Airhunter

You can estimate it based on the published missile weight.

Also, -A's were mostly what operated off the Forrestal class carriers. The engine operation is rather different (burner cat launches and waveoff's). Then you also get the proper IRIAF Tomcat without the TCS and external tanks.

Yeah I too think the button sounds are way too loud.

I think you are interpreting way too much due to some assumed personal bias.

Sure, hands down my favorite module and I give credit where credit is due. However, as a paying customer I can give my feedback and express criticism. Minor and major things myself and others have reported shortly after release still haven't been fixed. Dates for the -A an Forrestal have continuously slipped farther and farther - hence why it is better to never give out any release windows or dates in the first place unless you are 100% sure (just read through the last 3 development updates). The same can be seen with the Viggen as well.

Grumman Ironworks baby.

Let alone the fact that 88's in DCS often don't even hit anything (no memory mode).

Treat the 77 like a radar guided R-73. It can pull some good off bore and is very deady within the NEZ. Not a BVR missile however.

+1 And please no Hornet pilot re-cycle like on the Viper...

Seems more like a workaround since FC3 modules, the Hornet and Viper don't really suffer from this.

The Mig-29 and 21 can also tank absurd amounts of gunfire. External damage models in DCS are all wonky across the board. I've eaten missiles in the Flanker, Fulcrum, F15 and Hornet, was heavily degraded and still managed to limp back to base. This really isn't just Tomcat specific, it's a DCS wide thing.

The AWG doesnt have an auto IFF, the RIO needs to interrogate each contact. Here's an IRL example of ownship contacts.

I think this is fixed for the next OB update.

Again, send me said statement in your manual. Every aircarft has operating limitations, however the original S/P Flanker has built in protections in the pitch axis. This is like saying I can exceed the envelope in my Airbus or 777 just by yanking the stick/yoke in an unexpected manner. To your second point, nice try. AOA is the angle between the relative wind the the chord line of the wing. i.e. what the wing perceives, regardless of aircraft attitude, in a level, inverted, 1G, 0VSI flight the airfoil perceives a negative AOA, thus creating lift along the netagive z-axis. This gets more complicated when you bring airfoils into play but let's just assume a symmetrical airfoil for this case. You guys act like a 15$, arcady and simplified video game plane is the real thing and performs exactly like the real deal, within the ever so flawed video game that is DCS. Why is it then so hard to admit you are wrong and accept the fact your video game doesn't really represent reality in any way shape or form and has "bugs" and flaws like many other areas of said video game - you get great visuals and the visual perception of being there and flying something that resembles a Flanker but reality is you are sitting at your desk at home. And unless anyone knows how to simulate post-stall mechanics, where there is literally no performance data available for and any estimations without precise fluid dynamics and inertia models are useless.

That was from the prototype. The A cockpit is 99% the same as our current B (we even have the A's engine instruments in the B :music_whistling: ) The only major difference is the ALR-45 (lack of a RWR gauge in the front pit) and some minor panel changes here and there. And I indeed do hope to at least see some previews of both the A and Forrestal fairly soon as those are long overdue (supposed to come out last year?). Almost 1,5 years without any significant new content is kind of ridiculous at this point.

*slaps table* gotta love all these experts here who have never flown any aircraft or taken any aerodynamics class in their life. Here's a link for the cockpit view of said cobra maneuver inputs. :joystick: It has nothing to do with pushing excessive negative G's (would love to see someone do that in real life for more than a few seconds). In the DCS thing you can still maintain full aft stick and the nose will keep dropping forward and flipping the aircraft over. If any of you guys stating that this "prohibited" regime is mentioned in the manual, please do let me know by showing me the exact paragraph either via PM or here. The pitch axis FBW protections disallow certain high AOA scenarios by cancelling out / filtering the pilot's inputs. Why should this principle be abandoned in the negative AOA regime? You do realize that in inverted flight the wing does in fact operate in the negative AOA regime, right?

Source? I know the FCS is literally programmed to prevent this. If that was the case the famous cobra maneuver or a tailslide wouldn't be possible (safely anyway).

I think he meant the outboard spoiler module and not the inboard ground spoilers. Just skimmed over the A and B manuals and couldn't find anything that states otherwise. This behaviour can also be seen on various pictures and videos online of Tomcats performing flaps UP or maneuverring flaps shore takeoffs.

Well, the 23MLA should have a much better supersonic roll rate than the 29 and better acceleration in certain regimes. And yeah full fidelity goes a long way.

It's a bug, can't and shouldn't ever happen in the real jet.

Well, it worked fine before so something simply broke in the last OB.

Which is totally fine as long as the deck physics are solid.

It won't work with EWR or an AI for sure. Probably needs to be controlled by a human GCI, since literally what you do is give guidence commands onto a target. And even then it's kinda limited in its use in DCS for the most part - unless it always tries to home in onto the closest contact a EWR or AWACS sees. I'd personally consider the 23 a much better and capable 21 - same tactics, better results.

It has a lazur datalink to receive guidence commands from a GCI and display those on the HUD. Same as the radar.

What I'm seing is no spoilers come up with landing flaps retracted.