TLTeo

The Sidewinder's effectiveness has nothing to do with jamming pods so indeed, it sounds like you're not launching within parameters. There was an issue a while ago with Sparrows not guiding on jamming targets, but that's been fixed.

Not that DCS models damage to vehicles this way, but BAP are designed to penetrate concrete, not concrete reinforced with steel armor like on carrier decks. You might probably do *some* damage to it assuming you get close enough (which is a hilariously wrong assumption anyway), but you definitely won't have the same effect you would have on a runway. And given how impractical that kind of attack on a carrier is, it's honestly perfectly fine if it's not modeled well anyway.

To be fair, that would be true for STR, but ITR doesn't really care about engine trust, so something is likely still off. And a new engine seems unlikely to give you ~30-50% STR. I've been critical of Hummingbird's posts for other aircraft because those differences were really tiny, but in this case the discrepancies are anything but that.

Most other CBUs need to be revisited tbh - the CBU-52 on the F-5E, the Belouga on the Mirage, and the BL-755 on the C-101 to name a few. As is we're left with only the A-10 and F-16 having cluster munitions that function properly basically (and perhaps the Viggen, I'm not sure on what the state of the BK-90 is) which makes zero sense.

Unless you fly with a Greek skin

Eh, the HARM and RWR date back to the early/mid 80s, everything else they showed is pretty much spot on for the 70s. Complexity wise it's not that different from e.g. what the Tomcat and A-6 carried. By the late 80s/early 90s the USN A-7 was retired anyway.

That's very impressive progress, thanks for the update!

I don't know whether the current performance is appropriate or not, but the Viper is *not* supposed to be king of BVR - small radar antenna and all. There's a reason why the best BVR platforms like the Eagle, Tomcat, Typhoon, Flanker, Raptor et al. are all large planes carrying a giant radar dish. The current look down system is likely over simplistic and the range adjustment likely was overdone, but it's also important to moderate one's expectations with aircraft of this class (same goes for the Jeff by the way, but that's a whole other conversation).

Regarding the all-aspect missile stuff, it is also an issue on the L-39 (the R-60M is supposed to be somewhat all aspect but it isn't), but not on the F-5 (the AIM-9P5 is all aspect, the P3 and B are not), Mig-21bis (the R-60M is somewhat all aspect, the R-3R is all aspect, but the R-60/R-13M/R-13/R-3 not really), or Viggen (R-24 and R-24J are not all aspect, the R-74 is), so it kinda depends on the module and for the most part it's fine.

Raven One is the best campaign in DCS. Others come close (e.g. those by Reflected/Bunyap, and others by BD), but as good as they are they don't quite match R1 imo.

I just noticed this in the Hornet (called state 7.4, but I was at 7.1). It seems to be on the ED side.

This post is going to contain spoilers for those that haven't been through all the missions. I will try to keep them at a minimum, but there's only so much I can avoid. Everyone probably knows by now but it's worth repeating: this campaign stands head and shoulders above everything else in DCS. Even the best work of other excellent campaign makers like Reflected or Bunyap (or BD's previous campaigns) doesn't come close to how incredibly good Raven One is - and I didn't even read the book! That said, there are a few minor comments, in no particular order, that could improve things a little: 1) It would be great to have every single brevity code be added to the documentation. Currently some are missing, whether they be minor (e.g. "Armstrong", which I imagine means Master Arm ON, "No alibi", which I guess is some sort of acknowledgment that weapons are live) or not (e.g. "Gorilla" in mission 12, which makes the initial radio calls very confusing). I more or less figured out most of them (I think), but it gets weird to have to figure some brevity codes out, while others can just be looked up in the kneeboard. 2) In many missions the briefing shows the location of known SAMs, but then those SAMs are not displayed on the SA page. This doesn't make sense to me and in some missions (esp 10 and 14) felt pretty annoying - if air defenses are known during the briefing, there is no reason why their locations wouldn't be loaded on the jet. 3) The triggers on mission 15 seem a bit iffy. Again trying to avoid spoilers, but I managed to get through the first fight with the F-4s very quickly and with my wingman alive, after which I ordered him to bug out on the F10 radio. As a result, the Su-33 did not engaged, everything was fine, and I missed all the following bits of the narrative. I'm not sure how one would fix this without the risk of forcing the player into a fight with no fuel though. 4) I realize it's more of a DCS issue, but AAR with the AI gets awful sometimes. I have had to re-fly missions or divert because the AI decided that an S-3 Viking really is a ballistic missile meant to fly straight up to Angels 100, or Hornets completely forget how to AAR and just get stuck behind the tanker..you name it. Given that the AI issues are so inconsistent and messy, I think the best fix would be to allow the player to spawn an additional tanker (and re-spawning any wingman at full fuel) using the F10 menu, and stating specifically in the mission briefing/notes that this is strictly in case something goes wrong with the tankers already present in the mission. It's a bit of a hack, but to me at least it's less immersion breaking than being forced to eject because the AI is dumb, or losing my entire flight because they run out of gas. 5) If possible, all missions should include a legend on the kneeboard that shows which aircraft callsigns on the SA page correspond to each actual flight. Having that in Mission 10 makes a huge difference in keeping SA, so it would be great if it was extended to other missions too. All in all, this is very, very minor though. Between the Mirage and Farmer campaigns I was always going to buy any new Baltic Dragon campaign that comes out for any module I own, and Raven One just reinforced that. Cheers!

Yeah, some of the more egregious things (like AMRAAMs or HARMs on a Tomcat) I think should not be allowed, but if non-Spanish F-1Cs could carry e.g. the 530F, I think it's fine to include. We'll see what Aerges decide though.

They probably meant "standing in for variants operated by other countries".

Somebody else had this issue already, they fixed it by re-installing the Mig-21 module.

To add to Victory's point - ok, the discrepancy you found is a few %. Are you confident that your (and RL) tests are also accurate to less than a few %? How so? If the answer is "no" or "I don't know", then the conclusion is that the performance is as spot on as it could possibly get. Comparing two very close measurements without their error bar is pretty meaningless.

Aaaah so the scream I heard earlier was probably just Cobra. I'm not entirely surprised that I could hear him all the way in the US On a more practical note, would you guys consider adding some Lantirn-specific keybinds for Jester, like we have some radar-specific ones?

Do JTACs use illumination flares? If that's an option and you're doing CAS, I'd go with that. If you're doing some sort of deep strike mission at night, that's what the radar/nav bomb delivery modes are for

This sounds more like an issue on the ED Store side than on M3's side...@BIGNEWY/@NineLine?

I don't mean to be offensive, and I apologize if this post comes across that way, but what exactly do you expect this thread to achieve? Some exact timeline? If that is the case, how are you not aware that HB do not give long term deadlines because they notoriously miss them? If not, what's the goal? What's up with rushing to some future big feature when there hasn't been enough time to enjoy the latest big feature?

Yeah seems likely I'm misremembering the compatibility thing. I'm still 69% sure the 4x Phoenix loadout was a thing in some situations though.

Patch isn't out yet but it's planned for some time later today https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/233848-patch-status/?tab=comments#comment-4795386

But they are -E model Sparrows and -P model Sidewinders, so the story about the IRIAF not having compatible missiles is true. The question is whether the integration (which definitely happened eventually) of those missiles happened before or after the war started. It could also be that due to lack of parts/missiles, they only carried the Phoenix during defensive counter air type missions, and the Sidewinder/Sparrow during offensive operations.

Afaik the IRIAF didn't have the USN AIM-9G/H (let alone the L/M), only the AIM-9P, and they also only had AIM-7E, rather than the AIM-7F. What US missiles they had (mostly from their Phantom/F-5 orders) were not immediately compatible with the Tomcat.

My post wasn't really criticizing the Phoenix, I was just pointing out that doing air to air with no short or medium range missile in the 80s must have taken some serious bravery, even with the range advantage of the Phoenix.