Marsvinet

I really don't like your "Some want more realism" generalisation. I VERY much want it to be properly realistic. But I also acknowledge that there are more eras in DCS than the 1980s cold war. This is why a version that can fit many eras come in. Because I can pull the same argument as you for why a non-TRAM intruder is the best, or a A version intruder, or no intruder at all, because neither fits in my 1953 Mig15 Vs Sabre matches. Because by your reasoning, a TRAM would not be allowed for early 70s matchups, like a MiG-21Bis Vs a F-5E. Can't have a TRAM there. Yes, 80s cold war is expanding, but that does not mean that is the only era that DCS modules need to be limited to. Maybe I really like the 1990s era (Which I do, where is my Day-Attack Harrier? A Night attack does not fit there!)

Oh! let me try this! Oh no, my 1995 AJS-37 Viggen is ruining my 1980s cold war setting! What shall I ever do?! Well, it is quite simple, don't use the new fancy weapons, turn off TERNAV, use the datacartridge or the outer wing pylons. Tada! I've turned my 1995 AJS to a 1980s AJ approximation. And that is what i'm gong for, a SWIP could fit more timeframes than a TRAM, yes, TRAM was the backbone for quite a while, but the differences between a TRAM and a SWIP are small enough that some simple omissions mean that you can use the same module for a wider era, even if it was outdated by 1990. Yes, it would be dominated against the modern planes that exists. So does the ~2017 Harrier we have, and the late A-10C, it is a hard era for anything made solely for groundpounding, so why force it to be used there? There is more than those settings, as you say with the cold war example. Look at my response the Bies to see how a SWIP could fit into that scenario too.

Scoobie and Art covered the main points I could think of, so I'll just put some more emphasis on the VRS part: The bitch will VRS if you let her, it will happen when you least want it and it happens fast. One of the main tricks is to always watch your vertical velocity as you get slow. Never drop below... 3.5m/s I think? But the helicopter is kind enoough to tell you when you need to be on edge for VRS with the shakes. As you exit translational lift (translational lift is when you're going fast enough that the rotor system no longer is affected by its own turbulence and it gains some extra lift, happens above around 50km/h airspeed in the Mi8) the helicopter will start shaking. At that point some collective is needed to counter the loss of lift from exiting translational lift, otherwise you will really increase your risk of VRS. My other tip is to just practice. Limbs will be flailing and wrecks will be created, but after a while, it stops happening, or at least the amount of wrecks get smaller. Well, these were not short words, but It's the best way I can describe things.

I agree on a D model, that is something I'd pay a little bit extra to get. The E version is of course the main deal and can in a pinch be painted in SEA and play Airforce. But the D version would be a nice addition, since it represents a different role and slightly unique capabilities. But it is of course up to you developers whether it is feasible or not. And that cockpit shot looks really nice!

Yup, that is the sad reality for all the Republic aircraft, all of which I have an immense love for. Even the P-47 is hard to recreate, even though it has a solid place in history. I'd like even an F84E or G, but it just might not be possible to find all the needed information.

This is an interesting debate, since a SWIP Intruder would be nothing but a TRAM with some extra weapon capabilities and some extra panels in the cockpit. I don't see why people are calling the SWIP a bad option when you literally can just... Not use the fancy weapons? In the end you can still use it exactly like a TRAM, flying those old missions with iron bombs. I am all for the old mission, going low, fast, in the dark trying to dodge SAMs and raining snake eyes on baddies. But having the option of some newer weapons to somewhat fit with the Hornets and Vipers? I am all for that. The best would be modelling both, but is that really necessary, when the differences are that small? It is of course up to Heatblur to decide which option fits them the best.

I am all about that F105. Any version is fun, D for that Vietnam canyon run feeling, hauling 6000lbs of bombs to a target. G for that old school weaselin, though most of the fun stuff in that version is probably classified still. But I just like those low level, fast bombers. So Aardvarks or Fencers are also good in my book.

Holy shit talbot, that is beautiful. I need to download that first chance I get. Way better than what I've made for myself.

Max1mus, either you are really missing the point that there is more than AMRAAMs in life, or you are a troll. I'm leaning toward the second, so I'm just gonna block you. I see no need to see you complain about supposed problems constantly. Recommend others do the same. Might get some practical MiG-29 discussion in here after that. In the vein of his complaints though, I think it will be a fun plane to use the same way as the MiG-21, sneaking about low, looking for targets with the extra help of the IRST. The 21 works really well in that regard, hopefully the 29 can just make those tactics even better. Makes it surprisingly viable in the AMRAAM filled skies.

A MiG-29A would be a wonderful addition to the DCS ecosystem. Sure, it would have a bit of a hard time against the AMRAAM-slinging 2000+ US fighters, but, to the shock of certain people, there is more to DCS than just those fighters and the hyper competitive dogfighting arena. As others have noted, it fits very well against the F14 or even a hornet not using datalink and AMRAAMS (Like a 1980s F/A-18A, like those ever existed, right?) or the late 1980 M2000C. I would buy it in a heartbeat, as long as it avoids the early access hellscape. I can see it fitting in really well in 80's BlueFlag.

The Mi8 is definitely my favourite module to just fly around in. Cruising through the Caucasus mountains is a lovely feeling, landing at the highest peaks. Sneaking above the sandy plains of the Persian gulf or just enjoying the scenery of Syria. ....Now I need to go fly it some more.... Regarding the discussion on the trimming, there is AlphaOneSix's excellent writeup on how the system works in the real deal and why trimming is done all the time. For me using my spring centered Virpil with a mile long extension, I trim pretty much constantly and center my stick when I do, as to not move too far away from center and feel too much stick force. It looks pretty much like that Croatian Mi17 video when I fly.

I hope for some of that nice Czech non-Alien camouflage, even though they operate the V version. Even better would be if it would be included for the Mi-8, but I can live with modders excellent liveries.

Part of why the views of the Harrier is so polarized, is due to how deep you look. If you just want to fly around, drop bombs and look at the extremely good looking airframe, it is a very good module. But when you look deeper, it has generally been quite disappointing. Many of the voices you hear being negative against the Harrier, are the people who many would consider "Rivet counters", myself included. So you end up with two very different opinions, even though we are technically looking at the same thing. The historically VERY spotty communication and sometimes borderline abandonement from Razbams side has not helped it one bit. Most of this appears to be changing. Slowly, but changing.

I think I got all the updated things. Please holler if otherwise

I will take a look at the first post and see what is in and isn't after the patch drops today. Have not been keeping track of the Harrier for a while, so I hope to see some progress.

It is very much a real thing. The Pegasus engine has some insane thrust even at idle, meaning that it is very much a requirement to adjust the nozzles downwards when taxiing. Binding easy to reach controls for the parking brake is also practical.

The British second generation Harriers never carried guns. They were planning on making a 25mm version of the 30mm ADEN that was used on the first generation of Harriers. That project failed, but the gun pods sans guns were still carried, since you want some sort of fence on the belly. So the GR.5+ series gets built in ECM, extra Sidewinders/more ordnance carried, but no guns.

Could it be a clearance issue? The gears are mounted in the wings, so it is possible that the bigger tanks will get too close to the gear legs when they are extended. I can't verify this as I never fly with tanks, so check yourself ingame possibly? EDIT: I found a picture immediately after I posted. Look at the width of the tanks and how close the smaller tanks are to the gears. Those big tanks would not fit next to the gears.

They are supposed to be in distance in 10's of feet, so 001 is 10 feet interval, 020 is 200 feet and 300 is 3000 feet. So you're right in that the most significant digit might not be the most useful, or at least has a quite limited usage. There has been some bug reports regarding how well this interval actually works, but I can't tell you if it actually is bugged. Just when it comes to snakeeyes, it is good to remember that they are not very precise. They can float around a fair bit from the "precise" calculated impact point.

As Chicken stated, the checklist for a dead engine in the Harrier is quite easy to learn: 1. Eject, eject, eject!

It attempts to balance the amount of fuel being drawn the left and right tanks in the plane, since a well balanced plane is quite important for vertical operations.

One thing is to relax. You're probably really focused and tense, so try to be aware of that. Those two together tend to make you go lizard brain mode and jerk the stick around like it owes you money. Other than that, just practice. Figure out how the plane responds to different input and learn to counter those unwanted respones. Then practice some more. And when you're done practicing, do it again. I have flown it since it was released and I can still get those lizard brain moments. And then practice some more.

I second using chucks guides as a baseline for what is needed. They are always thorough. My other other recommendation is to just play around to figure out what is needed. Run through the tutorials and see what systems tend to be used more than others. Figure out where they would best end up on your stick. The best place to start is usually the HOTAS section of the controls. Those tend to be the, well, most used in most cases in modern planes. The Harrier has a much "simpler"/"smaller" HOTAS setup than other planes, so it is easier to fit onto our own controls.

Can't you manually create a target in the CAS page? I remember fiddling around with that a while back. Since that is the source of the target points, you could at the very least create a target via the F10 map, edit its coordinates and then reassign target points.

Interesting update. Will be fun to wrestle with my muscle memory for the TPOD with these updates.