Matti0503

What type of testing exactly tho? Just carry test or actual firing. If it was firing, they probably had a special Viper with the needed Wiring just for this purpose. It not being on other/later Vipers would indicate that these tests weren't particularly successful.

you're completely missing my point but I agree that the Walleye and the SLAM should be removed

cool that they tested it but was the average, combat use viper ever equipped with the wiring? I don't think so

How's this for a compromise: We can still load HARMs on STA 4&6 but can't fire them, this would be the most realistic option. Edit: I can already hear the people asking on the Discord why their HARMs won't fire, I retract this statement.

You're saying that like it's fact. I doubt it is. They obviously did testing with it (ED tailcode picture) and probably decided it wasn't worth it. That's more likely the reason the wires aren't there.

You mean like pressuring them into including the LAU-88 or inboard HARMs?

You keep saying it's not about the mapsize but then you put forward the condition that DCS would need bigger maps for the BUFF to be viable. Which one is it? I would honestly rather trust Wing on this since, y'know, he WORKED on B-52s and flew with them. If anyone knows if the current state of DCS is enough, it's him. (unless an actual Pilot wants to get involved but I seriously doubt that)

They are modeling an F-16, as used by the USAF and ANG because that's what they have documentation for. They obviously can't deny that other countries are using similar variants of the F-16 and make liveries for those countries and make the F-16 available in the ME. Of course those countries have done some retrofitting with CFTs or Drag Chutes for example. You cannot seriously expect ED to make a completely seperate plane for every single country that has used it. So we are absolutely not getting CFTs, a Dragchute, Harpoons or whatever goodies other countries put on it. Similarly it makes no sense to be able to fire HARMs from the inboard pylons as that was just not possible for the plane they are modeling.

you do realise this plane is modeled after an F-16CM block 50 from the Air National Guard from circa 2007

uhhh sooooo, any news? I'm feelin the Rhino itch

Thanks, I was going off the assumption that the model in-game matched and unfortunately didn't take a look at the real one

As title says, with Multicrew the copilot should also have the ability to use the functions on his collective, such as turning the landing light on/off, extending and retracting it, turning the searchlight on/off and controlling it. The Governor switch on the collective is already clickable for the copilot and if they could also use the lights, that would make SAR missions a lot easier and take some more workload off of the pilot

Alright, we know the cockpit looks damn fine, but how are the systems looking? Frohe Weihnachten und guten Rutsch!

First the C-130, now this, am I dreaming?

bump, even though I don't fly it

It also seems that the Trees option is bugged as I have tried disabling it but it didn't actually disable the trees

An observation I made a few patches back. Steps to reproduce: 1: Set wind in mission to relatively high speeds (~20m/s) 2: Start mission and look at trees in F10 map Even when there is no wind in the mission, the trees have an extremely high level of detail with rendering even individual leaves, like the entire model is used, like it is in the other views. I suspect this may affect FPS on the F10 map and could possibly be replaced with a simple Sprite to represent the tree. trees.trk

They're also visible on the F-10 map and in the mission editor in the ALT map mode. Here are coordinates for the ones I found so far, they 're all between Dieppe and Le Tréport: N49°56'41'' E01°07'33'' N49°57'58'' E01°11'06'' N49°58'17'' E01°12'07'' N49°59'18'' E01°13'59'' N49°59'59'' E01°15'13'' N50°00'01'' E01°15'16''

As of 23.06.2020 English manual, pages 109 and 111 Chapter: Flight Characteristics Above the image with the manifold pressure, the manual states that "cruise modes are marked with blue color" and in the Picture of the manifold pressure this is correctly labeled. However, 2 pages later on a picture of the RPM gauge, the Green-marked area is labeled "cruise range RPM" and the blue one is labeled "operational range RPM". I'm not completely sure on what the correct version would be but to me, it seems that the manual is contradicting itself.

Now I know what to blame when I crash! :lol::thumbup:

Just scrolling around on the Map in the Editor, looking at the French Coast, then I notice that there's a chunk missing, just like it used to in the PG map, but this time it's pretty much in the middle. It's right on the Coast near Wimereux and most noticeable in SAT view

It's weird that that would happen, thanks for clearing it up. It should maybe be fixed so that server files can't override the client files anymore.

Just set the value in the lua file to 90 for the F-16, worked fine for single player but as soon as I joined a server the FOV was clearly high above 90 but once again the lua says 90 but it was closer to 110. I'll attach the trk file in which I zoomed in to what it should look like at the end Kirks Freeflight spring evening 2.0.5-20200522-234742.trk

tho that one with the coords might be a different software version since GRAY is also in a different position than the version they have the docs for

alright, after more testing, if I press the key combination to save the camera position (RAlt+Num0) all of the values in the .lua change to what they actually are. new Lua with the "default" values is attached SnapViews.lua