Wing

No matter what “SMEs” say… a TO is required to back it up. Everything is backed by a Tech Order as per USAF AFI. Just a FYI.

Unable to cite the Tech Order title that this decision was made from. Copy.

Can you reference the T.O number? You can simply source that, without posting what is within the T.O. (T.O. Titles are not OPSEC) Genuinely curious. Thanks!

I am genuinely curious what tech data you have that shows that we can launch from 4, and 6? It’s all fun and games that this is now an enabled loadout. That’s fine I guess. It’s just… There's no video line for 4&6, but the problem is, that's not written anywhere. So I can understand why there is SME input confusion with this. With that said, Just don't say you have documentation that proves it. That's the part that is kinda frustrating at this point with the DCS Viper. don't mention legit tech data to end the argument when it isn't true.

DTC should have been priority over AG radar... been talked about since 2018. What is the hold up...

@Beamscanner any new word, on getting your RWR sound files implemented into the DCS Viper?

Great suggestion @Revi, a huge part of the fighter pilot experience is physically exhausting - and as such should be some sort of dynamic that is respectively simulated in DCS as well when pulling such intensive G maneuvers.

I am trying to figure out what the entire point of you entering this conversation was... and what exactly you have brought to the table that is productive for the OP? Theres alot of wording here - but not a whole lot of contribution to what actually the OP was asking for. Revi did a nice job actually answering the OPs question.

Sounds like you need to verse yourself up a bit more on what "Green flag" represents out in the NTTR. Sure "Red flag" is also just as legendary... but you can only do so much to properly conduct training missions as they should be on the NTTR range - which is what the Nevada map advertises. Green flag is its own beast... and making a mockery of saying "I bet nobody will spend it shooting some fake targets" is truly ignorant... especially coming from someone in DCS Ground Crew.

One thing I want to understand from the ED devs… is why advertise/call it the NTTR… when there’s barely any range targets or range scenery added into the DCS core? Instead we rely on 3rd party mods to deliver the DCS Nevada map product as its advertised? This doesn’t make sense to me. @Wags Super thankful we have other squadrons out there that can fill in the gaps with this, like the 476th…

Great to hear! Thankyou sir!

So we can’t manually change the bullseye to whatever STPT in cockpit? That’s a big issue in itself. Also there is no document out there that says only STPT 25 is used as Bullseye. @BIGNEWY please pass this to the dev team. Thanks!

Just to confirm - are you saying we need to populate 25, or do we continue to leave ME pulled BE? And therefore can we “move” the BE by adding L/L to SP25 mid mission for example? Thanks

Source?

Figured this was an error, but the fact that this is still moved into the "wishlist" subforum and marked as "later in development" by ED community managers - is very confusing at this point. Again, This was working a day ago...

Not only that, but within the last 5 years... there have been hundreds of missions that are within that same range in the Middle East. Not being able to simulate a cold war nuke mission, that is only exercised twice a year irl - does not mean DCS cant use the BUFF to its "full potential". People need to get off this horse of thinking the B52 is such a long range nuclear strike bomber these days. The max capability of it is used in a much more local purpose, and that is why the USAF continues to utilize it against terrorism for years to come.

@Rick50 Again... within 500x500km - you can use the B52H to its full potential, and we do so irl. This is a broken record man, I am not sure how else to explain it to you at this point. Quit spreading false narrative when you have no real world experience with its mission set- and have hope in a B52 module for DCS someday.

Bump. Is this ever coming? Should be fundamental at this point for the Hornet…

There have been multiple instances where EDs "SMEs" ended up being wrong, with various modules. This is why people do not trust necessarily that everything is perfect in accordance with EDs current "SMEs" opinions/feedback. And would rather seek documentation proof.

BN, all TGPs are stowed on takeoff - even in the Bomber world… We don’t need to provide evidence for this one.

So no hope for US CENTCOM HQ in Persian Gulf map, rodg.

Cyprus originally was not planned either on Syria map... but here we are.

Al Udeid AFB is one of the largest hubs of PG... yet ED refuses to add? Now that we are a couple years down the line, would be great to see this edition to complete the DCS Persian Gulf properly.

ED locked down the LUA files awhile back... so no joy with that one. DTC should have been a function from the get go, but here we are...

Let me reiterate that, the consumer base that is actually reading about this - and are aware of such changes taking place... are not this dumb. Thanks!