amalahama

It was a big IF, but actually in the eighties the Spanish Air Force briefly considered the acquisition of the Viggen within the FACA program. SAF colour is a plain boring gray yet I would love to see the SAF marks on it. Regards

Well I wouldn't be so sure, MIL STD are NATO Standard, and Sweden is not part of NATO. For Gripen they use the bus, but I'm not that sure for the case of the Viggen... Regards

If you are thinking in the DDM which is not present in the original Mirage, well, at least they leave the option to remove it in the module settings, which is nice. Otherwise the variant is quite well defined and AFAIK they didn't make any additional concession. :thumbup::thumbup: I cannot agree more Regards!

What a super cool mixture of old-school cold war planes!!! :pilotfly: Regards

Fair enough, the shader-based method is mostly required for high resolution modes like DBS or SAR, your approach seems perfect for the radar type modeled :thumbup: Regards

This is an interesting question that won't be properly answered I guess, since everybody is holding cards very tight. I think that ED is developing a shader-based technology for the incoming F/A-18. Have a look at this: http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVI/part7/PDF/101.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224989618_Simulation_of_Imaging_Radar_Using_Graphics_Hardware_Acceleration For LN it seems they are following a beefed-up, yet traditional, raytracing approach. Regards!

Indeed! Well 100$ might be a high toll for me. But definitively I would pay the same price as a regular new module for an upgraded -10C Regards

Yeah yeah, you were all right, I just had a brain fart :poster_oops: Regards!

Hi, I think there is a mistake in page 99, in the description of the HUD elements: Angle of attack is the difference between the flight path and the cross, perpendicular to the horizon, regardless the aircraft rolling angle, I marked the real angle of attack with red pen - A' Regards!

Hi, Can we assume TILS will be compatible with current ILS beacons already in-game? and each channel freq can be configured via ME? Regads

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