BlackLion213

Yes, thank you. :) And I edited my post to be more specific. -Nick

The F-16Ns were so high performance that they lasted about as long as a gallon of milk! Snowballed and G'd into oblivion, then retired for airframe cracks after only 10 years. I suppose thats what happens when you strap a 29,000 lb of thrust F110-GE-100 to a ~17,000 lb airframe. They were seriously impressive machines! -Nick

Do you have any others? Preferably not Instructor F-16Ns vs Student F-14As? Or is it a "one hit wonder"...;) Well I have a few, mostly F-14As vs other excellent dogfighters. MiG-29 Luftwaffe aggressors vs VF-14 F-14As: F-14A vs Hornet: F-14B vs Hornet: F-14 vs Mirage 2000: F-14A/B vs F-15C: Another F-14A/B vs F-15C: And...one last F-14A vs MiG-29: I think the F-14 can hold it's own...and gun a few Vipers on the way. ;) -Nick

Thank you for the explanation. As usual, it's very logical and nicely detailed. It sounds like there may be a nice variety of new terrains over the next few years. :) This last part is interesting. Certainly you could charge for these things. Would you also consider adding such AI content to things like DLC campaigns? Such items would be excellent for campaigns as well. -Nick PS - I love the first glimpse of the Viggen scope! I'm really looking forward to that module. :thumbup:

That was great, thank you! -Nick

I know...my post pre-dates their recent confirmation of the sub-version - F4U-1D. However, the changes to create a F4U-1A from a 1D are modest. If LNS created a Solomons map (my original hope from last March BTW), updating their Corsair to go with the map would not be a huge undertaking. I'm not saying it will happen, but not an absurd idea either. -Nick

I'm wondering the same, but it's unlikely to be a desert map. The Strait of Hormuz will be excellent for the Tomcat and I doubt that LNS would create a separate map that overlaps with SoH. Plus, they said it would be 'very oceany, very cold" - doesn't sound very desert like. Though a lot of areas in the Northern Pacific are pretty sparse - it could look a bit "deserty". Still, I suspect it will be very different from current maps - best way to maximize interest. -Nick

+1 This approach that LNS is pioneering (pioneering for DCS) is best way to experience an aircraft. This is how the "traditional" flight-sim used to work - things like the Jane's series, for example. It would seem that LNS' business plan is sales volume over margin. Offering a big package with all of these extras on top of a MiG-21 quality module has to be more expensive/labor intensive to develop. But if the prices are similar to current DCS modules, then there is no comparison - buy the module that offers more. For example: I like the P-40F as an aircraft more than the F4U-1 (my own interest prior to DCS). However, if I were to choose between buying the VEAO P-40F vs the LNS F4U-1D with a theater and period AI - I would definitely buy the F4U-1D before the P-40F. It gives the player a chance to explore and experience the complete picture of operating an aircraft in combat - not just what it was (or is) like to fly the P-40F in isolation. However, this approach will only work if the community really buys and the user base grows. Otherwise, a 3rd party cannot afford to do 2x-3x as much work for the same money. Otherwise, LNS will have to either charge more or start separating these other parts and sell them as "DLC". I can see your point, but there is no good solution to this. These maps require a lot of manpower to develop, in addition to all the effort put into DCS/DCS2 which remains free. As ED and 3rd parties gain experience and create new tools, map development may become faster and easier - meaning lower costs and lower price. But for now, there needs to be a way to recoup development costs. Offering a lot of different options for players may fragment multi-player, but it will also (hopefully) bring more players into DCS. Players will probably have to prioritize and decide what the best environment is for multi-player - or just stick to the Black Sea map. But I don't see how this is better than not offering any new maps? (note - I don't consider maps for free as a viable choice - unless someone here wants to create and debug something like the Nevada map for free - anyone...? Beuller?...Beuller? ;)). Anyway, my 2 cents. -Nick

Check this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=155465 Also, here is another: http://www.anft.net/f-14/ -Nick

Cobra, thank you as always for the detailed update and thorough discussion of your plans. The F4U-1D fuselage in your banner looks mighty impressive and I can't wait for the true reveal. Also, this part sounds incredible: The flight model is by far my favorite part of any module and the above news is absolutely music to my ears. The Tomcat (from what I've read :)), had some interesting/peculiar handling characteristics for a fighter and I'm thrilled to hear that it will be captured so thoroughly. Also, the level of systems detail that you are going for sounds unprecedented. Thank you for your dedication to this project! IMHO, the MiG-21 truly captures that "analog" jet flying experience and for me, it remains the most organic and lifelike flying experience in DCS. I can't wait to see what you can do with the F-14 - especially given how much effort you are investing. Happy New Year! 2016 looks to be a very promising year for Leatherneck Simulations, DCS, and us lucky users. :thumbup: Best, Nick

And it's only noon here in California. Happy (almost) New Year to everyone! -Nick

Of course not. :) I would just squint when looking past the island and refuse to acknowledge certain details....kind of like I do with dirty dishes at home. ;) Sorry, missed your post. It may be old news to some. Not knowing the origins or significance of this video, many of us are waiting a bit longer before getting too excited. However, I do think that 2016 could be an awfully good year for us USN fans. :D New Years is a good time for hope! -Nick

Even though these IAP units didn't have the range to effectively operate over Sweden, it would seem that they could still screen these bomber formations. Backfires and Badgers would probably launch their cruise missiles from the middle of the Baltic (200-300 km from their targets). The IAP units probably did have enough fuel to screen and try to deter Swedish fighters over the Baltic. Though even without escorting fighters, those Backfires would probably be moving at high speed over the Baltic and would be quite challenging to intercept. A fighter escort might not help much since massing fighters over the eastern coast of the Baltic might serve as more of a warning to Sweden. As opposed to Backfires going feet wet over the Baltic at >M1.0, flying ~150-200 km into the Baltic and launching ( less than 10 minutes from feet wet to launch with the intercepting fighters having to fly ~150-200 km into the Baltic for the intercept - no small feat!). It's no wonder that Sweden trained for dispersion of their airfields. Dealing with missiles launched at long range from a supersonic aircraft is a tough problem to deal with. Certainly the USN thought so! -Nick

Sign me up!! That sounds awesome. I am still hoping that the Leatherneck campaign is something like that, it makes the most sense for a Viggen module. Still, sounds like either way this scenario will be playable. :D -Nick

It does! But it also manages to change it's flight path much more rapidly than the Hornet video. The Tomcat has tremendous pitch authority with it's wings swept, but it also bleeds airspeed rapidly in that configuration (like the Mirage and MiG-21, of course). With the wings swept forward, it generates less alpha in turns, but also changes it's true flight path just as well with less loss of energy. Most Tomcat drivers would execute the first break of a Case III recovery with the wings swept at around 400 kts (for aesthetics...and to bleed airspeed :D). I've read that they had to be careful during that break because they could rapidly build up the alpha during the turn and occasionally experience excessive yaw or departure. I've also heard (from Hornet pilots) that the Tomcat can consistently out-turn the Hornet below 325 knots. It generates less alpha and the ITR is less, but the actual mass of the aircraft changes direction more in the F-14 and the STR is better. It will be interesting to compare once both modules are out. Also, just as a follow-up - this image is an in-game shot for testing the hydraulics/control surfaces: Things are certainly moving along! :thumbup: -Nick

This is outstanding, thank you! Your guides are extremely helpful and than you for putting this one together. It has already answered a lot of questions. -Nick

This seems like a fitting follow-up picture: Courtesy of the Leatherneck Simulations facebook page. I LOVE this stuff! :D This F-14B model looks insanely good, stunning work! -Nick

I had a thought concerning the weapons stations/load-out manager for the F-14. Would it be possible to make the Phoenix pylons loadable separate from the Phoenix itself? (and perhaps the same for the wing-glove pylons?) When Tomcats operated from Ship, they typically would leave the pylons in place unloaded (the same for the 280 gallon fuel tanks - leaving them in place even if unloaded for that particular flight): On shore, this was less of an issue, I suppose because there was more space and time to deal with removing pylons and tanks. Anyway, just a thought. It seems like it would be a nice feature so users can configure the Tomcat just the way it is depicted in pictures. Thanks for listening. :) -Nick

:megalol::megalol: -Nick

As the title says, the recent NTTR update allows the Mirage to function. I took my first flight with the Mirage in NTTR and can verify that it does work. One funny thing, the download for the OpenAlpha is twice the size of the OpenBeta. No difference from what I can see thus far. Anyway, have fun - I will. :D -Nick

Thanks Grunf. NTTR wasn't complete for me without the MiG-21, I need to start a few "Constant Peg" encounters! :thumbup: -Nick

Thank you Razbam! I've taken several flights and I am extremely pleased thus far. The EFM is very convincing and is still rewarding in spite of being FBW. Loads seem to have a big (and expected) impact on flight performance. The flight model really feels "right" to me. The external model is beautiful and so far, the module has performed very well from an FPS standpoint. Thank you for the hard work. I was a pre-order customer and I am extremely satisfied thus far. :thumbup: This Mirage 2000 is an outstanding DCS addition! The view from the cockpit is excellent and very immersive. I love these big tanks! This module is huge fun to fly! Very satisfied customer and ready to buy more from your team. :D -Nick

Luckily, no US Pilot has ever tried to evade an AIM-54....so it's hard to know how easy it is compared to the AMRAAM. Could be easier...or harder. We'll see what happens when it comes to DCS. I'd bet that the updated AIM-54 is a bit different than what is depicted currently in DCS, but who knows? Though I agree, don't expect the Tomcat to be an unbeatable force in BVR, but also don't take it for granted. ;) -Nick

Quick update. I was out of town for the past 4 days and updated DCS 2.0 today. Took a few test flights and the MiG-21 seems to be working perfectly. I fired up the radar, took a evening flight from Groom Lake to McCarran, and did some touch and go landings. Everything seemed to be working, just like DCS 1.5. :thumbup: I didn't encounter any frame rate issues or other problems. I'll try some weapons employment soon, but I'm really happy with things at the moment. Thank you to LNS for fixing it. I will be spending a lot more time on NTTR now that things are sorted. :D Some eye candy from the flight. Some of the photos have the frame-rate counter and frame rates are quite good on NTTR with the MiG-21 (quite close to what I see in DCS 1.5 - except for directly over Vegas which is lower, but more than acceptable - 50s). NTTR also looks amazing. I am still in awe that it can look this good and still run so well on a regular computer - this is a REALLY good time for flight sim enthusiasts! Happy Holidays to everyone, I hope the MiG-21 treats you well if you have some time off. ;) -Nick

I heard the same. It's a great podcast BTW. The Harrier GR.7/9 is an excellent choice, both because it is an excellent aircraft and because of it's commonality with the AV-8B. Razbam also mentioned trying to do a Night Attack AV-8B if the Gr.7/9 goes well. I was hoping for the A-7E, it's one of my top 5 favorite aircraft (with the understanding that my top 3 are all F-14s...:D). But I think that the Harrier is a better choice, mostly because operating a VSTOL aircraft like that will offer a totally different experience from any other fixed wing aircraft in DCS. I am all for diversity in DCS and it will certainly help to bring more users/customers into DCS. Hopefully, they will still do an A-7 in the not-to-distant future. It would pair up really well with the upcoming F-14A and could share theaters and carrier ops. Still, I am very excited to try the Harrier and I hope the project goes well. I will definitely buy it! -Nick