Jarlerus

You make some interesting points. Although I don't think AAMs and SAMs with ballistic profiles (I use this term in it's broadest sense for missiles that "go up when launched to get more range") are comparable, as SAMs usually go for targets that are (much) higher than the launcher. As for the bleed numbers you cite, I can't assess their validity, but I do find them interesting and I'm curious to see how the AIM-54 will behave =) This will dictate so much of the "DCS meta", as far as mission building goes in the future.

AFAIK the AIM-54's max speed is Mach5 (at the top of the curve I guess) and yes, apparently at long ranges it has a high arc (ballistic) profile. It climbs to altitude, and dives down at the target. Exactly what speed will be retained after the dive and at what angle it will approach is, as I said before, "something we'll have to see how it'll work". To be more specific in my "not necessarily be slower" argument: The AIM-120 has a (apparent) max speed of Mach 4, and it's flight profile is flatter. The AIM-54 has a much higher ballistic profile, and reaches higher speeds (Mach 5). It dives from higher altitudes, and weighs more (Warhead: ~18kg vs ~61kg) so it will retain more of it's speed, at least at equivalent distances and if the speed loss for air resistance is similar(it isn't, but for the purposes for this comparison, as I can't do the math on it...), compared to the AIM-120. The conclusion I come to is that it's not obvious which one will have the highest impact speed. But yeah. I can also just type "I though this was trivial, but OK" and be a douche about it :P

The first "yes" is a useless answer. At least try to give some argument, even if it's short and simple. The second is weird. What do you mean? Who should avoid steep dives? The missile or the target? Would you care to explain what you mean with "radar discrimination"? Does the radar discriminate? :shifty:

The speed of the AIM-54 at long ranges would not necessarily be slower, as it dives down from high altitude. It will come in at a target loaded with energy. And potentially above the targets RWR coverage, but that is something we'll have to see how it'll work.

I'll correct it to 1967. As for the upgrades, I'll keep it at 1967, and leave the specific block version to an eventual developer to choose :) I know I picked a block fro the F-16, but I generally like to keep it a bit open for choice, and having multiple blocks in a module. It would benefit us users in the end ^^ //Jarl.

I'd like to have a player model that is (comfortably) controllable so that SAR-missions are more fun to play =)

Thanks! =)

Thanks, Kev2go! Pure gold. =) I've updated the list accordingly. //Jarl

Meh, that wasn't an official confirmation ;)

Viggen version confirmed? (Is it the first, or has it been before? idk) Anyways: AJS37! :D

Here's an idea: Give the task to BSK :) Then it will be done in like 2-3 years, probably :D

Are stress fractures and material fatigue modeled in DCS? 'cus 21 g's would probably make the airframe a candidate of a thorough inspection... :P

You are exactly in a state of mind that LN wants you to be ;)

It's a nice choice, but doesn't really fill the gap =) (Still putting it in though ^^ )

As I have a small dose of OCD, I have noticed something that bothers me a bit ^^ At the moment the list has a big gap between 1983 and 1988. Any suggestions on airframes (fixed wing) that entered service during that time? =)

Also, for you who wondered, this is the music in the video: https://audiojungle.net/item/80s-trailer/13615922?s_rank=1 (Posted by LN on YT) I'm content with that I know, but a bit disappointing it's not a whole track ^^

Your texture claim is debunked by Cobra, at least :P https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2930400&postcount=82

Thanks! Yeah! If it's the menu background I'd be very happy =D

For me it all boils down to game play in the end. I'd vote yes if you can manage to find interesting, entertaining and challenging tasks for it to do in DCS. Tasks that can make it fun to play in multiplayer situations as well. So; Yes, if it's mission can be replicated in a good manner. No, if you can't replicate it in a satisfying manner in DCS (yet). It's also one of those "I probably would not buy, but I'd love to fly with others that have" :)

It's all of a genre called Retro Electro. There's loads of great music of that style! :D If you want more, check the spotify list in my sign. (it has both Blood Dragon soundtrack, Hotline Miami stuff and much more) P.S., Leatherneck: I still want your trailer music -.-'

The Retro Electro is strong with that one. I don't know that exact song (It does sound familiar though...) - I'd like to know so I can add it to my Retro Electro Spotify playlist:

Only A2G radar.

Axis for gears? Just because it's controlled by a lever doesn't mean it's an axis IRL. Most gear levers I've used (in the modules I've flown) don't actually work as an axis, but as a switch with multiple positions.

I just want to add a side note that Starway has promised to update his textures for 2,5, when it comes as well. //Jarl

How did the rewrite go? And did you find a 3D modeler?