TLTeo

This is what you are not understanding. Contrary to what you want to believe we do not have that information, because gathering that information requires large amounts of real-life test which, to the best of our knowledge, have never been performed. Unless you can show real world information proving the contrary, that rules out the GBU-12 as a valid loadout.

Yeah DCS does not really model the airflow around the jet and the effect it has on stores separation, so these tests don't really mean anything.

Italian ones too (and JDAMs too I think?). As far as I know (it was somewhere on Spectre11's post) only Kuwaiti Typhoons carry GPBs.

It took a while for the F-5 campaign to be approved by ED, so I assume the same is true for the Mig-21. My guess is because they have lots of missions (25 iirc?), the process is longer than usual.

Whether the bomb can be strapped to the jet is not the problem, or what separation tests would confirm. What matters is whether the bomb separates from the jet in the same was as an unguided Mk-82, or whether the guidance kit causes problems. That is completely different from APKWS, which are designed specifically to be plug-and-play with normal launchers. That is the exception, not the rule.

If you want to go the realism route, the fundamental question is whether the GBU-12 needs its own set of trials to qualify it. If the answer is yes, then it doesn't belong in the module imo (and it's a whole other situation from the Sea Eagle, for which trials were performed at least). If the answer is no, being cleared for the Mk 82 is enough to be cleared for the GBU-12, then imo it might as well be added (and it's not that much work either), exactly like for the F-5E, because It wouldn't be less realistic than a whole lot of other loadouts in DCS.

Yeah I think this is the most reasonable list of sub-variants that has been asked about the Phantom.

That is extremely optimistic tbh. The systems (and even FM depending on whether they do slatted or hard wing jets) of those Phantom variants are pretty different from each other, unlike the Tomcat.

I wish there was an option for "I don't mind either way". As long as it's a high quality DCS module, I will enjoy it. Regarding the Draken, I also don't care about what variant is released, it's just too cool regardless. The only caveat is that I think it would be neat if we could have one with the RB-28/AIM-4 just to experiment how awful that missile truly was.

Maybe shot the video on Tuesday and it was heaters only day

Heatblur: we're not doing the F-14D because we don't have enough information OP: after the F-14D you are not going to do due to lack of information can you please do an imaginary aircraft that never went beyond the drawing board and that, therefore, has even less info known about it I just...I don't get it.

As ever, Draken or riot

I guess the only way it doesn't impact their roadmap is if having HB+TrueGrit together let them get some additional investors that the original companies alone wouldn't have managed, which they could use e.g. to hire more people. But yeah, even if it does impact their roadmap, it really doesn't matter. There were two mystery jets on there and whether the EF delays one (or both) of those or not, we're still getting HB modules anyway and that's what matters.

Uh interesting, did it get removed or something? I thought those were former Italian Tranche 1s, and the AMI jets do have Pirate.

Tranche doesn't correspond to capability 1:1 in the way people think though (e.g. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/228911-eurofighter-typhoon-facts-and-myths-faq/ ). And besides, "we will be releasing EA with air to air capabilities only" does not mean "we will be doing a Tranche 1 at full release". I mean, by that definition we have and will always have a Block Frankenjet Viper because it doesn't have the full capabilities of a USAF block 50 yet.

The German Typhoons are the only ones that do not have Pirate (other than one test bird)

I can hear the people who think the Tomcat and Phoenix are OP already screeching about the Meteor and IRIS-T lol

The Phantom, Me-262 and AH-1 were also confirmed to be in development. Again, plans change, get used to it.

It's still WIP, no confirmed ETA

Reminder that Black Shark 3 had its development halted for a while due to Russian export laws, despite the fact that it was announced, confirmed, and in active development. Seriously all this talk about "plane X is confirmed so it's good to go ez" makes no sense. If something is not in the DCS store it should be regarded as not existing because getting info is hard, plans change, laws change, development is super time consuming, and a whole list of other reasons.

And that is why coding FMs in DCS is so easy and takes so little effort /s

I know they have said they don't find it very interesting, but I still think a Q-5 would be very neat (then again, I'm an a2g guy at heart). Some Su-17 variant, or even a -25, would be great as well. But yeah given that there are plenty of other devs doing Western stuff, I'd rather Deka keep doing their unique thing as well. The only exception might be perhaps a Mirage 3/5, since between South America operators, Pakistan etc it's not really a full on bluefor jet anyway - like the JF-17 actually.

Yep, and an -A model Viper is even worse given that the cockpit is completely different, so you need to re-do several systems, most of the avionics, art, plus FM (because analog vs digital flight control system, different weight, less thrust etc). People acting like "oh but the 3d model is there and the aircraft is the same, just a few systems" don't really know what they are talking about. This is true to some extent, but to be honest, DCS is a relatively unrealistic environment (for example, because you're either flying with dumb AIs or humans who have no idea of what they are doing) that it's stopped bugging me as much as it used to. Not having the right AWACS radar Doppler limits or whatever isn't nearly as big of a deal as my wingman not saying a single thing during ACM or BFM other than "fox 3! ejecting!".

4th gen is very poorly defined anyway, it covers a huge span of time in which the airframes remain the same but more stuff was added on mainly through software. If the Tomcat is a 3rd gen fighter with 4th gen performance, so are an F-15A or F-16A for instance.

I think the question is less whether Aerges is willing to include stuff, and more whether they can find the documentation necessary to include stuff. Again, reference the C-101.