SkateZilla

F-16C Core Avionics were changed significantly over the last few patches w/ the addition of SniperXR, DTC, DL, And more in depth MFD Pages etc. As well as additional animations for cockpits and pilots, It's likely both the 3D Model Animations and Cockpit systems scripts would need an extensive overhaul.

null

It's either the C-130 Mod or the Armed black hawk: Explanation: The reason the C-130 causes DCS to have a stroke when CJS Module is installed, is because the ordinance table is built using the new database names ie ("Weapons.Missile.AIM_120C") etc etc. and when the C-130 Mod tries to build it's ammo crates using a wstype that's a mixed string (integer and table name), DCS has already processed the CJS Ordinance table and shifted the database to the Type.SubType.Unit format, and therefore the wstype string containing both integers and table name is no longer valid, plus the weapon is already defined, as the CJS Mod Tells DCS to Process the Aircraft Weapons Pack first. For the C-130 Mod, the Problem line in the loadout lua file is 180 Ammo_Pallet_Contents({user_name = _("Ammo GBU-31V3B*6 [12949lb]"), clsid = "Herc_Ammo_GBU_31_V3B_bombs", contents = "{GBU-31V3B}", count = 6, mass = 981, wstype = {4, 5, 36, GBU_31_V_3B}})--GBU-31V3B The DCS Core function calls for a wsType of either 4 Stage numbers or the new format of 3 stage definitions, This line calls for 3 stage numbers then a table name, which DCS see's the table name as invalid due to a weapon already being declared using weapons.bombs.TABLE_NAME. So the Fix is to update the weapon wstype in the pallet's wstype, you can update it to use the new weapon wsType format: Ammo_Pallet_Contents({user_name = _("Ammo GBU-31V3B*6 [12949lb]"), clsid = "Herc_Ammo_GBU_31_V3B_bombs", contents = "{GBU-31V3B}", count = 6, mass = 981, wstype = "weapons.bombs.GBU_31_V_3B"})--GBU-31V3B

Chin Sensor on the Tomcat was trash, which is why it only lasted for a few LRIP runs of the A before being replaced by the TCS, The manufacturer touted an updated version, and it was added as a dual Chin Pod for the D, but was pretty quickly aerodyn covered off as they failed, or just left defunct.. Both cases and the IRST21 in the ASG-34A / FPU-13/A Tank, were the USN trying to add something to counter what Russia had, the Passive detection on the Mig-29s and Flankers. But face it, the system was better designed and implemented on those. slapping a cheap IR Sensor on the bottom of the chin or on the nose of a fueltank underneath the aircraft, makes it nearly impossible to detect anything above the horizon / nose line of the aircraft. and both configurations are at risk of ground debris damage

it'd be pretty weird because none of the tankers have the same light array layout.

While the fuel will be usable in DCS, the sensor wont. But that being said, even Block II of this pod has been a rough development,... Ya know we told them not to put a sensitive optical sensor immediately behind the nose gear.... but do they listen? nope. Pay Attention to the STA (Station) Prefix in the description.

that eyeball has a high maintenance and failure rate due to the design.

well the ASG-34 IRST21 is Technically a Tank w/ an Eyeball.

USN Never Flew w/ the Fairings, as they didnt purchase them, they re-used the launchers, but did not elect to pay for more covers.

They are AN/ALQ-249 Next Generation Mid-Band Jammers.

When choosing loadout stores, pay very close attention the the [ STA xx ] Prefix of each store's description. Since the PSM of the Charlie is only modelled for 9 Pylons and 1 internal auxiliary store location (ie for Smoke Generators), There's a lot of offset or split stores in the list.

This is fixed internally, once the latest build passes some testing phases and I remove some things that aren't released, then the public will have a new build.

I have a Model of the Pylon, however Fuel tanks cannot have 2 element attachments, so I cannot place it like I would a Missile using a Launcher. I'd rather replace the entire external for A/B and F

The Pylon is integrated into the F-5E Model, I cannot move it. The only way would be to replace the model w/ a new one that I can edit. I have other projects that are higher priority at the moment, plus I still have to do a separate version of everything for the F-5E Remastered Version, as the model is not the same and Items don't line up correctly.

DCS_Updater.exe repair

I don't think everyone understands the power the latest gen and even last gen cell phones have in terms of sensors.

I know guys that use their I-Phones and get killer results.

There's already a Drone Station platform trainer made by ED for the Pro market.

Still have to train the human drone pilots.

IFEI Switches to Green to be NVG Compliant.

No, because: A. It is based off the Legacy Hornet, which is ED's IP. B. The 3D External Model is licensed and not fully owned IP. C. I'm not paying for commercial/consumer distribution software license. Whichever Boeing requires, if not both. D. if A B and C weren't enough, I have cat gifs. *(Sorry Running Trend on our discord)*

Most of the IDF Team resides in a part of the world that's in a not so good place right now.

Problem is, the A-10s are all Old, despite getting new wings, which were already made and sitting in a warehouse when FC shut down operations, the main fuselage still endures stress from the GAU/8. FC is gone, so is the tooling to build more, the only reason the A-10 is still in service, is because A. there is nothing close to doing that specific job on the same level. B. It would cost more to retire it than to operate it, C. Changes in congress at key times caused indecisions in the USAF Budget. So I can emphasize each point a little bit: A. It's obvious, there is no other platform with a GAU/8, they tried to mount one on a F-16, it didn't work out that well. The F-35A, being it's replacement, only because it's multi-role. But the Battlefield in the east, is not the type of battlefield where you can sit at 25K and lob LBGs and GPS Munitions all day, sometimes you gotta get down low and dirty, and I do not see the USAF sending a costly aircraft that has next to no AA Protection down low w/ only 180 rounds of GAU/22, it's like shooting NERK darts at a speeding car, not gonna do very much against armour. But the Airforce is consolidating, they don't want one aircraft specializing in one role, they want one aircraft that's OK at many, good at a few, to replace multiple, the Navy did the same thing, at one point it was the United States Department of Super Hornets, F-14s, A-7s, A-6s, S-3s, all gone off the deck, replaced by the F/A-18E/F/Gs. Shoot, if they could strap a trailer to the plane, it'd be replacing their COD as well. B. Retiring the A-10, Sending it to mothballs, training and re-assignment of personnel and delegating Airwing roles to another aircraft to train on, would cost more than simple keeping the A-10s in service in a reduced flight hour status. C. Every time the A-10 retirement is on the docket to be voted on, leadership and priorities change, and it gets dropped off the agenda. Make no mistake, the days are numbered, as each older airframe even w/ the new wings approaches the flight hour limits, they are being retired one after another, and w/ the fleet getting smaller, the remaining airframes are getting exponentially higher flight time, so their journey to their service life limit is hastened w/ every airframe they retire.

https://discord.gg/vZrJCA2euy

The A->C Shape is extremely different, Wing Root, Wings, Flaps, Flaperons, Leading Edge, Trailing Edge, Horizontal Stabs, Vertical Stabs, Part of the Lower Fuselage, Entire Landing Gear System, Aft Fuselage, Hook Compartment, Upper Fuselage/Nose Area, AAR System, etc. Although the A->C Avionics would be easy, the Flight Model would need to be a separate project. The B is a different animal altogether, as there are systems in the B's avionics not present in the A or C.