TLTeo

This isn't specifically about the patch itself, but since it's on the way to being fully released I figured it's worth posting here. I would like to see a minor tweak in the manual, where bomb and rocket mode delivery is discussed, because whether you can deliver single rockets from the pods or single bombs by flipping the two weapon mode switches. The manual only discusses the bits that apply to the RB-04 and RB-15.

Additional pedantic corrections 1) the Viggen does not have a gyro-powered INS, it has a doppler navigation radar suite, which is basically accomplishes the same as an INS, but worse. That is why without TERNAV you have to work harder than with e.g. the Tomcat to keep the system aligned. The way TERNAV works is it constantly compares the data from the doppler navigation with a database stored in the cartridge (fun fact - it's in the cartridge because the onboard computer has too little memory to store terrain data!), and constantly takes automated fixes for you. TERNAV only works when the radar altimeter does, so for high-lo-high mission profiles you may still need to refine your navigation a bit. 2) carrying countermeasures externally rather than have them built into the jet is not unusual for the time and is unrelated to its role as a strike fighter 3) a puppy dies every time someone says the Viggen can't loiter over an area and kill stuff. You literally can carry the same amount of Mavs as a Hornet can (and, technically, more than a Viper should...). It's fine, I promise. It's just that people's expectation of what a2g is are grossly warped by the A-10 and fantasy loadouts (seriously, IRL it really does not carry the triple Mav racks that people love so much, with good reason). There are several missions in both Viggen campaigns that have you do just that. 4) one more thing worth pointing out about the Viggen's Mavs is because they are an older generation and you have no fancy MFDs and/or TGPs, they are harder and more annoying to use than in the Viper et al, mostly because they are not stabilized. My personal workaround is to spot the targets I'm going after on the radar, update a waypoint to that location (or create a new one), and the only fine tune my aim with the Mav seekerhead. Much more involved than the point and shoot stuff you do in 4th gen jets. 5) use this app for ELINT, it's amazing https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/187366-elint-data-web-app/

The 61 shouldn't change because it marks the 61st jet training wing (which operates most jet trainers in the AMI). Otherwise yeah, it would be nice if the designation numbers could change.

To quote Nick Grey, CEO of ED, "Our damage modelling sucks, it's an embarrassment" (which is why they are testing the updated one on the WW2 stuff..). And that's for the full fidelity flagship products nevermind some dodgy free mod.

Both the MB-339 and A-4 released EFMs, so if they ST team have the expertise, it's absolutely doable.

You should see my Viggen landings

To be fair those are Case 3s in terrible conditions, might be different from Case 1.

That video was really interesting, I remember Victor205's old guide in which he said pilots weren't supposed to use DLC around the boat all that much. I realize that a field landing is less stressful, but in that video they are not exactly putting the jet down gently either.

Again, the Viggen's top speed at sea level is set by thermal issues on the aircraft skin, much like the Viper with its canopy. These limits are not modelled in -any- DCS module, and has nothing to do with whether the engine gets enough airflow and cuts out. Much like the aircraft can pull more than the 6-7g it's rated for, it can also exceed the Mach 1.2 sea level limit it's rated for, and because it's DCS, we can get away with doing stupid stuff we wouldn't be able to in real life. That says absolutely nothing about whether its top speed on the deck an error in the FM or not. At altitude its top speed is Mach ~1.85, specifically because of the intake shape, and that's in agreement with the manual.

If you're looking for a something to own at airquake, it's not the jet for you. If you like ground attack missions (including but not limited to low level interdiction), it's imo the best module in DCS, particularly if you enjoy single player. This particular horse has been discussed to death. The Viggen's (and many, many other aircraft) top speed on the deck is a safety measure due to thermal effects, which are not modelled in DCS. It also only applies when the jet is clean, which is almost never the case.

Draken or riot

Holy crap the Jeff (although the ever so reliable Wikipedia has similar numbers for the same RCS....) and 2.5.6 Hornet are bonkers. The Viper's not looking great either...out of curiosity, what is its PRF? Medium I suppose? On a brighter note, kudos to RB for getting it right with the Mirage. Ages ago PRF in that radar was supposed to not matter either, so it's nice to see that change as well. Regarding RCS, honestly I don't think it would be too hard to set up a better table model than what we have now. Just having a few RCS values in a lookup table as a function of aspect, rather than just a fixed number, would be a massive step forward. edit: With the exception of the Tomcat if I may add. The AWG-9 rightfully sucks in TWS against maneuvering targets. I personally find all the cries about it in the Tomcat section to be a never ending source of amusement.

I wonder whether that quote refers to self lasing LGBs, rather than just carrying them, since it says "drop and control" rather than "carry" or "employ"? I'm fairly certain I've read about USMC Hornets carrying LGBs during DS, but the Nitehawk designation pod only reached the fleet a couple of years later. Some goes for British Tornadoes and Jags, they had the Buccaneer to lase for most of them during that operation because the TIALD was barely in service, but they definitely employed LGBs. The F-111 is in the same boat, only the -F carried the Pave Spike pod which is why I think the authors only mention the -E model there. So if we follow that logic, the A-7 may well have carried LGBs at the time (although I can't find any pictures), but no TGP. Regarding the Mav, test pictures from China Lake are always a bit questionable in terms of whether a loadout is realistic or not imo. I was looking for info on the F-84F for example, and found it fired Bullpups at China Lake, but it was never integrated in any Thunderstreak fleet.

I mean, if you're going for targets that are too hard to kill with M71s...bring something else? It's not like the Viggen is limited in its payloads. RB-75s (and 75Ts especially), BK-90s and to some extent ARAKs and RB-05s do a perfectly fine job of taking out most fortified targets. But yeah, the M71 being roughly half the size of a Mk82 doesn't help when trying to kill hardened targets. The best comparison would be the Mk 81 but afaik no module in DCS carries it. But again, there's plenty of ways to avoid that issue.

The AWG-9 does not have NCTR so the only way is to STT the targets one by one, get close VID them with the TCS, then launch on the bombers exclusively.

You're comparing apples to oranges though. Obviously a modern precision guided weapon is more accurate and deadly than an unguided one developed 40 years earlier. A better comparison weapon is the Mk-82, and honestly, there's not much difference between a bunch of those and a bunch of M71s hitting their target.

Absolutely not. What the Mig-19 has (and other aircraft, like the Viggen and Mig-21) is a pitch gearing system which essentially attempts to give the pilot a somewhat consistent amount of g per stick distance travelled, regardless of airspeed. This is NOT a FBW system, because the stick is still directly linked to the flight surfaces. In a FBW system, instead, the inputs from the stick, to a computer (either analogue, like in early F16 blocks, or digital, like in the FBW jets we have in DCS), which figures out how to move any of the control surfaces to accomplish what it thinks the pilot is inputting. Hope that makes sense.

I just upgraded to the premium version from the T16000M stick. Holy crap what a difference, I'm honestly blown away. Looking forward to the throttle being released now

@BIGNEWY @NineLine please report this bug again or something, it really is getting silly

Yea hopefully the full release will be soon (tm)

Yep, I've noticed this as well. Also It seems like TDC designate for e.g. JDAM TOO attacks work, but they are not displayed on the ASL, or on the JDAM attack page.

Same, INR mode is really irritating, to the point where I never bother with it and only use Scene track instead.

Cool, I hope that works out! I'm totally not getting overly hyped about this one feature because it may or may not prototype another AMI jet you teased that flew plenty of recce missions

Will the recce camera have any functionality, and if so, what will it be like?

Exactly, and that makes no sense because at worst the Phoenix is a much much better Fox 1 than either the -F/-M Sparrow or Skyflash. Particularly in that fight he mentioned when the Tornado is very g-limited because of his external tanks. Imo it's likely that they simply didn't brief it because that particular sortie either didn't require it, or the Phoenix was still seen as an anti bomber weapon mainly because 80s. There are other interviews on that channel in which F3 pilots state the opposite too. But yeah, back on topic, any IDS variant would be a better starting point imo. The F3 is something I only see coming, perhaps, in the distant future when there are fewer sexy/high priority aircraft left to do. And the F2 is just....no. When the freaking F86 Sabre has a better radar, you know something went wrong