Horns

Thanks very much, I'll try this as soon as I can. Apologies for the delay in replying, had complications with the reinstall.

I unexpectedly had to reinstall Windows 11 this evening. I've got my full DCS install on another drive and I was hoping there's a way to use DCS_updater to reinstall DCS without needing to wipe and re-download. I tried using "DCS_updater update" and "DCS_updater repair" but DCS is not in the list of installed apps. Can anyone offer a way to do this without wiping and starting again?

I agree it won't take until 2030, but at the same time I don't think it's a good idea to grind on the question of 'when'. Pushing HB for an ETA won't help either IMO, if there's one thing the history of DCS module development tells us it's that complications are difficult or impossible to see in advance, so ETAs can't be that reliable anyway. I have no doubt that HB will make sure it's a worthy module when it hits EA, and I believe (and hope) *that* will be more of a driving factor than getting it out ASAP.

Gotcha, makes sense, cheers for weighing in

So, armchair fighter guy thinking armchair fighter things here. I'm thinking about this for real-world though, since we already kinda get this benefit in DCS... As fighter jets have got more expensive, many of them have reduced the crews that operate them from 2 to 1. Good reasons for it, since things like radar management, weapon selection and radio management becoming easier have meant that a good pilot can manage everything on his own, allowing fighters to be built smaller and lighter. Those economies have come at the cost of two hands, two eyes and a brain. However, we're getting closer to the point where communication will be fast enough to allow all of a pilot's tasks from the ground, allowing a decision to be made about whether a live pilot needs to be sent into harm's way. Of course there are big advantages, one being that you aren't vulnerable to jamming. Those same technologies could allow that pilot to delegate functions to ground-based squadmates, similar to a pilot having a WSO take charge of functions at present. I'm curious about the potential of assigning a ground-based WSO to assist the pilot in the jet as required. It couldn't be the same contract as when a WSO is in the cockpit, as the person on the spot would have to have the con, but having a second person available to assist the pilot if and when asked seems like a good idea, and a way to maximize returns without imposing the penalties that a second body in a second cockpit would currently. Letting the pilot concentrate on maneuvering while a WSO manages sensors during air combat, or having a WSO watching the FLIR full-time to alert the pilot to the presence of possible manpad launchers while on low level flight ingress to target seem like benefits that would maximize results and minimize risks. One issue I can see is the increased potential for reach-forward. I'm sure there will be COs who will want to push the button themselves, or who will want a CO pushing the button who's in the room with them, so that they can call off a weapon release at the latest possible moment. However, this is foreseeable enough that one would hope procedures would be developed to navigate most issues like this that might arise. What do you think, is having ground-based WSOs a lousy idea or does it have merit? Has/Is this being talked about already?

I see, I’m glad that’s not the norm. Cheers for the info

Just curious if the Phoenix gets the advantage of its large warhead in the sim, or whether a single AMRAAM is generally sufficient against bombers and large aircraft. I did search but didn't find any existing topics on this, apologies if it has been asked before (as I kind of expected it would).

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.

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?

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.