mattebubben

I think this should answer your questions. So the pictures we have seen so far should be for the EE (single seat) and BE (Two seat).

Yea i kinda assumed it could be something like that. Both that having 8 Tows would probably be to heavy to be practical for such a small / light helicopter as the Bo-105/HKP 9. And that it might have been early testing since even though im far from an expert on the HKP 9A something looked different about it (camo/color Scheme and Launchers being the things i noticed atleast), and i thought it was probable that there were tests done with different loadout options done during the testing phase so it made sense if the picture was from that era. Thanks for the response and information =) Its so nice to actually have someone who flew them on the forum to answer questions etc. And im looking forward to see what kinds of input you have about it when its finally released.

You can do a Hot-rearm so simply go master mode BER then load up new weapons and make sure to change the starting airfield before takeoff. (And if you want to Turn of the engine but dont want to loose Electricity simply connect to ground power before you turn off the engine that way you wont have to Re-Load data cartridge and input new data etc). If you had the Nav-Sys warning that is probably why the BX waypoints where off but im confused if they were way off target but the normal waypoints were not. Do you know why you got the Nav sys warning? When you said you turned everything off did that mean you turned off the engine and everything etc? Also how did you get the BX waypoint for the first sortie? Mission editor or did you load them in during the mission. (Either by inputting the Coordinates or by using the radar)

For the F-5E Takeoff had you remembered to set the Flaps to auto? Since if you had not and tried to take off with the Flaps retracted i can understand why you would have those problems =P.

Does anybody know if HKP-9A was able to carry and use 8 Tows or just the 4 that seems to have been standard. Since ive seen some sources stating it could carry 8 and there is also a photo or two of this (Example) Or was this simply something that was tested but never put into service etc. I would be interested to know exactly what is shown on the photo when it comes to the Tows either way, So if somebody knows more on the subject (Maybe Gunnars Driver as he seems to be the in-house HKP 9 expert considering he used to serve in them) i would love to hear it =).

Did you get the Nav sys warning after takeoff? And did you remember to switch back to BER mode while re-arming and to set input the airfield you were on as the new starting airfield-Waypoint before takeoff. Since what it sounds like happening is the the Navigation system getting messed up (my first guess would be due to something done or not done during the landing/Re-Arm/Takeoff window. Lets say for example you took of from Sochi did you first attack mission went to Sukhumi to land and re-arm and then took off again without making Sukhumi the new starting airfield then the navigation system would be messed up as it would assume you just took of from Sochi (using one of the two Sochi runways) so all the waypoints might be completely off. But if you did all this correctly and did not have the Nav Sys warning then im less sure what caused it. But either way i dont think your problem has anything to do with the RBS 15 but rather the navigation system. So first make sure you followed all the navigation procedures correctly and did not make any mistakes on that compartment (And that you never had the Nav Sys warning).

I cant say if its fixed or not in 2.0 but its been fixed in 1.5 for sure =P. And now we just have to wait for those BK-90 fixed to come to 1.5 => been looking forward to being able to use the BK-90 in MP for a long while now =).

They mentioned they might such a Snap view for the EP-13 before the release. Dont know if they are still planning to do so but i hope they are as it would indeed help those less fortunate who dont have Track IR (Or something similar).

No there is no symbol you can slew around. But there is a boresight Dot. (you might have to lower the seat slightly to sea it on the HUD). So you simply line up the boresight dot with the target (if the maverick seekers are boresighted) and it should be in the middle of the Maverick optic letting you quickly locate the target in question and lock / launch. Its probably even possible to just line the dot on target hold the Lock button and then launch without looking at the display hoping it locked the target or at least A target. Though this is most likely not entirely accurate against smaller targets as you cant be sure exactly what it locked or even if it locked something without looking at the EP-13 display. (against ships or large structures etc it might be more reliable though) But it could be something one could do with snapshot opportunities (when there is no time to use the display and carefully lock the target). I really wish they would have slaved some hud symbology to the seeker (and maybe to the Radar Nav fix system as well) since it should not have been impossible to do considering they were able to add hud symbology linked to the Aim-9s seeker (showing where its looking once unslaved). But Saab does things their own way ^^ and that's what makes them so much fun.

Would it be possible modifying the Tool to use the Sounds used ingame? Either by recording the ingame sounds. Or by simply using the Sound files in the AJS 37s cockpit sounds Folder. (DCS World\Mods\aircraft\AJS37\Sounds\Effects\Aircrafts\Cockpits)

yea there is seat up/down keybinds. but i dont remember exactly what they are called.

... Leatherneck had access to AJS 37 Viggens as well as all the Data for the AJS 37 thus they were able to completely simulate its systems and weapons. Belsimtek likely had the same type of access and information about the F-5E but only for certain Blocks of F-5E thus that is the variant they modeled as its the one they had the information about. And the majority of F-5Es did not have Maverick Capability / INS etc so the manuals etc needed to simulate those would likely be harder to come by unless they managed to establish contact with one of the nations operating F-5Es with those capabilities and were able to get the documentations from them. DCS is not about making an aircraft as capable as possible. Its about simulating that aircraft as well as possible. And for that they need as much information about it as possible to be able to simulate its systems correctly. There are differences between the F-5E variants in how the cockpit is layed out and how they are operated based on what equipment they had etc. So in order to simulate a feature they would require extensive information (preferably a manual) in how they were operated etc. For example this is the cockpit of a Taiwanese F-5E with AGM-65 capability (as Factory standard not a later upgrade) As you can see there are changes in cockpit placement and the Radar display is different (and AGM-65 capable) so the Radar display at a minimum does not operate like the radar display they have information on so they would require documentation on how it was operated and how it looked when active etc if they wanted to simulate it. Same with INS since we might now how INS systems operate on other aircraft but without the exact documentation we dont know exactly how it would have operated for F-5Es with a Certain INS system. (Or otherwise they would simply have to make educated guesses about how they "Think" things would work). It was most likely pretty easy for Leatherneck to get most of the information they needed for the AJS 37 the Information is readily available and the fact that most of the Development Team was Swedish made it even easier (and also made it so they did not require translation assistance etc). And there are also plenty of Viggens on Museums and including several AJS 37 Cockpits converted into Simulators etc and they apparently were able to get a significant time in and around Viggens to get everything right. Where as most of the F-5Es differed from eachother from user to user (due to customer Needs) so they needed to get information for a Particular F-5E block not just F-5Es in general (as what was true for 1 F-5E might not have been true for another) where as the AJS 37 was standardized (so all AJS 37s were more or less identical). I might even hazard to say that Leatherneck might have had a easier time getting information for the AJS 37 then Belsimtek might have had to get all the information to completely simulate the F-5E-3.

You seem to be under the idea that Belstimtek setteled for this model of F-5E because they wanted it less formidable. And not because its probably the only variant they had Complete information for. They have stated earlier for example that they would consider adding the Maverick support if they had all the needed information around it (How the Maverick Compatible Display worked and how the weapon would have been operated etc) So if they got all that information (preferably by getting their hands on the Manuals for a F-5E with that display / ability) then it would be likely they could make it happen but if they dont have the information they need there is nothing they can do. (Unless you want them to just Guesstimate on how things worked instead of Simulating the Aircraft properly) So if you want them to make a More advanced F-5E dont berate them... Try to find them the information they need to make a more capable F-5E instead...

Actually the Viggen can carry 6 Aim-9s All 6 weapon pylons can handle the Rear Aspect RB 24=Aim-9B (Though no real point in carrying it since it had left service by the Time of the AJS 37 Modification) and RB 24J=Aim-9J/P (Which is the Standard Rear Aspect version and should be carried on the Outermost wing pylons if you need Aim-9s for self defense during Strike missions) and the 4 innermost can use the far more capable RB 74=Aim-9L. (All 3 variants are based on the American variants Aim-9B/Aim-9J/P and Aim-9L respectively but with Swedish made modifications done to them) Compared to the 2x Aim-9 of the F-5E (And The RB 74 is a far better missile then the Aim-9P5 is). And Though the AJS 37 is not really a fighter (as that was the Role of the later JA 37 Fighter Viggen with Completely new Avionics+Radar and with a better and more powerful engine) it is no slouch as it has a very powerful engine letting it accelerate very well and there are few aircraft that can outrun it on the deck (atm atleast). So that is a massive advantage over the F-5E since the F-5E is somewhat lacking when it comes to Power / Acceleration. But my suggestion to the OP is that if you want the F-5E get it. Its a fun aircraft but its not as capable as the Viggen and uses much simpler systems as well as relying on completely manual weapons deliver when it comes to air-ground. So if you simply want a Fun aircraft to play with or duel with Mig-21s in then the F-5E can be plenty of fun. But if you want an aircraft to be more effective in air-air or air-ground then the F-5E wont give you that. I Have both modules and i like the F-5E (Though i Love the Viggen) and though they are both from the Same time periods they are very different aircraft to operate / fly (With the Viggen having advanced systems like a HUD + Navigational systems etc and Computer calculated target solutions etc and the F-5E being much more Basic / Hands with the pilot having to do everything himself) If you want something more capable then the Viggen when it comes to air-air then the Mirage 2000 would be a better choice. and If you want something dedicated to Air-Ground able to kill more units per sortie then the Viggen then getting either the A-10C or a Helicopter like the KA-50 might be a better choice. But if you want the F-5E and you understand its limitations and accept them then im sure you will be able to enjoy it.

In what way is Maverick deployment difficult?. Do you have Track IR?. I find it to be easy enough just lower the Seat lightly so you can see the Boresight Dot for the Mavericks. Put the Dot on the target and simply look at the EP-13 Display and lock the target you want. And remember to Re-Boresight between shots. Dont find it much more difficult then using the Maverick on the A-10A.

The keybind for Lights only works for me. so dont know why it would not work for him. Check in controls to make sure its not in Red text. And if it is that would explain it.

Would really love having the SA.342L with hots especially if it had 6x hots. And i think if it got 6x hots then plenty of people would use it instead of the 342M. Since while the 342M would still have a better Camera system for day time ops the 2 extra Hots would be more important for me atleast. One downside maybe with Giving the L 6x hots could be less people getting the Bo-105 when it comes out. Since one of its advantages over the 342M is that it carries 6 hots so if the 342L did the same that takes away that combat advantage for the 105. Il be getting the 105 either both to get the RoK variant with its optical system (especially if it can Lase targets as has been suggested) and because i overall prefer the 105 over the Gazelle. Though thats just speculation. Either way i hope they give the 342L Hots hopefully both 4x or 6x or atleast 4x.

I think you have some of the facts wrong on the Aim-9 there =P. The Aim-9P is not related to the Aim-9L. The Aim-9L and Aim-9P were both developed at the same but to fulfill different needs With the Aim-9L being a extremely capable New design but much more expensive then the older designs. Where as the Aim-9P is a improvement on the Aim-9J family of missiles and was mainly developed as an export option or as a much cheaper option to the Aim-9L for lower risk situations (or for sale to nations that the US did not want to sell the Aim-9L to) and even the US acquired substantial numbers of the Aim-9P missiles as they were much cheaper then the Aim-9L but still more then good enough for less demanding scenarios. The Base Aim-9P was just like the Rear aspect missile just like the Aim-9s before it meaning it was unable to lock an enemy from the front but required as good a sight of the enemy engine as possible (So either directly behind of from the side)though its seeker was more capable then older generations of rear aspect missiles. There were multiple variants of the Aim-9P ranging from the Aim-9P (P1) to Aim-9P5. Aim-9P1,P2,P3 were all rear aspect missiles but had different improvements letting the customer pick what best suited their need / budget (as the more capable the variant the more expensive it was likely to be). The Aim-9P4 was a Aim-9P with a All-Aspect seeker based on the Aim-9L technology. The Aim-9P5 is like the P4 but with the Seeker based on the Aim-9M giving it better flare rejection capabilities then the Aim-9P4. But indeed the Aim-9M is by far the best of the Three. Longest range,More Maneuverable and with a better seeker etc. With the Aim-9P being the Worst as it is less manuverable has a shorter effective range and the seeker is rear aspect only as already explained, with the P5 having the seeker advantages of the Aim-9M but still has the other limitations of the Aim-9P.

My understanding of his post is that the Throttle was unresponsive so he clicked on it and that turned off the High Pressure valve (Locking it in place and killing the engine) but that it was unresponsive even before he clicked it (Thus before he turned of the High Pressure fuel valve). That makes me think he enabled the AFK by mistake (Which would have kept him flying) but then he became confused as to why he had no command over the throttle and started clicking buttons to find the problem ending up turning off the high pressure valve by accident. Atleast that i my reading of the situation.

Great news when it comes to the fixes =). Looking forward to finally start using the BK-90 in MP. Im gonna miss Tengil though (The Name of the character he used as an Avatar). All Makt åt Tengil Vår Befriare! #BringTengilBack

Well since we know not to trust anything you say when it comes to upcoming aircraft does that mean it is a hint? :unsure:

Dolphin887 Confirmed in the Other announcement Thread that the corsair / Iwo Jima belongs to Leatherneck Sim, MAGNITUDE 3 LLC. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3076131&postcount=13 Out of the Announced / Existing modules it seems Heatblur is getting Viggen + F-14 and Magnitude/Leatherneck has Mig-21Bis + Corsair. (Atleast that is what i have gathered from what they have stated on the two Announcement Threads) With both sides likely having un announced modules in early stages we dont know about.

I agree with Goblins sentiment. I now have the AJS 37 Viggen so nothing else in the world matters anymore ^^. But Good luck to both teams and im confident both will create many more products for us all to love and enjoy. On a side note. Will this cause a restructuring of this forum? With the Threads relating to the Viggen and F-14 being moved to a New heatblur section and with Mig-21 and Corsair related things remaining here on the Leatherneck part of the forum?.

One thing you need to take in consideration when flying the Viggen in high speeds is that there is a significant Trim change in the transonic region (thus the warning light for it) so when nearing those speeds be ready to compensate by pulling back on the stick (or keeping the nose down when you are leaving Supersonic speeds if you have changed the Trim) there is usually no point in trying to trim while in the transonic region since the changes are so big so just use the stick to correct untill you are out of the transonic region then trim correctly, the ATT autopilot mode can also be used to keep it steady enough during the transonic speed transition though i would probably not rely on it completely if flying at low altitude. But if one takes that into account i find the Viggen to be very easy to fly very low with (Which is not surprising considering that was what it was ment to do) and she is pretty stable flying with and pretty forgiving when it comes to maneuvering (Other then the Engine Compressor stall problem). So flying low is no problem as long as you pay attention to the speed, and i regularly fly as low as 7-10m above water and 10-20 above land. I probably fly lower and faster in the Viggen then in any other aircraft in DCS, (And i have all Fast movers including the FC-3 aircraft,Mig-21,F-5E and Mirage 2000C and im more comfortable at low altitudes in the Viggen then any of those though im not sure i can explain exactly why). And about that Throttle issue might you have activated the Auto Throttle (AFK) by accident? (and that would be why the Throttle did not react)

Good Choice and im sure you will be happy with it. Send me a PM (Or add me on skype) if you want to link up for some time with a "Qualified" Viggen instructor ^^ since as i stated earlier i would be more then happy to take you through the steps to become a proper Viggen pilot ^^. :Edit About the crash how soon was it after takeoff? Are you sure it was the Thrust that went and not Lift? Since the Flaps are linked to the landing gears and how it works atm is the flaps retract instantly when the gears are starting to retract causing a decrease in lift which could cause problems if one start to raise the Gear to quickly. This is not working exactly as it should atm since there should be a delay between the Gears retracting and the flaps retracting in order to give you time to gain speed / altitude before the lift from the flaps is lost, so hopefully they will fix that problem soon enough but as it is its a good idea to hold off a few seconds after getting airborne before retracting gear (to where you get enough altitude / speed to where the sudden loss of lift wont cause you to fall back to the ground).