Kev2go

"manual sez" only stations 3 and 7 are wired for harms. Granted what i have is the Hellenic air force manual for the F16C blk 50 that you can find online ( and probably the one every F16 fan and thier mother has) . But coupled with what BigNewy said on page 1 their own documentation shows for the USAF Viper harms also only used for those hardpoints. Unlike Lau88's not being operationally used, at least manual does actually state station 3 and 7 are compatible to use lau88 racks and can mount mavericks on them. So the idea of Lau88's with Mavericks on F16's station 3 and 7 is more plausible relative to AGM88 on stations 4 and 6 because its actually backed by the official documentation. EDit: Ahh ok apparently I missed it,. New documents that Wags reviewed says otherwise.

wonder what the price will be. Personally i think a standard aftermarket 3080 would have already more attractive with just 2 gb extra vram, for a longer term purchase. Granted i run a 1440p monitor, so i guess even 10gb would be comfortable be enough.

ahh so that means im lucky i future proofed myself getting a 850 watt psu back when i upgraded to the 1080.

so its basicaly just an printed book version of an F15E-1 flight manual that you can find in pdf format? If thats the case unless its a newer than a 1993 publication, meh, not worth the price of two hardcopy books.

Then mission designers can balance by giving red force mores slots to give them the quantity advantage if they cant win on quality one. Also you can make aircraft more peer by limiting munition types. Albiet not realistic you can mix redforce to have blueforce planes with opforce skins if that still isn't enough. IF ED or any 3rd party are unable to make any modern Russian aircraft for whatever reasons that have been discused dozens of times in other threads, then its a shame, but it is what it is.

I decided to jump ship to team green back when the 10 series released. Got tired of waiting for a high end card so i bought the 1080 to replace my AMD 280X, especially as i was trying to plat other games outside of DCS. Seeing AMD's failed attempts at having a peer card released anywhere near same time frame, think il stick with team green. 3070 on its own looks like a worthwhile upgrade to the 1080 at its price range, but i might just be looking at a 3080. Although AMD has fallen behind in the GPU market in recent years they really have gotten around to producing good CPU's, that offer solid competition to Intel.

i say wait until 3000 series. To anyone here I mean i hope you dont end up being that guy who buys a 2080 or even a 2080TI just now given thier price, when the 3000 series looming right around the corner, offer a much better price-performance ratio.

title says it all XD

what about MS 2020? This modern civil flight sim has just come out.

Fair enough. Maybe i just dont have the same level of passion as some people have to this hobby I would think the cockpit difference of blue angel specific legacy Hornets are inconsequential given that they only do aerobatics flying and not any combat missions. Ah well i guess that gives ED an opportunity to do DLC of aircraft sub variants or derivatives should they run out of ideas of new modules.

Yes because i was confused by your response. Maybe it was lost in translation? Any case Dont cherry pick my statement., hence why i said 'fair enough". You have your reasons and i have mine. It means you have your methods of selecting your aircraft and i have my own decision making process that simple as that. I explain my own though process of choosing an aircraft, not arguing against your personal method. You chose to get offended at something trivial that wasn't intended to come off so strong or as an insult. I'm sorry you chose to interpret it as such. I understand that some people will want to fly as specific respective air force, or even be enthusiastic enough to role-play down to a specific squadron. Thats simply not the forefront for aircraft choice when it comes to me. Also sorry for not being sorry that i would rather fly a Super Hornet over a CF18 even though my air force operates the latter.

what does that have to do with the price of fish?

Fair enough, but i don't let nationalism blind me to what aircraft like or dislike , or choose to fly, or at least not be the first and foremost reason for buying an aircraft. I look at buying modules from a pragmatic POV. What is this aircraft role, and what are its capabilities, and does it fit my play style or personal requirements of what i want to to do?. I approach almost as if i were an buying a car ( or a defense official shopping for a aircraft for that matter ;) ) . And i would like to think that there are many more like minded people given the fact that "multirole" genre fighters seem to be the best sellers. Only 2nd place do i look at historical significance, and and only in a very near last place whether other not my country uses it or not. Its which is why i myself am interested in the Eurofighter even though my nation does not operate it. Hence even if Canada doesn't operate the Super Hornet, i would have been equally ( if not more happy) if Super Hornet had been done over the legacy Hornet within DCS, granted, the legacy has a broader time period going for it even if it is a "mid 2000s" variant.

Only if looking at the exterior model

ahh yes the Su15

:music_whistling: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=284442 its exactly what myself and a some others have brought up. ATM isn't an issue of APG73 resolution quality but rather underlying A/G rendering technology in DCS still being cleary WIP state. In that link This user discusses it in greater deatail and does comparisons. Its because some objects simply arent getting radar returns when they should be, because they aren't rendered.

no i didn;t miss the sarcasm. You were implying the ingame image would be better than RL counterpart on the basis of how currently the Litening 2 AT image is rendered in game especially with far level digital zooms not degrading the image. I was simply saying that ED would not simply just make Nitehawk have ultra sharp imaging on the same level as the Litening, because its pretty obvious that its quality would not be on that level. It wouldn't be that much effort to produce low quality pixelated image like HB did.

I mean HB Lantirn Pod FLIR imaging quality isn't "fantastic" by any means. vehicles come off like pixelated blobs unless your right atop of them. Seems comparable enough too the sort of real life footage you see recorded from lantirns. Anecdotally from pilots mouth its been Nitehawk is said to have slightly worse quality between the two, and much worse quality when it came to reviewing recorded videotaped TGP footage.

This is a paper that talks about the decision for USMC acquisition of Litening 2 to supplant their ATFLIR's that was published in 2006 https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a498288.pdf In 2005 the USN/USMC still had nitehawk pods in operation. At that point in time he ATFLIR had not yet been procured in significant enough quantities to meet USN needs let alone USMC for the legacy fleet at that point in time, since the overwhelming majority of ATFLIR's in 2005 were prioritized to be supplied for SUper Hornets. in 2005. Only 75 Atflir pods had been delivered to the USN. only 51 of those were deployed overseas for combat use. to quote "Of the fifty-one pods deployed in February 2005, forty-nine of those pods were allocated for Super Hornets, and 2 for legacy Hornets. This is a significant mismatch given the fact that for every Super Hornet deployed aboard aircraft carriers, there are approximately 2.5 legacy Hornets. As an analogy, that is like changing the oil in the family’s new car while ignoring the older car that is driven 2.5 times as often. As long as Super Hornets are produced at equal or greater rates as ATFLIR, the majority of ATFLIRs will be paired with brand new Super Hornets. "

I would add that i would like ED to actually split the current F-5E into to at least 2 or 3ish variations. ( USAF F5E, USN F5N and/or Swiss F5E) since its basically a hybrid Frankenstein plane for something that's meant to be an F5E based off a " USAF aggressor model" which shouldn't have AN/ALE 40 CM suite or ALR87 RWR ( export version of ALR46) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4008882

True, but key point is only at 5NM or less is EXP2 better. At such close ranges however your nearly right on top of a target. Its not something we have to worry about as they way the radar system works is that radar automatically reverts from SAR EXP3 to EXP2 ( although from what ive read it should be EXP 1) when you get under 6NM

dont have much but it certainly existed and was employed being a successor thoe AAS-38A http://www.cmano-db.com/pdf/weapon/1883/ https://books.google.ca/books?id=kZkeDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=AN/AAS-38B+nitehawk&source=bl&ots=v7x7zEzbye&sig=ACfU3U2-HDOEEKOWHpnK0500mZXrq4NAnw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiF_qyjibfrAhUjhuAKHe3ODnY4KBDoATAJegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=AN%2FAAS-38B%20nitehawk&f=false

Depends on the version. AN/AAS-38A required a separate pod for LST yes, but in 1994 there was introduced AN/AAS-38B derivative which integrated LST into a single device.

I had a PM discussion with another user Curly when comparing WIP screenshots of pre release WIP Batumi airfield SAR map then, and how it looks like post release . Hypothesis that maybe it has to do with the fact ED is using pre RUG 2 documentation for the APG73 or perhaps that since they have been admitting to using specifically Spanish documentation for the Hornet certain weapons related procedures and avionics Like the lightening 2 TGP. Either SAF are using older APG73 or maybe a export derivative (downgraded) APG73's kind of how Saudis got downgraded APG70's in Strike eagles that were limited to 1.3NM x 1.3 NM SAR patches. Although not discounting that possibility, Im not certain the latter is the case given the Saudi case is a more unique as example they are considered a less reliable ally, and Spain in turn is an actual NATO member. Furthermore like you said ED never really said if we truly have SAR emulated right now in EXP3 rather than just DBS with more magnification. "Added Doppler Beam Sharpened (DBS) EXP -1/2/3 modes" https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.5.6.53756/ https://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/ab07.en.html Besides whereas EXP1/2 DBS are very dependent on angular offset and distance to target where the resolution improves as you get closer to target, EXP3 should not nearly be affected as much by this. Resolution can improve as you get close to target area since more energy is reflected back, but a given constant resolution should be guaranteed.

neither is a TGP have good enough resolution to reliably VID certain targets past a certain distance. IN DCS we have far too optimistic representation of A TGP. WE don't have degradation of resolution that would result in very considerable blurring in flir or optical sensor that you should have at high level digital zooms. Remember the Litening 2 only has 1024x1024 on its CCD. FLIr is only 640x512. We don't that that ultra modern TGP's. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277517&page=2 This is what 171x171 would look like ( wrong estimate should be 99x99 ). Can you tell that those 2 blobs are enemy T90 tanks? i dont think so. Although the above was an incorrect estimate at lvl 9 zoom resolution would be not 171x171 but a mere 99x99 pixels, which would be even worse then the image above. With such degradatio So GL trying to properly VID ID vehicles at maximum stand off ranges with your Targeting pd. When ED does more realistic TGP emulation then perhaps an A/G radar will be looked at by the naysayers for long stand off strike with JSOW or SLAM ER, as considering that SAR level resolution for target was intended to generate a minimum enough level for the softwares target recognition to an IIR image from the weapons POV.