notproplayer3

Good point, I'll guess that that's part of the issue too.

No wonder since MSFS just came out :joystick:

The hog is really good too and there are currently much more things working in the hog than in the f/a-18. I personally enjoy both very much, the f/a-18 has the carrier landing capability. The hog has a MWS system for IR missiles and more payload capacity (I think). The hog is also in my opinion a better and more fun CAS aircraft, mainly due to the 30mm cannon that can even take out tanks and it's slow speed that gives you "more precision". I also really enjoy the rugedness of that aircraft, you can take a lot of shots and still be flying while the fa-18 is basically dead in one shot. The fa-18 has of course A/A capability and more standoff weapons. Idk what to say, both are really good, if you want to do CAS or ground attack go with the A10c. If you want everything else that it doesn't have, go with the fa18c. The harrier is cool but it indeed has bugs and I feel like I had a rougher experience than the other two because of the implementation.

Well, good for you then, I still don't like polychop's attitude to fixing bugs, it's especially visible when heading to their discord at times. Most other dcs devs handle things good but again, this is all just my opinion just like your comment is yours. Polychop promises some needed fixes yet they put the priority on the oh58d Kiowa, I don't find this to be the right choice and I'm sure some people agree with me.

I believe you and I absolutely agree with that, if I'm being perfectly honest polychop is so damn slow to acknoledge and fix issues, won't buy the oh58d until they fix that attitude of theirs and the gazelle module (which they said they'll fix one day)

And of course no answer from razbam, I know they watch the Ed forums since they sometimes answer, but you really gotta force them too, I once wrote a similar message on another razbam thread and magically a razbam staff member answered as if god listened to my prayers. Jokes aside it isn't professional not hearing from them after many and many threads of complaints, makes it feel as if we are dealing with dead products sometimes.

This is magnificient, thanks for sharing and good luck for the rest.

But my point was that the aircraft showcased being able to use the APKWS aren't all very "sophisticated" the at6 Texan can even carry those rockets. In the thread it was pointed out that the problem with plug and play on the fa18 was that the SMS wasn't configured correctly, if we take an aircraft that doesn't have an sms and can carry standard rocket pods, it seems to me as if you could just replace the hydra rockets by APKWS? This is a technical question, the sms being out of the question what other limitations are there when fitting those rockets? Some could say the weight but I don't believe it's that much heavier is it? Other than that I see nothing else, thus why there were many helos that were showcased carrying this weapon.

Haha, I get the historical and the wrong time frame argument so I won't even argue if it should be added or not anymore. But while the f/a-18 indeed must have some sms adjustments (like I said previously), in all fairness the uh-1y presented as officialy being capable of launching this rocket doesn't have any fancy SMS nor does the AT-6 texan and nor some other helos. So for those instances it would be simple plug and play right ? If so then it's the same case for the uh-1h we have.

It's really really well done and personally I love the style, though it's not number 1 on my wishlist. Perhaps if DCS 3.0 is introduced, that's the menu style I'd hope to see.

What is the technical challenge if the rockets are using the same hydra rocket pod? It would be cool if ww2 warbirds could use these rocket pods too but unfortunately they do not so no APKWS for ww2 warbirds. The only technical challenge I could think of was related to the SMS and laser change code settings on the f/a-18. But I'm pretty curious, do you know of other technical challenges? Isn't the weapon simply modified rockets put into standard hydra rocket pods or is there more to it? Please tell me, I'm far from an expect in the matter.

Things are finally getting into motion, it's nice to see that !

Well, I don't know the current state of the mig19, decided to try this module during the free month (or free weekend) and experienced some FM issues I didn't like, ended up not getting this module though simply because I'm not that into old planes (and to be very honest razbam didn't really please me with the av8b and it's bugs which I didn't want to experience on the mig19 seeing it was "contreversial" at the time). Without commenting on the module itself, I would like to see razbam respond to this thread, I feel like them and perhaps also polychop are the ones with the worst attitude towards fixing bugs and acknoledging issues, this shows itself in the state of their other modules such as the mirage 2000 was for a long time but mainly the av8b. I would just want someone from razbam saying something about the future of the mig19.

Thanks for the infos Yurgon. I was mainly comparing the apkws integration to the one of the gbu's because those weapons seem to have the same "logic" so I guess it would be a pretty similar, but at the same time I totally see how you could simply strap the apkws rockets to the hornet without even it needing to know what's exactly the type of rockets it's carrying. But also, as the orginal thread stated, the huey would get that "dumb" type of integration anyway, so it doesn't seem like that of a technical chalenge.

The mk82 and gbu12's are basically the same weapon. The difference between employing those two weapons are some small changes to the sms such as a laser code option and a no release cue when you set you nose fuze to smth. I would also guess that there would need to be a couple of changes to the weapon/pylon interface (or perhaps would use the features of the smart pylon ?) because we have the option of changing the laser code while flying (actually it's also a question of mine: how do you change the laser code of those bombs externally ?). On different jets such as the f5, f14, f16 I don't think there is the option of changing the laser code in flight. The f/a-18 got this feature. So now back on the APKWS, is there gonna be an option to change the laser code while flying on the fa18 (like the gbu's) or is it only done on ground ? Because perhaps if they did want to give this option to the gbu's on the fa18 perhaps they would've also made some further modifications to change the laser code in flight with the APKWS and thus needing a little more work than simply strapping it on. Yeah, I'm perhaps rambling but my point is that the gbu story on the fa18 seems a bit more complicated than simply strapping it on without doing anything. Is the APKWS the same story on this jet ?

Thanks for the details

Instant missions with which aircrafts ?

+1 for all around infantry overhaul, the Russian units and the rebel models are pretty good but there are just some units that have 10 year old models and look horrendous, also better A.I is really needed, especially cover and scattering mechanics under fire. This would probably call for better animations also. I feel like the infantry is really something that needs to be better especially when flying helo missions. And infantry sitting in the helos would be very good too.

The jf17 already has the DTC feature so I don't see how ED couldn't or wouldn't possibly add it to the f16.

Yeah you're right, to be honest I really don't care if it's full fidelity either way.

The SM is a much more modern glass cockpit variant, I think the SM stands for serial modernized but don't quote me on that.

Gore? Why not, I'm all for it, especially for helo ops.

Probably not since ED has stated they are working on it and thermal imaging really is an issue of the core game.

I'd really hope someone could mod nukes into the game then

No, this is the intended behavior, I really don't know the details but I think the cooling fluid for the IR seeker only keeps it cool for about 30 minutes, after that the seeker overheats (?), so basically you should prep those missiles only a certain time before a possible engagement. They explain this in the training missions, and I probably got lots of details wrong anyway, but I just know that if the missile is prepped for too long, it'll stop working