bfr

Delayed because you can't necessarily just disentangle the two things at the drop of a hat, and especially as it sounds like the module has dependency on the thing that is in need of some attention.

Chances are the preview build they were given isn't exactly the same as the one that is due to be released (that will include other changes to DCS/other modules). Also you don't know if that preview build came with "its mostly fine but this bit is still not quite right so don't do this/that" caveats attached.

Outlook on delays depends completely on the overall situation. If something absolutely definitely has to go on a given day at a given time then you probably stack your deck so everything going out is frozen with plenty of time to go. If the need arises and a minor delay isn't going to be the end of the world (and lets be honest, it isn't in this case) you cut things a little finer. And even with the best will in the world, stuff still comes out of the woodwork from time to time. As for 'how do you know it will take exactly one day', it may well take a lot less than that. Bumping it a whole day when you don't need the whole day means you aren't rushing it and also all your support/contingency arrangements in terms of peoples working hours are likely exactly the same as if they'd hit the original deadline (rather than delaying by a few hours but possibly then hitting 'release' and everyone signs off for the day straight after).

That assumes they can just knock out another build with any flaky stuff rolled back, and also assumes the flaky stuff isn't also a dependency of something else left in the build. As others have said, these things happen from time to time and its generally wiser to take your time fixing the underlying issue properly as well-meaning rushing of things often ends up risking making matters worse.

And the penguins. Don't forget them.

Usually updates seem to drop from around 1300-1400 GMT onwards.

I guess it becomes irrelevant once HB eventually do a carrier-capable variant but there isn't a firm timescale on that yet.

Fair enough, didn't realise such a mod existed.

Interesting that we fleetingly see a carrier variant in that video.

In which case we might know things are really beyond repair as and when the module gets taken off sale.

The longer nose wheel strut was a variable thing needed for higher AoA off the smaller (than US) RN carriers when we still had ones with catapults, rather than it always being at its most exaggerated extension. They also swapped out the J79 engines for the RR Spey on the F-4K (not sure if the later lot of ex-USN F-4Js they bought for the RAF were re-engined).

I'm sure they said the J would follow this as a module in its own right. Like you say, E was a perfectly logical starting point given it was the model made in the greatest numbers.

This. I just type 'Update DCS' in the start menu and the right app comes up.

No doubt someone probably will do one in time when the paint kit is more widely available. I suppose Razbam did Israeli skins for the F-15E despite them operating the F-15I, but usually official skins tend to try to be historically accurate.

It'd seem unlikely they'd do an official scheme with the module as I think i'm right in saying Spain never operated the E model?

I must admit I was startled by how small the F1 is in the flesh when I first encountered one up close in the static display at an airshow.

A fair point. Perhaps the flying brick is tricky to get into position where a decent firing solution is available

RAF never operated the F-4E. British Phantom variants were all derived from the navalised F-4J I think (which I believe Heatblur will be doing next). Although no doubt an RAF themed scheme will turn up for the -E at some point.

If I remember right the DMAS upgraded variant won't be available on day 1 so that (plus the whistles and bells that enables) should ensure it'll be in EA for at least a little while.

When you think about it, Rick is exactly the qualities you want in a back-seater.

Yeah, haven't checked them personally but I'm sure someone said it was something daft like 16ft.

I wonder if the ships included on the map burning but not then sinking once destroyed is tied in with the reports i've seen from some other users that the water in some harbours is only a few feet deep? Although that assumes that the damage modelling/animation for ship objects takes such things into account.

And they might add support for Shrike to the existing Block 50 if its historically appropriate/accurate. I haven't seen any definitive information that the Block 50 can't rather just doesn't carry them. I don't recall them ever being on the roadmap for the DCS F-16, although the weapon being introduced into the game via the F-4 may change that.

Until they sort out anti-ship missile warheads/ship damage modelling (and I really wish they would get around to this) then Harpoons are kinda rubbish though. Adding support for Shrike is pretty niche appeal too. Super Hornet I believe is still constrained by lack of documentation? Much as i'd love to have one in the game.