2-niner

I've seen several people say this but I don't really understand why that would be a show-stopper. I mean, the method of encryption being used in the link is pretty much irrelevant in regards to simulating it anyway, and regarding things like range and update rate and bandwidth, I'm sure some reasonable estimations can be done. We don't have the exact performance figures for a lot of missiles and such either, but people seem to be fine with making some educated guesses there so how is this so different?

Was the high altitude issues every fixed? I remember the AB mysteriously cutting out when approaching mach 2 and then it wouldn't relight until you got down to low altitude again, and sometimes not even then.

The only way to really do it properly is to simulate the original seekers functionality by letting it do feature-detection on a low-res rendered picture. I think you could actually do that relatively easily using something like OpenCV. The only issue is that it will require a little bit of CPU time to do.

Would be absolutely awesome if DCS could be like Steel Beasts / ArmA on the ground, and I'm guessing that is probably the long term plan since a while back, considering the rename to Digital Combat Simulator (not Flight simulator). I guess the big question is: Is there a market for it? Would enough people be willing to pay for a simulation-level tank module the same as for an aircraft module? I hope so! But who knows...

Ragnar, I think it would be hugely appreciated, as well as good for sales, if you would put together a really comprehensive guide to all the different weapons delivery-modes, especially in regards to bombs, rockets and guns. Because I have personally really struggled with figuring these out and without much success, so it has really been a very frustrating experience which hade made me fly the Viggen a lot less, despite the fact that I really want to like this aircraft. And it's not just me, I've read so many other posts about this and watching youtube videos where people are equally frustrated/puzzled. So please please please fix all the remaining bugs in this (if there are any) and make a manual that really explains super clearly how it all works. It's such a fantastic module I just hate to see it brought down by things like this.

That's what I thought, thanks! So AJ37's and J35's probably wouldn't operate together in most circumstances. Unless perhaps there was a huge incoming bomber formation and there were not enough J35's so the AJ37's had to be used as interceptors. Still really cool to get an AI J35 though, looking forward to it.

Speaking of this... I know the J35 was used for quite a long time alongside the AJ37 before the introduction of the JA37, but was the J35 ever used to actually escort AJ37's? I've sort of gotten the impression that the fighter role of this era was mostly about intercepting bombers, and not really about fighting for air superiority against other figthers, but I don't really know and I'm sure there's some people in here who does...

I realize that this should be low priority since you're not really *supposed* to land the Viggen on the Stennis, but since you can - and therefore you could theoretically do some carrier-ops with the Viggen, could we get a fix for this please? :) I know it bounces on the old carriers as well I just had hoped that it would be fixed on this new one, but not so...

This! Tracks have always been broken for as long as I can remember. I didn't play Flanker but I know it's been like this at least since LOMAC, and that was released 2003 so it's at least 15 years now that this has been broken. I understand that it's probably not a simple fix, otherwise ED would have patched it by now. But personally I would prefer it if they didn't include broken stuff like this. Most of the time I think it's better to not release something if it only "kind of" works. I just feel like this has caused sooo much confusion and headaches for so many people over the years.

Honestly I don't think there's a right way to do it since I'm pretty sure it's bugged. I also spent a lot of time a while ago trying to figure this out, but based on my experiences and from what I've read here on the forum the plane itself seems to be broken in a lot of ways, so I'm waiting for the proper release from now on.

That's actually a good idea, I'll think about it.

That's my site, glad you like it! :)

What works for me is to pull back very hard and then immediatly releasing to almost neutral. This makes the nose wheel "unstick" from the tarmac and rotates the aircraft just enough to get you a little bit of alpha but not enough to trigger the warning and then you just have to very gently adjust the alpha from there to get it to be just enough to take off and just shy of triggering the warning. Takes some practice to get it right and this is probably not how they do it in real life :)

Hey, just wondering if there's any plans on adding any Swedish ground units to DCS? Things that would be nice to see are RBS 70 manpads, STRV 103, PBV302, etc. Maybe even CV90 & LVKV90? Even if it's just the units and they don't come with a scandinavian map it would still make it possible to build a lot of fun & interesting scenarios based on an invasion of Sweden, which of course is exactly the scenario the Viggen was designed for.

The aim9 doesn't do lock-after-launch? If that's the case then yes there's definitely a bug since I "mad-dog" these all the time and it definitely works quite often. Regarding bombing I've had lots of issues with that, but I haven't tried it for a couple of weeks so...

Hey Ragnar, so are you saying that this will have to be left unfixed for now?

Been getting this a lot as well, wondering if I were doing something wrong but couldn't figure out what. Figured people would be talking about it on the forums if it was a bug but this is the first thread I've seen about it...

As I understand it the maverick was pretty much a replacement for the RB05, so it's no wonder it will be better in most situations. They apparently considered developing an optically guided version of the RB05 but went for the maverick instead since it was already available and probably very similar to how an optical RB05 would have been.

Loving the new exterior sounds. If you guys are going to go over the Viggen sounds, could we perhaps get a more varied sound from the AB? Right now it seems that the sound is exactly the same regardless of what stage you're in, wouldn't it be more realistic to have a little less of a roar in stage 1 than in stage 3? Just throwing that out there...

I don't mean to be mr negative here, it's a fun easter egg and I love you guys for doing it but it can be a bit of an immersion killer, so could this perhaps be moved to a certain data input code like with the HAL easter egg, rather than have it popup randomly?

Was it the plan to remove those numbers if war should come?

Yes! This has killed me so many times and it's a super annoying way to die, and like others have said I haven't experienced this in other modules.

In my (limited) experience with this, the only times I have got another aircraft to show up on the radar is when the aircraft in question is a large one, such as a tanker or AWACS. Aircraft smaller than that doesn't seem to register at all. And for me this has only worked when I did NOT move the radar antenna upwards - I used to try and do that as well but it seems to this makes the radar look so high up in the sky that what's right in front of you gets missed. So keep it in such a way that it's still painting the terrain for you, otherwise it seems to be pointing too high. Not sure if this is a bug or not.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that this simply isn't implemented yet, but it's on the todo list as I understand it.

From those it seems that the decision to do an AJ37 was done pretty early, may I ask if you ever considered doing a JA37 instead and what caused you to choose the AJ(S)37? Not saying it was a bad choice, just wondering...