Wizard_03

There's got to a way to step between weapons instead of stations, I find it hard to believe we HAVE to use separate missions for weapons on the same rack in TOO or PP for that matter. Step functions for the AMRAAMs, for example are weapon dependent not station dependent. I don't understand why it wouldn't be similar with JDAMs, which require a lot more input from the pilot. It seems like a simple L or R indication on the SMS page Box for the station would solve everything and make total sense. But who knows, There must have been an OFP change for BRU-55s that we're missing information on.

Nope, I would NEVER agree to a subscription model for DCS. It's a ridiculous idea, so instead of paying for individual EA modules, the ENTIRE game would constantly be in EA with zero incentive to fix things, because they have a steady stream of cash and no accountability? Yeah you can count me out. They get my money when they produce results, not before.

Just tested Started at 1.0Gs, Level and 6.5 units, 2500 AGL, My CAS increases while I'm inverted, but I had to hold -1.1Gs and -2.6AOA to maintain level flight. Unloading that much might account for it.

You might want to go fly something else, The harrier is a very complex aircraft and requires lots of practice and knowledge to operate. It has lots of limitations that you need to know because it's not forgiving. The learning curve for this one is HIGH. The training missions Baltic Dragon does are very comprehensive and true to real life harrier operations, and he assumes you read the quick start guide and the briefings before each mission, so your not starting from scratch. So if that's not your thing, then maybe you'd be happier in something with a shallower learning curve.

I know there's third party programs available, But we need an in game solution. This aspect of mission planning, and aircraft configuration is a HUGE part of modern combat aviation. That should be represented in DCS itself. I'm concerned this has become something of an afterthought, with many users and third party project aircraft creating their own methods of data upload. I just think that for us to have a realistic simulation of the hornet or any other modern jet, data cartridges and pre-configured aircraft are an essential element. The focus of late has been on more game-play content, But IMO this a core part of the experience for many of the modern jets in DCS, and is not represented well or at all atm. It's sorta like how they're improving communications for MP in game. Because that's something that we really shouldn't have to figure out for ourselves. This is the same principle.

Im Surprised ED isn’t updating the core interaction with their supercarrier module?

Try going to the BIT page, and pressing stop in the top right corner of the DDI. It's the IBIT pattern for the HMD, don't know why your seeing it mid-flight. Normally It will show up if you press AUTO on the BIT page or if you select the individual IBIT from the menu under displays.

What's going on with this? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3803475&postcount=131 There was no mention of it in either of the yearly newsletters. Is this still planned for the near-term?

Or they don't know all the answers yet either. The amount of hand holding people request from the Devs here on a regular basis is shocking considering the mature nature of flight simulators. They said we still have months to wait before it gets released, It's hard to imagine we won't get all these questions answered by then. Especially when we get a newsletter EVERY weekend.

That post says its potentially from 1988 :huh: also BlackLion while very knowledgeable regarding the F-14 is not part of HB, I believe he's one of their testers and an SME, but he's definitely not a developer. Anyways the only reason he mentions 1997 is because they decided to include LANTIRN, which according to the actual devs may or may not have been used operationally in the configuration of the jet we have. Usually LANTIRN was used on jets that had PTID post 1997, now there were tests that interleaved the Fishbowls TCS feed with the LANTIRN and did not fully integrate the pod with the jet as with PTID, but how prolific that modification was is up for debate and was certainly not widespread among the fleet. It may have only been a few F-14As at that and most likely was limited to a single combat deployment in Bosnia around that time. If It was used in combat that way at all. In any case, the point of Blacklion's post there is exactly mine, take away LANTIRN (which is irrelevant in this discussion anyways) and what we have is a 1980s F-14B...but now were getting OT F-15C from mid 2000s is going to be FAR superior to the F-14B from 1980s or 90s for that matter, in most regards. The F-14D is a different story, but even then the jets only as good as it's weapons which for the F-14 is AIM-9M, AIM-7MH, and AIM-54C+, and the Gun, which IRL, NOT DCS, is quite outdated when compared with AIM-9X Block 1, and AIM-120C5 if were saying mid 2000s. So back to square one Outside 1v1 Winchester the F-14B from ANY time period in its history is not competitive with the F-15C from the mid 2000s. That's why there were so many F-14 modernization proposals, they wanted to keep it up to date with its contemporaries which at the time of its retirement were vastly exceeding its ability to stay relevant with modern threats. So Anytime Baby! (except after 2006) :) Which is exactly the time period ED has chosen for the modern jets. Ergo why having a F-15C would be so great.

IRL with actual ECM conditions to worry about the AIM-54, either A or C+ wouldn't be anywhere near as effective as they are in game. Certainly not relevant against the AIM-120C5, another weapon the tomcat cannot carry. I would argue that the only reason the tomcat ever wins in game is because the sim doesn't model ECM at all, most bug drivers online don't know what their doing, In BVR or after the merge. And or the modern aircraft are handicapped by the Mission designer specifically to make the fights more even. I'm not saying its a bad aircraft at all, in fact it might be my favorite right now. I'm simply saying that it's ancient technology wouldn't cut it in 2007, and it didn't. The F-15C on the other hand would, and does so without any concessions. It's still is a front line fighter today, that fact alone is a testament too its performance, against current threats, let alone 1990s or 1980s threats.

No it's not, it lacks EGI, DFCS, and PTID that puts it firmly the 80s or at least it would have been among the least capable tomcats in the 90s, since we're assuming it hadn't received any updates. But besides all that it never had HOBS missiles. Because it was retired, technically the hornet and viper we have in game would have never have faced the tomcat at all. We have too lower their capabilities in game to make it realistic. So no it can't compete with an mid 2000s hornet or viper, when they're flown right and have access to their full modern weapon suites, they get smashed every time. The F-15C on the other could, because it does IRL. So rather then dumb down the modern jets and pretend with the tomcat, let's get a real fighter from the same time period to go along with them.

It’s a perfectly reasonable statement considering they never at anytime said it would be complete in two years, before or after it was released for early access.

Yeah I was there, it was full of bugs and missing features at launch and was for YEARS after. Not to mention the core was way more simplistic back then. Also Explain mig-21 to me, explain C-101 to me, explain Viggin to me, explain why it’s ok for everyone else to put their products in EA for 2 plus years but not Harrier. The most unique aircraft in game. Welcome to DCS, if you think you can do a better job why don’t you seek third party status with ED and build your own harrier, and we’ll see how long it takes you. Oh wait, you better not that would be ridiculous, and unreasonable just like yours and viper’s posts. It’s a wonder why razbam never communicates on these forums anymore.

I definitely think there is a good precedent for DCS: F-15C. We don't really have an air superiority fighter in the sim right now. The closest thing we have is the F-14B and it's an early 1980s version, and can't compete with the modern jets in the game. If we could get a later block F-15C perhaps from the around same time period as the viper or hornet, one with JHMCS, 9x, and MIDS Link-16. It would be absolutely unstoppable, and I think could really highlight the difference between multi-role and pure no compromise fighter Design in the 21st century. The Mud-hen IMHO just doesn't quite capture it, too much compromise and more of the same, in practice its just another bomb truck, we won't get 9x with it, and according to Razbam it'll most likely have the earlier engines, limiting its use as stand in for the C. Beside all that It's not going to offer much more then what we already have in the form of muti-role ground pounders. Anyways we also already have maps that would be very well suited for the eagle, in the form of the caucuses for a hypothetical cold war gone hot scenarios, or NTTR for aggressor situations. DCS: F-15C would fit in a lot better then some of the jets in the game atm. I can't really think of a good reason not to have F-15C in the game.

I can, 2 years is a completely unreasonable expectation, it took ED 5 years to complete the A-10C, the MIG-21Bis is still unfinished now and it’s been out for 4 years, both aircraft are less complex then the harrier NA. Welcome to DCS.

:Me listening to people trying to play DCS on a budget.

That’s what I imagine, and I wonder if they will even bother sending Es through the SLEP and retrofits for block 3 standard at all or if they’re just gonna give them all over to the USMC and let them figure it out.

Split workload improves efficiency. Many times hornets are required to self escort, find and strike their target, and manage communications with ground forces, all at the same time. The days of sending up one aircraft for one job are over. So It can get pretty get overwhelming and a pilot can only multitask so much, before fatigue sets in. That's what the usn loved about the phantom and tomcat. By having two crew members to share the load, a pilot doesn't need to focus on everything at the same time. Most strike fighters are two seat configuration, it's not exclusive to the USN or the Rhino. It also provides some flexibility for JTAC missions as you said, as well as training and check rides. Things that would be impossible with a single seat aircraft. But the extra seat comes with a cost in gas which is something the navy considered when they outlined the force structure. So by having about the same number of each type per ship, they strike a balance between max performance and flexibility. Other then that there's really no disadvantage to the F Rhino, It's as effective as the E just with shorter legs. Generally what you will find is the dedicated counter air missions are flown with single seat and ground pounding sorties will be done with two seat aircraft. But that is by no means a hard and fast rule. Buddy tanking is almost exclusively done in the E because it can carry more fuel. It also comes down to what's available to the airwing the time of the mission, the E and F can be interchanged at will, due to maintenance issues or deck and hanger parking. Occasionally Fs will even fly with no back seater if the mission doesn't require one/there is not one available. Or many times an element will consists of 2 aircraft and 3 aircrew with the mission commander in the back seat of the F. Giving you the best of both worlds and one extra set of free eyes keeping peak situational awareness for the whole element. As a side note it will be interesting see how the fleet changes in the future with the F-35C, and super hornet together on the same deck. Since the Lighting is exclusively single seat, my guess is we'll likely see more and more Fs and less and less Es.

+1 For DCS: F-15C, I want to believe.

I enjoy the harrier. :)

Don’t get me wrong I’d love to see an F-14D in DCS And I’ve been lobbying for B(U) since it was announced they were doing the B. But we've been told by the developers multiple times that the B(U) is out because they’re missing data, maybe not as much as the D but enough to matter here.

Alright then you guys enlighten me, why is the documentation secret, if the information is worthless and the WCS is so outdated? Why can’t they get their hands on it. Also the fire control system handles the interface between the weapons and the WCS which includes the radar. It handles the data link and target hand off to the weapons. It’s pretty important, It’s how you get the weapons where you want them to go. The radar is just a sensor without it. And the fire control system is what changed when we go from A/B to B(U), I.E. when we go from publicly available too secret. Never mind APG-71. Further more regarding performance You just stated yourself that the it uses the same dish as the AWG-9 and that the the 63 and 70 are comparable in A2A if that’s the case I don’t understand how more screens and digital radar gives you this tremendous edge over the older set. What exactly is the difference, what can the 71 do in A2A modes that 9 can’t. Whatever it is it can’t be that critical since the AWG-9 was used right up until 06 on everything except the D however the Fire control system was retrofitted on most jets by the time it retired. It seems like one mattered a lot more then the other, in the eyes of the USN. Otherwise they would have focused on updating all the radars to D standard.

But that’s the thing it costs money and resources for them to overhaul things, how can you expect them to make improvements to the sim without compensation. There’s nothing wrong with the current comms they just are not high fidelity. The high fidelity comms for the carrier required the most work, according to ED themselves, more so then just retexturing the carrier. so how else can we compensate them? It’s the exact same arguments for the WW2 asset pack people expect ED to add NEW content to the game for free. It’s ludicrous. What else are they going to charge for? safe bet, is everything they can, cause they are a business and they have to keep the lights on, and want to make money. There’s nothing unfair or dishonest about that. Nowhere does it say that core improvements to the game will be free going forward. Why anyone would think that is beyond me. I would happily pay them to improve the weather, ATC. They pump good work Any improvement on what we have now, deserves compensation. They aren’t bug fixing they are adding content. Now when a module shows up full of bugs and incomplete that’s when I hold off. I do not reward sub quality work with my business.

The tomcat is just so much more polished, the textures alone are a work of art. Miles above the other DCS jets IMHO.