Jump to content

Matti0503

ED Closed Beta Testers Team
  • Content Count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Matti0503

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday March 5

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    F/A-18C, F-16C, F-14B, F-5E-3, JF-17, A-10C (/II), AV-8B, SA-342, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV, Ka-50, Fw-190D-9, P-47, FC3, Supercarrier, PG, NTTR, Syria, The Channel, Normandy
  • Location
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

778 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. you're completely missing my point but I agree that the Walleye and the SLAM should be removed
  3. cool that they tested it but was the average, combat use viper ever equipped with the wiring? I don't think so
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. You mean like pressuring them into including the LAU-88 or inboard HARMs?
  7. 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)
  8. 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 s
  9. you do realise this plane is modeled after an F-16CM block 50 from the Air National Guard from circa 2007
  10. uhhh sooooo, any news? I'm feelin the Rhino itch
  11. Thanks, I was going off the assumption that the model in-game matched and unfortunately didn't take a look at the real one
  12. 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
  13. This is going to be awesome, both for the people that get it and the people that don't
  14. Small correction: Just did a test with the target at sealevel. There it seems the IZLAR also outranges the IRLAR. So this seems to be a global issue in the IZLAR calculation
  15. This is something that I discovered while playing around on the NTTR and decided to try if I could repeat it and find out what is causing it. I believe that I at least have an idea of what is wrong now (Thanks to Swiftwin9s for suggesting this) What seems to be happening for JDAMs, is that the IRLAR (IN RNG) is calculated with the target height, which makes it accurate to drop bombs from. However the IZLAR (IN ZONE) seems to disregard the target height and only calculate the distance to the TGT at sea level. I can not possibly imagine this behavior is correct. I took a litt
×
×
  • Create New...