TLTeo

The brochure doesn't specify either mode (VS generally should have longer range than RWS) nor closure though, so it makes no sense to compare a claim on a brochure with actual DCS numbers. You could bring the VS range down to ~65nm where RWS is now, bring RWS range down to e.g. the RDI range of ~50nm in high PRF and ~35nm in medium PRF, and you could still say "hey this works exactly like the brochure says!" It's one of two things - either the KLJ-7 is currently over performing for whatever reason (and the Viper is spot on, and the Hornet was spot on but was made to under perform with 2.7), or every other radar in the game is grossly under performing.

Yeah if the Viper gets brought in line with what you would expect (ie, a bit worse than the Hornet), then the Tomcat, Viper, Hornet, Mirage, Tiger and Fishbed all will be where you expect them to be. Assuming that happens, it's really hard to believe that the Jeff being such an outlier is realistic.

AC-130 confirmed then!

I thought the "fighters" comment referred to the two "next gen" modules though, not the A-6. But yeah obviously it's intentionally vague

To code this you would basically need to assign each track a humor/no humor label. Then you adjust the probability distribution you use to randomly select each voice line based on that slider. The problem with that is, it's one step beyond the boring Jester idea, where you just rule out the "humor" lines when selecting what to play. If a simple boring Jester isn't feasible, this isn't a solution either.

The Magic works perfectly well for me tbh. Even if it had worse performance than the AIM-9L/M (and I never felt like it does), the better acquisition modes more than make up for it.

From what I've heard, the Spanish F1s by the early 90s were mostly doing interception and air policing, while the newer Hornets were more a2g platforms, almost like in Italy with the F104 and Tornado IDS, so it would make sense if they did carry the 530F. Ironically the other similar thing with the Italian 104 and Spanish F1 fleets is that it's really hard to find pictures of them with anything but a basic a2a loadout, so it's really hard to tell what they actually would have used, especially for a2g.

Two more modules other than the A-6, uh...if I had to guess, the one with the "2022" tag is the Draken (or riot!) because it's going to be simpler to code than the A-6. The third one is anyone's guess though!

If the A-6 is not coming first, I highly doubt that it will be preceded by something almost as complex, even if they do have some code base already available from the Tomcat. In other words, Draken or riot.

If the base jet can't use BVR weapons I would expect the -M to be upgraded to carry them rather than the -EE. As far as I know the -EE was tailored more towards a2g.

It wasn't some random person on Hoggit though, it was Cobra himself iirc.

What can I say, I'm a bad person and my soul will burn in flight sim hell, where I will be forced to fly bombers in War Thunder exclusively for the rest of eternity. Speaking of WIP stuff, I wonder when the terrain avoidance radar mode will be released, it will be really useful with the new clouds.

But I thought HD bomb delivery was done in a 30 degree dive, nearly unloading the jet to keep the pipper on target, and then pulling out of the dive at only a couple hundred feet! On a serious note, glad to see this fixed!

I imagine the main issue the SPO-10 would have is that it locates emitters so poorly that the picture perfect notches DCS players are used to would not be possible (without GCI control at least, which is very much part of RL ops, but that's besides the point...), which would definitely make any Phoenix shot really scary. Otherwise yeah, there is no reason why the AWG-9 would magically be able to "overwhelm" a RWR, whatever that means...

What's happening other than the small changes in symbology (and what do those mean)?

Eh, considering the C-101 can carry the Sea Eagle, I'm sure they'll be open to slightly "what if" loadouts. 530s on some F1 variant is going to be considerably more likely than the Sea Eagle tbh.

We haven't even seen the thing flying in DCS (textures or not), and we know how much RB like teasing any time they make any amount of progress on any of their dozens of projects. The only statement we heard months ago is that coding was not happening on any new modules in order to complete the Mirage, Harrier and Farmer, and since then the only new thing we've seen are some screenshots of the Mudhen (plus improvements to existing modules). All that points out to the Mig-23 not being remotely near release, so yeah I'd agree with 2023+. DCS projects take a long time, and this will take extra long if they try to are to complete their stuff and release the Mudhen first.

Also the areas where the -C would be a large improvement over the -A are mostly in the EW domain, which is not simulated well (or at all) in DCS anyway

Yeah I feel like HB have learnt not to give deadlines for major projects (e.g. Jester Lantirn, the initial -A release), but not for more minor things (like the roadmap or the ALR-45). Eventually they'll get there, hopefully. On the bright side, things like showing the A-6 model in the 2.7 trailers mean that whatever it is they announce, is very likely to come at some point (minus the Draken who knows what happened to that). Things could definitely get better, but that's not the worst start all things considered.

Yea the -K is really cool, although between the AMX, Hawk, L-39 etc it was a bit of a tough sell at the time imo. I do wish they'd saved the Veltro 2 name for something that actually went in mass production though (like the AMX).

Knowing how chaff is implemented in DCS, that is beyond bizarre!

Yeah it made sense when the RWR updates first came out because they were being tested, but at this point it's clear the implementation doesn't have any issues so there's no reason to not have it be the only way the RWR works. And the same goes for the gunsight of course

I don't know any Swedish and haven't felt the need for any translation. There are only a handful of indications that you can't intuitively translate to English, and those are easy enough to memorize.

Let me rephrase - in an INS, once the thing is aligned, you don't need any external inputs to calculate your position. The unit itself is capable of that, it keeps integrating what its gyros/accelerometers are sensing to compute the position, independently of other systems on the aircraft. That's how it works e.g. on the Tomcat. The Viggen navigation suite does not work like that (as described on page 130 of the manual), which is why you don't need to align it. It takes inputs from all the flight data the aircraft instruments/sensors provide (like the jet's pitot tube, accelerometers, attitude sensors, etc etc), and from that external input works out where you are with respect to where you started. That is also why you need to take a fix at the start of the runway before taking off. On the plus side, this is much faster and simpler. On the downside, it's more prone to drift, which is why Doppler nav systems (like the Viggens, or the F-100 or F-105, to name a couple that afaik should be similar) were replaced by INS in the first place (or why the Viggen got TERNAV to do fixes automatically, rather than burdening the pilot with them).

I have not tried because I don't see what one would accomplish by dropping those tiny things individually, but I vaguely remember Ragnar mentioning it in the forum. What I'm saying is, at least, I would like these options to be documented.