Wizard_03

Definitely had them removed on shore based aggressors too.

When y'all get around to modeling TARPS pod will/can we get the ECA for empty phoenix stations as well?

The HB tomcat has one of the best 3D models in the game, to be fair, we're just asking for a little more visual options. Iranian tomcats did not use the tanks and the pylons are removed too so maybe when HB releases early/Iranian versions of the cat they can include this feature!

The drop tank pylons should definitely be removable. Many aggressor/top gun birds had them removed. Especially early F-14As

I'm not sure if Fighter to fighter D/L tracks appear on the radar page. Or if that's just a capability beyond suite 4, the information I found was unclear but apparently many modern aircraft can designate offboard tracks independent of ownship sensors. However regardless the SIT page will provide range and altitude for D/L tracks making it easy to cue the radar to the correct portion of sky. Not as Gucci as the hornet's MSI but it'll get the job done. But yes in any case F-15E with link16 will have an unprecedented airspace picture for DCS.

50 years ago the Eagle had its first flight and It still reigns supreme today. The legend lives on!

Happy 50th anniversary for the Eagle. Hopefully we won't have to wait another 50 years to see a FF F-15C in DCS

Happy 50th anniversary for the Eagle. Hopefully we won't have to wait another 50 years to see a FF F-15C in DCS

Is this going to be implemented? It's on the master test button and is part of the startup checklist.

So based on discord to answer my own question I can say D/L information is accessed through what is known as the SIT page. It's similar to the SA page in the hornet but without moving map capabilities. The jet doesn't use the same HAFU system the hornet has so D/L symbology is totally separate from ownship tracks like the viper at least for surv contacts from AWACS not sure about Fighter to fighter, and as far as I can tell the datalink information from AWACS, is limited to the SIT page and does not use any sort of MSI system to correlate tracks on the radar page or HMD like the hornet. Again not sure if peer network is different. I have a feeling it might be for the sake of BVR sorting. So overall you can get the same sort of information as the other link16 jets but there's less sensor fusion at it requires the pilot to do much of the correlation themselves. Which may not be that big of a deal since the radar we will be working with is much bigger and more powerful then the hornet or vipers so you won't need to rely as much on the D/L as you do in those jets. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Can someone with more knowledge share some insight in how the DL is implemented in the mudhen? As I understand it should be included in the suite 4 SE we're getting. I'm just wondering what sort of functionality it has in comparison to the hornet and viper? Is it the same, better, worse, different ect. ?

They're running out of reasons 'not' too do it lol

It gives you three A2G weapon stations instead of two as the center one isn't used as a weapon station due to clearance and separation issues Its typically either fuel or nothing. (assuming were taking two bags which is pretty standard for strike missions) in addition to the a fore mentioned visibility benefits for the Lpod, very very common for USN/USMC hornets to be loaded asymmetrically both in double ugly and other configs. Single winder and single 120 are also common.

Can we expect this item soon? REALLY bugs me lol Along with animated FCS Bit. I Only ask because in the last mini-update Wags teased the GBU-24 which is further down the list.

Yeah again I have a poll that says otherwise, and besides we already have two A-10s, two FW-190s, Two maps that cover the same area, and pretty soon we're gonna get another KA-50, you can't tell me that resources are better allocated to those projects then a FF Eagle despite what RAZBAM is doing I don't see any conflict in sales as the two aircraft are; just that, two different aircraft and we already have variations on similar aircraft in game RN and they didn't/don't bat an eye at it. The hard part is the FM according to ED themselves and that is already in a release state, along with most of the related systems like hydro, and electrical even the FM with SAS off is complete along with stall and spin modes. Cockpit overhaul could be done with 3d scanning these days and is much much easier from an art perspective then it was when FC3 came out. Most of the switches are even animated in the current in game model. No new weapons need to be added with the exception of JHMCS and 9x (possibly) no complex A2G smart weapons or guided weapons and stores pages/info need be added since it doesn't use them. Based on how quickly they pumped out the viper I don't see the radar or weapon systems or datalink taking too much time since the ASM framework for them is already in place with the viper and hornet which are in fact MORE complex in that regard. Basically You have a half finished module out there that cost 10 bucks but with a little work you charge 4 to 6 times that much and people would buy it according to poll. I don't really see how this doesn't net them a bunch of money and us an Iconic plane that can be, should be in the game in a FF state for a relatively small amount of work compared with bring in a new aircraft from scratch. Evidently.

Why? I have a huge poll showing people want it, overwhelming majority. Should be easy money for ya'll.

Especially with jets where the HUD is your primary flight control instrument.

Please. With normal gamma settings some of the HUDs specifically in the hornet and viper can get down right unreadable on a sunny day. This is a real life issue and not a bug and the real life solution is a pair of shades. I'm thinking like, an in game button to put them on. You could even have an option for the frames to be visible on the edge of the screen FOV like with the apache helmet display in setting or something. The MiG-21Bis has a helmet visor that can be put on via click box. Just need something like that for all the modern jets with bubble canopies and open glass HUDs. Please would improve Quality of life beyond imagination for me.

First of all counter air isn't everything. The hornet is a much better strike fighter. It can carry more farther, and has a better selection of stores. Its a true multi-role. The F-16 is first and foremost a fighter, but you can also strap bombs to it, the multi-role capability in the viper was evolved over time including the ergonomics in the cockpit and systems which have the benefit of being integrated later after lessons had already been learned. The difference is the hornet had strike in mind as its central role from the get go, everything from stores management to weapon fire control integration is better in the hornet. You have much more control over getting the weapons on target and how that is accomplished. Which is critical because a lot of that functionality is important for the type of on the fly precision attack the hornet is required to preform. It can't rely on pre-planned missions as much as the viper can, and as a naval fighter, it may very well be the first or only available asset in theater to get the job done so It needs to be much more independent and have the ability to quickly and easily adjust its mission to changing circumstances while already air-born and en route to the mission area. The viper has the Ability to do many of the same missions, but its a lot more limited in some cases, one look at the JDAM page on the hornet vs the SMS page on the viper and you'll understand what I mean. The hornet is strike aircraft that can self escort. It's not really intended for the dedicated defensive counter-air role the viper was first designed for, It CAN do that mission but the viper is more suited to it. But on the other hand the viper makes a lot of sacrifices for that mission, stores and fuel capacity being chief among them. The hornet is a lot more balanced. As its the not the perfect jet for any given job but it CAN do pretty much any job. Which from a logistics standpoint is much more valuable these days. As having the perfect tool for the job at the right place at the right time in the right condition is going to be increasingly unlikely with the fast paced nature of modern conflict today. You need aircraft that excel in changing environments where you don't have the time to move in the absolute best of the best or doing so would cause you to loose an opportunity in the critical first hour first day of the war kinds of situations. The naval component of the hornet is very central to the way it was intended to be used. Deck space is limited so you need as much bang for your buck as you can get. Viper needs to be deployed in theater and have a nice big airbase with lots of intelligence and support to really shine. warhorse vs racehorse

Again I would rather have the center tank then the wing tanks. Once you drop them, theyre gone. I don't need to drop the center tank for WVR. All that extra performance does you zip if you don't have enough gas. And in dogfights where your trying to outrate your opponent. Like how your supposed to do it in the viper your in burner the whole time and that low drag fuel efficiency doesn't mean much. In the hornet I have the option of JUST the center tank or three tanks and preserving the center one. In the Viper if you want to do BVR right you gotta have the wing ones and only the wing ones period, so after the merge your down to internal. on paper what your saying is true, but in reality always trying to exploit your speed and acceleration advantage makes you stay in burner a lot. The hornet isn't a speed demon and I don't try too make it one. You have enough performance to get weapons out and survive till the merge where the balance usually switches to your side. There's a lot more too air combat then just the performance of the jet, the individual inside makes a much bigger difference.

I said I like the SA in the hornet for me. I didn't say it was better or ineffective in the viper. I personally prefer the hornet and its large displays. I can barely see the Gameboys In the viper lol The hornet doesn't have to choose between a third tank or a jammer. And between the wing tanks and the center tank. I'll take the center because it's 9G rated in the viper, so I don't need to drop it once the fight goes WVR but it's unfortunate I don't have that option realistically because I pretty much have to lug around a jammer pod. So after dropping my tanks I've got a pretty short legged bird. Hopefully the base I need to land at is right under me. Hornet has fuel for days compared to the viper and that drop tank situation is a big factor of that. Internal jammer is plus, no way around it. Realistic counter air missions usually have a patrol or long ingress segment and fuel becomes a big deal in those situations. But this is DCS so you can just take off fly for 5 minutes and get into a fight.

I doubt it, the hornets ITR is still significantly better, it's dangerous in a guns fight. It's a death sentence with SRMs Improvements in G onset and acceleration won't change that.

It's primarily a defensive system anyway. In the wild the hornet is suppose to have a prowler or growler nearby to do the offensive stuff. The podded solution on the viper can do a little of both. But it's all or nothing, you have to carry the pod in any realistic AA situation because they didn't end up putting an internal jammer in like they wanted too. So your stuck with an overall better system in the viper but you get the weight and drag penalty as well even if you just need it to protect yourself after you take your shots and turn cold. Plus is has to take up a fuel or weapon station. Which is already a big concern in the viper. But both aircraft are very comparable however. I wouldn't say that the hornet is better or the viper is helpless I just prefer the hornet, and the big screens and little things like having RWR nails on the radar page and other small Quality of life stuff that help me build SA faster, that I personally would trade some of the vipers speed and acceleration for. A bigger and I think very important advantage the hornet has is in it's strike capabilities. Both aircraft can self escort but I think where the hornet really shines over the viper is in the ability to carry a bigger and more flexible strike package. The USAF doesn't really use the viper in all the missions the USMC and USN use the hornet in, the USAF has the F-15E for a lot of the strike stuff so it's not really the US vipers fault that it hasn't been developed as far as the hornet has. But it can carry more further at the end of the day. Which is something to consider as pure AA is not as desirable as multirole theses days but I digress.

Performance wise: F-16 better at BVR F/A-18 better at WVR For AA in general the hornet has much better sensor fusion an on board jammer, and is much better at sorting and classifying contacts and providing more SA in general. Personally that is more attractive to me then hucking amraams a little farther and faster. Because at the end of the day the F-15 is still BVR king. The viper just does it a little bit better the hornet. It's not decisive, SA is is. Imo

They've stated we aren't getting a specific RW configuration but one with all the features that they can find enough data for. So it won't be locked to a specific nation or capability set. Which is a first for DCS as far as I know, as they have fudged/stretched equipment weapon sets a little before on some aircraft but never stated up top that one will not conform to a specific time and nation, i.e. Full Frankenstein. So We'll see how it goes over. Anyways cockpit looks fantastic! Can't wait.