Leadnap

If you don't have a two stage trigger to use, I bound T0, T1, Tv to buttons on my HOTAS and basically think of it as "T1 to enter the mode, Tv to lock, and T0 to cancel"

I don't think that the issue is one of not having a solution - its probably more a question of breaking the simulation "realism." Likewise, while it might seem simple on paper to say "just make this one change" the programming truth is much more complicated. Just remember in 1999 how difficult adding 2 digits to the year was.

Essentially why I said what I said - never tried to do it via NAV because I never found a methodology required to deploy the RB75 where I wouldn't have changed to ANF. I prefer having the aiming cue on the HUD to point the nose - but that might also just be because I am the worst at deploying the RB75.

I stand corrected... Thanks!

Yup.... Viggen 1, every-other-aircraft 0.

You have to set Master Mode to ANF to turn on the EP13. So ANF.

Yep she is a great bird to fly. If you have the monitor go crazy, I was just saying unlike other aircraft displays where I wish I had extra monitors to work with - the Viggen displays everything well, and I don't find myself thinking of spending a little $$ for extra MFD type displays or an extra monitor.

I also noticed this - I had Viggen splash on the last patch but not the current one: back to clouds.

Is it wrong to say "I love you"?? Because it just feels right at the moment... Ditto.

I wont be as naïve to say why would you want to, but generally speaking when using the radar on the Viggen it will be the only thing you're looking at - a lot of the real ones had cones the pilot would stick his face into (from photos) - generally because aside from obstacle detection mode, you're only generally looking at the radar when not doing other stuff. I only say that because the external screen might have better value set for something else (granted I can't think of what). I guess I find unlike other modules where I would kill for a better IRL view of a component - the HUD font size on the Viggen is the only component I struggle with seeing on occasion. To the OP - while hammered by everyone else, think of the A10 as CAS and the AJS37 as Ground Attack (to boil both down extremely). Different missions, styles, munitions, and ideas. As mentioned, Viggen is really a deep strike in-and-out bird, with no other modules in DCS to share the mission style with. So it is unique, which makes it fun. However I've seen a lot of people hate it because it wasn't an A10 or AV8 - really they just don't understand it is very much not a multi-role bird, it does a hand full of unique to DCS (and IRL) things very well and sucks at everything else. Let her do her thing, you'll be hooked. Want her to be anything else, leave disappointed. Since you already put the $$ down, welcome to the Viggen family.

Thanks for clearing that up. I understand the rationale of removing the [sub-munition] release altitude over ingress altitude - but neither currently works. The feature is very important because ideally terrain should mask your approach but that means you have to assign an ingress altitude to clear said terrain. To the reddit post which mirrors all the wind BK90 posts here the issue remains as well - a default of 120m means that the release envelope must calculate for the higher AGL which shortens the envelope dramatically and reduces the lowest altitude you can release from, but further more introduces a greater degree of wind disruption to a munition that has no ability to induce velocity.

There are two schools of thought, one is to release a slightly functional early access that you effectively can fly around but do little else while the elements are delivered as developed after the fact (F18...) or what HB is apparently doing which is releasing a module that has most of the working parts and where tweaks will be needed but on the whole most of the product is there. The former is certainly what people are accustomed to, and HB could have certainly done, but they set the bar high on this one - they wanted to build a product and a name for themselves that they are premier developers of premiere projects, so the latter is almost required as a result. Don't get me wrong, I am dying to get into that cockpit, but I get their motives, and as CCs begin releasing content on the F14 from early access - I imagine public access will be here by March.

This is what I was hedging my bets on. Certainly hoping to get a chance pre-release to tear into the details and start putting all the pieces together.

I can't help but feel like the AWG-9 development directly helped with the even sexier radar outputs on the AJS-37 we now enjoy, which also leaves me thinking anyone who spends as much time interpreting the raw feeds on that for targets is going to love the RIO position capabilities on the F14. It's off topic, but yea this is one hell of a drug. Started with Micropose "1942" back in 95...

Assuming you actually know what you're doing. Building a PC physically is pretty easy (funny because that's what scares people away) but anyone who watched The Verge's disaster of a PC build is painfully aware there are plenty of "experts" who don't know their foot from a hole in the ground. The problem is people who buy really expensive and "technical" sounding parts thinking they all just work together - kinda like buying a CPU with the most cores, most GHz, and most cost - thinking it will reign supreme over all others (and probably installed in a budget mobo…)

What would be the purpose of disabling a critical feature of the weapon? Last month release altitude worked - I know because I was doing some other testing on release characteristics and there was a definitive difference. Eliminating the feature restricts attacks to very specific parameters, since no longer can terrain features mask you from the target.

I was 2. I remember my uncle had an expensive sound system installed and Top Gun was the movie we watched over and over to get the "effect" on VHS.

As it came up earlier - the engine works just fine now on the average system used by the player base. ED has maintained appropriate improvement schedules as far as engine developments to improve the product as a whole while keeping the base simulation free (which has important marketing ramifications). At the heart of the issue is large swaths of the player base are not regulars in the forums, and flight simulators as a genre include players who will spend tens of thousands of dollars building moving simulators in their bedroom for game play - not something your average Battle Field of Cities Skylines players do. As a result, yes, you get guys like the OP who could buy my car or their system, as well as players running on $500 builds. Okay the Star Citizen part was funny... (the rest of the quote keep going down) You guys should have seen the rouse when he said "multi-threaded" and not "multi-cored" … I still have to explain to clients that putting that expensive PCIE-NVME SSD in their 4 year old mother board doesn't mean they'll see blazing data speeds. Plenty out there think that because it says "gaming" on the box it's better and worth the extra $100, let alone when posting the OP failed to mention any of the other hardware components that could easily be a bottle neck. I still remember the days when "Gigahertz" was a buzz phrase and people would buy computers with expensive processors and garbage components that could never utilize the power.

However every Russian jet in DCS will be metric - because we won't see aircraft from this decade in DCS from Russia until our grandchildren are playing. To the OP - I set to Metric if in a Metric aircraft (generally the Viggen) because then my map marks are metric.

(US) Aircraft are not stored with fuel and munitions on them - and "loaded" aircraft with live ordinance are parked on the other side and not allowed on the unloaded side. I know there are technical terms but the only airfield I've been to was Bagram and I wasn't exactly trying to figure out the air field layout while there.

So with the posted wind issues on the BK90 today I was running tests and noticed that regardless of my inputs for the altitude (91 block) the BK90s consistently flew at and released at the same ~130m altitude, set for 30, 50, 100, 500, and the "standard" (60m). I wouldn't think 500 would work due to the ceiling of the release envelope, but input anyways. Also, since we're on the topic - is the 91 block code 91 then 4 digit #### altitude or just 91 then 3 digit ### altitude? A) 91 0100 for 100m or B) 91 100 for 100m (thus ignoring the last of the 6 digits on the CK37)? (The answer to the question is irrelevant to my testing, tried 91500 and 910050 for 50m for example)

If the winds are high, reducing your programmed altitude would be advisable unless terrain features are in the way. 100M is pretty high and will significantly drift. Likewise, if using the MJ2 munition you will get better effect the lower altitude the BK90 releases (of course you will get a much smaller impact area). If you approach on axis with the threat's vector and use long area attack (921) two BK90s at 50m-30m the wind will have less chance possibly however I am noticing in testing that regardless the settings (and even the default 60m) the altitude isn't changing - though no wind issues noted on my part.

1) The Viggen does not have "organic" cannons - if you want to mount cannons you'll have to mount the gun pods to the hard points. 2) Both ECM and regular Counter Measures are not organically carried, just like the cannons you would have to equip the CM and ECM pods to hard points. The Viggin is a pre-planned mission bird - so you won't be in a situation where maybe you want weapon A but maybe weapon B. Rather, you know prior to take off exactly what you're going to attack and how you want to attack it, set everything, then take off and strike it, then go home. Technically speaking: ground attack and not CAS.

Awesome. The continued support of the Viggen was definitely a factor in grabbing up the F14 for me. Excellent developers and great continued vision towards your customers! Can't wait!

This really is the most important part (as far as learning). I love the Viggen myself to learn on, great blend of automation and easy to fly (I mean it has a landing auto-pilot...) capability; but has its quirks too. The other consideration is that like the F5, the Viggen and other 3rd Gen aircraft will be ideally easiest to learn in for DCS: Gens 1/2 are very temperamental and complex analog functions, Gen 4 is the most digitally advanced, but that comes at the cost of understanding advanced avionics suites (which once you know them are very easy, but from the onset can feel like a major undertaking). Gen 3 has the advantage of avionics supported flight and delivery, but a reliance on analog input into those systems. As such - if you "master" or "grasp" advanced digital avionics the super user friendly approaches of modern aircraft will make you quickly lethal in DCS. (Nothing wrong with this approach). Option 2 is Gen 3 aircraft which give a good introductory mastery of computerized aids while still having to master the basics of flight And if you're crazy go after the early Gen aircraft where if you turn wrong the weapons fall off, your radar runs for 45 minutes only (if it has one), and if you master flying those you can fly anything including a flying squirrel. If you have the F5 down pat the Gen 4 options are probably a good next step, but as a shameless Viggen promoter I would argue she's Gen 3.5. The real question after all of that I suppose is what do you want: A2G or A2A? Which do you enjoy more, which do you already know (and do you want to learn the other or stick to what you know)? What kinds of mission profiles make you smile? The Viggen is a plan everything in advance, in quick, deliver everything, GTFO airframe - the A10 is a circle the battle space waiting for someone to need help then choose which godly tool to utilize to smite their foe. The Mirage has awesome multi-role capabilities but isn't good in a turning fight. Each jet has it's ideal use, you have to figure out which one is most interesting to you. Just my .02.