Wizard_03

Well said

I think many of the newcomers to DCSW are not used to the length of time ED historically spends on things. It took literally 5 years for the Nevada map to come out because ED decided to create a whole new engine for the game. The result was the greatest environment model for a commercial or military sim in history. But it took time, a lot of time. When ED does something they commit to the best possible implementation. The reason A2A radar modes like TWS aren’t available is because the are re-doing the entire radar code system from scratch, same thing with supersonic FM, FBW, FLIR, yada yada. The Benefits are apparently lost on many people IMO but the cost is time. It proves that ED is not profit driven but rather quality driven by people that are interested in the subject. The reality of that is it takes time and sometimes they have to pump things out to keep the lights on. A subscription service would alienate the core DCS community that has been supporting ED since Lomac. We just need to be positive and patient, they’ve delivered in the past and they continue to do so. They are still supporting products like the A-10 and KA-50 coming up on 10 years after their release. Have some faith in them :)

It’s fixed for me, has been for a few patches now

The USAF/ANG Block 50 F-16C post CCIP upgrade from 2007, did not carry 3 Agm-65s on or with the LAU-88 launcher, nor did it carry the LAU-88 at all at that time. So the answer is no then, the aircraft DCS is modeling never carried the weapon in that configuration.

Yes they used 4 not 6 and in the 90s not 07 and I’ll bet you anything it’s because they didn’t have A-10s available, and we’re forced to use vipers. But see that proves the point that even in real war situations they still follow proper stores loading. The doctrine does NOT go out the door just because there is some special need.

That’s my issue, there’s no tactical advantage to having that many missiles on one jet. In fact it’s the other way around, loading the jet that much negates the point of using a strike fighter, and it’s foolish since if that aircraft is shot down, or has to jettison it’s load, which is very likely since it’s a truck at this point with no speed or agility, you’ve wasted 6 missiles instead of 2. It’s much better to have 4 F-16s with 2 each then 1 with 6 from a tactical perspective. All that aside from the fact that it’s a prohibited configuration to begin with, and the launcher is no longer certified, as aforementioned.

Thank you, that’s exactly what I was looking for.

What are some typical counter air configurations that the real jet might have? Fuel tank placement, TGP, no TGP, weapons quantity and station placement?

Does anyone know how significant the performance impact from carrying the pod is? It’s load rating and or speed restrictions?

Agree the best fighter in the game and it doesn't have an ASM DCS: F-15C needs to be a thing

@Wags Thanks for the attention to detail, glad you people are taking the time to do it right.

If you want to properly represent at a US Navy hornet ATFLIR is the pod we need. Cannot do boat stuff with litening, if you want to be realistic.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4023671#post4023671 This was the last word on it.

Yeah they're gonna make a concession for those that don't care about realism.

Yes, heaven forbid it if they had to operate the jet like real life.

I have an F-16 question! can 07 usaf block 50 CCIP display TACAN symbols on the HSD page and or provide steering cues to the station on the HUD? Or is it just displayed on the EHSI?

Same, when I think of the the F-4 I think of a Navy interceptor with big roundels and Hi-Vis liveries. :) I'm happy with the F-4E and I completely understand why ED picked it...but if it was up to me I would've gone with the F-4J Maybe some day, someone can make it happen.

Yes it’s a huge part of modern air warfare. As fundamental as countermeasures and data links, IMO.

In the F-14 you’ve got two great big engines, so when you get in trouble or make a mistake all you’ve got to do is put the burners on, lower the nose, and presto all your energy’s back. Once you spend your energy in hornet it’s gone. You don’t get to make mistakes.

If they can do rudimentary IFF I would think semi-comprehensive ECM shouldn’t be that big of a deal other “games” have decent approximations of it.

Time to break out the marshmallows and make some s’mores.

I want to believe...

https://combatace.com/forums/topic/91818-the-f-4-phantom-and-the-gun-part-1/ This post had some good points highlighting the differences between them, and is alright read. USN used it as fleet defense fighter and USAF used it as tactical fighter. The Navy attitude was more in line with what the aircraft was designed for. There's quite a few technical/equipment differences, (essentially two different jets) but IMO the biggest was doctrine.

I like to use it as fighter because it presents more of a challenge then other jets in DCS. It's a lot less forgiving then say the F-14 or F-15 and requires a solid understanding of it's limitations and strengths to make it successful. But I feel It's very rewarding once your skills get to the point of matching and beating other jets, that at first seemed to blow it away every time.

The MP group is the most vocal and they only care about features that directly affect their experience. I feel like ED gets a lot of pushback when they try to improve the sim and ask for money to do so because the MP group has a fit. They pulled the exact same crap over the WW2 assets pack when it came out. Never mind the fact that ED took care of all the WW2 backers in the first place. “How dare they charge money for their work!” It’s unbelievable to me, you spend at least 2k dollars just for the rig, maybe another couple hundred for DCS but 10 bucks for art is where we draw the line :doh: