sirscorpion

I would like to see the pod on the Bombcat, but if its not possible then that is fine. LN/HB are quite meticulous when it comes to modeling subsystems, I think Razmab took a few weeks to get the lighting working using the in game template, But i assume the LANTIRN is far more complected. I also get why HB wants to delay it "If" they want to make the F14D then a proper LANTIRN would require some deep systems overhaul. But for the sake of assumptions and numbers lets "guess" how much the F14 costs, lets say it requires 3 years dev time and lets assume it takes 17 devs to make. Average Dev cost per year is 70k "AAA dev" ~25k "indi game" but lets go with 45k USD Per Year. So over 3 years that will be 2.29 Million USD for Dev time alone. Lets go with office or infrastructure Over head "office rent+PC+documentation+Travel" lets say another 300k for 3 years So just the roughest of estimations that will be 2.6Mil for the F14, so basically for the F14 to break even it will need to sell 44,000 copies as 60 bucks. "thats a lot for a game like DCS" so lets say the pod takes 4-8 weeks thats 58k to 117k for the pod. or 2000 copies of a game at 60 USD. This not taking into account a frack ton of stuff as well which can easily drive the price up. I get that some people might hate DLC, and they Way ED did it by splitting MP servers was a bad PR move, and a bad move in general for the Mplayer community. I get the idea behind it to give options but there are better ways and it should have been an all in one map. I would gladly pay 40-50 bucks for an F14D expansion as long as it can JDAM. not so sure about the B+. I am planing on getting at least 3 or 4 copies of the game for people who are on the fence with DCS and I think multicrew will be the best way to do so "al ready did buy a few copies of the AJS and Mig21", and not only that but understanding how things work its the best way I can support the devs that are in line with what i think about community engagement or set their goals high and stick to the core of DCS 3.5-4.5 Gen aircraft. And dont worry about people being mean, its good to be honest, and most of the community will support that, be it bad news or good. Worked well for star citizen which i supported with a large sum of money simply due to the devs honesty despite them screwing up their road map several times, but they kept the community engaged by brutal honesty which some how worked.

IIRC helipads are part of the FARP. its all one object.

would like that as well, this is by far the most important aircraft in my book.

If we are going to play the guessing game, i would say late Q2 for a rough early access or Q3 for early access "about the same as the m2k when it was out" or late Q4 for near feature complete. And i will take any of those.

If i am not wrong the FARP does work now "if the aircraft is ON the FARP", but getting there over grass or the huge slope breaks your gear. So basically the system does work, if that same system can be attached to a "truck" for example, or if need be a static but flat object. should not be That hard to do.

Might work vs the old Harm, the new AGM-88E has MMWR terminal radar to detect moving objects in the last known location. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16EimRYN3uw

Thank you for the answer, the ED lighting POD is great, the only issue is "and not limited to The LITENING" is the FLIR in general got broken at some point during the patches and does not work very well or in a realistic way, They did say they will re make it at some point but not sure on its progress.

@zeus67, you guys using the same lighting pod code from the DCS-a10c or you working on a new code line?

I love ww2, but I exclusively play online. and the issue with DCS is the scope of ww2 is all over the place, we have early war P40s, Vs mid war P51/SPit9, and late war D9/K4, and for some reason some pacific zeros and f4u. while stukas served till the very end the scope is all over the place, the damage model is sub par compared to other games, and a lot of issues in general. from what i gather the issue is with the stuka, which is an aircraft that has as much complexity as a simple helo, something like an AH1G is slightly more work than a stuka, while it fits with he core game of DCS. My opinion anyway.

I sure hope so, Polly seemed to be an amazing company and the gazlle is a sold model. the BO was on my buy list. though if the model in issue is the Stuka, then let that thing burn, I still dont know why DCS is bumping heads with other more mature ww2 sims.

Hey, any ETA on this? its kinda been 4 years

Funny thing is that the first Full glass pit aircraft in DCS will be a prop aircraft :D. Though honestly glad you guys went the super, this thing is way more fun.

Nope but its close as i could get "trust me searched for this on line for a long time" But using a method of deduction, it uses the same missile rail as the AIm9, "LAU-7 (Series) Guided Missile Launcher " and since you can not send complex data to the LAU-7 then one can assume it had a standard seeker. http://www.courses.netc.navy.mil/courses/14014A/14014A_ch9.pdf <<page 9-47 The other part is that FCS radar bands are different from EW radars for example. Taking that and the fact that it can engage Shilkas "which have a J band radar" and OSA SA-8 which also has a "J Band engagement antenna" and a H band surveillance antenna. we can pretty much confirm that it can engage stuff in the J and H band, which will also include the I band radars as wel: ~I Band used by SA-3/SA-2 SNR-125 "Low Blow FC radar" "also D band ~Tors "H band radar"also has a G/K ~early S-300 used H So pretty much any FC radar in the J band, IF it can also hit the H band then it can also shoot at I bands. This however is a huge difference as most H/I bands are for detection while J is for FC, it means a big difference in operation, In other words if its only the "Confirmed" J band it means that you need to get that radar to emit, in others words be locked by it. However the wording in all "little" information i could find was that the old AIm9c seeker was modified for a wider band of radars, so basically my assumption is that it can get to the J/I/H band of radars.

Modifications developed at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center and produced by Motorola included improved semi-active seeker electronics to provide coverage of the greater bandwidth required to home in on a range of air defense radars. The AIM-9C's original Mk.17 motor and WDU-17 warhead were retained, with the substitution of a DSU-15 active fuse. Control electronics were modified to command an immediate pop-up after low-level launch to provide a dive attack on the target radar. Although the resulting capability was vulnerable to countermeasures and rather limited compared to more robust anti-radar missiles such as HARM , it does provide a useful self-defense capability against low-level anti-helicopter threats such as the ZSU-23 or SA-8. http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Sidewinder-94.html Yes some screen shots of it in the AV8 thread.

Yep pretty much inline with the information i found, it is also a much more modern missile than the shrike seeker wise, so am assuming it will be one missile fits all "shrike is 1965, agm122 is 1986"

Was thinking its a new addition all i could find in this document http://www.courses.netc.navy.mil/courses/14014A/14014A_ch9.pdf was the a twin smart bomb rack for the F18. And yes please triple JDAM and LJDAM will be amazing capability indeed for Mplayer

Not 100% sure, but nearly every pic or vid i found seems that the class at the top looks at a shallow angle, and the HUD seems wider. Even on the UK GR variants. It very well might be a FOV or prospective issue. But its definitely noticeable. This is as close as a pic i can find VS

@Zeus67 Been doing some harrier research, and i am not sure if its prospective or what but i feel that the HUD glass on the pics you posted is smaller than the real one. You can see the top the glass in the picture is much shallower angle, an the base of the HUD glass is wider "compared with the data entry panel" by a small margin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-SUKZqHfU0 With amazing sound as well

Thanks for the response. @Zeus67. @David OC I sure hope that code is not proprietary, yeah some of the modules might locked by OEM contract , but in a small dev environment like this that can really add a huge redundancy in development time and learning curve.

@Zeus67, Amazing work and keep the updates up. loving this dev interactions! Do you think that with more "US aircraft" it will be easier to get things done with other similar aircraft? in other words how much do the "for example" existing DCS: A-10c systems architecture help in the development speed/ease of the AV8IINA?

The M282 warhead for anti-armor or penetration of complex targets.

Lots of source including USMC claims other wise "some posted here", the one that was not deployed was the Zuni rocket version as far as i know. Still its a weapon system compatible with many aircraft "including ones in DCS and soon to be in" I hope you guys consider it seriously as it fits plenty of aircraft, a relatively simple system which from a programming point of view is kinda there with the In game S-25L rocket in game which is on the SU25T, and has a huge practical use in M.player games even.

The M151 warhead which most used is 10lb warhead, depending on fuse if its point detonate fuse or not it can pen light skin. You also have the M229 with 17lb warhead. But since the APKWS can accept any Hydra warhead it can also use the M247 High-Explosive, Dual-Purpose warhead. which has a HEAT round from a M72LAW "so 250-300mm" penetration. which not bad, not a MBT killer for sure prolly the zuni version packs a better punch. It is not intended to replace ATGM. You also have all of the other hydra warheads, so WP, flechettes, practice rounds etc.