Tirak

I understand the difficulties in the flight model being a challenge. If that is the reason why they don't include that option, that is in my opinion an appropriate excuse not to allow for players to do that. However, not modeling it solely because that's the way the aircraft are not normally flown is in my opinion an absurd stance, akin with players who argue that LAU-88s should not be usable because they are no longer in operational use with the Air Force, but that's a fight for another day.

Simple, that saying the CFTs should not be removable due to doctrine is an absurd point. If there's a hardware limitation then alright, but removing that option because doctrine doesn't normally support that action is a poor excuse. When it comes to issues of realism based on usage and not capability, those can easily be dismissed as "do what you want when you play". If the F-15E wasn't capable of flight at all without CFTs that would be a different story, but to remove an aircraft option simply because it's not common usage is in my opinion a poor reason.

Doctrine =/= Capability. Just because they don't do it doctrinally, doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable of doing what is being asked. F-16s will almost never fly without two wing tanks. Do we forbid players from being able to remove them from the aircraft?

That's because it's integrated into the chin turret.

I'm just curious about a few things If you happen to know. What's the drag penalty of CFTs compared to two wing tanks? Would you not see an increased amount of lift with CFTs installed because they provide a wider body to generate lift with? What is the weight of just the CFTs, fuel load not included? I had imagined that an F-15E with no bags and just an AA loadout would be comparable to an F-15C with wing tanks, and if the fuel load were low enough, that an F-15E would come within shouting distance of an F-15C with no bags but nearly full internal fuel, could you shed some more light on the comparable performance?

When they talked about their Mirage III module before this vote, it was explicitly a Mirage IIICJ Shahak, so when people start coming along and voting for the Mirage III because they're imagining the most capable version of the aircraft, I think they're voting based on a false premise. One of the reasons I voted for the Dagger is because they haven't said what model is currently in the pipeline, and there was a much greater chance in my view that it would be the Finger upgrade version, which would give us much more weapon variety and strike capability. Now that argument suffers from a similar problem, but at least doesn't have the issue of already a different version having been announced.

You also get rockets, bombs, missiles and gunpods, so that's not a major problem. Or you could do a D bronco and we can swap the MGs for a 20mm cannon.

What? No. The Dagger is an Israeli made Mirage V with Israeli requirements. It was called the Nesher, until it was then sold to Argentina. While in Argentinian hands, it underwent an upgrade program bringing it up to Kfir .c2 standard.

I think in order to send a message the Mirage III should be disqualified and efforts focused on the Dagger.

The Shahak actually removed the RATO capability.

Prowler did show interest in possibly expanding to an IIIE, however the last confirmed information we have about it is the Shahak, unless he's made a statement recently saying the Mirage III they're thinking about is no longer the CJ. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2796536&postcount=8

The Mirage III on offer is the CJ Shahak, which has downgraded electronics and flew for Israel. The Dagger has better electronics and weapons options if it is the version that was upgrade to C.2 standard, which would make sense given that RAZBAM is developing a Falkland Islands map.

It's on their facebook and website, so it seems to be official. Initially, the Mirage III was announced and shortly thereafter they mentioned they intended to make a Mirage IIICJ Shahak, which had simplified electronics compared to the IIIC. The IAI Dagger we've received no information pertaining to variants though if it is at all related to the Falklands map, then the Dagger was modernized to Kfir C.2 standard.

I would hope that we get the IAI Dagger, it's based on the Mirage V and if we are indeed getting the Argentinian version, as suggested by the fact they're calling it the Dagger and not the Nesher and the Falklands terrain, then it should have undergone the upgrade to bring it to Kfir C.2 standard. A brief perusal of the Kfir C.2s weapons offers much more variety than the Mirage IIICJ Shahak that they originally announced they were going to do before they mentioned the Dagger.

No windex on a carrier :megalol: The worn cockpit looks sweet but the fact that the displays are all marked up is not something I'm happy with. It makes for great pictures but not great gameplay as the resolution of our screen is not the 'resolution' of our eyes. The only option I really want is to make sure there aren't any thumbprints or smudges on things so i don't have to worry if it's my monitor or a somewhat (in my opinion) overzealous recreation.

Wonderful to hear you guys finally have a release date in sight, watching this model progress has been a real treat and I'm sure you all must be very proud. Will there be any possibility of an RWR, even if just a SAM light? or is that outside the scope of the tools you have to work with?

The same can and has been said about aircraft like the A-10. Saying a ground attack aircraft isn't capable because it's not a fighter is twisted logic mate :megalol:

That's Super Tweet to you. They were indispensable light close air support and fairly popular. There's a former Super Tweet pilot over on F-16.net if you're looking for interesting war stories about them.

The Pucara was put to vote and turned down because of community reaction though. To be honest I share Chicken's concern, that the introduction of a Vietnam era light attack/Observation aircraft will step on any other aircraft of that era. Because of that, I'm leery of seeing resources put into it given that in that era we have both the A-37 Super Tweet and OV-10 Bronco, which likely would not be produced if an O-2 got the go ahead. With that said, an O-2 wouldn't be the end of the world in my opinion, and while it would struggle for purpose on multiplayer servers, if it came to pass in an environment with more Vietnam style aircraft, it could be quite immersive, and the plane will always hold a place in my hard because of Bat*21

Compatibility. With the way DCS handles the check, if you don't have the A-4E, you won't be able to join the server. Since it's an unofficial module, making it a staple on larger servers like Blue Flag could be a bit difficult.

Not being able to sell your product if you don't take one of the variants allowed is a bad excuse now?

Cheers mate! :beer:

I don't remember saying that they wouldn't do the A-4 because of that. Also they're actually fairly well primed to do an A-4M so long as they could secure a licensing agreement, which seems to be a bit of a stumbling block after the last time.

I've also wondered this, though given that the only aircraft in game to use the Bullpup or any other MACLOS or SACLOS system is the Viggen, I'd guess a no.