Kev2go

this was from an APG 68 V9 Brochure. EDit: Found this in a link, which can help give some perspective https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2019/53/matecconf_easn2019_04001.pdf Remember though we have the APG68 V5 in DCS Viper. A summary beams scanner pointed out in another thread. SO all in all we would need to have had the APG 68 V9 to have performance close enough to the APG73 that it be pointless to nitpick which one is better or worse https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3801793&postcount=35

11:20-11:31 ( 11:28 specifically) To quote Wags " and who knows, maybe an Apache someday" ;)

IF ED won't do nukes, i dont think there is anything stopping the community modders from at least doing a stand in nuke option for aircraft that had them along the lines of R24/R28 for other aircraft, where it functions like a giant bomb ( due to lack of proper nuclear explosion effects) I would certainly love to do some nuke lobbing in an F86F block 35 sabre. Put LABS to its proper use.

You seem to be cherrypicking small tidbid statements which you cannot source. Its been denied countless times in past on forums ( Ive been around here long enough) , I think you need to re listen the Alert 5 podcast. Wag's said even as recent as march of 2019 for the community that expectations of modern RED air from ED are not realistic. https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/ Quoting wags. "Primarily because our main studio is Russian, and thus Russian aircraft are essentially a no go for us. between Russian companies like Sukhoi ,Mikoyan and the Russian Government, its simply not an option for us, sadly. That being said it doesn't prevent a 3rd party from at some point developing those aircraft, and its something were looking into. But for us to develop say a full study Fulcrum, Flanker or even a later aircraft like a Su35, SU30, its jsut not possible for us." Wags go on to later say. " At some point if we ever have larger office outside of Russia, maybe its a possiblity then, but as long as our principal development studio is in Russia, doing a modern day Russian aircraft is simply not possible." So yes compared to past statements made when it came to asking for content like F16, or say an Apache, which have essentially been " matter of when rather than if" , "Were gonna do it at some point" . Messages that were encouraging, and hopefull as opposed to being practically denied for various reasons listed for REDair. It would not make sense for wags to entirely deny a possibility red air ( and modern especially) within anywhere in the foreseeable future to entirely say the exact opposite a mere year later, if there wasn't serious reason to believe they could not feasibly make one. SO in Short Fri wishful thinking on your behalf. IL apply your logic and start making up reasons for an F22 AND F35 are realistic expecations "cuse i want to believe everythings possible and everything subject to change Bruh"

dont twist my words. I never said those other aircraft aren't needed. or that i wouldnt wan't more multirole iarcraft. But that they aren't " mindmelting" so yes by the same logic they arent . with the F18 out, the F16 and JF17 were not. And no I don;t think that if ED was already going to be working on Redforce project a mere year or two after they would deny doing so. Compare this to response on whether they would do an virutally any other aircraft. F16 ( when it was not annouced ), matter of when rather than IF, Apahce : matter of when rather than IF. The only time ED said they would ever realistically be able to doing redforce is if they moved away from Moscow. So it is entirely wishful thinking to expect a modern Gen 4 high fidelity module from ED being announced anytime soon. SO yes if you compare questions and responses to different aircraft you can say they have never denied let alone make legitimate excuses for why they wouldn't do it. ( IE russian laws, lack of information, and lesser profits) like thye have with western fixed wing aircraft.

No Litening 2, ER, or at AT are not supposed to have colour CCD. Either IRL or the variation we have In DCS. The colour 1024x1024 is on much newer pods. Like G4 and above. achieving 9 levels of "zoom" in FLIR mode , even you claim if its not quite working like digital zoom in nature like CCD mode, those levels are accurate.

512p sensor isn't necessarily wrong? is a generic term. Like people say for short 1080p for 1920x1080 resoultion for example. Ive seen 512x512 flir ( that university paper on the Litening 2 generation TGP coordinates for the AV8B harrier) or more typically 640x512 flir ( published novels and Northrup Grumman brochures and various articles including Eyes of the litening which i also have)

The progression is Litening 2 ( 1999) , Litening 2 ER ( 2001) , Litening 2 AT ( 2003) . Yes there is Litening 2 G4 and even newer variations but there is no point in discussing it as we don't have anything newer than the AT. https://www.acc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/199176/litening-iierat/ https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104571/litening-advance-targeting/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090102201303/http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=146182 So yes my assertion is correct. AT is basically an ER expanded with datalinking Also this reference from USMC pilots novel. WHich matches research done. Litening 2 AT has 1024x1024 CCD, and 640x512 FLIR . Although not specifically refereed to as AT variation we know its not G4 since we know it has 1024x1024 FLIR, and we know its not the ER because the anther mentions the data linking capabilities and other features that are part of the AT package like the datalink and video recorder functions. So in short to answer back to the OP what we are supposed to have is a Litening 2 AT.

I dont know what sources you are using but it would not make sense for the Litening 2 AT to have worse CCD and FLIR to the Litening 2 ER. and certainly notr for the original Litening 2 from 1999 to have same CCD sensor as the AT and a inferior one to the ER. the AT succeeded the ER. It is basically an ER with data linking capabilities added in.

We have a 1024x1024 CCD, 640x512 flir ( or 512x512 FLIR depending on source) resolution with 2 FOV ,odes and 9 digital zoom levels, These are the same FOV and Digital Zoom levels as the you get on the litening 2 on the F16 and A10C which are confirmed AT versioin The main difference between ER and AT though are datalinking capabilities, IE visual and handoff option to other datalinked aircraft and thier sensors. Althoguh we don't have any TGP datalinking options yet its too early to write it off as ER instead of the AT since Hornet is still in EA. In practicise of course the resolution of the TGP particularily the CCD mode is far too sharp to be its RL resolution. AS others have discussed there is no way especially with high levels of digital zoom that the resolution should stay the same.

IN war you have aircraft that end up meeting each other in battle, and end up being historical opponents, but not necessarily contemporaries. IN other cases you have aircraft that are contemporaries ( even if only roughly or in a dissimialr fashion due to doctrinal differences) where they did face off, but in other instances may have not ever actually faced each other in battle but becoming the quintessential what if. The F4E would have been much harder to make due to multiicrew and needing an AI like jester for single-play, and it was put on hold in favour of F16C. Mirage F1 project was taken up by aviodev and mirage 3 is planned by Razbam. SO it would not make sense for different companies to encroach on each other by trying to make the same jets. In the end the main focus of the F5E is aggressor use for NTTR, as you can see from the official campaigns but yes F5E is very valid opponent to the Mig21, and BST did officially make such a statement that consideration for F5E made for adversary to the Mig21. "we are especially concerned about game balance in DCS World. The best rival for the beloved by users MiG-21bis is an American fighter F-5E Tiger II, developed by the Northrop in the second half of the last century." https://belsimtek.com/news/1553/ Although balance is not priority in sim, it is possible by trying to select a rough contemporary even if they may be dissimilar. Lets be honest because of the F5E the Mig21BIs has a contemporary from its generation. If not the F5E the Mig21BIS would not be able to have dedicated dual servers. The only option would fly Mig21's against teen fighters. ANd IRL F5E's did fight Mig21's ( including BIS models) in smaller wars like the Ethopia/Somalia war but also in larger scale conflicts such as the IRAN Iraq war, even if it doesn't have the sort of infamy or nearly as mainstream appeal as an F4E. The F5E is one of those underappreciated aircraft. It was a good choice to give it a place in a simulation. Yes the F4E could also make a good adversary the Mig21BIS but honestly Mig23 is more of a phantom contemporary than Mig21biS which isn't a true 3rd generation fighter ( at least not by western standards) It even lacks any medium range missiles. Granted the mid to late life migs have PD radar so i suppose F4J/S would be more comparable but overall Mig23 is what is considered proper gen 3. Similarily the Mirage 3 is a generation 2 jet. Its more a contemporary and a historical opponent to earlier Mig21's like the MIg21F13 and MIg21PF, wheras the Mirage F1 would be regarded a more appropriate contemporary against Mig23's, and late model Mig21's. It depends on how you look at it. They way i look at is that the F5E aggressor isn't unrealistically souped up with RWR and CM dispensers , but rather unrealistically "souped down" since its basically an F5N ( which arw Swiss F5EE buybacks) but lacking digital radios, and INS. Although F5E's in export use certainly did exist in similar configuration such as the Taiwanese F5E3's which do have such exact features, but merely with AN/ALE40 panel being placed in the very front of the Left console panel.

IKR? with the ED roadmap update they had promised UH1H multicrew before the end of may.....

to me Su30 or mig29K wouldnt be mind melting. Yes a Redforce aircraft, but just another Multimission aircraft. After Having thtreee gen 4 Mutlirole fighter,s F/A18 , F16, Jf17 , with a 4th ( the f15E) in the works i don't think a 5th multirole fixed wing fighter from gen 4 is going to be "mindmelting" even if it would be the first Russian full fidelity module. I dont know if 80-90% want a Russian module, as the whole reason why ED has stuck to western aircraft is because they sell better. IF it was possible for Ed to do modern Russian fixed wing fighters then they would have said so. They would not cosntantly keep denying ever doing one, if it was feasible. Otherwise that would be misleading or outright lying. I am predominantly a fixed wing pilot but the Ah64D is one of the few attack helos that i would be interested in buying and dedicating some time to. I think its one of those iconic helos that won't only appeal to rotorhead fans but also interest some fixed wing pilots to try out.

why only a glock, when these exist. a compact takedown AR15 would have much better firepower. Yeah this would be even better with multicrew, as that would double the firepower!

well modders managed to do what i wished for in this thread. when out of missiles or cannon ammo the real pilot duels shall ensue!

Thanks for letting us know your stance. ah well maybe the modding community with have the boldness to do what ED is unwilling to do. After all the modding community already made this These are the sort of cool stuff we know we cannot expect from ED . Its nice to see the modding community taking inspiration from rise of flight but putting a modern spin on it.

i would also add it would be a neat feature in turn to have the ability of a parachuting pilot to be able to whip out thier service pistol and fire at aircraft attempting to strafe them. It would make quite an achievement and very meme worthy moment in the exceedingly rare inststance that a pilot manage to "snipe" an adversary pilot through the canopy

No one said gore is needed. By the same reasoning it wouldn't be an issue to have animation of a pilot " fall asleep" in his chute when straffed mid air, and/ or have parachute collapse if hit with ammo and cause pilot to plummet to the ground.

which manual year publication or revision are you actually possesing? I have USAF series F5E manual 1984 pub (1990 revision) as well as the NATOPS USN F5E/F/N manual from 2006. And those pubs definitely also has charts that pertain to F5E3/ LERX improved models.

F5E3 made more sense for gameplay. The version they were aiming for ws aggressor version not a specific export version, although from capabilities point of view F5E1 would be too simplified. F5E3 makes far more sense. Flare/Chaff and RWR are a staple even in a legacy aircraft from older generation.BSt even made it clear part of the reason for the F5E3 was consideration as a direct competitor to the Mig21BIS even the BIS has RWR and Countermeasures. F5E1 would just be hands down inferior in avionics. That being said you can still have an F5E3 without RWR. In fact USAF aggressor versions never had ALR 87 RWR ( or any RWR for that matter) or An/ALE40 Counter measures. AS ive said in other threads the current F5E3 is something a of hybrid franken model between a USAF F5E3 and a US navy F5N ( buyback Swiss modded F5E3's) SO when ED does thier F5E remodel they should split into two variants. Far less work to make a agressor F5E3 and Swiss F5E3/USN F5N than it would be to make an F5E1. All they have to do is remove RWR and countermeasures for a USAF F5E3, and to turn the current F5E3 into F5N/ Swiss F5E3 the only two obvious point they need to do is replace analog AN/ARC164 for a Digital Radio set, and add the AN/ASN 117 INS.

yes and some of us won't forget and will try to hold them too account to higher standards no matter how long it takes. Its one thing not to have a Huey to an exact specification of a single nation from a particular time period , but totally another to have fictional aspects that seemingly never existed on any UH1H type . ( IE the current XM60 reflex sight reticule) And when the community modders can get together to fix such a relatively simple issue in quick time than it just looks incredibly lazy on the development team to not have done it officially. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=276128 Also i would add the way the flare/chaff system is installed on the huey also i call into question as i couldn't find any reference to being installed into very end of the tail but rather the forward tail boom section closer to the fuselage, directly integrated. I mean it just doesn't make sense. IF BST ( now part of ED) never intended to add RWR then why bother doing a external 3d model of a Huey that has those modified airframe mounts for those sensors? A little bit of consistency too much to ask? perhaps this can change with a hypothetical Huey remodel, since adding the rwr won't necessarily make not a mix mash of models but add a capabilities that most would want whilst also fixing a reflex sight to an authentic one. The only "mix Mash" feature that genuinely makes sense and that one could turn a blind eye to is the attack gunship configuration ( aussie bushranger) becuase US army operated thier long bodied hueys in slick config only, but otherwise same system could still in practice could have be applied to them if there would have a necessity.

id say beyond external model and internal cockpit 3d upgrades among the various things huey man mentioned there aught to also be some systems additions and changes due to some inconsistencies namely the correction of the unhistorical reflex sight , and addition of APR39A RWR ( the airframe does have unused sensor mounts)

because it makes more sense for mainstream appeal to have definitive edition of an aircraft, and not an early inferior version of one, since that seems to be a trend. Bubble top canopy jugs also makes sense considering the ww2 theatre is europe 1944-1945, Normandy specifically. SO this is in fact a timeframe where jugs were going to full time ground pounders. Besides considering the competition is like the Bf109K4 and FW190 D9, its good thing its a late jug, because razorback would have been totally outclassed as fighters. TBH even i still prefer the P51 over P47 for a2a dog fighting. I think most are going to use it as a ground pounder.

really? full price of $ 80 is not more than a AAA title, on par. When they were EA they were about 20% off, and on a sale can be up to 50% off like the one we recently had, and with you tubers promo codes up to an extra 10% off.

FYI the "4th" MFD isn't really a MFD. IF it was, i would have been far more enthusiastic for getting one.