Harlikwin

Or use too much Duct tape

We like to call those "skill issue" players.

Please enlighten us on the Canadian nuclear weapons program? Were moose of unusually large size involved. Also, we must know if Red Green was.

99% sure you can strap an LGB to any airframe. Maybe the migs can't lase it themselves but that would be an improvment.

Yeah I was just saying, since its impossible for ED/3rd parties to do FF versions anything red and modern, well, FC3 level is better than nothing. But I guess at the current time thats a no-go. Yeah Ka-50's ala BS2 were built and flew some. Not many, but they did exist and did fly. The BS3 upgrade not so much, that was my point. IDK, frankly I think more devs should just fill out the 60's, 70's and 80's since thats not restricted and its inherently balanced. Instead of chasing "modern" stuff that is hard to model, and even when its in DCS its questionably implemented.

Yup, a 104G vs mig19s/21's would be fun.

No offense man, but there is no such thing as a BS3. Its your guy's interpretation/guess (i.e. made up) what a Blackshark might look like. I would personally like to see like a FC3 mig29K with some modern weapons both AA/AG since you guys obviously can't do a FF one. As for the weapons stuff, its simple to add and maybe let the community decide.

Yeah, I hope its the G, its the most common version that was used by ALOT of nations.

I mean we have whole paid module that is made up. BS3... And another module that was basically a prototype in the J-8II-PP Also I think ED and other devs should start thinking about adding ways to either enhance or degrade capabilities of existing modules. I.e. One "fully realistic" module is fine. But the ability to say turn off a JHMC's, or an RWR to represent an earlier version would be pretty welcome. Or possibly adding a weapon used by a different AF. Just make it all MP server side lockable. Another brilliant thing ED could do is add a % reliability number to all munitions, and by default leave it at 100% since as wags said DCS players don't like to deal with reliability. But let it be editable by MP server owners. So you can set an aim9B to 50% or whatever to get a bit closer agreement to reality. And ED can stay out of the whole "realism" debate.

Good to know I guess. It doesn't really do much to change the structural reality of ED in russia tho.

This all looks good. But any updates on a better radar model for the F1?

As you say, but DCS doesn't model any differences between different SARH seekers, so its kinda pointless. The R3R is just as good as an AIM-7M or P.

In that sense I'm less worried about the IRAF one (9J and 9P are in game) as long as they don't use SEAM on the F14 we are GTG. But I'd like to the bone stock -95 come with AIM-9G/H (not in game) and 7E4's (in game but horribly modeled).

Wouldn't that be SZ... At any rate everyone knows thats a polite fiction. With the main devs all being in russia unfortunately. Legally, they don't own soviet docs AFAIK... But I don't think ED particularly wants to mess with them.

SA? South Africa?

So this is a bit misunderstood. There are two general families of sidewinders, the Navy versions. 9B/D/G/H, developed by China Lake, which starting with the D were gas cooled from bottles in the pylons. And then there were the Air Force models. The 9E/J/N/P etc. These starting with the E were peltier cooled. I.e. Electrically, these missiles were not China lake built, rather Ford Philco and others. There are however other differences, for example the 9G/H could use SEAM modes and could be pointed by radar. Whereas the 9E/J/N/P could not, though these missiles could accept an "uncage" seeker command that is independent of the firing switch. The 9L, which was ordered by congress to be "common" was developed from the 9G/H "DNA" by china lake. As such it has SEAM compatibility, and its internally cooled by its own gas bottle. I believe Iran was slated to get the 9G or 9H sidewinders with the F14, but never did. So they somehow would have had to adapt the pylons that were designed for the navy missiles to work with the AF missiles they had for their phantoms. Certainly not an insurmountable task as they managed to do it. But for example the 9J/P that they used would not have access to SEAM. The Falklands adaptation of the 9L was mostly good luck on the brits part as the 9L used the 9G/H "DNA" and thats what the RN harriers used, so it was backwards compatible aside from the 9G/H rail had to "modified" with files. Also I recall reading that Iran had to adapt their AIM 7E-2 to work with the F14 like the AIM 7E4. Though perhaps they did have some AIM7-E4's delivered. So hopefully your guys IRAF F14 will have 9J/P's that work like 9J/P (no SEAM).

Hm, I have the FC clicky mod and I don't have this problem.

It would be cool if you guys could do this. For the most part it would be deleting stuff. Since for example Cairo today has ~4x the population it did in 1970 other cities are in that ballpark too. Also you guys need to add "Green Island"

The F1 CE is not a good stand in for the M3... The only thing in common is they are french. A viggen with 2 Rb24's (9b) is kinda close and at least aerodynamically is a delta. Mig17 had way better performance than the 15 across its entire flight envelope due to more thrust and better Aero/hydraulics but at least the cockpit was similar. The 21bis is wrong for the time frame, I think egypt had F-13's then. (give it 2 R3S I guess) I think Egypt had the Mig19S not the P (so no missiles or radar)

Go read about how chaff works on the M2k, its likely similar for the AWG-9. In general DCS gets it horribly wrong by treating chaff as "flare" for radar.

Its actually pretty easy given the over-powered stabilizer, you can just do run in attacks with it as long as you lock the sight. I very much doubt the stab system was anywhere near this good BTW.

Thanks, I'll see if those makes sense.

Does anyone have the actual mil subtentions for the ATHOS/APX-397/SFIM M334 so I can use it for ranging? Any of the reticles will be fine, but nice to have all 3. Also, I do hope PC understands that the stab system on it doesn't work as it is modeled at all... In no world should I be able to hit stabilize, do a 360 spin and have the sight return 100% onto the target.

Honestly they really need to do the teen-A's at somepoint. Using a half neutered but not really -C version for 80's stuff is just pure cringe in MP, and the "blue" guys don't really help, always whining for more "capabilities". The Muh TGP crowd is the worst of em... Sorry kiddo, learn a new trick or two. And ultimately your comment about no one to fight is exactly why the 70's era will literally end up being the best era in DCS. Its filled with a ton of variety of planes, some older, some newer and making the transition to "modern" stuff as we consider it, but still quirky enough for not everything. I mean you still will have 60's or even 50's era planes since they were still in use, and then the "new" hotness of the 70's planes like the Mirage F1 or mig23 etc, or even appropriately modeled things like the early F14's. But the most important reason will be that "balance" more or less existed naturally in that environment up to about the early 80's.

Sloowly, ever so slowly DCS is moving toward some sort of semi cohesive 70's planeset...