bfr

The F16 in DCS also has a nuclear consent switch if I remember rightly. RHS console. I remember they put a nuke (B61 I think) into F4AF, it was pretty boring. Could only drop it in manual mode, big flash (no mushroom cloud modeled though) and then your machine ground to a halt as all the destructible structures below and within view burst into flames.

I'd noticed this too that it'll use a lot of RAM if you've got it. I'm on a 32GB system as well and total system usage was getting well into the 20's. All lovely and smooth though.

Cheers, i'll give that a try.

True enough. The only annoyance is if you have to cycle back round the track modes to reframe then the pod seems to jump back to where you first started (in the test scenarios i've done I used a waypoint to initially fix the pod position and then slewed to the tank i'm targeting, and it always slews back to the waypoint spot when you cycle the modes to allow manual slewing again).

Its definitely not the coordinates you're using, the missile just doesn't seem terribly accurate without some help at the business end of flight. When my initial SLAM tests were missing comfortably I hit the same targets with JDAMs using the same coordinates and those were right on the money.

Its been suggested on another thread that the E needs the manual terminal guidance IRL, so we might have to wait for the H/K (SLAM-ER) version before we have something that you can leave to its own devices. Certainly my experience tallys with yours that you seemingly can't even hit large buildings by GPS guidance alone.

Yes, I found it to be pretty awful when left to its own devices too, always misses by enough of a distance to do no damage to the intended target. Hopefully the SLAM-ER is much better when that gets added (I believe its on the roadmap?)

Me too. Always had to also shift-u to get the catapult to fire for the Tomcat. Hornet always triggers following the salute though.

I noticed on one launch of the F14 that in external view the shuttle was still ahead of the nose gear despite having followed all the deck crew instructions to hook up, was being given the instruction to run the engines up etc. i decided to plough on and the launch went ahead fine. I was going to save the track file as evidence but that was all screwed up (when I did playback my plane ploughed badly into another jet when taxiing on the deck, which definitely didn't happen).

Sorry, you didn't specify. Not sure what the situation is there as I don't fly MP.

They're in the list of events in the debrief when you exit the mission.

Its properly mounted.

MECH mode has been discussed elsewhere in another thread. AFAIK its not implemented currently, and no one knows for sure if it ever will be. Also the suggestion was that it still requires hydraulics to operate so wouldn't be particularly useful in the "dead aircraft with zero power" scenario that the OP described anyway.

There was some minor stuff for a number of modules released to open beta last week. I guess that might get pushed into stable this week.

In real life I would assume a pilot would be expected to point towards open ground/water and punch out in such a total loss of power scenario and not try and (probably unsuccessfully) recover an aircraft with no power and fading hydraulics.

Wow, didn't realise they'd backed down on the triple rack Mavs. Hopefully they code into the damage model a suitably high probability of the third round's motor burning your flaperons off?

Didn't that get canned as well? Its a shame about the JSOW-B not being an operational thing though as the CBU-97's sub-munitions are tons of fun on the F-16 once you figure out the quirks.

Dirty bomb? ;)

The report that followed also suggested that HMS Sheffield made the worst of a bad job regarding its response to the missiles fired upon it. There were operational issues regarding how the threat was dealt with, plus deficiencies in hardware to accurately detect the air threat and also the capability to deal with the incoming missiles was limited by modern standards (its missile system was very poor for that kind of threat and CIWS systems like Phalanx pretty much weren't a thing for the RN back then).

It's on the to-do list and they probably just haven't got to that bit yet. And i'm sure if you ask everyone on here to put the list of outstanding items in priority order then you'll get a fair spread of answers i.e. they've decided to do other things first. As for putting new jets out before others have finished, i'd hazard a guess that it is a lot about cash flow. I'd rather suffer concurrent releases getting there eventually than the company going bump because they had to absolutely finish something 100% before it came to market or before they could start anything else.

Funnily enough you've reminded me that i've been meaning to try landing a Viggen on a carrier deck but haven't yet got around to it. I have managed to put the Viggen down on the F1 circuit in the Persian Gulf map before fairly comfortably (also managed to land a Hornet there but that was considerably hairier and definitely only a success in the 'walk away' sense).

I know it (modelling for drag with/without) was on the 'to do' list pretty much from the day removing them was enabled as an option. No idea if it was ever done though.

With regard to these two points, the EA products i've bought (F-18, Harrier, F-14 and F-16) have had a reasonably clear definition available as to what will/won't work on day 1. And if I remember rightly they've also had a list of priorities for post-launch development. And in most cases you also get an idea of what systems will/will not be modelled longer term. I suspect the bigger issue is the lack of any clear idea of how long that EA phase lasts for and that products eventually pottering along at a crawl in terms of development. As for the Viper v Hornet spat, it hasn't really bothered me that much. Update cadence for the Hornet exceeded expectation early doors so i'm willing to cut them a little slack for the current lull. Hopefully there is some payback to come in terms of the claimed effort to be able to co-develop features to some extent for the two planes.

That's what I was getting at. Slaving off the TPOD is a good way to get into a position to launch the weapon but you then have to keep your eye on it to make sure its really acquired the target post-release. Once the seeker has locked though, its a pretty effective weapon. What little tests i've done with anti-ship have been a bit weird. It appeared to lock but then went long if left to its own devices, like it was aiming for where the sight line intersected with the water surface rather than ship superstructure i'd locked to. Any hits required manual steering corrections late in the bomb's flight. Then again, LGB behaviour can be a bit like this too where the laser seems to lock onto spots beyond a building.

I think i've had problems where i've had to reselect using the MFD pushbuttons to get picture established. I think its push the DL one first and then reselect the weapon one (can't say for sure as i'm not in front of the game).