Dr.SquirrelBoy12

I certainly see a subset of players who would love to use the EA-6B Prowler but I dont know if the equipment can be simulated well enough to really work well. Depends how ED is re-working the radar system too I would imagine.

It looks like it is displaying -171.4 but the - is hidden by the aoa symbol.

Dont they have a dashed line in the Mirage radar too? Like I said in my earlier post something must be lost in translation because I cant imagine the dashed line is the real issue. Can =DECOY= clarify?

Well you wouldn't want to fire the missile unfuzed. Granted it would probably be a decent kinetic weapon against light vehicles it probably cant kill a tank unfuzed. I wish LGBs were like this. I've dropped too many that I forgot to fuse.

Pretty sure ED has not given them a license for the A-29B yet so if some other team somehow has one 90% complete they could submit it to ED & get the license. The only unreleased modules RAZBAM seems to hold the license for are the MiG-19P/S, MiG-23MLA, & F-15E.

This is currently one of the biggest issues I have with the AV-8B NA right now. I am happy this is being looked at but I am not sure if things are being understood correctly due to the language used. Impact point could mean the CCIP impact point, or the place the CCIP reticle points to when the actual reticle would be below the HUD. What it seems is being described in the manual is that I can take the ghost CCIP and place it over a target, press & hold the pickle button & fly according to the HUD symbology to do a "CCRP" release. Basically when the CCIP impact point isnt displayed in the HUD FOV it becomes a CCRP target designator like in the Mirage 2000C. At least that is how I understand it.

This thread should be locked.

A Prowler would be cool but IDK how well they could model Electronic Warfare in DCS World. Especially since I'd assume that sort of stuff is classified.

I never implied they wouldnt, I just pointed out the fact that licensing is an issue among many they would need to resolve if they were going to go full fidelity. Also can you stop treating people like they are stupid? I literally listed several modules ED has planned so it isnt like I think they have an empty schedule. You are claiming that 3rd parties can do any Russian jet without worrying about the Russian government: Despite ED being the arbiters of what goes in the sim & the fact that they are based in Russia. You then went on a tangent about profit margin for the A4 that nobody asked for that doesnt invalidate my claim that they would need to get a license. Do I have to write a book to list every possible factor out for you to be satisfied? As for the F-15E, RAZBAM has said they want to do JHMCS but I dont see that happening on a circa 2005 jet. Maybe they can model a newer block but it is hard to say because they dont seem to have the information necessary for the time being if their update video is anything to go by. I think the person you were arguing with is more than qualified to explain when certain features were added & what we are likely to see if the jet modeled in DCS is say circa 2005. Also I dont want to be banned for OT posts, if you want to continue alone so you can win the argument be my guest.

You dont need to treat me like an idiot. Why would I assume the A-4 Mod team was associated with VEAO? I never said Boeing wouldn't allow a license for an A-4, I dont know why you keep putting words in my mouth. You can clearly see in their comment is that they didnt want to invest the time into the project that would be required to get it licensed etc. Anyway you can stop generating fake hype for a MiG-29 like you did for JHMCS in the F-15E thread where you argued with a pilot about when JHMCS was added. For the foreseeable future we are not going to get a MiG-29. That is the plain truth, no amount of speculation or excuses will change that. Until ED or some other third party says they have permission from ED & the necessary authorities to produce a Fulcrum you are better off focusing on the modules that actually are confirmed like the F-14, F-15E, F-18C, F-4E, F-16C, Mi-24P, & the topic of this subforum the MiG-19.

It doesnt matter if there were 2000 at one time and only 230 now. There are enough of them that it could be a valid concern for Russia. It may be illogical for them to not allow it, but humans are illogical. Often the simplest answer is the true one, and in this case the most simple answer is that Russia doesnt want to let ED allow a simulation of some modern Russian fighter jets. Also I never said the A4 Team was anything more than a Mod made by members from the community, I am not stupid. I said one of the things preventing it from becoming a module is the fact that if they wanted to make it a module they would need to get permission to use the Intellectual Property of McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, and while they would probably be able to get it, there are likely other reasons preventing the mod team from seeking a license agreement.

China doesnt actually use the JF-17. They dont care about it. It is dated compared to their new jets anyway. Also China isnt Russia, each nation might have a different policy for different reasons. There is no other variant of the JF-17 that China uses. Russia still flies MiG-29 variants. Also 240-260 is still a lot. It isnt like 32 Ka-50s. The US has ~230 active F-15s in service. Also ED produces DCS World. They are based in Russia. It doesnt matter if "MiG-29 Dev" is based in "FREEDOMLAND" or any other nation. ED controls the sim and what aircraft are allowed. On top of that it seems they are requiring licenses from the companies to use their intellectual property. This is a reason you see Boeing licensing the F/A-18 & F-15E for DCS & also something preventing the A-4 mod from becoming a module.

Doesnt matter because ED is based in Russia.

I told you. It is about how many there are. The Russian government allowed the Ka-50 to be simulated at least in part because there are only 32 of them. It isnt like the MiG-29 that still sees wide use. Allowing information about a rarely used aircraft of which there are only 32 wont hurt Russian Defense the same way allowing information about a common frontline fighter could even if that figher is older than the Ka-50. It doesnt matter if private citizens in the US own MiG-29s, ED is a Russian company. Also the Ka-50 was developed for DCS at a time when relations between East & West were better than they are now. In the end ED has to listen to the Russian Government & probably companies like MiG & Sukhoi too.

Thing is there are only like 32 Ka-50s in service vs more than 100 Ka-52s & other Russian aircraft. RAZBAM already plans to to Falklands aircraft, including the Mirage III, Dassault Super Etendard, IA-58 Pucara, & Sea Harrier FRS.1

The MiG-23MLA is planned after the MiG-19. From what I understand the people who were doing the MiG-19 & 23 got picked up by RAZBAM. I guess they are going with the MiG-19 first because it is more simple & will give them experience for when they do the MiG-23. Any other more modern MiGs seem to be off the table for now because of the Russian government afaik. Also we already have a MiG-21 & the MiG-19 will actually possibly be even more deadly vs F-4s (like the one Belsimtek will be developing eventually) & F-5s (that we already have from Belsimtek) than the 21.

Repost: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=224028

I've been lurking in this thread for a while now & have come to the conclusion that adding a feature to disable Jester would be fine. Personally I don't expect Jester to be all that great and will prefer to play with a real person in the other seat anyway whether that be front or back.

The bug fix hasn't hit the beta or retail version yet afaik.

Switching from the stores page to the EHSD page will keep the weapons listed on the top row of buttons, selecting any of the buttons on the left will cause text to overwrite the weapons listed on the top buttons. See images:

Yea can confirm, seems to be set up for a switch that stays up or down, unlike my momentary up/down switches on my throttle base.

Well I would rather see them come out with an A-6 as they intend to assuming they can get the proper licenses & approval from ED. I think that the Intruder is pretty damn Iconic. While the F-117 is extremely limited in scope the A-6(E at least) has a wide variety of weapons to choose from: Mk 82 Mk 83 Mk 84 Mk 20 Rockeye II Mk 4 Mod 0 20 mm gun pod GPU-5/A 30 mm gun pod Zuni rockets AGM-62 Walleye TV-guided bomb AGM-65 Maverick AGM-78 Anti-Radar Missile AGM-84 Harpoon AGM-84E SLAM AGM-88 HARM AGM-123 Skipper (A GBU-16 but with a rocket attached) AIM-9 Sidewinder ADM-141 TALD decoy Mk 60 Captor Mines

Yea, that's why I play DCS instead of other flight sims. It's almost like the concept of "fun" is subjective.

As interesting as a F-117 might sound, it would probably be one of the more boring modules in the game. Unlike other DCS aircraft you are basically limited to one role dropping either LGBs or JDAMs of which you can carry 2. That said I'd still consider getting it, I just wouldn't recommend it over some of the other A/C we have in DCS.

Known issue. See here for fix: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=224344