Kev2go

thought thats the difference between the block 1 and block 2's. From what i read block 2's , which had color displays came into operation 2003. coupled with some changes for the radio display, moving map suite, and some other things that would likely minor or irrelevant for the purposes of DCS world which i cannot recall from the top of my head .But its not substantially different. Wonder whats stopping them from doing a block 2 ( even if its a early service model block 2 model from circa 2003 ) If for one thing it would be preferable to have block 2 it makes navigation easier since the colour MPD's made it possible for it have a moving map suite to be overlayed over nav page as opposed to just having a Mapless HSD type display. Perhaps Ah64D (2002) simply means they are using the most commonly available manual as a starting point that one can find on the top results of 1st page of a given google search which is a 2002 publication ( though it has revised pages from up to 2005), which in fact does cover aforementioned added features at that particular time frame. When it comes to comparing a later life AH64D circa 2008-2010 with CMWS and the TEDAC display plus M-TADS/PVNS sensor, granted i haven't seen a AH64D publication for this timeframe, there is ( or at least was) a AH64D block 3 ( at this time was not yet branded as AH64E) 2012 pub circulating, to sort of compare notes between the two in a more precise manner, and would help fill in some blanks assuming ED can't get thier hands on a 2008-2010 documentation. Going from memory here, apart from the upgraded turbine engine and level 4 unmanned drone integration capabilities when compared to a late block 2 , the block 3 would be very similar the same in its suites but the CMWS is integrated in a more sophisticated manner. in block 2 the CMWS has phyiscal panels right hand side above the dashboard within the pilots cockpit.A block 3/E it doesn't.

I agree should be updated. the Black shark had its cockpit update, A10C got a cockpit update, so should other ED modules. I think they probably will when they have the time.

YEs janes longbow in generally was simplified in its systems relative to modern flight sims. Then again im not judging this purely on janes. its been 23 years since janes longbow 2. It would possible to make a more detailed emulation of the longbow today based on the non classified publicly available information since then. with minimal effort a mere keywords for a google search is enough to find yourself a manual . So I would be very surprised if ED omitted the longbow radar entirely, even for a post EA complete product.

. I would like to think that AH64D without Radar will be a EA thing and down the line they would add a Ah64D with Longbow radar installed and it radars functionality at least in some capacity given that even the old Janes Longbow had an apache had a working radar.

Its ok i get it. It might seem laughable if you haven't kept up with recent developments, but let me fill you in on current trends. So central bankers and certain economic theorists want change the economic system , namely to remove current national fiat currencies and aim to globally, and gradually transition to digital currency/currencies . In thier own words , given events of 2020, 2021 and onwards is a perfect opportunity to begin enacting such changes ( one of which is the aforementioned currencies). So Boy oh boy what exciting times! After all as the old saying goes No "crisis" ( real or imagined) should ever go to waste! so the idea off cryptocurrencies becoming mainstream is now a real possibility, and within grasp in the very near forseeable future https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/08/why-its-time-to-take-central-banks-digital-currencies-seriously/ https://cointelegraph.com/news/what-role-will-crypto-play-during-the-great-reset https://news.bitcoin.com/microsoft-cryptocurrency-system/ https://www.weforum.org/communities/digital-currency-governance-consortium SO fear not. The idea of paying for our DCS modules with cryto isn't a far fetched idea now is it? We may just see it in the near future.

welp its finally here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.5.6.59398/ "Introduced multi-crew for DCS UH-1H Huey. Added the ability to play with multi-crew for the UH-1H. Up to four crewstation are available for cooperative play: pilot, co-pilot, left gunner and right gunner (if they are added in missions). Added multi-crew missions for the UH-1H helicopter."

This will be first dedicated blueforce attack helicopter. And a modern one at that. Redford for attack helicopters already had the ka50, and an upcoming mi24 from ED, so when it comes to eastern rotary wing, dcs certainly isn't lacking So no this isn't just another American bird.

Since India Foxtrot echo is now a licensed 3rd party dev for DCS , maybe he would consider the AMX11 after finishing the MB339. https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/74-indiafoxtecho/

Im ****posting? your the one hung up on the F14D, when i was not disputing talking about the Super hornet. Yoi have no valid counter argument so you resort to ad homimum. Keep in Mind that legacy Hornet project traces is roots back to a number of years ago. What could have been true 4 or 5 years ago may no longer be the case now. I dont know what goes on the inner halls of DCS, neither do you. Again i have no idea why Boeing back then would not want to grant ED a license for the SuperBug ( politics? oh look ED a Russian company?) but VRS got a license for thier now second superbug project. For ED afaik the Legacy Hornet was 1st choice not the Superbug. They never really go into specific details on why or how they choose their modules. Take the A10C for example. ED said they couldnt include certain weapons or do a more advanced version of the A10C for a number of years, because it wasn't part of the intiial deal. but now we got a DCS A10C II which is basically a suite 7B having scorpion HMD and other new weapons. a circa 2013 or later Hog.

Ive heard other people try to speculate its because of that, rather than this being a definitive fact. I personally am not quite convinced but i can't prove otherwise Hence why i used the term "allegedly".

Just becuase you yourself can't find said information in a 5 second google search doesn't mean they aren't available, especially for an officially licensed developer, that could for . And i would considering using the example F14D is a false equivalence fallacy, becuase for this particular aircraft its been a lack of information of that particular model "allegedly" due to paranoia finding its way into Iranian hands. A developer for another sim would disagree since they are making a Full fidelity F/A18F ( after having prior F/A18E module which itself has been around for decade if not longer, and thus is set to have v2.0 remake after F/A18F project is complete) that is now on pre sale and expected to release in end of 2020.

Although i don't expect the next upcoming module to be a Super Hornet, "its too classified" just isn't really true. It varies on the timeframe and block of the Super Bug to be honest. F/A18E/F isn't too "classified" if looking only at block 1 series. and especially if looking at timeframe comparable Super Bug to the legacy Hornet we have. It should also be noted that At this point in Time block 1's are nowin are basically in reserve unit status, and no longer in frontline Active duty service, and block 1 hand me downs are now finding thier way as replacement for blue angels legacies. Its literally got loads of software commonality ( like 90% or something ) with a timeframe comparable legacy Hornet. Would use all the same weapons, and the same APG73 Radar. For all intents and purposes avionics wise the Super Hornet on the cockpit interior may as well be a Legacy Hornet with more gucci displays, and additional EW protection due to carriage of Internally towed decoys On the outside a larger airframe with more hardpoints and loiter time due to larger internal fuel capacity and larger EFT's. So in terms of "hard stats" combat capability of block 1's isnt really better than Legacies.

I understand that. I was not implying as such, but what i meant was that in other helicopters like an apache, It allows for more flexible employment as as opposed to point the nose of the helicopter directly at a targeted doing purely strafing runs.

Like anyones going to be strafing MBT's with 30 mm as thier main weapon of choice. (its fixed gun, not slewable like on the apache) Thats a fast way to get riddled with 50 caliber holes from IFV turrets or get clipped by a manpad. The main tankbusting weapons of helicopter are guided AGTM missiles.

Not to mention we have had actual former USMC pilot Lex Talonis go on record saying he had never seen or heard about Litening 2's used on anything but Centerline station when he was flying them. ( from 2005-2009 IRRC). Plus skate also chipped in.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4510795&postcount=43 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4441228&postcount=8 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4444766&postcount=16

well at least for newer generation aircraft that seems to be the case. For really old cold war century series, or even F86 Sabre jet it would really just require the nuclear munition ( and the right visual effects for better immersion) since LABS works.

yea I too thought this to be unusual. It would appear Heatblurs Radar tech ( think its Recasting?) technology is simply a more sophisticated and realistic method of emulating A/G terrain scanning. Yea compared to stable build within Open beta the Hornet can get closer zoom of a terrain patch via 3 EXP modes and get much sharper image but in basic map mode even in OB is still seems inferior to the Viggens mapping radar. I dont know if it is overmodeled.At one point HB showed an excerpt of a Viggen A/G map. That being said basic real beam mapping is supposed to be overall fairly blurry. havent seen any imags of actual APG73 Real beam mapping, but in general from images ive seen its supposed to be pretty blurry ( and is especially even more blurry on the out edges) to the point its really just really useful for making basic geographic features and large clusters of buildings to discern a settlement. Hell you can't even clearly discern an airfield until you are with say 10NM given in RBGM it lacks the angular resolution that you get with Doppler beam sharpening or let alone with SAR, which do of course need angular offset to see stuff.

It is but the way its integrated with the A10 is different. And yea besides just the physical radio panel there should also be a MFD page related to the ARC210 functions titled "comm"

I mean... 100% accurate or not even the A10C I has advertised as a suite 3.0 even though it wasn't a pure suit, and it still had suite v3.0 written in the hud config menu but had a hybrid with suite 5.0 features like SADL and IR MWS, but had in turn lacked ARC210 radio. But those were physical avionics changes that are very noticeable as they are also physical panels, and not just software pages accessible via MFD. So From the features i have seen so far, and probably what documentation ED has, it is mostly a suite 7. Im not sure IF APKWS is dependent on exact suite since its mostly plug and play thing, but we can deduce we dont have Suite v8.0 features since there is no mode 5 IFF or LARS. Then again the release is still EA so its possible ED have not demonstrated all suite 7 or earlier specific features. I mean hell even Wags said ARC210 radio ( which dates back to suite 5.0) will come after the initial release, and for the time being its a blank panel.

With A10C II release coming very soon by end of this month i think i will revisit the original question Will the above named features from original post come in? Although none of the videos Matt Wagner are dont were with regards to TAD/SADL i didnt notice any new symbols within TAD page that was visible within the videos.

Given the scorpion HMCS this would be a suite 7B at the very least.

Doesn't seem like a very efficient way to transport munitions between point a and point b given the F16 is short legged nor can carry that much. without three EFT's. I thought thats why Air force has a fleet of various types of cargo planes. It would be like using a honda civic as to move all your furniture from old home A to new home B instead of renting a Uhaul cargo truck or something. Your going to need alot of trips.

The information that ED is referencing that shows it can carry 4 harms is from the USAF TO 1F-16CM 1-2 supplemental flight manual dated October 2007. Since ED is modelling a circa 2007 viper this would seem about right. Someone from Dekka posted the excerpt from that manual on hoggit showing agm88's on stations 4 and 6. Seems this is one of those times when manual says one thing, but multiple SME say in reality things are different from the official documentation.

Apparently Yes https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3916377&postcount=18