TLTeo

Also HVARs and ww2 era bombs were used even in Vietnam.

To be fair, a Korean War map would be ideal but not strictly necessary. The Hunters over the Yalu campaign does a great job of capturing Korean era missions, but it's set in Caucasus. I know it's not an ideal solution, but imo it's a decent enough placeholder in the short/medium term. Plus, you can kind of turn the argument around and build enough Korean era assets before the map to justify its addition.

Never ever ever set the AI skill above Normal (or trained?), and for the Mig-15 it should honestly just be set to Rookie because it's notoriously silly. From what I recall, you can definitely outrun an AI Mig-15, but depending on energy state it may not be possible to outclimb them because DCS spaghetti code.

The space bar activating triggers is kind of a standard in DCS, mostly because training missions have always used it to jump to the next step. I think it comes from the expectations that you'll use a joystick to fire, rather than a keyboard. Why it's also the default keybind for firing a gun is definitely odd though, and probably due to outdated spaghetti code dating back to the Flanker/LOMAC days.

Thanks! I assumed it would be a fixed sight like e.g. the F-5.

How would CCIP work with just a gunsight? Do you just get a pipper without the bomb fall line, pull up cues etc as with other modern jets? Or is it more like the Viggen where it's intended only for high drag level delivery, so you don't need as much symbology?

Still a more realistic estimate than anything Razbam does On a serious note, yes I do agree on diminishing returns. I think DCS has a bit of room to explore DLC or packs or whatever you want to call it, where maybe two variants of an aircraft are available for 60 dollars each, but if you get one variant, the second is off by 30 dollars, up to 40 during sales, or something. I can see that working quite well for all of these cases where we would like to have multiple variants of the same aircraft, but they are so different it's very tough to pack them in just one release. Beyond existing modules, the F-104 is also a widely requested aircraft that would work well like that, since the C, G and S (let's face it, the A makes no sense) are very different and could appeal to a few different crowds.

They are extremely different in both avionics and cockpit layout. Just check the thread in the 3rd party section, they have shown completed cockpits for both the C and M variants. I agree that the project isn't close to be done though, but it looks very mature compared to, say, everything Razbam.

They intend to have an accurate enough 3d model to build the future module on. That says absolutely nothing about its systems (which are the main reason the F14D won't be a thing in DCS any time soon) or FM because once again that does not apply to the AI in any way, shape or form.

Except it really doesn't stand because AI units are modelled to an extremely simple level. They have a much simpler FM and hardly any systems modelling - to name one, they can drop LGBs without a targeting pod or any other lasing source and always hit the target perfectly. Having an AI F-14D would absolutely not constitute "an accurately simulated fashion", as you put it.

The cross on the target was removed because it's only a feature on the Mirage 2000D. In the C you should just follow the flight director diamond on the HUD.

Given the choice I would also rather have a different Navy jet, like an F9F Panther. Or a Sea Vampire or Sea Hawk for variety, as rkk01 mentions

I'm also amazed to learn this isn't the current behaviour, and definitely worth considering. It also sounds like it would be much much easier to code than Jester learning LANTIRN

I agree that the map looks excellent, for some reason the flying footage does it much more justice than the screenshots they have been sharing. The one worry I have is when will they actually manage to release a good set of coherent assets and modules, especially some sort of Mirage 3/5 and FRS 1. They have an insane back log of projects, and I really think the quality of the map will be judged by the presence and/or quality of those two aircraft.

Yes, no radar is (at least, no radar that doesn't do a bunch of extra signal processing). Radar angular resolution without funny imaging techniques is terrible (as in, roughly 4 orders of magnitude worse than e.g. a IR or TV sensor), which is why radar hits are just a blip on a screen rather than a nice, clean, resolved picture like e.g. a TCS track. There really is no way to tell whether something is an aircraft or something else other than "is this thing moving too fast to be anything but a plane", essentially (obviously other radar modes with other radar are different, e.g GMT in the Hornet, but that's the gist of it). Depends on how you set the MLC switch. To quote the manual, "The MLC switch controls how the system supresses the MLC in the radar system while in pulse doppler mode. The OUT position disables the system while the IN position enables it. The AUTO position automatically enables the MLC filter if the antenna look-up angle is less than 3°". So basically if the MLC is in AUTO, and you're in a look up situation (ie, lower altitude than your target, so that there is no background they can hide in), they can try to notch all they want and the AWG-9 will still pick them up. Also what Saber forgot to mention is that there's a second radar blind spot. Again to quote the manual, "The second filter, and second blind spot, of the radar is the zero doppler filter. This blind area is centered around a closure rate of negative own groundspeed, meaning a target moving away from own aircraft at the same speed as own aircraft. This blind area is a hardware limitation as it is a doppler radar mode it cannot detect targets without a doppler shift. The resulting blind area is 200 knots wide, meaning that a chased target moving at a speed of within 100 knots (+/-) of own groundspeed will be invisible to the radar. This means that when chasing a fleeing target it may very well be necessary to use the pulse modes instead." Unlike the MLC switch, this mode can not be deactivated. To continue on the previous case (look up target trying to avoid eating a missile fired from the Tomcat), they do have the option of turning tail completely and running away at, say, 400/500 knots or something, expecting the Tomcat to fly at a similar speed. In that case, the AWG-9 won't be able to pick up the target. Obviously in this case, said target is also not a danger to anyone in the Tomcat or its vicinity.

I don't know the exact numbers for the ITT limit, but the CC's engine is robust enough that you can run it at full throttle with the MPR switch on as long as you want.

Can you check Tacview as well? If I recall correctly, that's also slightly different and it's related to whether you average out over longer or shorter periods of time to calculate the acceleration.

Given that they mention tail chases, I implicitly assumed it's about tail on geometry. AB on or off is a biggie, but I'd assume off since you're it's more likely to be the case when you're sneaking up on a target. You're right about altitude and look up/look down. I vaguely remember reading a US intelligence paper at some point claiming that around that period, the low altitude/look down capability of the VVS (although that's as a whole, not the Mig-23M or P specifically) was still fairly limited.

At some point they started carrying AIM-9L/M. I'm not sure about the period before the 80s though.

Yeah I vaguely remember reading somwhere that the way to get DIANE to work properly was, on occasion, to kick a drum thingy in front of the BN's feet.

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm, he's not the CSGO guy after all

And the AMX, and the OV-10, and the Mirage 3, and the Super Etendard, and the Canberra, and the Mirage 2000-5, and the AV/8B+, and the Mig-19S (and I think they showed 3d models of the F-100 and F-102 somewhat recently? It's hard to keep track...)...supposedly most will be AI assets first of course and only become full modules "later", but it's not like RB release a new AI model every few months. Adding everything up that comes out to about 15 aircraft that they want to turn into modules at some point. If we optimistically assume it takes 2 years to release a new module, RB have enough projects going for the next 30 years or so. Whether that clearly answers the question "what comes next?" is up to you

There are plenty other concessions in other DCS modules as well. Off the top of my head the Viggen never flew with four BK-90s (and NVGs were only trialled I think?), the US Viper doesn't really carry four HARMs, the Tomcat never deployed unguided rockets, by 2007 the Walleye wasn't used by the Hornet any more, our supposedly Korean-era Sabre has the avionics to fire Sidewinders and deliver nukes even though both of those came later in its life, the F-5E and Harrier are a mishmash of different variants/blocks. Some of these are more plausible than others, and admittedly the Grom on the Fishbed is on the more speculative side to say the least, but eh, finding where to draw the line is very subjective. And again, you can always load S-24 rockets instead if you're really bothered, and your mission effectiveness won't be overly affected.

Interesting to see the Crusaders taking off in dry power. I guess it helps that they were flying clean.

Yep, that's correct. It's similar to aircraft like the Mig-23 and F-104S ASA, off the top of my head.