Kev2go

It just wouldn't work for a simulator like DCS. I doubt barely anyone will seriously want to play this. You forget this is already a niche community in the genre of gaming. As others have pointed out this just isn't fair to the user if it was enforced globally across online DCS spectrum, as opposed to being a custom server idea for an individual server. AT the end of the day simulator or no simulator, its still a game, and punishing players by locking them out from being able to play it online is just too overly extreme, and entirely unfair. Id also throw in The line for extra hardcore options should be drawn at resources. IE limiting munitions availability ( which can already be done) and limiting amount of "spawns" for aircraft ( but not pilot lives) , to simulate a capped limit of aircraft within squadrons(s) that are deployed to a theater of operations. loose to many aircraft you loose and scenario is reset. Or otherwise if the objectives are met with higher losses than a win ensues anyways, because objectives matter, not necessarily attrition rate. All in all i don't think anything of the above is feasible until dynamic campaign becomes a thing, were such aspects such as strategic objectives and logistics supply are going to matter for a declared victory or defeat.

ED is alot more open and has improved in the communication now than in the past. ED has lots of old projects that were either delayed at some point or restarted. Recall the super early F/A18 3d cockpit model? The one of of an earlier production lot from the 90s before they decided to do a 21st century lot 20? OR perhaps the old F16c cockpit photos of a pre CCIP modernized block 50? Regardless whatever the community speculates, as someone had mentioned earlier in this thread, somewhere in an interview wags said that the Apache is more of a matter of when then IF, that its something theyd like to do at some point. If you haven't noticed ED just have a lot on thier plate right now. Finishing off F/A18 and F16C from EA, SuperCarrier, ka50 remodel, polishing off P47D30 for eventual release, early WIP Mi24, after that plans for AH1F. Not to mention possibly getting back on track on the F4E phantom development that was halted in favor devoting resources of the F16, never minding other non module stuff such consistently improving the game engine and making other maps etc.

yea better magnification. IRRC it gets get 3 FOV modes as opposed to two on Lightening 2 AT, and from what i read the laser designation goes further out. Resolution wise i think they are around the same. Although if ED had extended the timeline just 3 years ( or just 1 year from the viper) further from 2005-2008, that would have meant the more modern Litening 2 G4 for the Hornet which in turn has improved resolution from its predecessor:1024 x1024 and thus also better than the ATFLIR

If an aircraft is in service no where does it say you cant simulate it. For the most part what matters is how much non classified information is available to a accurately simulate the aircrafts functionality, without resorting to too much guestimation. And also to an extent if a private company will grant you a liscense ( or if your willing to pay for it) to use thier intellectual property. That's why for example most first person shooters use fake names and make some design changes in 3d model for a gun as opposed to having an exact replica of it. They just dont want to give$$$$ to ( insert famous name brand arms co). Similar story for when developing aircraft. Depending on companies IP is, even non simulator aviation games need to give a company $$$ for liscense to not get sued. In any case That's probably why we don,t have modules of f35,s or f22,s for eg, at best only dated versions of gen 4 fighters. ( remember despite feeling modern due to being 21st century representations ed are nontheless simulating gen 4 aircraft based on capabilties from over a decade ago. ( virtually all aircraft are pre 2010) So said documentation are older publications and or revisions, relative to what's in circulation now. Ed has said as much that they only rely on documentation that is legally and possible to publically access ( non classified material) . And that is almost certainly the case for anything that isnt,t a govt contract but purely for commercial gains. Even for actuall govt contracts i highly doubt that they would being supplied classified information, as that would require a govt issued security clearance and I'm not seeing that happening with a private company located in Russia, and risk having such information intercepted or seized by foreign intelligence services.

Despite such a romantic notion, There comes a point where if there is considerate enough disproprotion in technology, it becomes such a force multiplier in capacity that it outdoes skill or bravery of a lower tech opponent. And that's been demonstrated multiple times in history, what a technological edge offers.

So why the community pressure ed into forcing litening 2 on such a station instead of waiting for the atflir which so is to be mounted on cheek station 4, by the usn and usmc? It was always a matter of when rather than if for a tgp option for station 4 considering the atflir was always going to be a thing. Are people so impatient to a tgp on cheek asap? We should be happy that we have a tgp to begin with, and even then I am much more anticipating tgp functionality such as working with HUD and jhmcs and auto lasing.

2008 Russo georgian war, modern era Persian gulf and Nevada, the upcoming present day Syria map. In turn present day Mariana islands does have planned pertinent chinese assets. Yes there are enough assets that still fit into 21st century time frame, and are coherent for those scenarios as this seems to be the greatest focus. I'm sure at some point there will be dcs korea or something but remember that dcs ww2 disnt happen overnight. P51 and german d9 and 109 were without a ww2 era map or assets for quite some time.

Ah64d imo wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. At least not an block 1 and perhaps not an early life block 2 circa 2003-2005. In fact I d say apaches protective suite is actually somewhat inferior to modernized ah1w,s of comparable time frame as they dont even have a missile warning system, and only a singular counter measure dispenser ( cant Carr both chaff and flare at the same time) It's really not anything much more than a rotary analogy of say gen 4 fixed wing glass cockpit jet like the f18. TBH it's the ah64d block 3, ( which later evolves into ah64e) is where you really begin to get some really neat stuff like controlling drones plus automated protective suite with MWS, but that is 2012 - present, including further improvements since then.

Depends on the nation and time period. Some just dont care about collateral damage. Or back in ww2 for example it was acceptable to carpet bomb an entire city block just to take out a factory complex, or outright level an entire city to demoralize the population.

Ikr I always was really surprised MC D's would not design the Hornet to have such capacity in such manner. Seems less efficient. But then again as is the Hornets Hotas system. The Hog and Viper have HUD symbology. Hell even the av8b Harrier has HUD symbology and its the same company.

to clarify the "distribution restricted stuff" technically isn't classified, although admitelly anything above level A probably shouldn't be shared willy nilly ( or sold). In short its about how you go about acquiring it. Anything that was legitimately classified, requiring an actual government issued security clearance ( IE Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) are actually tightly safe kept secrets and are actually strictly enforced under espionage laws with vastly more serious repercussions. No one is getting thier hands on classified material unless you get a whistle blower put it on Wikileaks or something. Either that or an actual declassification occurs and becomes public. The distribution restrictions Beyond A grade, are simply part of ITAR regulations . Meaning it is actually possible to legally obtain them as a civilian without any security clearance( in some cases even export them) if your willing to go through the bureaucratic red tape, to be 100% legal. Although as we can see from online, those red tape regulations are about as much respected as anti piracy laws for redistributing or selling DVD's, and about as efficiently enforced. ( not that i am encouraging of breaking the forum rules or in IRL, but im just pointing out purely from observation ) How else do you think ED or 3rd parties which are outside of the USA would develop an aircraft without even getting their hand on a basic flight manual which is a foundation block for the research needed for making an aircraft? ( never minding more advanced stuff like avionics or weapons operation) .

I had basically made that point before with regards to distribution statement A back when 1.16 first came out @al531246 In any case thank you Ed for making the decision for revising the rule.

Il28 will be great for early 50s circa Korean era scenarios, and although these bombers served for much longer they would have been hopelessly redundant by the 1960s going into present day. IE in an era of BOTH air to air and surface to missiles . No electronic warfare or countermeasures, and afaik no computer assisted bombing let alone standoff muntions. Imo tu16 and tu160m would be more ideal Russian bomber for dcs environment, although on typical mp servers these too are still going to have a really bad day when facing a tomcat armed with aim54,s. No doubt great for very custom/ bomber caterers scenarios though. I do agree a dedicated bomber of some sort would be nice as all pilotable fixed wing aircraft that are in dcs are either fighters ( be it proper multirole or just fighter/interceptor) or attackers

Becauae the tomcat was ( and currently is) much closer to completion relative to the hornet. I'm sure if ed released the hornet nearly feature complete but at the same time promised an additional variation part of the f18 module package ( say an f/a18a++) then you could be expected to get less frequent updates, because there would be less pressure to churn out against internal deadlines, whilst also dedicating time to developing the other variation.

Agree to disagree. And yea as of late I've been flying rio quite alot actually with a online buddy from adiscord channel I frequent, including having lantirn manually and fully mapped out to my Hotas And yes a year and a half for the hornet is a long time and so much is still unfinished relative to the tomcat that was not only more feature complete at launch but also released later than hornet.

pilot body just gets in the way of seeing panels and switches, wheras IRL you can just move your extremities around to reveal them, in game you can't., you have too entirely remove the body with key combo . Its Not gamebreaking lacking such a feature, and the least important of anything to nitpick about since not every module has one anyways, and you should be used to not having one because most other sims never did. Don't use it in any other module. Also The word virtual or virtually, doesn't have to mean in a computerized or virtual reality or virtual plane. It can means nearly or almost. In the context i used the word it very much makes sense. The F14B Tomcat is arguably nearly complete since its only missing a very handful of features ( of which are going to be ticked off in the very near future) . IT especially makes that term more impactfull when comparing the state the F18 or F16c are in.

that or an MH60S. Sh60B from what i have read began being replaced by the MH60R in the 2000s with it being complete by 2015. MH60S is pure utility version that in turn replaced UH1N , CH46, and SH3 sea king. IF possible the MH60 would fit better for the time period our Hornet is represented for Naval rotary carrier ops.

or out of far cry 4

sadly no. Initally it was announced it was supposed to, but was recanted later. ED said they would strive for an accurate viper limited by the most up to date publicly available information they could legally get thier hands on would thus only allow them to do a 2007ish viper at latest, apparently. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3916621&postcount=10 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3916880&postcount=24 IRRC JSOWS only started becoming fully integrated ( beyond dvelopment testing) with F16C's operating with software tape 5.1 which started being introduced in 2009/2010ish. On the Other hand JASSM is more recent. Software tape 7.1

Alas sadly no JASSM for this circa 2007 Viper model since it is only software tape 4.2 or 4.3 , so the Hornet will still be the better standoff platform-for A/G when AGM84 SLAM ER gets added. This thing will allow you to take out targets even outside of long range SAM types like the S300, or outright attack such SAM types.

:megalol:

yea the new updated M2000C cockpit besides having higher textures is meant to represent a 21st century m2000c in a form still in use to present day by ADA The only they had before was basically a late 80s-early 90s mod. There aren't substantial changes in the current day mirage 2000C. NVG compatible cockpit ( its darker) , updated ECM, and to add new digital radios, and what i also noticed some new + and - pushbutton for changing way points. If you don't use NVG's and ignore those few other incremental improvement, M2000C capability wise is essentially cold war jet.

Capabilities wise the F5E is good enough to be representative for late 70s- into 80s, because its still representative of the technology that was already available back then ( not sure about all the F5E users that got RWR or when but Switzerland only 1 of them). I don't know if that rwr was installed for Swiss F5E's only as late as the 90s, but the ALR 87 is nothing more but a export version of one of ALR 46 models ( not sure but likely either ALR46 V3 or V4) . ALR 46 was 1970s tech already present in late 70's F4E Phantom as well as being the RWR eventually installed on the B52H ( not sure which year). Sure it has alpha numeric symobology as opposed to cruder analog RWR scopes displaying "strobes" of the 1960s-early 70s circa Vietnam but nonetheless is still less more antiquated than more modern RWR found on gen 4 jet from 80s- post cold war . such as the AN/ALR 67 for the Hornet/F14B or the AN/ALR56M on the F16C blk 50. Similarly Taiwanese F5E's use said RWR ( not sure which but either ALR 87 or 46) plus AN/ALE40 CM dispensers as the Swiss F5E, however in the Taiwanese F5's the CM control panel is instead installed at the top end of the left hand console side above the throttle instead of the very end. The swiss F5E is unique because they had an INS systems, and digital radio set which IRRC were in house made avionics. Regardless yea the F5E is a something franken jet as it was intended as well a marketed by ED/BST as a USAF aggressor model yet has avionics that were only present ( and installed in specific places as opposed to others ) for foreign users, but at the same time lacking others.

Lack of TWS auto is only an issue when flying with jester. With a real person not an issue. Jester Ai was nessary as it would be impossible to operate the TOmcat alone ( in MP in particular) and otherwise inneficient to swap seats all the time in singe player. JEster AI however is not more immersive than a human rio, as you have to basically "instruct" jester on every little thing thing from that drop down menu, which is distracting amidst combat, but the best compromise that can be done for a single play experience. AS IRL, in DCS a human RIO doesn't ( or at least shouldn't ) have to be micromanaged.

key word was virtually. Virtually does not mean everything, and relative to whats missing on the Hornet that has been out for how many years, it is very fair to say the F14B is virtually complete. AS regards to the instrument panel What we have now is a former F14A rebuilt to F14B standards as opposed to a new F14B factory production. Only those have the different ( in this case digital) engine indicators as opposed to analog ones found on F14A and A's upgraded into B's Refinement of Phoenix missiles capabilities doesn't count as unfinished. They just need to be adjusted. That would be like saying FC3 F15C was never finished because AIm120B and C weren't performing as quite as supposed to. TARPS is only relevant for recon purposes ( which arguably a niche role within a niche genre of combat flight sims), and even then its more sense for an F14A than the F14B. even though both could carry it. RIO flood light minor thing. - Proper carrier arrestment. Thats again refinement So again this is Virtually finished.