Wizard_03

Radar bump mode in addition to improved radar simulation is probably next, completion of smart weapons lofting profiles. MUMI page (requires an update for DCS as a whole as lots of aircraft in game need data cards), and some new MSI functionality should be coming next for the hornet. According to the roadmap. Eventually we should get napalm weapons (again needs an update to DCS as whole for new weapon effects) and possibly a more advanced decoy system. Which may or may not happen depending on open source data availability. But those features could be a while away.

LITENING has a much better camera and gyro system compared to LANTIRN which is a second generation pod. But they intended it for the F-16 and other ground based aircraft. The advanced capabilities that made it better then LANTIRN also made it unsuitable for CATOBAR. LANTIRN also for the record had lots of problems related to cats and traps because it was also not meant for the boat. It just wasn't too concerning when seen in the light of greater maintenance issues with the tomcat. And the capacity was desperately needed for active conflicts at the time. But it was always seen as a bandaid solution. The navy wasn't happy that LITENING wouldn't work, because they were then forced to design a new a pod specifically and ultimately only for the hornet. ATFLIR.

Too sensitive it can't handle traps. ATFLIR was designed specifically to give the aircraft a modern pod capability that is survivable in the harsh world of CATOBAR operations.

It could when the pods were new, however NVGs came around the same time and they made it obsolete pretty much out of the box. Fleet hornet pilots never trained on it and the controls for it most aircrews have never touched in their whole careers. The little green window on the pylon above the pod itself is where the feed comes from. Idk if they could even been turned on and work properly during the scope of the DCS hornet (in the mid 2000s) as that equipment was not maintained by ground crews either. Not sure about the legacy pods from way back when but for atflir the navflir functionality pretty much wasn't used at all as NVGs do the job a thousand times better. And USN is the only atflir operator. AFAIK ED has no plans do to the older pods.

The EULA doesn't state that or even imply that. And even if it did, that's not necessarily legal. "Everything subject to change" I'm pretty sure doesn't mean that you can take people's money and walk away. If it does then I say "Everything is subject to litigation"

If I were a dev I wouldn't charge people money on a project Im not committed to completing. And if I had to quit work for whatever reason, I would absolutely feel obligated to refund anyone who has paid. I would consider my store front description a contract that I have agreed to fulfill. Those are just normal business practices. Can you imagine if this was the service industry?

That ED can just take your money and bail? no honestly It didn't, in most countries that kind of behavior is considered criminal.

That wouldn't fix the issue. The issue is that early access is a good faith transaction that eventually the modules will be completed. However the devs can evidently just quit at any point leaving the module in an unfinished state. If modules can be abandoned in the early access period then we can't do business. I need a guarantee that what I paid for will be delivered now. At this point my trust in them has been completely eroded. I can stand delays, I can't stand having my money stolen.

Will not be pre-ordering anything from ED until work on DCS: F-15E is resumed AND an official timeline on development and release date is published or I'm issued a full refund for that abandoned module. Extremely disappointed and unsatisfied with the state of things right now.

What are: "Additional MSI functions?"

Depending on the outcome of this situation, the F-15E may be the last DCS module I ever purchase. Absolutely unbelievable, what a complete slap in the face to all the loyal supporters who really have no where else to turn for modern high fidelity study sims, many who have been here for more than a decade. My eyes are on both companies the EULA doesn't cover false advertising. The product page has a list of features that the module was supposed to ship with on release. So Either Deliver what I paid for or give me my money back. Period. Customers shouldn't be held hostage over disagreements whoever is right or wrong in this case or any case. Even with a best case outcome, this situation has seriously degraded my trust in both parties, and going forward I will be much more careful about supporting either side with my wallet.

Are patches on a multi month month cycle now? This year we have only had a single update to the game.

R-27 is never going to be competitive with AMRAAM period. So to the forum title question, I would expect to be shot down in a BVR situation facing anyone with a ARH missile, and super shot down if that missile is a 120C. R-27 should be more then competitive against early Aim-7s and the ER versions (if we get them for game play purposes, as the MiG-29A 9.12 historically didn't carry them) should be very competitive against late sparrows. R-73 should be about the same as a 9X with a little less resistance against flares.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/341517-mig-29a-ff-capabilities-and-how-will-it-fit-into-the-metagame/?do=findComment&comment=5363978

Now that makes perfect sense. Also Didn't consider asymmetrical loads from missile firing.

The MiG-29 is very dangerous in a dogfight. unless your in a viper or hornet, I'd kill it quick and far away. However its very hard to master energy management in the MiG-29 so most players won't be able to take it too its full potential. Its far to easy to over pull the stick in tight turns because the aircraft will very quickly give you more and more AOA unlike the viper which slowly looses speed when you pull to hard, or practice HUD BFM. But if you can find the MiGs sweet spot, don't cross control, and watch your AOA, you can out rate almost every jet in the game. staying on corner speed is the trick. Over speeding is likewise a no no and will get you shot down in a lot of situations. Once you do master energy management you can then intentionally Pull hard when you see someone screw up and take nasty snapshots the same way the hornet and flanker can (though not quite as dramatic), in lots of situations against the viper or any other dogfight monster. It not as punishing as the hornet when you get slow either you can dump the nose and get fast again real quick as long as your not on the deck obviously. Don't expect overshoots from the bandit though, that type of energy dump is do or die in the fulcrum down low. But I feel most online players will be dead after the first few turns with the MiG for not managing their energy well. So i don't expect it too perform any better then it already does on the servers. But its a heck of a little airplane in the right hands.

Thanks all! I will ignore the light, pretty interesting quark of the viper. Sounds like the SMS and FBW are still pretty old and don't just figure themselves out like you might expect from a more modern system. I do know that centerline stores can cause instability at high AOA in most jets so I guess it's not that surprising that ECM might be CAT III. Given the vipers dislike of high AOA in general.

But the ECM pod on centerline station is CAT III? So I'm getting a stores config caution, with 4 AAMs two wing tanks and ECM pod on centerline, with the switch set to CAT III. Is that correct behavior? Because that is a CAT III load.

Hard to believe the ECM pod is CAT III on the centerline station. Centerline external tank is not according to the manual, and it's both bigger and heavier then the short pods. The TGP and HTS are CAT III certainly.

Please apply the new Hi Def S-3B 3D model to the tanker version of the aircraft or add buddy refueling pods to the new version. Quite disappointing that the only carrier based tanker in the game looks like it was made for the gameboy advanced.

The boost lever has nothing to do with the regulator, the regulator simply blows off excess manifold pressure through the wastegates above what ever setting the aircraft is configured for, 64" wet in this case. Regardless of throttle or boost lever settings. Full safe power should be the absolute limit in any case, they didn't include a self destruct button at the end of the throttle travel. In any case it's up to ED, they have the bug report now and they can provide an explanation as to why their aircraft is the way it is.

It only makes sense, with that much boost, and the inclusion of water injection with 47C they need to protect the engine from detonation especially during combat. Bug report

see thread and attached images Currently the P-47 is far more susceptible to overboost and can overboost above 64" under a wide set of conditions because the aircraft is modeled without a manifold pressure regulator. Images attached in the above thread show the available and part numbers of the missing regulator and its installation on the aircraft and instructions for installation on aircraft as early as the P47C in contrast to the version modeled in DCS erroneously without one. The regulator should keep manifold pressure at or below maximum (64" wet) for most or all of the flight envelope with the throttle full open 100 percent.

Thank you so much, so according to this parts catalog as far back as the P47C they were equipped with manifold pressure regulators. Now the question is why does the DCS Version not have one, as earlier versions could and did use manifold Pressure regulators to control boost. Can't really get more conclusive then that, literally written in black and white. I will submit a bug report.

We need to find out if the real one did, because I see having to manage the throttle to stay below max allowed manifold pressure and or opening up intercoolers and oil flaps in the middle of a dogfight as a huge disadvantage. And nowhere in pilot testimony or the manuals suggest it had that limitation. Other sims dont model it that way and there's no information in the DCS manual about it at all. If it is true then they need to place that in bold all over the operations section. Because it's a big deal and It means you have to be much more careful in the P47 with managing power then you probably think, certainly much more careful then all the other aircraft in DCS. In the P40 in the other sim, its annoying but your not really going up super high and certainly not fighting up high so its not a huge deal because you don't in fact over boost that much since as you get higher your engine runs out of breath anyways just need to watch out when diving quickly, not having a regulator in an aircraft designed expressly for high altitude fighting seems like a really big oversight. Especially since the pilot absolutely needs one to breath out of in any case, but they evidently forgot to put one on the engine? I don't buy it.