FoxOne007

Yeah I'd rather not have DEKA work on important and good module, let them focus on the Chinese stuff!!

I think you are experiencing the same things as reported here, suggest you take a read :) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=262823

I am also very much noticing this when taking off with an uneven load with no crosswinds. When taking off with 2x GBU-12 + Fuel on LWing and a GBU-10 + Fuel on RWing (or the other way around) even after trimming LWing Down for a decent amount the jet still gets pulled off to the right off the runway unless almost full rudder in the opposite direction. I'll post a video later

Like it or not idc, the current JHMCS we have in DCS and are replicated by ED it should be a choice, either JHMCS on, or have NVG's attached.

That is a completely different system, JHMCS I was not NVG compatible, so it was either JHMCS or NVG's (aka ANVIS-9)

This would probably be JHMCS II, https://elbitsystems.com/product/jhmcs-ii/ that has those features

Agreed, I guess we will have to wait and see where they end up on the Hornet's development poll results, but I am not very hopeful it will become part of the top 15/20 list of priorities.

My guess is that ED is working on redoing the entire (or at least part of it) GBU guidance system (both LGB and JDAM) as a GBU-24 Paveway III has a completely different type of steering fins than a GBU-10/12/16.

This is actually far from true, I spoke to BigNewy in PM about URGA's and the Syria map's status and he assured me that Urga is still working on the Syria map with internal feedback been given by ED, and are working on improvements on Normandy too. they hope to share more info again soon Yeah indeed, I haven't lost hope (read above comment) :)

Not true, that is not how binocular NVG's work, they provide an overall bigger FOV but nothing like a monocle as seen in the video (you can't "align" them to look like that either.....) In addition, in real life you can't fly with both JHMCS and NVG's, so if ED was to actually do this realistically, they should go the RAZBAM way where you can load NVG's via the Ground Crew menu and it would remove the JHMCS and give you NVG's, preferably the ANVIS-9 Binocular set that is most used in the aviation world (with correct view model). This is different in the A-10C's Scorpion HMD btw which can be used with NVG's as it is a completely different mounting system. (This is a system we might see coming with ED's A-10C 2)

The past posts clearly show that there are no separate teams.... If there were the Viper development wouldn't have to be slown down in order to actually get things done on the hornet, it is all just one big modern aircraft team

True yes, maybe it I best we also voice our opinions on this whole matter on the F-18 roadmap discussion post, I already did at least https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4302567&postcount=170

Yes a F-16C Viper roadmap should be a thing, even though by the looks of it we won't see a very active development until 2021.....

As more an F-16 pilot than a F-18 pilot, I am beyond disappointed and feel lied to! Around the F-16's release the official statement from ED was that the F-18 and F-16 were separate teams and would not impede/slow down each others developments (which didn't feel like the case much later after that statement) but they would actually be beneficial in certain areas (Radar, weapons, etc). Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago, a new ED statement that you guys aim to have both the F-18 and F-16 out of EA and done by the end of 2020 (Viper already quickly became Q1 2021 instead). And then now you release this Hornet roadmap and just slam the door right into our (viper pilots) faces and made sure our fingers would also be stuck between it with the statement that F-16 development will be slown down, all in all I am very pissed off and extremely disappointed!!

First of all, you're basing this of what? nothing? Secondly Zeus commented on this in the RAZBAM discord:

This is +1000 from me, that would be a great solution

I wouldn't really mind that at all

I really really do hope so, and that this has not been abandoned

While that is correct, the AGM-62 Walleye is also listed under bombs which is technically the same type of munition, a glide bomb

Currently the AGM-154 JSOW is catagorized under "AG Missiles", while it is in fact not a missile but a glide bomb (as it has no engine/rocket motor of sorts) and should thus be listed under "Bombs" and not "AG Missiles"

Problem fixed, was an issue on my end

Not the same for JASSM, JASSM was removed because it didn't match the time frame of the ED Viper

Hey, I have just done that, but the duplicate remains there. EDIT/UPDATE: When checking the LUA/DIFF of the back up, in the keybinds.diff the ANT ELEV keybind is not present, and in the Throttle.diff it is present. I have checked all LUA's and I can't find any mention of it in any of them besides the Throttle.diff

There appear to be people having similar issues with the A-10C module From ED Discord user Nivki

yeah it seems rather weird for an aircraft not to have it. Coordinates to other aircraft or other forces are often still passed along via radio and not always via DL, so you would have to get target info somewhere from the TGP.