TLTeo

Maybe I mis-remember the symbology, but I thought in TWS:A the T was related to the scan volume rather than launch parameters (like in STT)?

Yeah. I'm sure some sort of F-35 sim will be a (flagship?) ED product at some point because there's too much money to be made from it, but I'm also sure that point is likely in a decade or two.

Yes but the radar is the same. TG/HB have a full deal with the Typhoon consortium though, RB have nothing like it in place with the British MoD, hence the lack of documentation. And tbh, having all aspect AIM-9s against opponents with only rear-aspect missiles operating at the limit of their range did far more to make the FRS1 successful in the Falklands than a mediocre search radar ever did (as you said, the Blue Fox is not exactly the Blue Vixen). The GR.3 can stand in perfectly well for it imo.

At a glance it looks to me like the gearing system is kicking in and limiting rudder authority, in the same way as elevator authority is limited as speed goes up. Whether the gearing behavior is correct or not, who knows.

Cool! Is it just me, or does the mouse pointer look like it has to be quite a bit below the CDU buttons to press them?

I mean, the issues DCS has with guidance and (in MP) net code are well known...

HB have also stated that they have been affected very heavily by the war in Ukraine (and personal stuff per the latest update) and are behind their roadmap. Knowing them (and how they tend to miss deadlines veeery slightly) I wouldn't expect a 2022 release anymore tbh.

Well technically the MLU gets the fancy GPS navigation system where you can input navigation points, markpoints etc, so that's actually a pretty large improvement over the vanilla -A.

Mavericks were definitely common for the IRIAF: Some aircraft also appear to have TISEO And this one has slats So at a glance, I guess HB's variant should be relatively close to an Iranian aircraft?

No AA missiles on the A or A MLU (which is the variant we're getting), only the CD carries them. The third picture you posted is a CD prototype I believe (you can tell from the shape of the nose). I-GROW is a civilian designation so it's likely a company aircraft used for marketing, not an aircraft in service with a military operator.

It would depend on relative heading too, but if the target is at 5km with the right geometry it might be doable (although being 10km apart only greatly complicates things - the Sabre isn't going to point its nose up and climb like an afterburning jet would). It gets really tricky if they are transonic at 30k ft or above though.

Because HB have announced almost a decade worth of modules.

To be fair I also do see AIM-54s fly off into space sometimes. My feeling is that when it happens, it's because the missile lofts when it shouldn't, and then it's so nose up it never really gets guidance updates and it goes on in a ballistic trajectory or something. In my experience in SP, it's only an edge case and it's easily solved by just firing in P-STT, since it appears to happen at intermediate to short ranges anyway.

At a glance it appears it was moved when the RWR was moved to its own display, rather than the ECM page on the TDI. If you look at some of the early teases (which all seem to have the early cockpit layout), the G-meter is where you say, without the RWR: But if you dig enough through google, this shows up:

Yeah I would expect something in the ballpark of the R-3R on the Mig-21 but less maneuverable. You may sneak front aspect kills once in a while, but I mostly expect it to be pretty mediocre against other fighters.

Man that last shot really drives the point home. There's zero chance that's intended behavior.

There is hardly any change between the A and B other than performance, as far as us DCS players are concerned. If you can fly campaigns in one, you can do it in the other very easily.

The DCS Sabre is a bit of an odd variant. From what I can find, the block 35 technically entered service somewhere in 1953 ish in Korea, but it became nuclear capable only in 1954 and would have received AIM-9s somewhat later, so in that sense we have a pretty late aircraft that's more similar to the ones deployed in Europe. On the other hand, by that later time Sabres also received the larger slatted wing of the Block 40, which was retrofitted to many export aircraft, while our aircraft still has the 6-3 wing. TLDR yes, a late production Mig-15bis is a closer match to the DCS Sabre than the ones deployed in Korea.

I imagine it's easier to compare amplitudes than perform interferometry on the fly (because computational power), but do we know whether there is any modern RWR or other EW gear that actually does that?

Thanks, I've opened a thread in the ED/AI section in case anyone else wants to comment:

The AI F-14s tend to be very ineffective with the Phoenix, firing when they are too low, too slow, and too far from the bandits and resulting in missiles missing most of the time. This is an example in Tacview (go up to +40:30 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JXasiE65tvKNw-C0A2jkMjT-AuCPIxNf/view?usp=sharing), from the Zone 5 campaign I just flew: the wingman fires from 17k ft while flying at Mach 0.6, at 25nm from the F-5s, and his missiles runs out of energy way before being a threat. I fire from ~17nm at Mach ~1, and my missile ends up having enough energy to get the kill. I think what's happening is that the AI behaviour was not changed to reflect the latest changes to the AIM-54, which have reduced its range at low altitude.

I have an observation that belongs more in the AIM-54 thread, but I figured I would write it here for extra visibility: while I find the Phoenix to perform perfectly well when I fire it, it's pretty atrocious in the hands of the AI (as in in Zone 5 I have seen them have a pk of like 10% over the whole campaign, against my ~80%), as they tend to fire when they are some combination of too low, too slow, and especially too far. It's as if they thought there were still firing the old, over-performing missile. Was their behaviour tweaked at all recently? Because if it wasn't, it definitely should be.

The two are separate issues. Was the M3 .50 cal a mediocre fighter gun because of its small caliber and limited kinetic power? Yes. As you said, it's well known and documented. Is it even worse in DCS because its muzzle speed is lower than reality? Also yes, as I documented and as ED acknowledged.

Nop, it's a bug that has been reported and acknowledged by ED. Flying speed has nothing to do with why 50s/60s aircraft often didn't have guns either (hence guns coming back from the 70s onwards - it's not like the planes became significantly slower).

I just saw the same, Tacview link here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JXasiE65tvKNw-C0A2jkMjT-AuCPIxNf/view?usp=sharing Clearly the mission is super duper bugged because a few seconds later that is TOTALLY not me in my Tomcat also getting hit by an SA-2. No sir, nothing to see there. At all. /s