FlankerKiller

Try notching them. But if there is an AWCS, or EWR that can see you, they will know where to look. This happens pretty fast.

What part of no in service Russian equipment is unclear? Maybe it will change, but it hasn't yet. Also the BS3 was going to get lots of goodies to make it an equivalent to the AH-64. That ain't happening now. It'll get a graphics update, and that's about it. It sucks, I personally wish it was different. But it is at the moment.

It's relevant because what was required to mount the different uper and lower pylon. What wires were changed, what cannon plugs, what boxes? Or is it just something that wasn't done on the U.S. Hornet but the Swiss did, and later the Navy did on the Super Hornet. If mounting the pylon was plug and play and it was mounted on an F/A-18C then there is no reason not to include it. Again it was done on F/A-18Cs and in no more realistic then dropping a walleye. But wat do I care the day ether the A-7E, or A-6 goose into early access is the last day I ever use the Hornet module we have.

Would be awesome. No chance we will see it in this lifetime. Russia firmly blocks any current military aircraft. The BS3 got canned for the same reason. The only "Red Air" we are ever going to get will have to be Soviet era stuff.

Dude, do not lecture me about the design philosophy of DCS. I've been on this ride since Flanker2.0. Nothing in this sim is perfectly realistic. For that you would have to pick a tail number and models it exactly. Even the Black Shark was going to get a sandbox upgrade until Russia said no. Half the Jets in DCS have loadouts, and Systems that aren't exactly what the real thing has. Clearly there is an advantage to the single rail if the Super Hornet uses it. It is used on Swiss F/A-18Cs. So it's not like asking to be able to fire Phoenix missiles. It's something that can be done, and is done of the F/A-18C. As far as modifications go, have you ever modified a jet aircraft? Because I have. Often it's just pulling a new wire in and swapping a box. Sometimes it's just changing the pins in a cannon plug. Nothing you would even notice as a pilot. Also it's how the damn module was modeled. If we had done more Air to Air with the Hornet then its probably something we would have done ourselves. The drag penalty is real with the double rack. So no I don't think it breaks DCS to allow a single rail launcher on the Hornet as it's actually installed on some F/A-18C.

1qqqWe really need the ability to buddy lase with our wingmen. One in real life targeting pods are expensive. They also eat up a pylon. It would make more sense to have one or two in a flight, and then use those to Target for other aircraft. What are that's attacking a laser spot, or sending GPS coordinates via the data link. Also it would be really great if both players in the AI could call in artillery. Those pods can see a long way, and they might just be able to see into somewhere that you can't go. But if you have artillery units on the ground they can reach that spot they might be able to open the door for you. Also you have limited ordinance. Reconnaissance and artillery spotting are as old as military aviation. This kind of thing is especially important with scout helicopters. Which again if it ever releases is going to give us a reason to want to be able to act as an airborne JTAC. The Apache can, and dose buddy lase. So again having the ability to have a wingman attack a target that you are lasing is going to be a needed capability. Also if the fucking AV8B's AI was worth a <profanity> this would be a big deal. As you can only take off verticaly with so much weight. So again not everyone gets a pod, as that is Ordnance you could be carrying. Just my two cents

I have to agree with this. He has the perfect voice in all his videos.

Cool, so the walleye and slam must go. They were both retired out of the inventory when "our F/A-18C" entered service. Sucks, I absolutely abhor anything after 1995 so that blows for me. But hey realism. There are F/A-18Cs out there that can mount the pylon and carry the single rail. I doubt any U.S. Hornet in the last twenty years has mounted twin rails for AMRAAM. The AMRAAM isn't very good at blowing up goat herders, and that is the only thing "our Hornet" ever did. So we didn't care. But the Swiss do care, so they changed it. We changed it on our Super Hornets. But as you pointed out this is a very realistic game. And even the Hornet we have isn't fully what it's supposed to be. So I don't really see the issue with reimplementing a loadout option that is currently used on a real world F/A-18C. It's no more unrealistic then the Vietnam era Walleye that we do carry and drop.

Same airframe, different Block. I'm assuming you're weapons. As you stated it's possible, and done. Just the USN uses a different mount that doesn't, and can't, mount directly to the pylon. However the single mount dose exist IRL, can be mounted to the pylon, and is mounted to the same pylon on some Hornets. The one we have has a Swiss skin. There are AIM-7F, AIM-9L, Walleye, and SLAM loadouts. Pretty sure our block never once saw any of that outside of testing. So I don't see how mounting a real lower pylon, to a real pylon, as is done on real Hornets breaks realism any more then dropping a 1970s era Walleye dose.

Honestly I get the realism argument. But as you stated it's possible. The Swiss Hornets do it. So I do wish ED would bring the option back.

That would be nice.

WWII is an easy cash cow for ED. So hopefully they will look at the Pacific. If, and that's a big if, Mag3 releases the Corsair it's supposed to have a carrier with it.

So who thinks the Apache will release in about two more weeks.

No it is not. It's a value in a file. I've edited it myself before. Hell the Mig-21 gives you a slider in the Special Options screen. But if they don't want to give a slider they don't want to. And that is fine. But doing so would definitely not change the way the aircraft preforms, or handles in any way. No one outside of the affected aircraft would even be able to tell. Its a way for the jet to "talk to you". All aircraft have camara shake set for them.

And that is why I believe it should be adjustable by the user in the special options menu. As it truly is a subjective matter of individual taste.

I truly love the C-101, but I am no expert on it, so question. It was introduced in 1980 and was a light attack jet. Nothing without countermeasures could survive over a battlefield in 1980. Was there ever a version of the c101 that carried countermeasures, an rwr, or both? The reason I ask is flying it in a 1980 scenario against anyone would be suicide without countermeasures. It's an interesting little light attack jet they can even be filled in an anti shipping role. But again the lack of countermeasures in rwr basically relegates it to suicide duty.

Thank you for making the Tomcat. I've spent the last 21 years of my life as an Air Force aircraft maintainer. DCS let's me peak behind to curtain, and see how the other half lives. The Tomcat let's me play out my child hood fantasies of being maverick. I only got to see F-14s IRL a few times before they were retired. And now they are all but gone. Your team preserved they're memory, and let's us get a chance to see what they were all about.

infantry, and LMGs. A tone of WWII was infantry fighting infantry. There were AT wepons on both sides by 1944, and alot of them. Same for automatic rifles/LMGs. Pleas make them for the allied and axis armies. Most of the close air support we should be doing should be to weaken infantry positions, not necessarily trying to kill tanks directly. Also having infantry that can kill the tanks is a good way to give armored fighting vehicles equipped with machine guns a purpose. Your or first infantry had AT troops, and LMG troops. And your WWII models are spectacularly detailed. I'm at a loss as to why the iconic bazooka, panzershrek, bren gun, Browning automatic rifle, and the true icon the mg42 are not included. As someone who prefers to build missions where I'm a cog and a much larger picture, having and not having these type of infantry units completely changes the way the game is played in the way missions are built. Please make the infantry relevant again.

infantry, and LMGs. A tone of WWII was infantry fighting infantry. There were AT wepons on both sides by 1944, and alot of them. Same for automatic rifles/LMGs. Pleas make them for the allied and axis armies. Most of the close air support we should be doing would be to weaken infantry positions, not necessarily trying to kill tanks directly. Also having infantry that can kill the tanks is a good way to give armored fighting vehicles equipped with machine guns a purpose. Your first infantry had AT troops, and LMG troops. And your WWII models are spectacularly detailed. I'm at a loss as to why the iconic bazooka, panzershrek, bren gun, Browning automatic rifle, and the true icon the MG42 are not included. As someone who prefers to build missions where I'm a cog in a much larger picture, having or not having these type of infantry units completely changes the way the game is played, and the way missions are built.

Thanks for the reply. And let me reiterate again that I am definitely nitpicking here. The Cat is an absolute masterpiece of a module, simulating and absolute masterpiece of aeronautical engineering. It is one of, if not my favorite module to fly and fight in. The tech level is perfect for enjoyment, and your team brought it to life in a spectacular way. And you literally changed DCS while doing it. Something no other third party has done so far. You opened the door to multi crew aircraft in single player. Nether the Hind or the Apache would be happening with now if you hadn't show that it can be done. Also wake turbulence are ,to me, one of the most game changing additions to core DCS since the introduction of the advanced flight model. Keep up the good work, and I'll keep buying everything your studio releases. Cheers.

Maybe a little too in-depth on the particulars. But not really off topic. That proposed carrier is going to have to operate somewhere, and against something. Ships in WWII, particularly in the Pacific didn't just sail in a strait line, they maneuvered. Look at actual pictures from Midway, or the Coral sea. Or any time ships were attacked. This is why the idea of using high altitude level bombers against them was abandoned. They just maneuvered out of the way before the bombs get hit. Plus if ED dose open up the Pacific theater, that means DCS is going to be even more of a naval aviation combat simulator. And since ships are major target for that they need some modeling. Microsoft combat flight simulator 3 had ships that broke up, capsized, and pitched up way back in 2001. I think asking for some basic systems modeling, historical functionality, and basic AI modeling is not asking for the Moon. So let me put this in another way after the utter disappointment that is super carrier, unless there is actual work put into the naval environment there is no way I am paying one more penny for naval assets from ED operations. The ships have even less functionality then they did way back in the days of Lockon. At least then you could tell them to attack a target, and they would go off on they're own and attack it. We should be seeing basic attack and defensive AI. For instance if you place a torpedo boat and set it to "search and engage in zone", and it detects a target it should go and attack it. The carrier should turn into the wind, if while battling a ship the CIWS on one side become damaged, a d missiles are inbound it should turn so the good CWIS can engage the incoming. And all ships with a radar and a radio should be able to be used as a EWR.

Good point, we can put self protect options in the #3 block. I think it really would need two sets of options in the advanced waypoint editor. Self protect from surface threats, and self protect from aerial threats. For Surface threats maybe use an option for: all weapons, lage and small caliber navel guns, and small caliber navel guns only. I have no idea if those bushmasters, and fifty's actually work, but they need to. For the anti air side maybe: Use all wepons, use close in weapons only, if we get countermeasure, use passive defense only. I'm not a naval history buff, or at least not in the post world War II era. But Ed recently posted the story of how the US Navy annihilated the Iranian Navy in the late 80s. I'm not sure but this has to be one of the most significant naval actions to have taken place since the and world War II. In this action there were several harpoon shots taken against US naval warships. Perry classes I believe. And they defended themselves with passive countermeasures. I'm quite certain this is because we didn't want to run the risk of collateral damage that comes with slinging antire missiles. I don't think we're going to see any kind of change the ships we have now until we see an overhaul of the AI. But DCs has become a very large air combat simulator. We already have the super carrier, df18, the 14. The a7 is in development, the f8 may be in development, the A6 is in development. The jf-17, c101 of all things, and vegan can all carry anti ship missiles. Updating the naval assets, and giving them a better AI should absolutely be a priority in DCS now. Without it we have cool navel planes and range targets.

What conditions?

The Mig-21 is your module, or was. I get it. I disagree, kinda. I think that the Cockpit shake value should be tunable globally. But that's my opinion. I think the reason it can be so distracting is because the effect is so subdued in the Viper, and Hornet. Particularly the hornet. Now to be fair actual Hornet drivers have complained that the jet doesn't give enough auditory feedback. So maybe that is on ED, and maybe that's a discussion to have with them. Or again let the user who is getting the feedback decide. You aren't going to do it, and that is your prerogative. I think it's a mistake, and should be user adjustable across all modules. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I am glad you used Camara shake to model it though, instead of the horrendous panel shake that ED used on the Huey. That I do mod out. Still the cat is one of, if not, my favorites. So don't think I'm being too critical. And again the shake level is about the same as it is in the F-15, which it should be. So no one can really say that it's over exaggerated. Just again if you come from the F-18, it's going to surprise you. P.S. Now kindly please get the Erofighter built. So you can make the A-6. I'll definitely be buying both. Especially after seeing what Jester can do with the targeting pod.

Thanks, I figured it would get fixed in a patch or two. Until then AIM-54s are temporarily grounded.