TLTeo

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.

But they did communicate what's going on (for once). This post clearly states that work on all new modules is on hold until they finish the current ones: I agree that RB are hilariously overstretched and should not have started hyping up ANY new module in the past few years, and that all the stuff they've been promising has next to no chance to show up any time soon, but for once a) they have communicated clearly and b) they are actually doing the right thing, and completing their current projects (or trying to) before jumping over the next shiny thing. And yes as F-2 said, if they can't find the resources to fix e.g the ADF in the Mig-19, there's no reason in trying to code all the stuff the SE has.

Those would be the F1M as far as I understand, not the original EEs that Spain got. Only the earliest variants of the Cyrano radar lacked look down/shoot down capability. It's unclear what BVR missiles will be carried by each variant though.

I mean, I understand to some extent, but you can always change loadouts of any aircraft in the mission before flying it. Bring S24s instead if it really bugs you.

No it doesn't. By that definition, France was a redfor country up to 2009 and Sweden, Australia, Japan and South Korea are still "redfor" countries. A better definition (not that there is any one perfect definition) is a country whose foreign policy is somehow at odds with that of the US and/or the rest of the Western world. edit oh and the EE we're getting is not comparable to an Iraqi one really. It's just a CE with a better navigation and attack suite. The F1M will be more comparable to the Iraqi jets, at least in air to air, because it should be capable to fire the Super 530.

You can't just attach AMRAAMs on an air to ground jet, and suddenly turn it into a world class air superiority fighter. In the case of the Harrier yes, the plus carries BVR missiles, but it's still a subsonic jet which puts it at a large disadvantage in BVR. And that's disregarding the fact that the radar it gets is nothing to write home about.

Welcome to DCS! 1. Thrustmaster, VKB, Virpil, MFG off the top of my head all offer high end rudder pedals. 2. Either TrackIR (which is a little IR camera thingy that follows your head movement) or as you said VR. VR requires a more powerful computer but is more immersive 3. I'm not sure why you are asking this in the Hornet section, since I kind of assumed you had that module already (which is excellent). It's not so much a question of quality (although some modules are less complete and a bit more controversial and debated than others), but of the extent to which their systems are modelled. Aircraft from Flaming Cliffs 3 (the F-15C, A-10A, Su-27, Mig-29 and Su-25) all have barebones systems modelling and no clickable cockpits, but their flight models are as realistic as any in DCS, and they are still fun to fly. 4. Yes, with the caveat that no company builds new force feedback joysticks because of patent issues. If you want a FFB stick you'll need to get a used Microsoft Sidewinder. Feel free to ask more questions, I'll be happy to help

I agree, which is why I brought up those other modules - the C101 CC for example has completely different nav systems from the EB, plus a slightly uprated engine, and of course the Mirage F1 will have significant differences among all four variants. And even then, the -S and -E model phantoms for example are even more different still, but at the same time, ED has more resources to commit to the project than any 3rd party studio.

I thought the Rafale only started getting AESA after 2010, and they used a PESA before. Also, how does the SPECTRA system compared to the Praetorian DASS on the Typhoon? I thought the two were fairly comparable.

So I just thought of one argument we might, possibly, be able to make with Razbam. It probably won't work, but here goes. @RAZBAM_ELMO's arguments are always that "you need to fly a profile and you need a stabilized pipper" There should be a Twitch VOD of Elmo using this profile to deliver Snakeyes fairly accurately. What that means in practice is you need to enter a 30ish degree dive (rather flying in a straight line) a few thousand feet off the target, deliver at a sensible speed of, say 400 KIAS, and you need to track the target with the pipper rather than walk it up to the target and then pickle. Notably, this profile is nothing like the level bombing profile Jojo showed, which instead is more similar to CCIP high drag bombing in the Viggen. The procedure Elmo showed is different from, e.g., delivering weapons in the Viper. In that jet you don't keep the pipper on the target, instead you put the bomb fall line on the target and pickle when the pipper is on top of it - e.g. here. This is also what you would do with a fixed sight that doesn't have a CCIP mode, like in the F-5. What is striking to me between the link and what Elmo showed on Twitch (I don't have the link unfortunately) is that in Mover's video, the jet pulls off the dive safely a few thousand feet off the ground. This profile is more or less similar to dive toss CCRP delivery (which I think you can do in the Mirage?). Meanwhile, Elmo was a couple hundred feet off the ground by the time he pulled out of his dive, which I highly doubt is SOP. It kind of makes sense this would happen too - high drag bombs obviously slow down after release, so you need to drop them closer to the target for them to hit at a given dive angle. My point is, I realize that a Mirage has a different computer than e.g. a Viper, and is not as focused on A2G, but I honestly do not see how it's possible for a standard delivery profile used in real life to be that unsafe.

Yeah you just need to input some TAKT/IN code I can't remember off the top of my head. I think the ideal step to reproduce an AJ would be to introduce an option in the mission editor that disables TERNAV, rather than going through a computer code. That's not really all the story either because iirc the cartridge system is also part of the AJS upgrade (and in fact, TERNAV is stored on the cartridge rather than on the plane), but it would be close enough imo. edit: also, the JA retrains some ground attack capability, hence the A. I'm fairly certain it could still employ unguided rockets.

And more relevant to DCS, Iran flies the F1 to this day.

RB's official stance is that it's a user error. Make of that what you will.

Yeah it's been too faint since the lighting was changed.

Because unlike more modern planes, in the Tomcat the HUD is not really part of the main flying instruments, but rather it's an aid for weapons employment and (to a lesser extent) navigation. For maneuvering, you should reference the instrument gauges and/or VDI instead. Some pilots would just turn the HUD off entirely during landing.

In DCS the lock range of the Walleye is definitely dependant on what time it is, in a way that is arguably unrealistic. You can get a lock only 2-3 miles from the target at 7 am, but at 5-6ish miles around 8am, even though the lighting conditions appear identical. In real life, anything that's optically/TVuided (like the Walleye, or some Maverick variants) will have awful performance in low light conditions, while IR guided weapons (assuming the target is "hot" enough) will perform much better

The L-39, C-101 and Spitfire all have different variants. The upcoming Mirage F-1 will as well.

Eh, you're comparing apples to oranges imo. The Viggen and Tomcat may still be labelled as EA, but they are feature complete and have been so since launch, more or less. Per the last trailer, the A6 model is already at an extremely advanced stage, or ED would not have included it. Meanwhile, the main system in e.g. the supposedly out of EA Harrier (the ARBS/DMT) is not simulated at all (just to name one glaring issue out of many) nor will it ever be because RB claim they don't have enough information on it (despite the patent explaining the exact functioning of the system being available on Google). And RB have announced dozens of modules "in the pipeline", but they haven't shown anything beyond either a very early 3d model (e.g. A29, Mig 23, EE Lightning) or tests using ED's existing 3d assets (the Strike Eagle). Honestly as it stands, it looks like the A6 is much farther along than anything that isn't a Hind, F4U, Mirage F1, MB-339 or Mossie (or possibly the Apache, but we will see...). Oh and btw, I think the talk about variants is redundant. It's clear from the trailer that we're getting at least a TRAM jet, and a SWIP is highly likely given it would coincide perfectly with the Tomcat timeframe.

Thanks for the info Blaze1! I assumed the STARM disappeared together with the platforms dedicated to launching it.

Again, the fix is to switch the HUD to A/A or A/G (maybe cruise as well? I can't remember, I haven't flown the Tomcat in a while and I don't have access to my pc right now) mode.

It only has a refresh rates in modes for which it's not particularly important (takeoff and landing if I recall correctly?). In combat modes the refresh rate is perfectly fine.

Correction: only the A-6B carried the STARM as far as I know. By the time the weapon upgrades reached the A-6 fleet, the HARM had long replaced it. Also, the Tomcat most definitely was used for ground attack, it more or less replaced the Intruder in that role after all. But yes, as Silver Dragon pointed out, the A-6E could carry much more varied ordnance than the Tomcat. But really, what the A-6 brings compared to the Tomcat is the interaction between pilot and BN (bombardier navigator). As the name implies, the BN is responsible for all weather low level navigation (mostly using the radar), locating the target, and steering the pilot onto it. In the same way that a RIO drives an intercept, a BN drives a strike mission. Imagine flying a Viggen with a much better radar, and having someone next to you actually focus on interpreting that radar picture and giving you instructions on how to fly.

Yes, it really is classified, HB have literally stated that in this thread.

Exactly. It's not hard to teach an AI to not break the laws of physics, but it's next to impossible to teach it to fly BFM well (which is why a lot of the people doing it for the US Navy are using machine learning to do it, and even then those codes still have a very very long way to go).