Airhunter

Not just that, you barely need to look at your speed since she talks to you and with some experience you can tell your energy state and alpha fairly well.

I wouldn't say they are all Jester related (the random, uncommanded mode switching is for sure), I've done some RIO work myself and had human RIO's to reproduce the issues I saw and we all came to the conclusion that the radar is absolutely bent and Phoenixes do really wonky stuff in the terminal phase. You get a bunch of random, fake tracks on the TID, locks barely hold if the bandit changes aspect even slightly and a lot of random stuff happening. Definitely not even close to what it was last year.

Those were the 90's, hobs and the 9X weren't really a thing in the west yet. Also, all JG73 pilots said the 29 would get absolutely destroyed and stood no chance in a BVR engagement against a 16, 15 or Hornet. Not even close. The only advantage the 29 had was a quick HMD engagement if you somehow managed to get close or a guns only scenario where the other guy sucks. It's a decent scramble type interceptor but that's about it. You can't just cherry-pick some statements out of context and say the 29 was the way superiour plane, because it absolutely wasn't. In an agreed upon merge scenario that technically never happens in a real modern era conflict, sure, it can be dangerous.

We already have a FC3 one, which is probably the best aircraft in that package, fidelity wise. Flight model is kinda wonky but that's every module made by ED. If we had a full fidelity 29 it would be a pain in the butt to use in combat - definitely not as effective as the magic radar and magic IRST lockon of the FC3 one. There is literally nothing contentwise that would add to DCS. I'd much rather have them do a 25-PD, Mig-27, Su-24 etc.

Yeah, it's because I didnt pull the power to idle after touchdown. I did have some landings where I did and the spoilers came up straight away but the tracks for those corrupted hence why there's no video. It is doable if you are in the right mindset for it and REALLY watch your pitch, but there is really no added benefit of this prodecure in DCS. Again, the main "issue" is the rather high wheel friction. Not really sure but the A should have less idle thrust and maybe even a slightly different CG, other than that landings should be pretty identical.

On a different note - THIS - is how you are supposed to land a Tomcat ashore.

Probably originally, we'll see if this can be adjusted with the releae of the Forrestal class carriers.

High or approach AOA or with the flaps down.

Despite your passively agressive tone I went ahead and tried it myself, after about 5-6 landings I pretty much got it down and could do exactly just that. If you knew anything about aerodynamics and jet aircraft you'd be able to do this as well. Rough parameters were around 150kts over the treshhold, don't cut power completely until the mains touch as the engines are mounted below the CG and induce a pretty significant negative pitch moment. Here are two videos of replayed tracks showing exactly that (I had several better ones but the DCS track system corrupted so often that I just stuck with those two instead of hoping the next one doesn't break and replay properly). The first one actually shows a bounce and the huge tailstrike risk doing this (I did have a tailstrike on my very first attempt). The only "issue" I see here is the pretty high ground friction from the mains, causing you to slow down pretty rapidly and making the nose settle below 100kts (as compared to say the Su-27, Mig-29 or F/A-18 etc.) I hope this can be adjusted some time in the future so the landing distances still remain realistic and you are able to taxi in idle power without stopping on a dime. Seems to work in the Viggen.

Hold my beer...

For what you're asking, you can do exactly just that in the sim as well. They key is to NOT be on speed. Those Iranians were clearly a tad fast. This method is also not how you're supposed to land the Tomcat in the safest and most effective manner. However, you can still do just that in DCS, simply mind your rate.

Honestly, I think the amount of default liveries for the B is more than enough with most early to late B squadrons covered, stuff like the Diamondbacks, Swordsmen and Sluggers have at least two modex variations. If we get the same variety and quantity for the A then it's all good.

Oh I'm sorry, were you part of the Tomcat community? Surely you can tell us about your experiences then and how these engines performed on several deployments throughout the 70's and 80's. How someone can write up such bullshit and argue with an SME with thiusands of hours on the thing is just mind-boggling. Go outside and get a grip on reality.

Is a 3D cockpit pilot model planned? Same for the through canopy ejection and the ejected pilot model not being the stock F15 one?

What exactly would a 29A provide to the sim? The only reason the FC3 one can be so effective is because it is dumbed down and easy to use. The pilot-machine interface and almost complete lack of hotas in the real thing would drive most people insane.

Yet everyone bought your module and gave you a LOT of praise for it? (I certainly did, think it's a tremendous module, demonstrating how modules *should* be released, but don't fly it as often since it isn't my type of aircraft). Criticism is criticism, if something flies like an UFO, has insane fuel economy and has negative drag (initial SD-10) then there sure is a reason for concern. It's not about being OP or yelling "chinese bias" but more about a healthy scientific discussion. People bring up concerns about certain aspects, provide crude test data and values and want a statement from the dev. where they got their sources from or what data they base said figures on. The radar being basically an AESA and unnotchable and unjammadble is another of those things. There still is some work and tweaking to do for the JF-17 in various areas. Someone too could develop a J-20 or J-10 and claim they are correct since they have all the secret documents and some guy on some forum has confirmed it... Regardless, the way the SD-10 got "downgraded" doesn't seem right either, which is a problem on the complete oposite end of the spectrum and should too be corrected. The same way people would cry out if the JF-17 had the fuel economy of a Mig-21. People raise the same concerns with ED, Heabtlur or other 3rd parties when it comes to engine performance, flight model and systems (the really OBVIOUS stuff in a flightsim), yet some handle this better than others.

Guess we'll have to wait until August the 19th for the next OB patch...

Because it's pretty obvious if you spoke russian...

Just a thought but how viable would it be to have S-300's, various SAM units and static aircraft placed on the various airfields and bases as per their real life satelite imagery and known locations (like could be seen in Wag's video) as a default template instead of the "clean of everything" map? Would certainly make the mission creation workflow a bit more convinient and authentic.

Afaik, Nineline said they wont be implemented for the Hornet. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4439280&postcount=2612

Sure. That's not what I said though.

Go figure. Anyone thinking the FC3 "PFM" flight models are anywhere close to the real thing are kidding themselves. They are good for producing certain numbers like turn rate, radius and thrust to weight ratio but that's mostly it.

Noticed it as well, when you take tight turns the airplane tilts to one side quite a bit, even at low speed and you can hear a scratching noise as if you lost a tire. Needs a fix asap.

So is the same team working on the jets also workin on the missiles, which I'd consider core DCS? Didn't you state those were always seperate? I think having at least the main missiles in DCS all share the same physics and guidence laws would be the *least* to ask for....

I wonder if we'll be able to use the LJDAM on the Hornet and Viper eventually?