Ironwulf

For the love of God, Heatblur, please give us dynamic numbering on F-4 and F-14.

null

Looking forward to seeing this module, thanks uboats

This has been reported internally.

I've reported it internally, I'd have to defer to @BIGNEWY regarding its priority

Hello, this has been reported internally.

Investigating.

Reproduced, and reported.

We have had this happen a number of times in testing however have not been able to replicate reliably with a short track. We've got a bunch of regression testing coming up, I will try and catch it early by focussing on LGBs initially

The test was conducted in TOO mode, using steerpoints since - to my knowledge - PrePlanned mode was not mentioned. Yes it was done on an internal build.

Hi Obi and I performed the test, with a 3rd tester in spectators, and neither of us could get the desynch to happen on multiple launches.

A static activate trigger already exists. Agree with those that say a static deactivate would also be needed.

I should offer a slight correction in that if you have non-metric units, turbulence will be in increments of 0.1 ft/sec. 1 foot per second is approx 0.6knots. The maximum you can set in the mission editor is 197 or 19.7ft/sec which is approx 12 knots.

So just to be clear, you put 250 in the turbulence section? Because per the manual, it says that the turbulence is in 0.1m/sec increments. 1m/sec approx equals 2kts

Right click on a map object, click 'assign as' It will create a zone around the map object which you can name. This name will then be available in the dead zone drop down. Dead zone will detect if that map object is dead.

Reported.

Here's a question for you to waffle a response on: What are your precise qualifications to judge the aerodynamic capabilities and flight dynamics of this aircraft? To make it easier for you, I'll help you break it down by using sub-questions: 1. Do you have a CPL or equivalent helicopter license? 1b. How many hours? 2. Was any of it in a Gazelle? 2b. How many hours? 3. If not, was it in a helicopter similar to a Gazelle - similar weight, power, rotor system, and with the same sorts of flight controls, autopilot and stability enhancements? Please state model and type. 4. Do you hold a degree in Engineering, in particular Aeronautical engineering? I ask these things because you have decided to open an interrogation upon me, and my statement, when you are not the original poster, and I was not responding to you, so I feel its best I know whom I am being interrogated by. Also, I think many who've come across this post, and your many, many long-winded replies to people that never asked your opinion, are keen to know. Dont be shy, lay it out, so we can play it out. Otherwise, stick with writing war and peace to people directly responding to you - the masochists that want to be brow-beaten with your nagging opinion. Look forward to the summary of your qualifications.

Fixed. I wrote that at 2:20am local time. I was a little tired.

Never had a problem with the Gazelle once i took the time to master it... mostly because I didnt expect it to fly like a Huey or an Mi-8. To me, it behaves exactly as a lightweight helicopter should. I've yet to see anyone who has actually flown a gazelle say 'wait, this is nothing like reality'.

Edit: I should note that the below is my own personal opinion. It should be noted that 'carry' does not mean 'launch'. We've had loadies here confirm it could definitely carry 4, but it could not use 4. The Edwards bird shows this. If you had a flight of 4 F-16s going somewhere for an exercise and wanted 16 HARMs for them to use... you could... have them go pylons only, ship the harms by whatever the normal means are (air/road/ship). Have them carry 2, and ship the other 8. Or you could just load them with 4, which they can carry but not use - but in ferrying you're not going to use them, so it doesnt matter. Case in point, see attached screencap from a hornet video. It has a Litening pod on the outer wing pylon. If you look closely, the one next to it has it on the opposite side. Being a former RAAF member myself I asked a friend who has extensive hornet experience if that was actually usable. He stated he'd never heard of or seen it being used from that station. More than likely they were ferrying to somewhere, and rather than box up the pod and send it back on a transport, they just carried it with them. The lugs are the same. Later in the video you can see the same hornets with 3 tanks on, confirming they were most likely ferrying. The real evidence that is required, IMO, is footage of it actually being fired from that station from anything other than a test vehicle. I've read about the inboard maverick not being allowed on LAU-88 on the C/D (and i believe later block As) because their horizontal stabs are larger and the exhaust would damage them. Three mavericks were only allowed in 'war emergency'. It was possible with the A because of the smaller stabs. I'd find it strange then that a forward firing rocket powered munition is allowed on 4 and 6 for the same reason. If HARM is allowed why not another AMRAAM? Why not Maverick (i've never seen one)... or rocket pods? If you're going to allow restrictions, then a restriction on the inboard LAU-88 for maverick should be considered too... this was done in later versions of Falcon 4.0 for example, in certain historical periods, IIRC.

It always had a bullseye

Hi. This has been reported.

I think you will find you do need to undesignate. This was not the case previously, but it is now.

Rear cockpit F/A-18D(AW) aka F/A-18D(RC)

That is why I was specific about the F/A-18D(AW) it is not just exactly the same jet with shorter legs and 2 seats... any more than an F-15E is just an F-15D painted dark grey. The rear systems were modified for AFAC, and night strike, with - as I understand it -different controllers for manipulating weapons... analogous to the F-15E. It also had options for Recce, which would be good to model in DCS too.