Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ghostdog688

  • Birthday 12/17/1986

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    Falcon BMS, DCS, IL-2, X-Plane 11
  • Location
    Dundee, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I’m sure you don’t want to send us all into hype-erdrive, but given you have made a commitment to this year that you’ve repeatedly said you are confident with, are you able to elaborate where you are in the development process and what level of work remains? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. the DMAS system was nicknamed 'Arnie' for reasons im unsure of. perhaps we can call the AI WSO 'Arnie' too - after all, it is a digital replacement
  3. I for one would love to see a draken and a Lansen (the A model) personally. Would round out the collection nicely! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. I’d actually prefer a recon variant - with photos we can have passed to our hard drive for analysis later. Might make the recon features of the U/22A a bit more useful too ;) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. If we are talking both and we want a realistic shot at getting one made, a mid 70s -E model and a J model give the most breadth Im terms of nations served with acceptable deviations. If we are talking wish list, I’d love an F4E for AIr Force and F4 FGR1 for carrier ops. Gives us a shot at both J79 and Spey type engines. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. I won’t hate them for “missing” a variant. I’d be happy that any of them are getting done. The sales would spur them to develop one of the other variants or give another studio evidence that the juice is worth the squeeze. Maybe it’s because I’m an optimist but I think of it as a WIN-WIN. Either we get the E - good. Or a naval variant (if so, I’d prefer the J/S) - also good. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  7. This might seem a little strange asking here, but is anyone working on SA-4 'Ganef' (aka 9M11 'Krug')? Would be a nice change of pace.
  8. On the other hand, I’m happy to take whatever phantom is offered. I have a personally preference towards the FGR 1 (the U.K. variant) but I have as much chance actually getting to fly a real one as I do getting to fly one in DCS. On the absence of that preference, I’ll take what I can get. A J or an E would suit me fine. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. If he’s referring to the trello board which HeatBlur shared, then it most certainly is publicly admitted to roadmap.if he’s got other data, it’s up to him to share it, but I take any “leaks” with a grain of salt until confirmed or denied by HB. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. In the context of the topic, I believe this refers to weather conditions. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. Japan has officially retired last year, leaving only Greece, Iran and Turkey: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37742/so-long-samurai-japan-bids-farewell-to-its-final-frontline-phantoms I May be wrong, But I believe the only western design that’s outlived the phantom in terms of “still in front line use” is the B52. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. A HeatBlur phantom would indeed make my collection complete, but I think then taking their darken out of AI and into human controlled would be fine too. The tornado is unlikely to appear; it’s been said in other parts of the forum that Panavia have already said they don’t wish to support such a project. A Lightning would be cool, but once again, I’m realistic that British aircraft are terribly difficult to obtain documentation on - the MoD classifies the hell out of everything . That leaves the F-111 out of all the viable rumours, and makes sense given their work on F14 and A6 systems, engines and aerodynamics. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. I was unaware of these issues personally; but the Viggen is one of the modules for me that I love flying but don’t really do much more than drop a stick of bombs or rockets on a single pass for; if these are indeed bugs and you can submit evidence of them, do so. Even if the bug is currently in the tracker, it’s worth submitting evidence again or resubmitting it as it’s possible they genuinely believed it to be fixed or it’s slipped under the radar (like a Viggen should be doing lol) with all the other things going on. If there’s anything evidentiary you can offer to fix it, or it’s a simple fix and you know how to do it, offer them a solution too. It might help get the bug squished. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. Sure, but we don’t really have a SEA map (and I’m not aware of one on the horizon). An -E model is something we see in Syria and Persian gulf through the various Arab/Israeli conflict of the 70s, as well as the IRIAF, and even older Greek and Turkish stuff over Akrotiri (when it finally gets there). Im quite realistic that even if I’d love a carrier based model, or an RAF one, I’m more likely to get an E based on it’s more widespread export and the existing fit within the currently available ecosystem. Realistically speaking, I’m just happy to see a phantom in DCS. I’ll take whatever I can get. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. If HB elect to make a phantom, I’d be happier than if any other studio including ED took it, because I’m happy with how they’ve made JESTER behave in terms of the AI system. The phantom radar is simpler than the AWG-9, but that also makes it a little trickier to maintain locks, so expect a little more work on the pilot/RIO interaction to make it more effective. Personally, as much as I’d rather see an F4J (it was used by the USN and USMC and even the RAF in limited numbers, so covers a range of services), it’s more likely I think we’d see an F4E in DCS first. It was far more widely exported, has a gun for all the folks that like their WVR and has a wider potential range of weapons due to the number of countries that accepted it. The E model would have all the usual F4 weapons like sparrows, numerous sidewinder variants, GP bombs, napalm and even shrikes, but also you can see it in IAF colours packing Mavericks, Popeyes, and stuff like python. Given we now have Syria, an A4 mod out there, mig 19 and 21s, F14s, an upcoming A6,A7 and F8, and eventually a Mirage F1, that entire area has historical conflicts you can very possible insert an F4E into (IAF, IRIAF, HaF. TuAF, EAF, and also USAF depending on timeline), it’s really the best candidate for the job. F4Es can even carry PGMs and self designate with PaveTack and PaveSpike. Furthermore, Belsimtek were working on a post-Vietnam E variant that could have dropped GBU-8 (think the USAF version of a walleye). From a business standpoint, a carrier phantom is fine, but the -E model is better. The Japanese and Koreans even had variants of the E model, so simulating exercises in the Guam map wouldn’t be totally nuts for that. Realistically, whoever can get a decent quality Phantom to DCS first will get a MASSIVE amount of money if they can do it right, but they will have a lot of people moaning at them no matter what variant the studio does - I’d suggest they choose one and double down. Maybe they can look at a different variant down the line as an expansion pack - in much the same way the A10C/C2 went, but probably a bit more money involved. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Create New...