Kev2go

ITs nice to hear new bomb options like AN-M57, AN/M65 1000 pounders are coming in. Although OT would ED consider slapping those onto the F86F sabre module since it could use those IRL?

It seems P47 release is just around the corner. I have not seen any of the youtubers that have gotten the preview build of the P47D showcasing ground attack aside from guns strafing. So will the P47 have general purpose bombs and HVAR rockets included at its day 1 launch? or only after "early access" is complete ?

It would be nice if we actually got the correct M60 reflex sight for the pilot......

The A4 isn' t from ww2. Its korean era tec. The A4 replaced the earlier A1CM gunsight ( which was more problematic) from F86A and F86E's

yea thats the "browse imagery" ddi page. Essentially imagery that can be uploaded unto the SuperHornet and stored in memory hardrive via Data cartridge or sent over via Link 16 network, which can be viewed, edited or re transmitted. Not sure if Tactical imagery integration eventually made it into the legacy Hornets as well. but if they did its probably not a circa "2005" era Hornet, as 2005-2006 is when this feature was just being put into use in Super Hornets.

The only fundemental difference that i can think of between ER and AT is datalinking and recorder capabilities. Same sensor suite otherwise the same. the Litening 2 pod we have on the Hornet is ( or was) supposed to be the AT version. 100% certainty it is not the initial l2 pod ( pre ER) as it had a much worse resolution and did not have as much zoom. ER after all stood for extended range. 2 FOV plus 9 zoom levels is the ER and AT are capable of. This is what is in common all across the board in the A10C, F16C, harrier and Hornet. Although no TGP DL sharing, that may be only because the Hornet is still EA. A10C certainly is the AT version you can share information from TGP with other A10's. This was the model we had been lead to believe was being used for the Hornet, because it was already present on the A10C with only tweaks being made for the differences in its interfacing for the specific platform. Considering "more advanced versions" like the Litening 2 G4 were not put on the market until 2008 and from what i have been able to gather not adopted for usmc until as late as 2012. Those images still of USMC TGP IRRC that were used in the other thread by this same OP were from pre 2008 footage. Thus we can deduce that they are not " more advanced" than ER or AT versions https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4255869&postcount=25 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4340336&postcount=16

So your saying you dont have the flexibility to use open sources to your main documentation make tweaks to make to look more like the USMC Litening pod? IN this case its been shown even SAF L2 shows coordinantes. Im not buying it, especially as the story keeps changing and we have been mislead

But its weird since somehow a USAF interface of L2 for A10C is used, as well as for the F16C, and USMC interface of L2 for Harrier all have coordinates in their screen and not a generic export one? Why would ED be so persistent of using a Spanish Hornet L2 version ( even if thats documentation that they have) and not fill in the blanks on how the interface should work with USMC version to make our DCS hornet more akin to the version its supposed to be replicating? Based on what we have seen in videos even from around "mid 2000'S we have a good comparison to to show the differences. Of all things lacking We really auht to have those coordinates listed on the screen, becuase it seems even the spanish one can still display them as another user posted earlier , but simply in different part of the FLIR page https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4345352&postcount=133

if any OV10 Bronco is made as a module Id prefer the OV10D. 1980s- gulf war Would fit more DCS scenarios as it was a model that has FLIR targeting sensor, laser guided muntions of various sorts, like Hellfires and LGBU's.

Yes It takes time to get places. The game needs to evolve. It can't stay the same forever. Ive been around longer than you i remember the pre DC 2.5 EDGe days. I have the benefit of perspective of seeing the evolution and appreciating the changes made. There are those who have been around even longer than me. And this game is fundamentally better now than it was back when DCS V1.2 was a thing. Dynamic Campaign and many other features for better "battlespace simulation" is eventually going to be a thing. IF you think DCS is so poor at everything, why bother playing DCS or using ED products?

Dcs ww1 would be a niche within an already niche community. IF you think helicopters are slow....

To curb the misconception that Dekka included thier own A/G radar solution. They released a nearly complete module at release. Good for them that really isn't raising the bar. . And IMHO the 3d interior cockpit detail is somewhat bland compared to ED and 3rd parties. But maybe that's just me. HEatblur can be said to have gone above and beyond because they put in the effort to make their own A/G radar for the Viggen, and also the effort put into making Jester AI for the tomcat, allowing single play use. After the tomcat i don't know if HB has any further plans in DCS. I recall something about members of the HB being hired by another company to do work in another software. IF that's true then i suspect DCS will become a sideshow to them after their obligations for tomcat , carrier, and AI A6 Intruder are complete. You may not agree with ED EA route ( even I am wary of Ed drifting into a habit of a cycle of countless EA products) but it is what it is. that being said the idea behind the SC module is really nice. IT goes well with this focus on Naval aviation. IT will give greater immersio, will benefit those using 3rd party naval aviation modules like the Tomcat, and very likely inclusion of compatibility future ones like the A7, and not just those who own the Hornet.

Heatblur and Dekka dont have an entire game engine to support and expand upon. They have the luxuary of only making modules.

Actually Dekka RBM mapping mode is based off ED ground radar API. Its not an in house solution. ED has not simply adjusted it yet to the Hornet at the time, but it is certainly soon to release in the next patch as per screenshots that wags shared. Even so The Radars on the JF17 and Hornet are far more sophisticated and have more A/G mode types and processes then viggen.

WSO is there for workload reduction. as pointed out unlike F14, the Pilot can do everything a WSO can. There is not the sort of dependency you have in the Tomcat where a pilot can't so much as wipe his own arse without a RIO. An AI WSO would have been nice but not mandatory for this sort of platform compared to the F14. IRRC there was a study ( originating with the USMC) that found 2 seater WSO concept is only really offers enough improvements in efficiency and workload reduction to justify the cost of 2nd person is for low level or austere weather condition A/G work. And even so the USMC F/A18D's have a unique role of also specializing as a aerial FAC, as well as performing reconnaissance beyond generic A/G, where the second pair of eyes and someone to manage radio coordination is more nessary. With regards why the USAF chose the 2 seat for the mudhen is to consider when it was designed. It was designed in the 80s where targeting pods were barely a thing ( and much more limited compared to present day ones) , and at the time there was far greater emphasis on relying on Radar as primary sensor for A/G strike compared to today. That being said the OP does have a point to an extent. the Strike eagle will appeal to in sales to a greater portion of the community likely because it is a multipurpose plane and because of a more modern digital interfacing.

Although razbam didnt officialy confirm or deny it, I have been following the thread, and they said they were using a 1993 publication as the basis of the strike eagle development. And coupled with some WSO commentary from that thread made it clear that first JHMCS didnt become fielded into strike eagles until around 2009, with AIm9X not being integrated until suite 8 upgrades ( circa 2018 ) so yeah with such recent upgrades for that specific platform, it is highly improbable Razbam will stick in JHMCS and Aim9x, especially when there are other changes regards to software, hardware and other weapons types that were implemented between 1993 and by 2018. https://www.mountainhome.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1479980/366th-fighter-wing-receives-new-weapon-for-f-15e/

The F15C if made a full fidelty module would have a edge in a2a to the F15E due to potential JHMCs and Aim9X integration. F15E's got them later relative to the C's , and AFAIK it seems the Razbam F15E won't be getting those.

Same thing with western RWR's.... They two are more limited IN game than they are IRL. I didn't need to play FC jets to judge RWR on its effectiveness.. Just from reading about. Just becuase the SPO15 is not anywhere as poop as the SPO10 doesn't mean it isn't crude by by the time of the 1980s. t Just by the fact its a analog system and indicators are more limited and not as "smart" or user friendly relative to other types. They in turn have Alpha Numeric symbology for more accurate and specific threat type identification, threat rings give a better idea of the severity of the threats, general distance, more precise direction , threat prioritization and such. To summarize the way the information is presented is just far more sophisticated and more user friendly for the pilot on stuff like the ALR56 or the ALR67 than the SPo15 by a fair margin. No one here is going to buy the farm your selling

RWR and Radar mostly. if you bothered to read

and?? The first turbojet engine was invented and patented in 1929 by an Englishman. SAR capable radars were already developed in the 1950's... yet realistically you dont see SAR on certain fighter radars until what? the late 80s ? In this context when the technology was initially developed or tested in some way doesn't as matter when it was actually applied to practical use.

The Su27 was behind in certain avionics. Spo15 is relatively crude RWR for the time period. And the APG63 > N001. N001 radar borrowed many design elements from N019 radar from the Mig29. And its not just better detection ranges. but also better ECCM capabilities, and having additional features like RAID and even multi-mode capability. ( A/G modes) as a cherry on top. Even before Aim120. the Su27 was only a superior WVR, and largely due to R73 and off boresight helmet monocle cueing. IF anything the N011 radar antenna for the Su27M was more similar to what the APG63 was.

the likelyhood you can find that aforementioned 1992 prototype that was the Su27M for cockpit modeling and necessary documentation on that specific model today is slim to nil, relative to the actual modernized Su27's that were produced or upgraded and put into actual operational use along with export sale. But of course ED has thier reasons for not doing too recent redforce. and no for 1992 that not that advanced aircraft when you consider that designs like YF23 and YF22 first flew as early as 1990. More like it Su27M would have caught up , or rather closed the gap with neer peer avionics s to other gen 4's at the time if it had actually approved for mass production and operational service back then.

F15C, likely if it was a version that included Link 16 , JHMCs and Aim9X i wouldn't be interested for a su27 unless its the SM. But the reason why thats not going to happen any time soon has been discussed to death countless times.

Although Hotel still has 18G max G overload limit at sea level like the GOLF, there is more to missile than just that. What does matter is that the Aim9H has IR seeker track limit increased from 12 degrees a second to 20. So i think it would still the Aim9H be indeed a worthwhile upgrade from the Aim9G. It was regarded as the best IR missile of the Vietnam era, even to the USAF's Aim9J.

Both modes are described as having TWO FOV modes and digital zoom. ( levels 0-9) for CCD Wide FOV is 3.5 x 3.5 degrees, and for WIDE FOV FLIR 4 X 4 degrees. For Narrow FOV both types are only 1 x 1 degrees.