OxideMako

I thought they were MICAs, but they do look like a 530 variant. (Seeker head) Testing perhaps? I don't recall any evidence of 530s on the belly pylons, as they cause engine intake issues AFAIK. Could also be a 2000-5 as there is no pitot on the radome. Similar pic: I am fairly sure these are not 2000C RDI though, cool as it would be. NVM, they are MICA RF missiles.

Thanks for doing this - The R.550 Magic is just so broken right now, a lucky MiG-29 escaped his death because of them! Swapped to the AIM-9, bagged a Su-27 and a MiG-29 in the same sortie. When the Magics are fixed it will be worth reminding the odd pilot that brings the AIM-9 that the rules will (I hope) have been reverted to normal rather than an insta-ban.

It it isn't realistic it should not be there. While having more options is always nice, If it was not possible there is no way it should be on the DCS version. However if it was possible but not used, that should be available in sim. (i.e. KH-66, R-77) Honestly one photo of it mounted with no idea of what, if any cockpit additions are needed is dubious at best. Please do the BAP-100 properly, the current anti-runway stuff in DCS has some client/server sync issues and poor graphical representation of lasting runway damage. This makes them more often than not, pointless ATM. Although this may need to be something ED has to fix, it is worth mentioning.

This might be worth watching for you: [ame] [/ame]

Any plans for fictional skins? (USA, UK, Russia etc?)

Don't get me wrong, not saying it should be that way at all times. I am just pointing out that that number is generally in line with the purpose of this thread. (discussing 530D range) Of more note was the 530F vs D in that pdf. 35 vs 50km. I thought the only real difference was seeker in the 530D, would it really increase range by 15km? (as I would assume whatever definition of "max range" they are using would be the same circumstances for both missiles?)

According to that, range of the 530D is 50km. Which is line with the jist of this thread. Pg. 47 -http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a347910.pdf- [ame]http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a347910.pdf[/ame]

At LEAST make the ALCM alignment necessary. If you have an issue with that, you are probably playing the wrong genre. How can they use unrealistic times if the IRL ALCM is only 1m 30s? Even for an intercept that would be fast.

That is actually quite interesting... Not quite sure what to make of that, given ED's track record for timelines. What I would give to see their internal roadmap, as it sounds like a lot may be going on behind closed doors!

It's an F-14/Macross reference. (UN Spacy roundel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VF-1_Valkyrie Don't know much about the show, but seems popular with flight simmers, and those are some sweet paintjobs.

Throttle to idle and press red button to right of throttle in the cockpit.

Just to note only if there is evidence that it could have been mounted and carried. If there is solid evidence it could not carry a certain munition it should not be modeled. (For example Magic II and AIM-9 being interchangeable for NATO standardization purposes, but not AIM-7 on a Mirage)

You mean like not having Iglas on the KA-50? Which did carry them in reality and even in game has the A-A mode switch on the collective. Just saying that we should often be given options that were possible even if they were not used. IE MiG-21 carrying Groms, MiG-29 carrying R-77. It IS possible for the variant we have to carry the ARMAT. Just because that option was not used shouldn't really come into it. French Air Force Mirages never came up against SU-27s in actual combat, yet here we are. We are also geting an English cockpit because the UAE, not the French use it. Who does it hurt having the ARMAT available? No one. Unlike the Exocet. Which needed the RDM radar, which we do NOT have, and should NOT have.

Awesome, will give it a shot then!:pilotfly:

Does this also fix the lack of Mipmaps like this one does? : http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2617607&postcount=26

Yeah, but people seem to think it is still happening. Just don't ask me why.

Really Sith? It gets mentioned a fair bit. Especially recently for some reason. AFAIK it was cancelled sometime before the A-10C came out.

Great job compiling this, it is always good to have the sources in one place.

Thanks for letting us know Sith!

Exactly this, If you want faster alignment use ALCM. You want 8 min, use the full alignment.

ED has really dropped the ball on the 550/530 series from what I have seen on the forums. Not living up to posted ranges, wrong HE warhead weights and very odd drag. Hopefully they look at them and realize someone messed up a decimal point or something and it is a fairly simple fix. 104th are allowing it for now.

What is ECM PTY in bottom left? Target or shooter jamming?

Now that is an interesting thought!

Neither do I, but give the mission designers the option of ALN or ALCM ramp start. Would give them another tool for specific intercept missions or balancing etc. While also allowing those who don't want to wait (or do a hot start) to have faster, but not unrealistic, start-up times. Thus, you please everyone.

I don't think anyone here thinks that ED are being lazy, greedy or otherwise. We all seem to understand that terrain development, especially to the standards we expect as DCS customers, can be incredibly complex and time consuming. We want ED to be compensated for their work, as that allows us to have something like DCS in a world where flight sims are a niche. The problem is that as the amount of terrains increases, people will have a smaller and smaller portion of the selection that is available. In a multiplayer environment that means that some people will inevitably not be able to play with friends or squadron mates that have a different selection of terrains, let alone the ones that a server decides to run. You end up with low numbers of maps sold at high cost, which are used rarely in multiplayer. No one wants to buy as no servers run the terrain, and few servers run maps other than the Black Sea as few players will be able to join. Nevada's pricing is steep given it's already often-noted lack of content, but that should help offset the R&D costs of EDGE at least in part. If all maps are going to cost the same, even substantially smaller ones, (IIRC Wiki states Nevada is 600x610km, and Straits of Hormuz is only 390x390) They are just not going to be used. Once again however, I believe that ED has stated that only a small minority of DCS customers ever play online. So take that as you will. TLDR - ED should maybe rethink how they sell the terrains, maybe even redirect their efforts elsewhere for now.