TLTeo

Uh? I'm pretty sure that PD-STT is supposed to act like a Fox 1 all the way to the target, and P-STT is supposed to be active off the rail.

Yep, the same was true for the old A-10 iirc

It's less about this and more about the fact that competitive DCS is in a weird spot when it comes to these bugs. Most of the classic games that spawned esports in the first place have dozens of these weird bugs/issues/exploits/whatever you want to call it: from rocket jumping in Quake, to patrol micro in Starcraft 1, to whatever is going on in the Dota code (and which was intentionally ported over to Dota 2), to frame skipping (I think that's the term?) in fighting games, it's all over the place. None of those games were ever intended to be esports either, when they were coded the term esports barely existed. The fundamental difference is that those competitive scenes have accepted the fact that weird behaviors exist, and they make mastering those behaviors part of mastering the game. I think it's harder for the DCS community to accept the mentality because, unlike all those games, DCS sort of attempts to emulate reality, so anything that behaves in un-physical ways is frowned upon. Obviously this logic makes zero sense because in reality fighter pilots don't try to kill each other for sport, but that's where we're at.

Likely TGP/LGBs/gun/unguided bombs, a bit less likely JDAM/LJDAM, much less likely the fancy UK stuff like Brimstone or Storm Shadow (or Taurus, which is the German equivalent) imo

It's set to the correct value for each map by the ground crew

Yes On a serious note, I have a curve set to 15 for every aircraft I fly (mostly because my rudder pedals are crappy), and I found that just a gentle tap in either direction works fine. Speaking of which, do NOT use differential breaking to change direction while moving at high speeds. That never, ever ends well.

Not the best example there buddy, the Eurofighter is fully supported by its manufacturer, unlike the Mirage 2000 which can't even be called "Mirage" in DCS specifically because Dassault chose not to collaborate.

As an addendum, this means you need to be very, very, very careful with your rudder pedals during landing and takeoff.

1) Personally, just roll off, not hitting the paddle because that turns pitch off as well 2) Not that I'm aware of, the function of the Tomcat paddle switch is nothing like e.g the Hornet's 3) The manuals I can look at are beyond the time frame of our Tomcat (1972 A, or early 2000s jets with DFCS), but the first one states that disengaging SAS should only happen as long as the paddle is pressed, and the latter (which again, completely different FCS) says that SAS should not be disengaged when the paddle is pressed, so yeah, you might be right.

If that is true, then that order hasn't gone through yet (and it may not because ECRs and nuclear armed Tornadoes are not as easily replaced). The latest German order is not to replace the Tornado fleet, but to replace the Tranche 1 fleet iirc.

If I recall correctly, Spectre11 a while ago wrote that no Typhoon with AMK has been ordered. Idk if that came before or after the new Luftwaffe order though. Ok I think this even beats getting Phantoms that can't fire Sparrows. I'm impressed.

Eeeeh except if you dig sufficiently around the forums you'll find that even that nice clear cut distinction doesn't really hold (e.g. the 4 Harm/6 Mav drama, Sniper being on and off the feature list, the SDB being extremely borderline, to name a few). There's enough info in the FAQs out there from both Ironmike and Spectre11 - don't expect an exact year/tranche/software version/block/batch/insert generic term that people think means specific version even though it doesn't, and that's fine because it's representative of how that fleet (or pretty much any fleet - Klarsnow, a Mudhen WSO, said exactly the same thing about that jet) works IRL. As long as we don't get blatantly inconsistent things like Brimstone on a Typhoon without PIRATE, it will be fine tbh.

No, in other words the entirety of the Typhoon fleet is a constant frankenjet so (beyond whether it's a German jet with PIRATE or a non German one without it) worrying about a specific serial number's capabilities on a specific day makes no sense.

Welcome to the best jet in DCS, enjoy your stay

G-91, Mirage F-1, F-8, A-7, A-6, MB-339, Typhoon, in no particular order. I would love to add the Mig-23 to the list, but with RB you never know whether anything is going to actually happen or not.

If they aren't comfortable with their ability to finish the Typhoon, I highly doubt they will start on other modules, especially something equally as complex as the Rafale. More likely they will assist with developing the EF and pick up expertise that way.

For the most part I doubt it will be less realistic than e.g. the Hornet or Jeff, which also do not have much documentation available (e.g. the e/m diagram of the Hornet) but are still fairly believable modules in terms of their performance. The one thing that will be completely fantasy and unrealistic is the EW capability of the aircraft (which IRL is also one of its strengths compared to other 4th gens), because it's done extremely poorly in DCS, but that's not exactly news. And why would this be the case? The Captor-M is the best mechanically scanned radar ever built. If the AWG-9 can do it, I don't see why the Captor can't. But yes, these super long ranges reported e.g. on Wikipedia are obviously estimated under hyper-optimal conditions, see the 53 nm figure for the AIM7 and 60 for the AIM-120C.

Beyond this, the Block 3 is significantly different from the Block 1/2 - other than the HMD, it has an AESA radar, a different fully FBW FCS, supposedly an IRST and a new MWS, a new HUD, an extra hard point, and a different engine to name a few. Asking for Block 3 features to be included in the DCS module is like asking for e.g. the Super Hornet AESA radar to be carried by our Hornet.

The first one Iirc the increase from v5 to v9 is some ~10% increase in performance (e.g. detection range et al.).

Yep, same idea

Haha that's hilarious, I wrote my post going by the old "planned payloads" sticky and that changed again with the lastest one

I'm trying to modify the instant action tank-busting mission, but the JTAC does not give any tasking to the player flight. If instead one replaced the Viggens with Hornets (also carrying 4 Mavs), the JTAC behaves normally, so it's not due to mission editor settings or unit placement. I have also tried using different loadouts, but the result didn't change. Mission files attached. edit: @IronMike apologies for the spam, I just would like to confirm you're aware of this AJS-37 Tank busting_hornet.miz AJS-37 Tank busting_viggen.miz

They keep going back and forth on that though. Currently it's not on the list of planned payloads, just the Litening.

Ternav is not the doppler nav radar, it's the update to it that makes it take automatic fixes to avoid drift as long as the radar altimeter is working, and it's from the 90s. The doppler radar is from way before then, it was introduced with the Viggen itself in the 70s. Much older jets had doppler nav radars as well - some variants of the F-100, the F-105, the A-4E off the top of my head. In fact, at the time the F-104G having an INS instead was an exception (and a fair improvement, the INS produces less drift generally). so yeah, tldr, there's nothing particularly remarkable in doppler nav suites that can't be done in DCS, given that it's doable even with lua in a (very good) community-based mod, so that really isn't something that would stand in the way of any of those old Cold War modules.

Likely the same level of complexity as the Viggen's and G-91, seeing as they also use one.