exhausted

No doubt others crave the landlubber's model. I can only hope the beast gets cat gear some day.

Why do you think I was talking about you? You're entitled to your opinion, and so is anyone else who is anticipating a carrierborne Phantom. Wouldn't mind if we stayed on topic please.

Yes, it has everything to do with the point made that, because Heatblur does not have ALL the information on something, they won't model it. That is far from the truth, as we have entire modules with no public information being developed. And, we're only talking about a minor feature that people care about.

ED isn't developing the F-4, Heatblur is. Heatblur is also developing the Eurofighter which has much less publicly available info. Heatblur can certainly model the VTAS.

You are making the points against your original position, whether you intended to. You're entire point was that VTAS should not be added because it would turn the F-4 into a quasi-4th gen glass cockpit automaton. Apples to apples, you said: "I'm Dogfight purist. The end of Dogfight beginned in 1916 ends by III gen. full aspect Fox-2. After that It's just aerial warfare. A clash of technologies. Not man against a man, but machine against machine." Now, you're admitting VTAS in its usage isn't any of those things you are trying to avoid. You have proven that even "dogfight purists" have nothing to fear from adding the VTAS system.

I don't think he misunderstood your post at all. It's clear part of his message it that the -J which we all seem to want was not frozen in its development in 1973, when the US ended its combat mission in Vietnam. The -Js flew on for a nice bit longer, often with the HMS. It's not that complicated - if you don't want a historical feature, then simply disable its use.

Not sure what that means, but that's cool. Personally I see human challenges exist in any format, with little regard for technology.

It's true: Phantom maniacs have waited too long for their carrierborn baby. Though I don't know how you reasoned a little stamped metal ring on a helmet is equal to a "full glass and high-tech" aircraft. I'm trying to stay in the confines of reason here

If you are going to do the Phantom right, it has to be carrier capable and it needs to be accurate. VTAS is going to be welcomed if added and if you don't want to use it, then don't.

Same issue exists with both ramps.

absolutely 100% Not to be sour but we are getting a Eurofighter Typhoon and we have another guesswork module in the JF-17. There is probably enough for the Z. Whiskey would be awesome too though.

The KC-135A is already becoming necessary with the period direction of some of the modules.

@Eagle Dynamics Please fix this. It's a module breaker and keeps people from flying the L-39.

Can you provide more info? I'm getting hyped up over what this would look like, especially the NAVFLIR option!

Period callouts as well? Yes, this is necessary for what ED is trying to do with earlier eras.

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.