Snappy

@ED, can we please get an update for this? Its getting ridiculous. The aircraft was released years ago and despite Wags claim that this is going to be fixed you still can't navigate, since you dont know which waypoint you 're going to. Regards, Snappy

Thanks man, I'll gonna try that technique out! I think I was under the Miss-impretation, that the Skhval TV sensor was housed in the mountable pod on centrestation, hence my question to Ironhand above, but it seems the pod is only for IR/LLTV enhancement. The manual isnt all that clear on the sensors. Regards, Snappy.

@Ironhand& @MAXsenna, maybe you're right , I really hadn't thought that the problem might be that I'm min-ranging the Antiradiation missiles. Can't really say since the range bar on the left shows no markings , could be the min range is actually above the scale and therefore no tick is shown on the range scale. That would explain it. @Ironhand: Excuse my ignorance, what exactly do you mean by the Skhval? The LLTV system for targeting? Unfortunately it seems I can bring either one or the other (fantasmagoria or LLTV pod ), but not both , since the centreline station supports only of them. Kind regards, Snappy

No I think we re talking past each other. Its not that the Shilka turns off its radar ( sure in real life something the operator might try) the radar is on and emitting, otherwise the fantasmagoria pod couldnt pick it up. You can even designate it in the HUD and is stays on/cued as the target and is tracked the whole time. And well within range of the two types of anti-radiation missiles. But I can't actually launch the missiles, because I never get the "NP" launch authorization. Or were you guys actually able to launch either the KH58 or KH22MPU at it? Regards, Snappy

Hi, is there a reason why you can't engage the ZSU-23-4 with the KH-58 or KH-22MPU antiradiation missile? After all it has a search and track radar, which the fantasmagoria pod picks up and you can even designate it as a target with the pod. However you never get launch authorization for the missiles, so you can't fire them. I'm not sure whether there is a technical reason for this, i.e. a real limitation of the weapon system (i.e. Shilka uses different frequency band which the missiles cant lock on to , or something along those lines) or is this a bug? It would definitely come in handy to be able to pick them off with stand off missiles. Kind regards, Snappy

@Rex Hi Rex, yes, air combat against human opponents is vastly different to fighting the AI. Besides the DCS AI is suboptimal to put it mildly. That people change slots once in they are in a disadvantaged position to avoid getting shot down seems to be a bad trend lately, but usually either in the guns only area or air area, not so much in 1v1 fortunately. to your questions: Regarding 1v1 fights in the 1v1 areas, the usual procedure is after winning a fight you should eject too or at least re-select your aircraft slot. That way you and your opponent both are reset to a neutral start head to head. Otherwise its usually unfair, like you said , either you are low on fuel/ammo , but also in the opposite sense, you are now much lighter and therefore more maneuverable, plus you could get into an advantageous position before your opponent gets into the game again. As for the canopy rule, I never noticed that, strange, can only imagine that some people for whatever reason open canopy in midflight to make it rip off and fly convertible-style. So just fly like normal people with canopy closed and you should be alright. so welcome to the server, have fun. BTW , if you re using tacview to analyse your fights, I think the JDF server in greece doesn’t support it ( there is a workaround with replay tracks) but the other JDF server in germany does .Just so you dont wonder, why your tacview file might seem corrupted when you fly on the (usually more popular) server based in greece. kind regards, Snappy

Nice graphic, but there is close to zero information under which exact conditions with which loadout for which aircraft the comparisons were made. Of course a bomb truck F-15E with its typical AG plus AA self defense loadout plus full conformal fuel tanks will be sluggish and fare worse compared to a spritely F-15c with only air to air loadout for a CAP in those rated areas. No suprise that the Strike Eagle got worse marks all around. However (if you just wanted to use it for air to air) and would give it only an air to air loadout, with maybe 2 missiles less and only 75% fuel, you'd get much better performance out of it. The airframes itself are very very similar. Yes slightly more weight for the -E, but also an uprated engine, which however not completely offsets the weight I think. Thats why I wrote 80-90%. Point is, someone who wants to do air-air with it, can do it almost as well with the Strike eagle. Question is, are the people who want the remaining few % capability , plus the purists who want to specifically have a -C Model enough to warrant developement? ED doesnt seem to think so. Regards, Snappy

While it would certainly be cool to have , I think ED stated in one of their recent interviews ( can't remember which one exactly) they have no intention of doing it. Guess the potential market share is too small after the Strike Eagle, since apparently the majority of people want AG / multirole capabilities and the -E will cater to that much much better while still retaining roughly 80-90 % of the air-to-air potential of the F15c performancewise when equipped with and air to air loadout. Don't get me wrong. Personally I'd much prefer the pure Air to Air -c Variant ,or even the Vintage -A , but the chance of it materializing is very very small in my personal opinion. Regards, Snappy.

@fat creason Ok, thank you very much fat creason for your efforts and the quick reply to my question! Very kind of you. Glad to hear the slat schedule rework made it in . Kind regards, Snappy

@fat creason, did the subsonic slat schedule change make it into today's fix? I can't find it in the F-14 patch notes, but I know not everything is listed sometimes. Kind regards, Snappy

Hi Flighter, is there any chance to give the Mig-29 A&S a bit more fuel for the 1v1 slots? They spawn with only around 1.5 Tons, which unfortunately is next to nothing for the guzzler that the Mig-29 is. You usually get the first cautions after one or two turns. If that could be increased to 2.5 tons that would be kind. Otherwise a lot of fights end soon because the Mig is simply out of fuel. Kind regards & thanks for the fun server! Snappy

I don't understand this either? I get that you can't use real data due ADA restrictions. So the manual is your best guess info but the actual module doesn't match the values from the manual ? Regards, Snappy

"More balanced"? Theres near-zero danger of that.. You're already once again getting the most advanced kit in form of a very modern attack helicopter for blue side , while redfor needs to make do with a flying (admittedly famous) battle tank from the 70s&80s and a one-off Attack helicpter that has neither radar nor RWR for that matter, and you re still talking about balancing in your favor ? Lets not get into all the arguments against balancing, its a simulation, but the way things are odds are heavily tilted into blueforce's favor in DCS and will be for the foreseeable future , so really , I don't see the need to add even more capability. Personally I hope ED does not cave in again at this as with the F-16 triple maverick racks & 4 HARMS points , but not holding my breath for that. Maybe for once, just take it as you get it and make do with what you have, through tactics or piloting skills.It's not like you have to stick only to ground targets even with the projected equipment for the module Regards, Snappy

Hi, sorry if this is a dumb question. I know next to nothing about the details of the F-14 variant delivered to Iran but am curious about this one and if by off chance, someone knows this one. I know the F-14s used by the Navy cannot receive signals from civilian ILS , only the carrier-based ILS. However I wondered whether the iranian cats had different receivers installed with money probably not being much of an issue in order to fly land-based ILS approaches in inclement weather ? Guess not, probably they could make do with just TACAN or PAR approaches . This is not about the features of the persian Tomcat version we get from Heatblur, its more curiosity about the real aircraft that were ordered back then by the IIRIAF. Kind regards, Snappy

@3WA I don‘t buy that 90% of customers are SP, very few play MP claim that ED likes to put out as its really not clear how they arrive at that data and how it’s defined.If I play 2/3 SP and 1/3 MP in which camp do I end up according to them? Also, if really 90% of their customers are playing SP ,its really ridiculous that they haven’t fixed the AI and their FM years ago. Its so broken that it really takes the fun out of SP air to air. ok if you re content with zapping them BVR with Aim 120s is likely doesnt make a difference.Lets not talk of the antics your supposedly friendly wingmen pull off. @Aburro You misunderstood me. I don‘t expect to get served for free. Personally , I have don’t have much interest in ground units anyway so I dont care if they are modelled in detail or not, or whether specific units are available in game or not. However the future IADS module project showed that you can still find a way to sell the module while not excluding people who don’t own it from participating in missions that feature it. In my opinion that the is a good way to forward. Its not my problem or my business model, but I don‘t think DCS will thrive in the long run if it becomes solely focused on ultra hardcore simmers that buy multiple asset packs and addons just to participate in MP missions or to make use of certain SP campaigns. And btw about that „getting served for free“: ED already got money from people who bought CA and still has not gotten that module done well it seems. Or just sell DCS 3.0 for price X and include all that stuff in core. regards, Snappy

Reflected, thanks for your further updates&information on the Zone 5 campaign. Its really super cool that you selected the fighter weapons training in the 80s as the background/theme for this campaign and its just awesome that Bio and you are taking it to a very professional and authentic level down to era-typical briefing cards. Thank you very much for that! Looking forward to this campaign! Kind regards, Snappy

Am also very sceptical on the assets pack concept. The MP community will fracture further and the entry barrier for new people who might be interested in DCS might get even higher. Oh, yes DCS is free, but you wanna participate in some fun MP missions? Well you first need to buy asset packs X Y Z, plus supercarrier plus whatever is next, land based ATC likely. What do I know. Yea I get it, some people dont mind throwing ever more money at their hobby and thats fine. But I see the serious risk of DCS becoming ever - more niche/exclusive to ultra hardcore simmers and being unable to attract or at least keep new players. Another question I have is, if this hits the market, what incentive is there for ED to fix / improve on CA , which already seems abandoned. Regards, Snappy

Unless its an error in translation, I find the fact that there will NO training missions or training campaign included AT ALL quite disappointing for a hifi-module that will no doubt be sold for usual price tag. Yea , official and/or user made videos are nice to have, but really its sounds like a chap excuse to skip the work of doing decent training missions to me, which I think almost every other full module offers in one form or another and usually add to the immersion. hope they rethink their position on this. kind regards, Snappy

Yes maybe in part, but even the NTTR training still contains various errors and misstatements, especially in the radar operation traning missions. For example, there is talk about a min selectable radar range of 5NM which is not really available in the aircraft (still havent gotten no answer from RB whether its a bug or the training is wrong). Also the switch setup at training beginning, does not correlate with the instructions. When I have the time and nerve I' ll maybe fly the missions again and give a more detailed report, but right now I'm too busy with other more important things in life , sorry. However overall, the missions are still so well done, it should be the gold-standard for the rest of DCS. My Compliments Baltic Dragon! Regards, Snappy

Among other things, quite a few bugs, some long-standing ,completely missing controls in the cockpit for the RB75 Display and the Main indicator screen and quite a bit of other stuff too. And last but not least, Draken AI model. Its not in bad state, don't get me wrong, its way more modelled than other modules out there I guess, but its not complete either. Regards, Snappy

@Zhukov All good, hope you get to fly again soon.Take care and stay safe Zhukov. regards, Snappy

I suspect you love a good debate as much as I do Can‘t even remember the last thread with a request for some vague layout of ED 2021 goals , especially given the fact that the 2021 and beyond video really contained close to zero information on that, except revealing Apache and showing off flashy new wx, which frankly means nothing since they‘ve been doing it for years. Anyway while I agree some unnecessary threads pop up again and again every few days/weeks in these forums (why no redforce 4thgen blabla..), thats not exactly the case here. Equally frequent I see sensible requests / criticism being derided by people who for whatever reasons simply can‘t accept anyone questioning, criticizing or even just making suggestions to their beloved ED , which is just awesome, since a lot of actually good input gets lost that way. Plus, ED can defend themselves well enough, no need for surrogate whiteknightism. As for Mr Biggs seemingly unsolvable dilemma, how about ED only just publishing something officially after tripling or better quadrupling their own internally estimated timeframe. That should work out just fine in reality then and if they actually manage to release something before that , well certainly no one is going to complain that they managed to beat their own schedule.. regards, Snappy.

Great see to a perfectly sensible polite request being shredded again by reflexive & completely unnecessary whiteknight-ism. Good job Mr.Biggs. regards, Snappy

Well, feel as superior as you want, but the thread was started with „your thoughts ladies and gentlemen“ and not „lets all cheer and stoke the hype train“. If you really think your group 1 is the only reason why there are „other“ comments is this thread , well then go on living in your simplified happy bubble by all means. Your „healthy“ pilot group can‘t be too healthy a species if it can‘t handle differing opinions. Some people are just underwhelmed by this module for multiple reasons and the thread asked for thoughts , not pure fanboyism. If you can‘t even have a discussion or unpopular opinion here without being classed a some defective subgroup, whats the use of a forum? Anyway this is a lost cause,why am I even writing this..?

Don't ask me. A summary of Kate's post is in the unofficial roadmap thread. The main one, not the 2021 roadmap thread.