Lithion

Hey guys, I started looking into this mod since the China pack has been added, and I'd like to update some of my homebrew missions// training fields to include these new assets. However I encountered the problem this mod fixes, though I'm running into a bit of difficulty with 'installing' the mod. I DL'd the file from Git, copying the MissionEditor file, and placing it into my root DCS file. Though it never asks to 'overwrite' any of the underlying files and no 'coalition assignment' button appears for me. Should be noted that I'm running 2.5.1 OB currently, anyone running this mod in that version? Or should i wait for compatibility?

No GPS, but I think it has some short-term memory? Judging for Pikey's answer here, interesting read, it's from earlier in this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3459678&postcount=22

Curious, where did you get that idea? It clearly states we get the AGM-88C. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13

Another picture setting the differences in the 'Bugs ;) Next to the BIG difference in the LEX, the bigger, longer intakes help me with ID'ing :thumbup:

It's on sale atm, and is currently my only Full-Fidelity sim next to the L-39 (waiting for the Hornet). I don't really have anything to add to the points listed above. I just feel that not one other module at this moment matches the feeling the cockpit modelled sounds give you while you're darting over the deck at Mach 1, especially since the 2.5 graphic update. EDIT: Sale Link: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=206798

I think the difficulty in that lies in the different dimensions of all cockpits, meaning you'd have to model it for each aircraft individually. I'd much rather see some sort of 'flashlight x-ray' where your cursor just makes the pilot body transparent wherever you're pointing.

You're looking at this all wrong, the P-47 is not an option until they get that data. Don't expect the 'other teams' to even start development if they don't even have the data to finish the plane. There is no reason to start something they can't finish, instead, they're doing things like the Yak which will give them valuable insights to what actually gets a radial engine to tick. (don't forget all of the current ww2 planes are inline). In a way they're actually doing what you're hoping; they're not standing still. They'll visit the P-47 when they've actually got something to go with. Just as there is no reason to keep popping questions in this thread, or every time there is a Q&A.. They've said it before and I'll repeat them again; once there is something to say about the P-47, they'll let us know.

Like all range indications, probably very heavy dependant of your altitude and speed, expect a heavy loaded hornet to struggle to get to speed or altitude for that figure to pop up. Next to that, most SAMs that you'll actually be able to engage don't transmit that far, the ones that do are usually covered by anti-missile capable platforms like the Tor/Gauntlet and/or the Tunguska/Grison.

It's probably much like you said; some newer blocks for already integrated weapons. Though you had a fair point asking about the HARM-D, since that has the big transition to basically a GPS guided frag weapon which slaves its own GPS mark to the radiation point. Very big change for the SEAD game, though we don't really have to worry about the C/D version in DCS I guess, since radar doesn't really switch itself off on a 'Magnum' call over the radio. And even if it did turn of their radars, I doubt many people would consider the HARM-C running off into a town or something :doh:

Did a little digging into the differences between all the variants, and I stumbled on this: Source: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-88.html Look like the navy got on the backlist for conversion? Waiting for existing stores to be expended and replaced by newly made 88D's, or that they were just designated 88C still. Either way this refers to 2005 which i believe was the year 'our' Bug was aiming for.

Amazing, congratulations on this amazing work, big improvement! Thanks Heatblur team :)

It's been said, and repeated in the stream; Ground radar will receive attention after early access, and after TGP.

Will we get the option to load the hornet with empty fuel tanks and 100% fuel? The slider and the way the external fuel tanks fill up leaves a bit to be desired.

Agreed! I like how I can know a plane well enough to think of workarounds or to fall back on secondary tools when my primary tool stops working, be it because of battle damage or because of a bug. I'll just view it as a challenge/inflight problem :D

I've mostly been enjoying playing the Viggen lately, showing my friend the ropes in 2 player co-op. Low level striking at dusk and dawn, through the (snowy at times) mountains of the caucasus. Eagerly awaiting the Hornet and The Persian Gulf map :D

Looking at IRL photographs, IMO they've quite nailed it actually.. The difference the time of day makes on the cockpit imperfections is very detailled.

**in my limited experience** You CAN add static objects like dugouts by hand, but it's a bit time-consuming and you can't really save a template of them + the SAM battery AFAIK. At the moment you can only save a template that belongs in the same group. A particular SAM formation can be saved. However, static objects like dugout covers can't really be 'grouped up' in a template since they all belong to their own unit 'group'. Static air defenses are really falling out of favour, only the strategic/long range SAMs have static emplacements for longer periods of time, and they can have wayy too much range to be 'fun' in a DCS mission (depends on the situation ofc). Nexto to that, the reason why you're mostly seeing mobile AA threats is because AFAIK, only the S-125/SA-3 is modelled as an immobile unit in 'ground vehicles' tab. (not sure if the S-300 launchers can move after being placed, this might me a second one) They're currently working on the SA-2 Guideline//S-75 Dvina radar and launcher models to be added in the near future, this would be a second/third static SAM for REDFOR.

Couple of reasons I think they won't implement it: Anyways, these were just my thoughts and ramblings on the subject, but I very well understand your view, I've created a few SAM mission templates of my own!

I'm not very familiar with sound formats, but let me tell you something I did with an oversized JPEG once; I converted the jpeg to a .gif, which has fewer colour ranges and the like, so these colours were eliminated. I then converted it back to a .jpeg from the .gif file. This meant i now had a .jpeg extention which had eliminated ranges of a lower sized .gif format. Is there any way you can apply this to your audio file? I realise this is akin to Feefifofum's answer, but hope it helps.

While I wouldn't recommend turning his voice off, more customisation is always better. Though I have to ask, why ask such a specific question on something you'll 100% know the answer to if you check the options yourself when you get the f-14? There are so many little questions being asked each in their own thread, if we really expected an official answer for each of them the devs would get exactly 0 done each day..

Hi, a question I've seen around here on the forum before, popped into my head again during the Hornet stream. While not specifically geared towards the Hornet, it will very much benefit from it: Will DCS:Hornet, or standard DCS:Mission Editor, come with an option to launch with empty external* tanks?

Thank you for the amazing update, and the effort you put into this!

When they were conceptualising the Tornado, they decided against a single seater since the nav/ground radar etc. was such a big workload.. It might just be very different :D

Cheers Skate, t'was also more of a thought for future streams. Though I realise this stream's planning has been eventful. Maybe for next stream!

Can Wags schedule the Livestream on his youtube? Then we don't have to break our head over this timezone malarky every time we need to recheck what time it was :D