Horns

Learning EM charts for one loadout, at 10kft and 25kft and inferring based on those in between really isn’t that onerous. Personally, listening for Jester’s calls whenever he makes them wouldn’t have the same utility as being able to check G and mach number on the HUD when I check altitude. Checking airspeed, mach and load factor are easier for me now that I fly in VR, but checking different parts of the dash for each item of data during BFM often caused me to lose perspective when I flew on flat screen, I suspect that’s the case for others on flatscreen now. Beyond BFM, it would be nice to have the same information on the HUD as the-D and every American fighter since. Edit: For BFM I was talking about training, where you specifically go up with one particular loadout and you might do some runs with an emphasis on hitting numbers rather than winning the fight. I should have made that clearer.

As someone who preordered the Harrier I can confirm that this is not Razbam's first sh!tshow. Personally my solution is just to vow not to buy RB products, but I understand why people's confidence in the broader game might be shaken.

I think, if Razbam's absence becomes permanent, I expect ED will be able to maintain Razbam's modules - that is, allow them to function as they do currently in future versions of DCS - but I can't see they'd complete the EA South Atlantic map or the EA F-15E beyond where they are today.

I agree/understand that ultimately if revenue isn't flowing through Razbam will eventually get to a crunch point where they have to stop operating. I also agree that the workers do have a stake in this, even if they aren't party to the dispute. Your point is well made. Just wanted to point out that Razbam is on the hook for these people's salaries as long as the company is still trading, regardless of how this dispute between Razbam and ED goes. I'm fairly sure payment of salary can't be contingent on action (eg payment) by a third party in my jurisdiction for exactly this reason - so they don't end up in the middle of a dispute they can't intervene in. I hope that's the case in Razbam's workers jurisdiction/s too.

Anyone else wondering why it's being implied that Razbam's staff's salaries come straight from ED? In my part of the world they'd get paid by Razbam, since that's the business they work for - any dispute about payments not being made by ED is between them and Razbam's ownership as far as I can see...

I understand, I worded myself really badly, so please let me try again: Would the -71 being based on - or maybe more correctly, sharing technology with - the -70 mean that authorities are less inclined to allow access to sufficient information to model the -71, lest that somehow compromise the -70?

Could someone please point me to the original official comment from Razbam or ED outlining what the situation is? Apologies for asking, I just can't locate it. Thanks.

Do you (all of you) have a view on whether the radar in the -D being based on the F-15E radar would affect the chances of sufficient information being made available for HB to model the -D? As much as I would love a -D, the B/U would be well worth paying for too. While learning BFM it would be great to be able to check if I'm actually max-performing in a turn while staying near corner without having to lower my eyes - although I do concede that one ultimately has to learn not to 'stare through the HUD' to be able to BFM properly, as pointed out in a previous post. The other improvements that come with the B/U would be fantastic too, but the HUD has been the one where I've often thought "if only..."

If I was Heatblur I would not say I was moving onto another module now. We have too many threads already where people claim modules have been abandoned once they hit EA. That said, I'm confident the whole HB team isn't working exclusively on the F-4E and TG certainly shouldn't be, so whether it is said or not I'm sure the module is progressing to some extent.

I'd go with napalm, but we don't have the right plane yet...

Well you don't really have to stop, in fact this way it would probably help you kill a lot more time...

... And *that guy* says "I bought a Phantom, not a Mirage"...

I feel the need to comment because today I had a situation rather analogous to this come up, so this will salve my feelings some as well. The below is opinion, as always differing opinions are valid. I don't know any better than anyone else whether the problem was strictly to do with the F-4E (I believe Cobra when he says it wasn't, but I know some of you may not), the surrounding work that ED did to create the patch or both, but here's the thing: even if the problem was solely related to the F-4E module, ED are the final decision makers. At the point Heatblur are told the build of the module to be included in the patch is ready for EA there should be no further changes, so at that point the build to be included in the patch is final. Improvements or fixes are for later builds. That means that even if the patch was held up because of an F-4E problem, ultimate responsibility does not lie with Heatblur. That said, at the point ED realized that there was a problem with some part of the patch, they have limited options (I believe them when they say the delay was unavoidable, some may not). Totally get why many people are unhappy, and from the tone of their responses it seems like Heatblur and ED do as well. All that can really be done at this point is to understand the problem and put procedures in place to stop this situation recurring. By Friday I hope everyone will be feeling a lot better. Please note: I wrote this prior to seeing BIGNEWY's post

Cheech and Chong reference... Any relation to your username? #stillsmokin

It's not out yet, I can't wait any longer... I've got #ebKola

Cheers, good to see the -29 doing it

Understood, thanks for the additional background. It looked to me (admittedly, I didn't really study it) like some J35s in the video reached 90 degrees or more AOA, I understood the move as being pointing the nose perpendicular to one's velocity vector, so I agree that if the -29 can't get beyond 60 degrees that's not really the Cobra. That said, I'm sure I'm going to kill myself a whole bunch of times trying to get there.

Much appreciated! I had heard that Pugachev was the guy who brought it to prominence rather than the pioneer, but I had no idea someone had done it in a Draaken. One more reason we should have the J-35 in DCS.

There are all sorts of reasons what I read might be inaccurate, but I came across a claim that the Cobra maneuver can be executed in a MiG-29. Anyone know if this is true, and if so, any clue yet whether the FF MiG-29 will be capable of it?

That's one way to pass the time...

Thanks for clarifying this, appreciate it

Oh yeah, they clearly aren’t ready now. The next planned update would be May 22 by my count, so if the F-4E i won’t make that date but is likely to make the end of the window I guess it might make more sense for ED to delay the planned update to the 29th, or even the 31st, to give HB (and ED’s testers) the chance to make the window than add a patch out of phase. All just conjecture though.

Cheers for the info, nice to have some insight I doubt there's much more that they could tell us about the state of the module other than what @IronMike's comment said. ETA was by the end of May, now that we're into a revised release window, I think they'll let us know as soon as they're aware if they won't make that, otherwise 'By End of May' is probably as precise as they can be. It would be nice if ED clarified whether they might release a module (along with the required patch) outside of their planned update schedule though.

Would be great if you can, but either way ED has the choice to alter the schedule. @Silver_Dragon Would you know if it be a lot more work for ED to release the patch for a new module and the regular planned update separately?

I guess you mean that the patch that introduces a new module doesn't have to conform to the six week window, yeah? You weren't suggesting that they could do the release without releasing a patch. I hope you're correct that they are prepared to vary the window. I'd hope ED are aware of the updated timeline for the F-4E, so if the patch schedule would prevent that timeline being met I hope they would have informed HB and we would have heard about it before now, along with a newly revised ETA. Please note however that hope is not a strategic position.