Lieuie

I would assume we will see them first as AI units before we get them as a flyable module. Just consider how long it has taken them for the Corsair and it's still not released. Still it would be a great addition.

I am confused. Which version are you saying we should be getting as the most prolific, the S or the J? Also I fail to see what TOPGUN has to do in a discussion about the capabilities of these aircraft.

I wanted to do more with it but unfortunately I've run out of time as I have to return to the military to finish my mandatory service. So here's Santa bringing gifts to all the naughty boys out there. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all of you and especially those who serve and are away from their families this holiday period. Also a big thank you to the Heatblur team for the amazing modules they have given us and great competitions such as this one. I am wishing you all the best and can't wait for what you have for us next year.

Arguing which F-4 is the best interpretation is pointless as everyone is going to have a different answer based on their own proclivities. Some will say the most produced version, others the one which saw the most combat. Others still might want the ultimate version of the original version of the plane. Each has valid points for wanting that. That however isn't going to change the fact that the one we will be getting is already determined. Now Heatblur has also announced that they will make a naval variant as well which great news for all of us as more people will be able to attain a version of the plane close to their preferred choice. And since which naval variant will be if still not announced we can speculate which one it is going to be and which will be best to simulate in DCS. But that's not what we're doing here. We are arguing between a version we will be getting soon™ and a version we might get at some point down the line. This isn't changing anything and isn't really helping anyone. Although I have learned a couple of things from your arguments I am getting exhausted by your aimless bickering. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. With love, Lieuie.

They probably want to give us a bigger official update rather than just mention that it has been delayed and I think that would be for the better. In any way I expect to see an update before the end of the year so we probably won't have to wait long.

That might still happen I haven't seen any indication that shows us that they will release both versions at the same time.

I am pretty sure that they do get some commission from third parties. Also I don't really count the BS3 as an actual release and more of a paid update. Furthermore I am not expecting the phantom to cut into the BS3 sales numbers too much as they are so different. Still I am with you in that it most likely won't be released this year but just because it isn't ready yet.

The flight manual states an alignment procedure although it doesn't clarify the duration. And it's operation seems to be pretty much in line with other INS systems we have gotten accustomed to. As far as waypoints are concerned from what I understand there are two available although I am not certain on that.

I don't think the phantom had a HUD. More like a gun sight similar to the F-5. The alignment time should be in line with all the other INS equipped aircraft, so around 8 minutes. I don't have answers for the rest.

The tail hook should work out of the gate without the need of modding it.

Or you could just use the kuznetsov

Well the F-5 does so it would be pretty weird if the F-4 didn't.

It's not true that no one asks about it. It just isn't as popular as the Phantom, Intruder and the Tornado. The issue is that Heatblur has taken quite a few projects already so any talk for further modules is for far into the future. I for one would absolutely love to have it and it would make a logical progression after the F-14, F-4, A-6, Viggen and Eurofighter. The problem is that those modules all take priority over it so I don't really see any reason to start speculating about next modules.

No.

I'm pretty sure that's normal behavior.

I can attest to that.

Yep.

Generally I try to be as realistic as possible but if it is a switch that is necessary I will map it on the controls. Great example being trim on WWII aircraft. There is no way I am trimming with the mouse and I don't really have the option to create realistic controls for it so I will just put it on the train hat. Another example is the ACM radar modes on the F-14. The switch is in the wall in front of the throttle. That was already mapped for me on the stick by Heatblur. I think it's more realistic that way than getting your eyes off the target to search for the switch so you can click it with your mouse since the real pilot would have memorized it's location and won't have to search for it. In regards to the F1 I still haven't figured out what I am going to map on it since I didn't have much time to fly it yet.

The funny thing is that in the text below in the shop it is mentioned as F1.

You will receive the CE, EE, BE and M.

Any HAF liveries?

Yeah. Good thing I've practiced with the Spitfire.

Don't expect it to be in the weekend updates. It will probably be a dedicated Heatblur update.

RIO is a Naval term for the rear seat And it refers to the Radar Intercept Officer meaning the guy that controls the radar. The Airforce didn't use that term. It referred to them as WSO or Weapon Systems Officers. GIB refers to the Guy In Back but I don't think that was the official terminology used by the Air Force although I could be wrong on that one. Since we are getting the E which is an Air Force version I assume we are going to refer them as WSOs.