emg

The changes would include a different elevator layout, catapult angles, island, deck shape, Kitty Hawk also had an extra antenna tower aft of the island. Maybe you haven't settled on a class yet?

That depends on whether you want to navigate to an RSBN or ARK beacon.

:megalol::megalol: :megalol: Anyway... do we have a feeling for what the community wants? Does everything have to be as detailed as Las Vegas or are people fine with low-detail towns/cities and geographical features in exchange for larger maps? I don't think I've seen a poll about that.

Just pull the stick back when you start rolling, did some formation take-offs and landings in MP. No need to brake early when landing, just land at the beginning of the runway. Still it's nice to see the dev feedback.

I've been bothered by the same thing! Such a weird decision to remove detail from the map?

FishDoctor wasn't asking anyone to compare the Gazelle with the Ka-50, he was asking if you could fire HOT or TOW while the helicopter is moving... ED forums and its digressions... :megalol:

First fast-moving ground pounder in DCS with interesting guided weapons and nav radar.

LNS are also making a map for the F-14 :). But yeah of course it would cool to have a full IRIAF force with F-4E/F-5E/F-14A for the Hormuz scenario.

It would be odd in that we are paying 50-60$ for a game module, and it should ideally have as many features as possible in the DCS context, where the upcoming aircraft carriers will be a big deal. For 60$ we could maybe hope for an F-4E and an F-4J (like the C-101EB and CC.)

Making a Phantom that wasn't carrier capable would be an odd choice, considering the new carriers and LN's naval war theatre for the F-14.

Remember when a bunch of guys joined LN? Remember what nationality they were? ;)

IMHO if people want to play a strictly historical Spanish or French F1 without the radar guided 530, they can just make/modify a mission loadout with IR missiles only. For the rest of us, who are paying 50$+ for a module that we want to have fun with, it would be nice to have the Qatari loadouts available as well.

AFAIK they didn't cause stress to the wing, they caused vibrations to the hung weapon which would reduce an IR-AAM's lifespan to about 100 hours. AFAIK they were cleared for use in wartime.

On the ED forums, "speculation" seems to be a synonym for "wishlist" ;).

First I went "what? that's a huge number", then I checked Jaguar loss stats and found it was at 33%... 181 losses out of 543 produced :shocking: Removing the ~5 combat losses don't change the stats much.

Do you really think that landing a DCS M2000 without raising the seat and not strictly observing correct AoA = bad landing? This module is as easy to to land as an SFM plane, and yes I mean clean and controlled landings. Btw I do clean formation landings (by the manual) with friends in the MiG-21 so I really don't need your insults. I assume this is not his first DCS module, and anyone who can land a MiG-21 or TF-51 by the manual procedure can cleanly and safely land the M2000. In fact the error of margin is huge, which is why I said "anyone who can crash land a MiG-21 w/o killing pilot can safely land a M2000." Read the post carefully before you try to insult people. The thread starter said he's dreading to land the DCS Mirage, and I think he should just try it in-game, instead of trying to remember keybinds and proper AoA. That's what I meant by information overload.

For immersion's sake it's nice to raise the seat, maintain correct AoA etc. But the reality is that if you can crash land a DCS propeller aircraft or MiG-21 without killing the pilot, you can safely land the M2000 in your sleep, even on grass. I think this thread is a case of information overload.

Can't Razbam just make their own missile, like Leatherneck did? I guess that needs ED approval still.

Talking about aerodynamics only, the Magics are very similar to the Israeli Python 4. When two separate def industries ended up making a similar missile, IMO we can assume their aerodynamics don't suck.

^I also read that Magics (like the much newer ASRAAM and IRIS-T) are supposed to be "plug and play" with AIM-9 rails and wiring, but I haven't seen a 100% source for it.

^ According to http://www.airvectors.net/avav8_3.html#m5

I use " ;) " to show I'm joking, maybe I'm getting old? :p Joking aside, it almost reads like a marketing piece, as if the 2nd gen Harrier improved on absolutely everything from the 1st gen.

^ Nice marketing piece ;) http://www.airvectors.net/avav8_3.html And there's a lot of GR.5/7/9-specific information in that article for anyone who's interested.

Didn't Leatherneck themselves make some of the in-game MiG-21 missiles? So I guess any 3rd party dev can always make their own missiles if they are unhappy with the stock missiles. Or would there be a conflict since the 530D is already in-game?

The new 1.5 release downloader actually found my 2.0 folder, without me creating the local source.txt, and started copying files instead of downloading everything. Good software!