems, and weapons are either not implemented at all or not fully implemented. This is not to say that these systems will not be implemented as that is only a matter of time but if you want something that you can really dig into like the A-10C, you are going to hit A LOT of functionality gaps. This will obviously bother some more than others depending on what they want out of DCS. For me personally, this means that while I was quick to pre-order the module, I was also quite quick to leave it in my virtual hanger so it can collect virtual dust while I focus on other, more complete modules. Eventually it will be at a state where I dust it off and start making missions for it but it is not really at that point right now (at least for me). As far as its difficulty level? At this particular moment and in its rather incomplete state, you could probably sit down and learn all the systems it has to offer in a afternoon of meaningful study/practice. It's fly by wire system makes for a easy flying experience and its limited systems and basic weapons selection makes for quick learning. All that being said, when the module is complete and has all its sensors, systems, and weapons, it will probably be a similar learning experience to the A-10C when you really dig into it via the manual and other meaningfully detailed documentation. Since you have put time into learning the A-10C, I think you will find that a lot of the same logic will carry over to the F-16. Many of the concepts that guide the A-10C's systems arrangement and development will be visible as you learn the Viper. As such, you would not be starting from square-one. You will already know how a lot of it works on a conceptual level and learning the specifics won't be too difficult as long as you are willing to put in some degree of meaningful effort to do so.

This is a tricky topic. I suppose it would be useful to quickly clarify that when I talk about "seriously structured" missions, I am speaking not so much about the size of the scenario but more about how much emphasis is put on constructing a semi-realistic/plausible scenario. In larger (popular) public servers, the scenarios tend to be constructed in fairly inclusive manner in regards to aircraft types, player skill levels, and even drop-in, drop-out capability. To put it another way, those who wish to use the L-39ZA will find scenarios and targets that allow it to be successful. This brings me to the "seriously structured" thing. When I say that, I mean making missions with a specific eye towards creating a scenario that accurately reflects (as much as DCS can possibly allow) a specific aircraft's real-world usage. This includes putting it in its proper context. As such, if I were to make a serious L-39ZA mission, I would research how it was used in places like Syria, Abkhazia, or other places where it was used specifically in a combat (and not combat training) role. Unfortunately, this would mean creating missions where one's survival rate is not so great as even simple ground fire becomes a massive issue (as in real life). This ties into the larger point I am trying to make with even the F-5E we have in DCS. It is easy to overstate its effectiveness when looking at how well it does in public servers (where creating a inclusive environment to attract players with a variety of skill levels is key and thus tasking and targets tend to be less defended, more static, and easier to attack). When you start thinking about more realistic, more demanding missions, it becomes a bit more complicated and some aircraft (including the L-39ZA and the F-5E) start to seriously show their limits and as I said before. Those limits are interesting to explore but should not be dismissed out of hand. If you are handy with the editor, I would suggest creating some COIN/CAS scenarios for the L-39ZA that somewhat accurately reflect what it has done in real life. I think you will find that even against very basic enemy forces (troops, light armored vehicles, MANPAD's, and even simple AA gun emplacements), the L-39ZA will struggle to keep up. The F-5E does a bit better but even when designing missions for it, you will find that its DACT focused configuration will limit just how far you can push it in terms of mission design.

This is a good point. From a real world standpoint, combat pilots don't really have a choice but to start with trainers like the L-39 or the T-38 in order to transition into the cockpits of more advanced front line combat aircraft like F-16's or MiG's. In DCS, it kinda goes the opposite way. Since there are no consequences for failure beyond crashing a virtual plane, it makes more sense to encourage players to get the aircraft they really love even if it is a complex combat focused aircraft. With that in mind, I kinda feel like the F-5, L-39, and other trainers with some combat capability end up being more interesting as "enthusiast purchases" for those that REALLY love those specific aircraft regardless of what kind of role they can or cannot fill in more seriously structured missions. They end up being those classic cars that someone buys for the passion of that specific car and nothing else.

I always considered the F-5 to be a sort of "Sunday driver". When I am not in the mood to actually fly a mission and just tool around, the F-5 fits the bill nicely since it is so pleasant and responsive. That being said. If I want to fly a mission and actually accomplish a task, the F-5 isn't going to be my first choice. It is a reasonably capable light bomber and can be used in that capacity in a mission but its lack of refueling capability and its lack of speed when carrying a combat load make it a difficult plane to take over something like the Viggen or the Hornet. When you build missions with a eye towards realistic transit times and the like, the F-5's short legs get VERY short indeed. As a little sports car that one can fool around with in its own isolated environment (perhaps with some carefully chosen foes to shoot down), it can be a ton of fun. Anything beyond that gets tricky to say the least.

As much as I personally like the F-5 module, I can't help but feel that it gets a bit too aggressively oversold and perhaps for reasons that require more context than they often get. Don't get me wrong, it is a good module and I enjoy flying it a great deal. It is just that when you start building realistic/plausible missions, you will find that it gets VERY difficult to put in as anything more than a somewhat disposable light bomber with pretty limited range/altitude capability. This might be a controversial thing to say but I think this module gets a lot of attention and aggressive recommendations because it is very quick to learn and fits well into BVR dogfight scenarios both on and offline. This is the kind of module you can pretty easily get the general gist of in a afternoon and while there are some things that require skill and practice (bombing in particular does require good flying), it doesn't have a lot to it and for a experienced DCS player who might have already learned the F-14, A-10C, F/A-18C, or other similar modules, it will be a quick learning experience to say the least. For some, that quick process will be refreshing. For others, it will be somewhat underwhelming. Air to air combat is another thing that needs to be talked about a bit. The F-5 we have in DCS is very much a BVR only platform that relies entirely on its sidewinders and guns. It has a radar but like the MiG-21Bis and MiG-19, that radar is more for the gun sight than anything else. It is not really a search radar by any means and having it on before you are right on the enemy's six will be more of a liability than anything else. To put this a bit more directly. If you are flying a F-5 in a environment where there are 4th gen jets flown by competent and knowledgeable players, the F-5 is going to be a fairly easy target since they will see you, lock you up, and fire a few missiles at you before you even have a chance to meaningfully engage them. If said competent and knowledgeable players are set out to take you down while flying their F-15's, F-16's, F/A-18's, MiG-29's, Su-27's, and Mirage's, there is not a whole lot that you will be able to do to stop them. You just don't have the engine power, sensors, or weapons to meaningfully defend yourself. This doesn't mean that you won't occasionally succeed. Heck, you might even get kills online but that probably has more to do with some of the common habits of players online rather than the capability of the aircraft themselves. After some years of flying and learning the F-5 module, I have found that it really is best seen as a light bomber when thinking about mission scenarios. In that capacity, it can carry enough weapons to have a meaningful impact on a target while not getting into areas it can't really deal with due to lack of equipment/capability. Likewise, if you use it in a very controlled guns/IR missile only PvP or single player environment, it can do better in a air to air engagement. You will still have to deal with its lack of thrust but at least you will be on roughly equal ground in terms of weaponry. If you use it like a DACT focused training aircraft, the F-5 that we have in DCS makes a lot of sense. If you try to push it into air to air roles in missions that are not HEAVILY focused on "fair" dogfights with guns/IR missiles only, you will quickly reach the limits of the aircraft and any determined player in a more capable platform will probably find you to be a fairly easy target. The F-5 is a great module. It is well made and very fun to fly on its own terms. Just go into it with both eyes open and understand that it has limits that can be fun to explore but should not be dismissed.

In regards to feeling outgunned, in a sense, you are. The Mirage may be a fairly modern fighter but the specific version we have has very real limitations that will come into play when you use it outside of its real-world context. This is especially the case in scenarios that don't really follow real-world usage cases and take the aircraft out of its intended element. The first thing to keep in mind is that the Mirage 2000C that we have in DCS is very much a 80's aircraft in terms of avionics and weaponry. This may seem pretty modern at first glance but it really isn't. For its time, the Mirage's radar and loadout was fine (especially considering that it would never be acting alone and would have other aircraft types operating around it) but once you get into the 90's, the Mirage 2000C starts becoming outdated rather quickly and that is why France updated it to the much more capable (and multi-role) Mirage 2000-5. If you treat the Mirage like a early F-16 variant, you will have a better time. It is not really going to outgun aircraft carrying AIM-120's or even R-27's and R-77's. The Super-530D is more like a heavy Sparrow missile and needs to be handled as such. Likewise, the radar isn't going to blow your mind with its capabilities. You need to use the plane within its limits or you will always get shot down. One final thought. It is tempting to go on wikipedia or some other website/book and look up the maximum range of a missile but that doesn't really tell you much about its practical range. Generally speaking, a air to air (especially BVR focused) missile will only really give you good results when you are quite high up (think 25,000 to 30,000 feet), quite fast (0.8 or 0.9 mach), and in a situation where the target is either heading straight at you or generally close to it. If you launch the missile from low altitude and low speed, it won't have the energy to do much. If you launch the missile at a target heading away from you, you won't have a lot of range to work with since the missile only has a limited burn time and has to chase a target.

I am not sure why any mission would start you at night. The 109 (like many WWII era aircraft) was never really meant to fly at night and has no real equipment for such a thing. That being said, many modules have a "flashlight" of sorts (a light that follows your mouse cursor) that you can turn on by hitting "alt+L". I am not sure if that is something that is module specific but it is worth a try. Either way, I still can't really understand why there would be any mission for the 109 that would start you at night.

I don't know. I think that one of the biggest strengths of the Viggen as a module is that it is so specific in its role and so rigid in sticking with it by design. It is the kind of module that really rewards players who dig into its actual role and how it really did fit into a larger airpower ecosystem. DCS World's community has a tendency to try and shoehorn every aircraft into every role and while this is understandable, it also results in a mindset where aircraft modules are judged not by what unique elements they bring to the table but rather by how they stack up against completely unrelated aircraft and how they fit into roles they were never really suited for. In a way, every aircraft becomes "multi-role" in the eyes of many DCS players even if they really aren't. The Viggen isn't really suited for CAS but that isn't really a bad thing. It is a opportunity to explore other roles (strike, battlefield interdiction, anti-ship, etc) that often get glossed over by the larger community. When you fly missions specifically made around the roles the Viggen actually did, you will find that it can be quite interesting to say the least.

You can only really drop all your bombs at once. The Viggen's weapon system can't really process multiple bomb release instances. When you hit the pickle button, the plane assumes you are dropping everything.

My purpose here is not to indicate impatience but more to try to go into this release with both eyes open so I know what I can reasonably expect both at release and some time after. The wait isn't really the issue. I just want to know what Deka is expecting the early access period to be like on a rough level.

What kind of early access phase should we expect? I mean, from the sound of things, features like air to air refueling are already far along so should we expect a fairly short early access period or settle in for the long term? From the looks of things, this is shaping up to be a great module and a solid release so I will certainly buy it on day one. I am just trying to get a rough idea of what I am in for in terms of early access and how Deka plans to handle the early access period.

One of the things that often creates a somewhat rocky first impression of a module is determining what does and what does not work during the immediate post-release period. Often this is aggravated by a lack of a definitive list of what is working and what is not in the release build. With that in mind, what should we expect from the day one JF-17 release? What systems will work and what ones are still in progress? Are there any details that we should know in order to go into it with well adjusted expectations?

I have used a pretty wide variety of HOTAS setups and joysticks and even after about a year with my Warthog, I have yet to experience the buyers remorse or the issues that you are describing. I use my Warthog stick regularly and have yet to encounter any center slop. As far as cheaper setups like the T.16000 and CH being "superior"? I can't say I can get on board with that. the T.16000 stick (on its own) is a decent entry level stick but its basic layout, lack of controls, and only one hat switch make it less than ideal for HOTAS use. The CH is generally fine in terms of controls but the reliance on potentiometers as opposed to hall sensors will eventually cause accuracy issues by design. Again. To be clear. I am not a Warthog fanboy by any means. I have just used enough HOTAS setups to know that it is not even remotely as bad as you make it out to be. I have my own issues with its design and I do think it could stand to be a bit cheaper but in the broad scheme of things, it is a mid-range HOTAS that only really comes up short when compared to much, much more expensive setups.

If you are EXCLUSIVELY looking at it from the perspective of someone who can comfortably (but perhaps not easily) afford a Virpil or even VKB setup, sure, the Warthog might come off as somewhat "overpriced". Obviously Virpil and other high-end enthusiast level HOTAS setups are going to have better internal mechanics and thus better performance. That being said, you are missing a important part of the equation. If you are looking to get the best HOTAS you can that is a.) readily available and b.) priced below $500, the Warthog really is the best choice. At the moment, a Virpil setup is going (complete HOTAS) to run one around $800 USD (not including shipping) and while it is obviously a superior setup, it is also more than double the price of a Warthog is and a lot more inconvenient to order/wait for. Looking at the complete range of HOTAS setups on the market, the Warthog sits firmly in the middle. It is obviously not the best but to say that it is worse than entry level setups is hyperbolic at best and misleading at worst.

Out of all the things the F-16 needs in order to be a complete, mission ready module, I can't say that the tailhook (that DCS's current land based runways don't support) should be very high on the list. When they do implement it, I would hope that any attempt to land a F-16 on a carrier with said hook would result in a airplane with a wrecked undercarriage and potential airframe damage.

As long as you set fairly normal curves (this will vary from module to module and should not be extreme by any measure), you can absolutely do aerial refueling with just the standard Warthog stick and no extension. Ironically, I was not terribly great at refueling until I got a Warthog HOTAS. The stick (and especially the better throttle) helped immensely and now I can refuel the F-14, F/A-18, Mirage, Harrier, and the A-10C without any real fuss. It isn't easy and it required a lot of practice to get to that point but I certainly did not need to buy a extension. I can see how one might help but it is objectively not required by any measure.

The Logitech X56 is generally fine. It isn't going to be as good as a Warthog setup but I think that many of its technical issues are either overstated or simply a result of not using a powered USB 3.0 hub for the throttle (it draws a lot of power). I have known quite a few people who have owned X56's (including myself) and none of them (again, including myself) had any major technical issues. For some reason, there is a narrative that the X56 is thing thing that will just inevitably break but I strongly suspect that this perception comes from a relative few widely referenced cases that got a lot of attention in the community due to youtubers and unreliable user reviews. Again. It isn't perfect but as far as cheaper HOTAS setups go, it is one of the more versatile options while still being generally reliable enough to get you started in the hobby.

At this particular time, the F-16 module is still quite incomplete. Some will still have fun with it regardless but it is objectively not "mission ready" in the sense that you can't really fly realistic missions with it in a realistic fashion. There are still a lot of big functionality gaps, incomplete system implementations, and missing weapons. Again. This is not going to impact everyone the same way. Some are happy to just do pretty basic stuff with it but others (like myself) are simply letting it sit in their virtual hangar collecting virtual dust until it is a bit further along and more suited for missions. The F-16 will get finished. I have no doubt of that. I just don't know if it is at a point where I can recommend it at this particular time. The big reason I am making something of a big deal about this is because I feel it is far better to learn a complete (or mostly complete) module rather than learning and unlearning workarounds as a module gets developed. The F-14 module is a different story. Aside from a few specific things (TWS auto mode for the radar, some TID functionality, etc), it is pretty much complete. There are obviously some things not finished (like the F-14A version that comes alongside the F-14B) but as far as things go, the F-14 module is very much "mission ready" without hitting major functionality gaps. One thing to keep in mind about the F-14. It is a fantastic, brilliantly made module but operating it is very much a team effort between the pilot and the RIO. Heatblur did create a fantastic RIO AI (called Jester) that can handle the backseat stuff while you fly but even with the Jester AI in the back, flying the plane (from the pilot's perspective) won't be the same experience that you might get from a single seater where you have a lot of control over EVERYTHING. You will be relying on Jester (or a buddy of your choosing) to manage the radar, the LANTIRN pod, the countermeasures, navigation, some radio functionality, and even your air to ground weapon settings while you focus more on flying and hitting the weapon release button when required. It can be great fun but for some, the splitting of workload in such a way may be off-putting if they want to handle everything directly themselves. The other thing to keep in mind a bout the Tomcat is that unlike the F/A-18C, it was built primarily to be a fleet defense fighter and as such, it isn't exactly the "jack of all trades" that the Hornet is in terms of weapon selection and even mission variety. Realistically, the Tomcat focused more on air to air (with AIM-9's, AIM-7's, and AIM-54's) and dropping laser guided bombs with the LANTIRN pod. It can do unguided bombing and even rocket attacks but it isn't the most practical airframe for such work (at least in real life). The Tomcat is a ton of fun to say the least but I have noticed that some types of DCS players struggle to deal with some of its specific eccentricities. It is a harder plane to fly (at least in some ways) and is more about understanding your specific role as the pilot. I love that part of it but others might find it limiting compared to single seat options like the Hornet or the Viper. At the end of the day, you should not worry so much about what internet strangers would get and instead focus on what you PERSONALLY want. What aircraft inspires you the most?