Tirak

Such as....?

I fail to see how airliners will add immersion. We fight in warzones slinging AMRAAMs and dropping GBUs, there wouldn't be civilian traffic anywhere near us while we do this. Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 is the exception that proves the rule on this.

His complaint is that there aren't WWII era ground targets to attack. The sorts of tanks we have currently in game can't be dented by the cannons on the Stuka. I would like to point out however, that given the amount of time it will take to get this bird in the air, by then it's likely we'll start seeing more WWII module support. There's quite a few of them coming rather soon after all.

I do not support civilian modules over any potential combat aircraft. The only circumstance that I would have no qualms about a company doing a civilian module would be if that company would never have done a military aircraft even if given the opportunity. If companies like those want to make modules, more power to them, but under no circumstances should a military module have to wait for a moment so that efforts can be spent on civilian aircraft.

Because most of these civilian versions have different cockpits, different systems, all of which need to be modeled in detail, which takes a long time, longer than the 'decide next project' step would be. Furthermore, you'd then need to support these versions. DCS tends to break modules every time it updates, so now they'd be wasting time keeping the civvy versions up to date rather than working on the combat modules.

I've seen some pretty awful reviews of the X55 in terms of ergonomics. It doesn't have the adjustable grip the X52 has, it doesn't have a two stage trigger, and it doesn't glow fun colors. I've thought about upgrading to an X55 a few times, but I much prefer how the X52 feels in hand, and since I started playing BMS, losing the two stage trigger is just completely not on for me.

This myth needs to die a horrible fiery death. Sparrows in the late war became greatly improved with far better seeker heads, and IF LAUNCHED WITHIN SPECIFIED PARAMETERS were quite accurate. The problem in Vietnam was less the missile, and more a problem of RoE and lack of proper dogfight training. Too often, Sparrows were selected outside their launch envelope, leading to the high percentage of missed missiles. Reliability on early war missiles was poor, but its accuracy was far better than what might be assumed by just a straight hits per launch calculation.

But it does make it not the F-5E variant being made. Don't get me wrong, i agree in wanting one that would have at least 4 heat seekers, but the Dash 1 and Dash 34 are both exhaustively clear about what ordnance goes where :(

No news, and i wouldn't expect any news for a while. Cobra is so far behind on the Viggen and Corsair announcements, there's not much chance for any F-14 updates for a long time.

Given the general caliber of pilot an F-22 module would attract, I think the results would be rather different than what most would assume :lol:

Balance is up to the level designer, not the module designer.

I can understand the concern, however I've had very different experiences in ArmA and PR than what it seems you had, so I don't view it with as much skepticism I suppose.

Depends on what kind of friends you've got. I've got two guys in my clan with no interest in flying planes, but they said they'd love to fly as a backseater.

I have, but apparently it's a moot point :(

I am still very confused by this, I've done a bit of checking around online and every single source I find says that the aircraft can carry 2 on the wingtips and up to an additional 4 on the under wing pylons. Now I've seen one of the devs say essentially pics or it didn't happen, and one user mention that this capability was near to being useless until low drag pylons were made later in the aircrafts life. Is there a physical limitation on the F-5E-3 that means it is not capable of mounting these pylons or the additional sidewinders, or is it really a "find us a picture" sort of deal?

I can't even believe we're still going over this. The Test in question with the F-16 WAS NOT A DOGFIGHTING TEST, it was a test of the flight control software, the F-16 was ONLY THERE TO PROVIDE A REFERENCE POINT FOR THE PILOT. There was NO DOGFIGHT, no combat simulated or otherwise. Affordability, the Gripen is far less capable and the Eurofighter is far more expensive, so you're either saving a tiny fraction of money for a plane a third as capable, or overspending on a plane that's going to be far more difficult to upkeep. Hooray logic :doh:

Engine reliability has shot up drastically, and single engine aircraft are more than reliable enough to work, even up in the far North. Keep in mind, Norway is no stranger to arctic conditions, and they'll be flying the aircraft as well. Also, keep in mind, that when it comes to engine failure, because of the preassures involved, when something does go wrong, it goes catastrophically wrong, which generally takes out both engines. The Super Hornet is not an "upgrade" of the Legacy Hornet, it's a whole new aircraft. Different engines, a completely new wing, totally different avionics, there's more that's different about this aircraft than the same, you would not be "upgrading", you would be replacing, and you would be doing so for an aircraft with shorter legs, lower payload, no stealth and worse electronics. It makes no sense going forward for Canada to take a step back into gen 4, when gen 5 is right there for a fully affordable price. Weather is not an issue frankly, and I don't know where this new 'argument' has come from, but it's completely false, just take a look at the cold weather testing already done on the aircraft, and take a look at the other partners in the program.

We have the dimensions of the aircraft, we know how much thrust it produces, we know how much it weighs and have a decent idea of how that weight is arranged, using that, you can calculate the aircraft's performance.

No, the only part of the F-117 that can't be replicated is the material composition of the skin of the aircraft. Nearly the entire plane is built using off the shelf parts from other aircraft that we have information on. We don't need to know exactly what makes up the RAM in order to mimic the effect in game. So unless you've got something else, I'm not seeing the problem.

No, not literally anything but: A-3 Skywarrior :- 1 B-29 :- 1 B-52 :- 1 B-57 Canberra :- 1 Chinook :- 1 Dassault Etendard :- 1 Dassault Rafale :- 1 English Electric Lightning :- 1 Eurocopter Tiger :- 1 F-8 Crusader :- 1 Fiat G91 :- 1 IAI Kfir :- 1 MD-500 :- 1 MiG-17 :- 1 MiG-29 :- 1 Mosquito :- 1 Puma :- 1 S-3 Viking :- 1 Saab Viggen :- 1 Seaking :- 1 Shenyang J-8 II :- 1 Su-34 :- 1 T+A1:B62u-160 Blackjack :- 1 T-2 Buckeye :- 1 T-6 Texan :- 1 Tu-144 :- 1 Tu-95 Bear :- 1 UH-60 :- 1 Xian JH-7 :- 1 All of these got even less votes Also, given the off the shelf nature of most of the F-117's systems, someone still needs to give a reasonable explanation as to why it couldn't be a high fidelity module.

DCS is a game, it is meant to be fun. Is it realistic? Yes. But at the end of the day, you play DCS.

https://steamdb.info/app/223750/dlc/ It pretty much is at this point, Cobra needs to get his butt into gear now.

The Hoop Skirt is one of the ugliest wings ever designed, literally the exact opposite of the Cranked Arrow. Sexy: Not Sexy:

I have a suggestion for a new rule. Until VEAO, RAZBAM, AvioDev and Polychop come out with an eastern bloc plane, people aren't allowed to bitch in the LN section of the forums about having an eastern bloc DCS module :noexpression:

Gunpods are of... disputed effectiveness. On the F-4 they were rather inaccurate and lacked a gunsight to really take advantage of them. The fact they're hooked up to a pylon rather than embedded into the actual aircraft incurs problems with vibrations affecting accuracy. There's a not insignificant number of people who feel that the gunpods on the F-4 served more of a placebo effect, and in reality more reliable missiles and better training in BFM were far more effective at improving the F-4s exchange rates. I don't know how well the Viggen can integrate a gunpod, I am inclined to believe, knowing nothing specific about the viggen's gunpod support, that it would be less accurate and prone to jamming if it can be carried at all, so I would still give the F-5 an advantage at knife fight range. As for the F-5's maneuverability, I only can hold up its US Aggressor record as being a devastating opponent. The F-5 wing has enlarged leading edge extensions and other features to greatly improve maneuverability. While used as the MiG-21's stand in, it was and is a far superior dogfighter.