TLTeo

@IronMike bump/ping to get some attention on this behaviour, per your request in the EA discussion thread.

Yea the F-5 TACAN has been messy and inconsistent for a very long time. Similar to the RWR or guns, who knows when/if it will get fixed.

To be pedantic, that's your average airquakey loud DCS player, which I don't think is representative of the player base at al. Per ED's data, most of the community flies SP rather than MP to begin with. It's just that the "muh capabilities" crowd is much louder than the silent majority.

Sure, all I'm saying is that if they really are pushing major stuff to November, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If that major push is seriously delayed and/or the Tomcat clearly keeps receiving more attention I will be just as annoyed as you all though.

They literally stated in this very thread that major stuff will come in November. Hold your pitchforks until then at least.

Meeeeh I don't buy those arguments. The Crusader community had a ~6:1 kill:loss ratio mostly achieved through missiles. The gun-less Navy Phantoms went from 2:1 to 7:1 between pre and post Top Gun. The USAF jets stayed at ~2:1 throughout Vietnam regardless of whether they carried guns or not. Meanwhile those same -E model jets in Israel did extremely well for themselves. The problem at that time wasn't the design of the aircraft. It was the god-awful doctrine and training of the people who commanded those aircraft.

Yep, DMT and ARBS replaced by the APG-65

The Skyflash (and Selenia Aspide) basically started from an AIM-7E and then overhauled most of it. In terms of capability they should be in the ballpark of an AIM-7M iirc.

It's very simple. "If I can't have thing X, nobody should get thing X. If others benefit from thing Y, me not benefiting from thing Y is outrageous" is an overly simplistic opinion that fails to take into account how the world works. If you fail to grasp that, then frankly any further conversation is a waste of time and patience.

The airframe is identical except for the vertical stab as far as I know. The engine was less prone to compressor stalls at high AoA but that's it. Turn performance should be unchanged. Yep this is correct The question isn't whether the above are doable by a modder taking educated guesses (the A-4 mod had an air to ground radar years ago before the Hornet even, and that was entirely lua based), but whether all those features can be implemented while re-using the FM, systems model, and art of the AJS.

I guess if someone could pull it off it would be neat, but I don't see how you would include e.g. the HUD symbology for an a/a gun or radar, or BVR missiles (or whether they could be included in the mod at all), while recycling the assets from the AJS.

It's planned among a couple dozen other modules. Make of that what you will.

I posted the difference between the B/J/N/S above But yeah I agree, it's really hard to do justice to the Phantom in one go. I half think they should have two separate modules, each fully priced, and then whoever has the first Phantom gets a ~50% discount on the second one. It will be on the pricey side, but it could work.

Sort of, they did plenty of a2g during Vietnam (and obviously CAS is the main mission of the USMC) but that role was still mainly taken up by the A-7 and A-6 It was awful, which is why it was yanked in the J/S. Similar to (but worse than) to the F-14A indeed, since that one also went pretty quickly.

Correction: HB did this in addition to the full campaign they released, which is set in Caucasus and is a continuation of the mini-campaign

Iirc the F-4N were rebuilt Bs with the AWG-10 radar, bombing computers, RWRs, and sometimes slats (which required removing the BLC). From what I can tell they retained the IRST. The -J were (mostly) new jets with the similar avionics to the N. I don't know whether they got slats or not. The -S had a further improved radar and slats. The J and S did not have the IRST. The UK Phantoms were more or less built to J or S spec, except for the Spey engines (which would completely change the FM). Honestly, I don't see what asking for all these variants can bring, you can cover pretty much all of their history/service life/peculiarities with even one of them. The UK ones are the most different, but even then we can just pretend jets with a UK livery are part of the batch of F-4J (upgraded to S spec) the Brits leased in the early 80s. None of these jets used PGMs.

Yes, the Italian Air Force has pretty amusing official designations for each jet. The AMX is officially called the A-11 Ghibli, the Tornado is designated as the A-200, and the Typhoon is the F-2000. Most people call it the Eurofighter though.

But the sim crowd now has plenty of ways to play the game they want to. DCS is a sandbox after all. It only becomes a problem when said sim crowd goes on an airquake server and expects realism to apply to that...if they do, I have news for them: the number of HARMs carried by Vipers is the least of their concerns. If they don't do that, and instead fly single player and/or with milsim squadrons, then where's the problem?

Uh, could you elaborate on this? Have there been bug fixes not included in the change logs? Which bugs are gone?

Cobra giving not one but two deadlines! What could possibly go wrong...going back on topic, beyond whether we get new stuff released or not, I think a sore point for the Viggen has been the lack of dev interaction here. RagnarDA used to be around addressing all sorts of questions, but he's mostly been missing for a long time and any questions about the details of some systems (e.g. mine about the BK-90) are pretty much just user speculation. Regarding EA status, I've written this elsewhere but the EA tag is just entirely arbitrary at this point. For all its bugs, the Viggen is more complete than, say, either the Mirage or Harrier, and both of those have been marked as being out of EA for a very long time now. I think ED really should rework the whole concept of EA, and possibly centralize that on their side rather than let individual 3rd party devs do it themselves and just confuse users. edit: grammar/wording.

Yeah the main issue right now is the Viper radar over-performing by a large amount, the Hornet may be under performing by a small amount, and track memory on the Hornet is busted. Having said that, I think the Viper is also helped by the fact the radar is much easier to use (imo). You don't need to worry about toggling PRFs, changing scan azimuth can be done faster, and RWS/SAM modes are more intuitive (imo) than anything the Hornet does (and by definition, in RWS you don't get issues with weird dropped tracks).

Those are Brazilian Navy A-4s (and an Argentinian Tracker, as the colors on the tail make abundantly clear) and that's Sao Paulo, which is what Foch was called after it was sold to Brazil:

Nop, they flew the Super Etendard in that role

That's actually a surprisingly good STR indeed. Do we know whether this is for a jet with or without slats?

Calling the R.530 a BVR missile is highly optimistic tbh. From what I've found, it doesn't even outrange the AIM-7E.