Tirak

Nope. The A-4E only has a ground scanning radar. Fun fact, the A-4E was the first DCS "module" to showcase a ground radar :)

Where from pray tell, I glanced at Throttletek's website and couldn't find any sign of it.

Simple solution to all those who think the module isn't enough. Buy more. Nothing's stopping you from purchasing more and giving them out.

We're getting both models mate, and the B is coming first.

I agree full heartedly. The 80 dollar price point once the preorder done is quite fair, and i don't begrudge them at all for the price they set. My beef is solely with the people who are saying "We should have to pay more and **** all those people who ain't running a 2500 dollar rig".

I'm going to call bullshit on that, namely because I recently priced out an upgrade for my PC, both an upgrade price and a total rebuild price and even total rebuild came out to no more than a thousand dollars, and that was being ridiculous on the GPU. VR isn't in a good enough place to justify the added expense if you're looking to actually fight in DCS, and until it is there's no need to try and fight the cryptominers for a 2080, or a Pimax 8k. That price by the way is if you're looking to run your rig at maximum. Getting in at lower levels you can go as cheap as 600 bucks, and if you're willing to drop to bottom levels of efficiency, you can play this game at a budget of 500. Anyone who says otherwise is looking to humblebrag. Gatekeeping is bad and I find the snide attitude of those who would say "Spend $2500 or get a new hobby scrub" to be disgusting. You should be looking to expand the playerbase so that it attracts more developers and more content.

Um, no, you don't need a 2500 dollar PC to run this game, you can make do with much older and less powerful systems, in fact many of us do. Trying to price folks out of the hobby is a bad thing by trying to insinuate you need thousands worth of hardware. That scares new folks off and flatly isn't true. As to the folks wishing the price were higher, I'm going to cordially tell you to go soak your head and stop again, trying to price people out of the hobby. The current price is fine as we're getting 1.5 planes out of it, so we're not in crazy territory for pricing. 20 bucks over the normal price is alright given that fact as well as the Forrestal we're getting. We're getting a decent content to dollar ratio here.

I'm gonna guess no since I don't believe any of the gun cams work in any other aircraft, but I could be wrong about that.

Well tell Gyro mate, not me, I'm just quoting Heatblur. EDIT: Also upon brief inspection, you appear to be wrong... https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/in-the-1980s-iran-outfitted-f-14s-as-heavy-bombers.340449/

About a year ago there was some speculation about an F-14 grip adapter for several flightstick bases. Did that turn out to be baseless rumor or is that something that is actually in the works?

According to Gyrovague: The link also contains a hardpoint table Gyro created for easy visualization.

Untrue, however Cobra has addressed this. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3647488&postcount=8

The reveal was beautiful and everything I had been hoping it would be. Some absolutely wonderful beauty shots of the F-14, a concise explanation that it will be almost feature complete when it's actually available in early access, where to buy it and a little bit of information about their new workflow system and the capabilities it brings. Heatblur has always done their trailers very well in my opinion, and this truly is the best one yet, I cannot wait to get my hands on this aircraft, well done.

I just want to be clear here, I'm not saying "Heatblur plz do this" or anything like that, I'm just genuinely curious as to the extent of how much, if at all they plan to bend the rules. The discussion has already been had with the test squadron aircraft concerning HARMs, Harpoons and AMRAAMs, weapons that were never implemented to the fleet, meaning that fleet birds literally could not make use of the weapon. I'm not asking for that or any other "Super Tomcat" as it would not be appropriate for our F-14B. However, we know the Tomcat could carry and use the JDAM. Whether or not the Mid 90s tomcat we have can use the JDAM, I don't know, and that became a supplementary question. But if it can, I'm simply wondering how much of the JDAM family would be included. Again, not asking them to do it, just asking what their plans are on the matter.

Yet Heatblur has bent the rules before when they were still Leatherneck and with the MiG-21Bis. So we have 1 that has bent the rules and 1 that has not, which is why I'm asking.

No I didn't. I'm asking Heatblur if they're bending the rules or not, not whether or not the weapons existed in the same time period.

Umm, how could you possibly miss this one: - Alert 5, 1986: The SS Layton has become disabled and has wandered into foreign territory. A rescue operation will soon begin. Your mission is to give it air support. There are MiGs in the area. If you witness a hostile act, return fire.

One thing that I've been curious about, will Heatblur allow us to use GBU-54s on the Tomcat? GBU-12s are much longer than a regular Mk.82, and so can't be carried in the same fashion if stored nose to tail with other bombs as with the Tomcat, but the GBU-54 can, which would drastically increase our guided bomb carriage in the 500lb range, making her an excellent jet for plinking ala the F-111. However the GBU-54 wasn't used until 2008, and the Tomcat was retired in 2006, so it would be anachronistic. Heatblur has done less than realistic weapon loadouts before, but has pulled away from doing that on current and future projects, but this is a grey area as the F-14B could carry the JDAM, though I'm not certain if the same bus would allow it to connect to a GBU-54, or even more basically if the "Mid 90s" F-14Bs we have could use a JDAM at all.

As poetic as that would be, no release goes through without bugs, or at least should be planned without bugs. A release that close to Christmas could potentially ruin Heatblur's Christmas plans making them either leave the module in a buggy state or make them have to come into work rather than spending time with their families. They might do it, but that makes me think they might set a date a little earlier to make sure everything's going well. With that said, we'll likely know in a few hours one way or another.

The F-15C is not the F-15E. The two seater F-15C is the F-15D, and the F-15C can actually carry conformal fuel tanks, which is one of the reasons why I assume adding CFTs has drastic affects on a flight model, otherwise the F-15C we already have in game would have the option to add or remove those CFTs. In any event, as others have noted in this thread, the Strike Eagle has a different structure to the Eagle, more internal reinforcement to carry more ground attack weapons, as well as different engines. And as others have noted, the CFTs are something of a defining feature of the Strike Eagle. To develop a Strike Eagle without CFTs first and then develop adding CFTs on later would be, in my opinion, backwards. Also, as to the matter of just 'adding' CFTs to a flight model, it's not that simple. The flight model is expressed as a mathematical equation, making changes to body lift and how air flow will move around the strike eagle's thicc shapely hips isn't just a matter of bolting them on and letting the current flight model figure out what's going on.

Exactly, and ED will share it, which is why I don't think that saying "ED won't share their flight model" is a good argument, they probably would but would have a different profit sharing model to reflect the additional work on EDs end, because ED only serves to profit more as people buy more third party modules. In any event though, I personally don't think the ED flight model would be accurate for a strike eagle without CFTs. Looking more into it, there have been significant structural changes that occurred and increased weight, I don't believe that an F-15C flight model would be accurate enough to apply, and RAZBAM would have to completely make a whole new flight model. That would be a monumental task and one I don't think they'd do. Personally, I don't think CFTs should be removable, not for the reasons that it's not done normally according to doctrine, or that ED would not share their flight model data of the improved F-15C, but because I think the amount of work required to integrate two flight models into a single aircraft, due to the fact that I believe a copied and pasted F-15C flight model wouldn't be realistic enough, is far too much to ask and would both take too long and cost too much, for too little gain. Now I could be wrong, it might be as simple as just coding it like a weapon. I woudln't think that'd be the case given how it changes the shape and thus affects the amount of lift the body of the aircraft would generate, but maybe it's as simple as changing a few numbers. If that were the case I'd be fore it's inclusion, but again, I don't think it's that simple and such a complexity offers too little gain in my humble opinion.

Yes, I know you've been paying attention to RAZBAM's development so I know you know that one of the main reasons why the NA came before the + Harrier was because ED still hadn't released their take on how to do ground radar. Despite the fact that even the Community A-4E project has a functional ground radar. ED shares systems data with third parties, otherwise RAZBAM would have to build their own like HeatBlur did.

I think their work will be provided to third party developers in the same way that ED has provided things like the radar code to other third party developers. Since ED makes a percentage based on what modules sell, they have no incentive to keep it to themselves when dealing with their registered third parties.

BelSimTek no longer exists, they are a part of ED now.