amalahama

I would love to see a similar deep dive about the Flight Model Regards!

Ok, then what I suggest LN could do is to offer the 3 flavors in ME: Training pod with training rockets, "war" pod with live rockets, AND training pod with live rockets. So everybody is happy and all possibilities are covered. But if only one can be selected, I would stick to war pods with live ordinance. It's the "official" configuration and not a *theoretically possible* one. Regards

No it's not. GR.1 operated in Desert Storm and Bosnia AFAIK. But GR.4 was in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Irak, Libya... Maybe an early GR.4, without Storm Shadow or Brimstones, could be a fantastic choice and a good balance between "moderness", unclassified material, and historic relevance. Regards P.S-> This thread deserved being pushed up! :D

I don't know the specific details of the Swedish training doctrine, but if they are routinely training with live ordinance, they are pretty much one of the few out there. The majority of air forces use specific stores with similar external shape, ballistic properties and guidance as the real thing, but obviously don't blow up for safety reasons, and just mark the impact point with smoke or similar. *Sometimes* they use live ordinance, but in very specific exercises and they just use the real thing, not a "specific training store that it's for training but also can be use for war because it explodes" I understand that, if the Viggen has 2 types of the same pods, one for training and one for operations, the training pods will contain training rockets, with similar ballistic characteristics as the real thing, but "safe" (i.e. they don't explode, intended or unintended) and hence with no use during wartime Regards

In that case, I'm totally fine with your decision and I don't regret at all of having backed you up with the preorder :thumbup: Regards

The only problem is that training ordinance doesn't go 'kaboom', that's why you don't use it in wartime :) Regards

We both agree on this one. If LN implements both, Training and Live ordinance, then it's fine to implement each option properly linked to each type. But allowing single firing in live ordinance, just "because training ordinance can do it", it's an unnecessary concession that impacts negatively on realism. Regards!

Why do we have to get "gameplay concessions" in a realistic module? I can assume that the effort to develop Rb75 doesn't pay off and they will use the in-game AGM-65B instead, but why allowing single firing on rockets and FF bombs when the manual says CLEARLY that it's not possible? I don't understand... Regards

Hadouken!!!

Maybe the answer is... it just won't work, like the real thing. Regards!

Tornado please!

Shit, this is overly impressing! Can this "technology" be applied to the A-10C as well? A-10 DL is very limited right now and JDAM symbology is all wrong, but now it seems it could be all fixed with this method! Regards!

Slightly off-topic: Can anybody translate the general meaning of this picture? I find the word INVASION in the guy's newspaper highly disturbing Regards!

Great Zeus!! You're the best! Regards

Disappointed for this reality deviation. I really hope you change your mind and at least make it removable via editor. Regards

Actually it's a very good idea. No needs for uber-realism here, just something generic to open the interface not only to Predators but to other UAS assets as well :thumbup: Regards!

Seriously, that would be awesome! I've been looking for a proper STS simulation since I was a kid Regards

I would even pay a PMDG-like price! ED can keep the change :beer: Regards!

I want Suite 8!!! It sounds so cool! Regards!

I really, really hope you have additional material to calibrate CFD results, like a performance flight manual. My experience with CFD, especially when computing drag, is quite disappointing. But I wish you the best luck. It's the first 3rd party project that really catches my attention. Regards!

TeamFusion in CLoD, Daidalus in IL-2, BMS in Falcon 4... you can count several examples... Regards!

Make the avionics code "open source" or pass the code to a high motivated group of developers for maintenance could be an option as well. This module has a tremendous potential in some areas, but needs improvements in others, and if ED discontinued the development I'm sure another group would be willing to take the challenge. Regards!

But the key point here is: Would RuAF allow a full-detailed module of a strategic bomber still in service...? Regards!

If it was not adopted in the M2000C I would rather leave MLWS out. Regards!

A pity it's not an AV-8B+ :( Regards