exhausted

I hear ya, but it's not like I'm simply trolling or trying to bait others into a fight. I'm only advocating for the Navy and Marine platforms because myself and others are interested in seeing the carrierborne naval fighter represented as a carrierborne naval fighter. I know a lot of people have taken this personally, but I'm okay with being a target for the Phantom. There are several issues while waiting to see if the Phantom will pan out: One possible issue is that unfinished DCS modules tend to stay unfinished as industry standard. Another is that even Heatblur has yet to fully deliver on its F-14 module. Yet another is that fans will get fatigued from flying the F-4E through all its early release iterations and Heatblur may just decide the Phantom is not worth further developing past the variants adapted solely around use from land. At the end of the day, it's absolutely fine, even encouraged, that people speak up for what they're interested in. For me and others, it's doing the Phantom right as a naval platform. Sorry if you don't all agree.

A purely land-based variant of a carrierborne fighter seems pretty niche, to a whole lot of people.

There's a lot there, but that wasn't his point. His point was people want bombers, and I didn't challenge that point. My point has always been that people want fighters to be fighters, first and foremost, and that variants that are heavier and slower bomber versions have narrower appeal. I see your comments on the list, but some of that is just going out on the deep end. The A-7 isn't a modified F-8. Yes, A-7s were inspired by the F-8, but there was no production run of F-8s that were chopped, re-engined, rearmed, and labeled A-7. The A-7 was a ground attack aircraft from inception. In an apples to apples world, insisting that the A-7 is an F-8 variant would follow that the F-4E is not even close to the best fighter variant for initial release. What's the point to such grumbling though? People want the most fighter-y of the F-4 Phantom fighter, and the USMC and USN variants, and arguably the RN/RAF variants, meet that criteria. BTW, F-4B/J/N/S does not refer to a proposed module, it refers to the available naval fighter variants that could be modeled.

Historicity never has been the driver of focuses or priorities, so I am expressing that priorities are indeed driven by internal decision and on occasion, by request. The TF-51D shows that the devs will deliver modules/features with arguably little, if any, demand and forget those which are actually in demand. We are getting a Eurofighter for example, so accuracy and access is not the requisite.

Let me test that and follow up!

>F-15E -> F-15C fighter has circulated since 2003 >A-6 -> we are good with this, since it was always a bomber and not a neutered version of a dedicated fighter >A-7 -> see A-6 >A-1H -> see A-6 >A-10C -> see A-6 >A-10C AGAIN -> see A-6

Sequiturs are not random.

I suppose you can pretend Thailand is on one island and Hanoi is on the other...

I actually might have one in the garage! Located in Austin, Texas, USA. Please let me know if you are interested through PM. Thanks and best of luck.

I'm requesting this feature because sometimes I like to FAC on MP servers. I would like to mark targets using the Zuni smoke rocket. This mission and loadout are mentioned in Hammer from Above: Marine Air Combat Over Iraq.

what will these modes be for?

Any map with coastline would be great if we had a carrierborne Phantom coming instead, which would largely take care of that problem.

nullVMFA-323null and VFMA-542 in Vietnam Some awesome footage of -542 doing its job

Wouldn't hold your breath even though a lot of us aren't interested in the F-4E bombtruck version of the fighter. If the Marine and Navy version ever comes, it would be a miracle but it would be its own module. Once the -E is released people will probably exhaust their interest in national guard scenarios and I would imagine the B/J/N/S will likely fall to the wayside.

They should probably have more voice tracks recorded for different accents, languages, genders and voice types.

How is this correct if you requested it be fixed?

Priorities, right? Thank god we got the TF-51D!

Really hoping this bug gets resolved.

The tan Phantom is an AWESOME scheme

I too would buy it. This version of the MiG-29 has been widely exported and modified. No reason why a MiG-29B could not also arise. Interesting photos show Syrian MiG-29s using ECM pods under the wings. Also, the MiG-29 is my main bird in pvp dogfights.

Quite possibly, just like the possible C-124 Globemaster II module.

Terminator HK tank and Flying HK?

Thank you, we are super excited to hear this! I cannot wait to try it out.

Not sure if his mod will match your attempt at wit. His criticism is welcome and informative.

The landing gear do not seem to interact with the ski ramp, as it does in every other module I've tested. Contrast to an aircraft with truly delicate landing gear, the F-5E (relevant until 0:40):