Kev2go

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

"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.