Jester2138

You had to hold -1.1 to stay level? That doesn't make sense

You guys totally missed the point of the analogy. What ED decides to include in what modules is entirely arbitrary and up to them. They would be perfectly able to include the ability to steer the ship in Supercarrier if they wanted to, and it has nothing to do with "fairness" and everything to do with what they think will generate the highest return on revenue vs. development cost. There isn't some written rule in the universe that says "Supercarrier needs CA to steer."

It was tested extensively (and successfully) against fighter-sized targets during development and production. It was never a "bomber-only" missile.

That doesn't make sense. How does this sound: It's not fair of you to expect to get the AMRAAM on the Hornet for free. The missile was developed for the F-15C module. If you want AMRAAM on the Hornet you have to buy the F-15C. You shouldn't expect to get features for free that somebody else worked on.

Agreed. It never even would have occured to me to ask if the Tomcat would be supported because how could it not be? But apparently there's some question in ED's mind. Insane! I'm glad somebody thought to ask. ED always finds a way to remind me not to assume anything, no matter how basic, will be included or supported in their early access releases.

How about Vy and cruise AoA?

Not an assumption. An educated guess based on plenty of past experience.

Where can I find information on the V-speeds and AoA and so forth for the JF-17? Real-world or DCS information is fine. There must be pilot manuals and stuff out there somewhere.

End of January? For real?

LOL ok Rambo

Where did I insult it? You're proving my point about that chip on your shoulder. There was no "buff"; it was a correction to make it more accurate to real-life, and it was about a decade overdue. The preponderance of NATO jets has to do with the Russian government, not "NATO fanboys". I hope Deka is able to make many Chinese jets.

I was wondering the same thing. Isn't this half the point of TWS?

I don't see the NATO crowd kicking up a fuss over this at all. If anything, I think the JF-17 has been extremely well-received by the DCS community in general because it was delivered so complete, as compared to the ED F-16. Many of my (American) friends have bought the JF-17 instead of the F-16 for this reason. I am one of them! How so? The AMRAAM, NATO's most important missile, has been left woefully under-performing for years. How is this a pro-NATO bias? Moreover, it is not a surprise to anyone that a brand-new fighter compares favorably with a 40-year-old fighter. Do you really think "NATO fanboys" are bothered by this? The only thing I've seen anyone get upset over was the lack of realism in the AMRAAM. NATO has moved on to aircraft like the F-22 and F-35; nobody's got a chip on their shoulder regarding a lightweight, non-stealthy, short-ranged Chinese export fighter except you, apparently.

Getting absolutely no RWR visual indication of enemy radars, lock, or audible tones at all in Growling Sidewinder. I am doing the DTC trick suggested in the change log. I have completely reinstalled the module. This is pretty frustrating as the plane was more usable before the "fix" and I was having lots of fun on GS...

Maybe this is an English as second language thing. I'm a native English speaker (along with, I think, most of Hoggit) and "Jeff" is a very affectionate name. It is not a joke at all. Americans love giving their planes nicknames, sometimes weird ones. The B-1 Lancer is called "The Bone" by all its pilots. The B-52 is called "BUFF" aka "Big Ugly Fat ****er" by all its pilots. The F-35 pilots sometimes called it "Fat Amy." The A-10 is called the "Warthog." These are names of affection despite their somewhat unsexy first-appearance. Americans don't nickname things they don't care about.

1) A subscription doesn't need to earn them more and 2) You're not their only customer. Some people would pay more than what they otherwise would have. The FS X one worked better than the DCS one does right now, with the exception of I don't recall you being able to actually spawn already on the FS X one.

Gotcha. Hope they flesh it out soon; it's one of the main reasons I bought this.

Is there documentation anywhere for how to use the A2G radar submodes like DBS1/DBS2? I messed around with it today and couldn't make head nor tails of it, and not even Chuck's guide mentions anything about them.

And it's incredibly annoying. It's a regular occurrence for me to accidentally say something to ATC because the window decided to pop up right as I was reaching for F2 or something. It's just bad design. The game should never forcibly grab control from the player like that. Pop up a window but don't activate it until \ is pressed, like how chat works.

Yes, FS X: Acceleration in 2007 which came with a fully-working carrier and Hornet. It was tons of fun, and frankly worked better than the current DCS carrier... That new content wouldn't have to be early access modules like it does now.

That's exactly why I would buy it... Not a Pound for Air to Ground

The Flanker we have would be much more modern than an '80s -A. Even our -C is really a late '80s plane just with the AMRAAM. Our Flanker is late '90s. For me, the most iconic Eagle is the -C and I can't deny I'd be dissapointed with an -A. A mid-2000s Eagle w/ Link-16 and JHMCS is my most-wanted module in DCS, by far. It would be a fantastic companion to the same era Hornet and Viper we now have.

I'm not really interested in any of the listed planes. I'd be VERY interested in J-11, JH-7, J-10, Z-10, and Z-19. And, of course, the JF-17, but you've already done that one :D

Not on the JF-17! Let's hope they improve that stuff, too :) Man, however did I manage flying "Iranian" Tomcats online? I must be Einstein.

Allowing the Flanker to toggle between imperial and metric also would affect me in exactly zero ways because I would never use imperial in it, and yet I don't think it should be done despite there being Flankers out there in the real world using imperial units. Even though I'm just a dumb American who likes imperial, I'm perfectly capable of using the Flanker in metric and it helps the immersion to be thinking in the same system most of the actual pilots would be. This is a simulation of the JF-17. The JF-17 uses imperial units. No JF-17 uses metric units. We don't need to make it more complicated than that and cater to peoples' laziness because they don't want to learn something new.