TLTeo

Yeah, I've come up with similar conclusions. Against fighters it's more of a Fox-1 than a Fox-3 unless under ideal conditions (launch at 35k ft or more at Mach 1.2 or more, nice clean separated tracks, large closure). If I can't zoom climb to high altitude while remaining supersonic I do not bother with TWS shots at all against fighters, it's much better to be slightly lower altitude than the target to reduce clutter and take either a PD-STT or P-STT shot. I agree on updating the manual (and training missions honestly) as well. Right now it does a fair job on explaining what you're looking at, but it's not great for teaching how to deploy the aircraft effectively imo.

Some combination of R-3S or R-13 would be my guess. The -R is not an IR missile, the R-13M1 was introduced in 1976 from what I can tell.

Yep, I checked and also find this same bug. @baltic_dragon could you please have a look?

I mean, it's definitely convenient and user-friendly, but it's not that different from your usual RSBN/TACAN navigation towards a chosen radial/distance. It just does the trigonometry for you on the fly

Duke on Discord wrote this week that he's working on writing a development report

Well yeah that's how pure deltas work. Doesn't mean a high loaded wing is actually good for t/o or landing performance, nor that a high mounted wing helps much, as the post I replied to implied. Besides, you're the first one to bring up the Mirage 3 in this thread...

@BIGNEWY @NineLine In light of the posts above, you really should have another look. It is not possible for the weapon to simultaneously be accurate and inaccurate without terminal guidance, something has to give.

I don't see how a high mounted, high loaded wing would do anything to improve takeoff or landing performance tbh. Doesn't matter where you place the wing, if the thing is tiny, it will not generate much lift. Which is part of why the Jag was known for having poor t/o performance in the first place.

It's not specific to the patch, but I can't think of a better place to write this particular piece of feedback: I think HB should re-structure the stickies in the Tomcat forum, because atm it's very bloated. For instance, several threads could be moved to the big FAQ one, and some older ones can just be un-stickied (do we really need a change logs thread, when we have a dedicated feedback thread each time for instance?). Just a thought.

Uh I'm not sure if it's my DCS doing weird things, but I can't find the missions or the campaign in the DCS menus. The folder just shows as empty, and the campaign is not listed. Guess the Universe already knows I'm s**thottest fighter pilot ever and does not deem this campaign to be necessary.

Yeah at this point Razbam have like 20 "announced" modules, who knows which ones will actually come to DCS and which ones are just hype machines.

Yeah that's one way to look at it. The Viggen we have is a 90s upgrade, which just so happens to be more or less the 2000C's best-fitting epoch (no precision guided weapons, no Fox 3s etc, but still decently advanced avionics). If you don't care for hyper-modern features the Mirage is definitely a good complement to the Viggen.

It's really weird how ground handling is so inconsistent and messy in DCS to be honest. The Viggen is not the first model to be affected by some similar issue.

To be fair I think the Vietnam numbers need just as much context as the peace time ones. A *lot* of AIM-7s and AIM-9s failed to hit not because they were bad or had issues, but because they were fired outside of the envelope. The same will definitely holds for the AIM-4.The weapons weren't good, but for most of the war the training was just as bad if not worse. Beyond that, there are two more issues that aren't really brought up. First, from what I can tell (and likely what Bruce Gordon refers to), the AIM-4Ds on the F-4 only used their internal coolant, so the time they had active on the rail was like 2 minutes, after which they were useless. On the other hand the Century Series fighters supposedly used a reservoir of coolant from the pylon (which I think is what Bruce Gordon was referring to, unless the MG-10/MA-1 radars could slave the IR seeker head to their los, like more modern systems), so the missiles could be used for longer even if you didn't get within a shooting position quickly. Second, the AIM-4E, F and G carried by the F-106 did get a larger warhead and (possibly?) better fusing, but those missiles never made it to the F-4 fleet. So yeah, was the AIM-4 a good missile? Probably not, especially not its implementation in the Phantom. Was it significantly worse than an AIM-9B or D? Also probably not, especially the improved ones carried by the ADC interceptors.

My pet theory is that since IFE want to have a full release immediately rather than going into EA, the standards for release are much higher and there are definitely tricky things they need to overcome (like full multicrew functionality).

Yeah, having flown more (SP only), my personal conclusion is you have to treat it differently between high and low altitude shots, although I think the guidance plays as much of a role as the kinetic performance. At high altitude it can get enough speed that the magic all-seeing AI only has a limited time to pull its ridicolous hyper aware chaff spam, so you can get a pretty high Pk from long range TWS shots. At angels ~25 and below I find that hitting a fighter in TWS is basically impossible because the missile goes for chaff very quickly after going active, but PD-STT shots work perfectly well because the missile keeps guiding.

It's not really that. A few years ago they were on a strict 2-week cycle, where once OB would be updated, and afterwards Stable would be, etc. The end result however was that releases to OB were really rushed and often buggy, and those issues would pass to Stable fairly quickly. That all ended up in (I think) 2.5.6 when ED released a horribly broken update to the lighting system and users were stuck with it. We all complained and the result was a slower pacing of the patch cycle, with more thorough testing in-between.

According to what I've read, the EE should have some sort of nav/attack suite, which I would assume includes either an INS or a Doppler navigation system a-la Viggen/G-91/Mi-8.

Yep, correct. The higher the wing sweep, the more AoA you need to generate a given amount of lift, especially at slow speeds. If you're going to keep flying level, increasing AoA will increase induced drag so if you don't compensate for it with power the aircraft will slow down. There's a reason why airlines don't have wings swept back 68 degrees

Then why would Wags state the opposite?

Is that mentioned anywhere? I just had a quick look at the manual and I didn't get that impression.

I realize the team has other priorities right now, but is there a chance the ripple settings for weapon delivery will be looked at/implemented? Currently the CC is more limited than it should be in weapon delivery (unless I completely misunderstand how the system works...)

Nop, the Sparrowhawk HUD that the B and A got later in life is not planned atm

As far as I understand, in Vietnam gunpods were used more for a2g than a2a, especially for the USMC.

To be fair the Aspide itself *is* a heavily modified AIM-7E.