Of course!
What could possibly go wrong…? 
3 Likes
This for you viking descendants.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3306483/
And
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3306482/
For me, @Sryan, @TheAlmightySnark and whomever might be closet-dutchies around here 
3 Likes
I really have thought about masking the current dds files and starting in on paints but I don’t wanna redo all of them when the paint kit comes out. The wait though is tough lol
1 Like
Like I said, I’m not bothered. To be honest, at this point I have about as much time in the F-16 as I have in the MiG-21, which I bought in 2012 on Indiegogo and have had since release!
If I didn’t have the 21, and the Viggen, and the Harrier, and the Hornet, and the Tomcat, then MAYBE I would be more disappointed with what the F-16 doesn’t have yet. For now, I spent a little time flying it and firing a couple missiles but I’ll wait for the first major update to add features before I go back to it.
I probably have more time in the Hornet than all the rest of those combined, actually.
I fly it all the time. Viper is my new fave ride. Such power! That thing climbs like nobodies’ business.
1 Like
Wonderful article.
So guys,
I just moved in to a one bedroom from a 2 bedroom. House is a mess!!! Except for one corner…
I could not stay away from the Falcon. Early access or not… it’s a FALCON!!!
12 Likes
Ouch, that must be a lot of boxes!
Yep, great article. I almost wanted to buy one of the protagonists after I finished reading it 
Back with the Hornet, running a similar payload to what I played with in the Viper, some comparisons will follow.
Viper:
AMRAAM wingtips,
Sidewinder outboard,
Remaining Pylons CBU-97 x2 on TER9A.
No centerline, pylon removed.
No TGP.
Hornet:
Sidewinder wingtip
Pylons MK20 Rockeye X2 on BRU
Cheek station AMRAAMS
No centerline tank (pylon still there)
The Hornet is nicer to taxi - takes a bit more grunt to move the weight, and the engines respond slower but the stability and reduced turn rate from NWS input is much appreciated - although NWS low’s turn radius is a bit poor (that’s why we have NWS high!).
In a more regular climb the Hornet doesn’t accelerate as fast for sure, but it isn’t slow. Over 400kn cruising below 10k is possible, although the Viper can push higher and closer to 500 in some cases.
Knowing the engines are slower to react and planning ahead can really make a difference when you want to hold speed, as can playing the AoA readout. The Hornets fearless approach to AoA is a lot more comfortable than you remember when you get back to it.
The Hornet does also really play better with an A2G load under the wings than the Viper.
Comparing FCS again, having read the article posted by @Huckle, you can begin to adjust better with the Bug. The shock goes away too when you recall that the Viper’s force based, low deflection stick will be able to send a neutral roll command much faster than you can physically move the stick in the Hornet. Most importantly, the article describes downsides to that system that we don’t feel with our larger deflection joysticks.
In a talk with @Franze, he rightly mentioned that tuning down the axis saturation on your Viper controls to mimic the lack of deflection (potentially with a curve as needed) would give you a more real feel to the Viper. It’s not fair to compare using our hardware between the two planes - as it doesn’t accurately represent the control feel to either. I may give this a try with my Warthog stick, which I suspect will take a deal of tuning to get something acceptable. I also believe older or cheaper sticks with lower precision axis would not do well to try this, as the jumps to input would become rather large, and therefore rough in game.
4 Likes
With the early access release of the Viper, we are now focusing on the most pressing bugs and desired new features for the Hornet and Viper. We have been reading all your feedback, and this is the biggest factor in determining our priorities. While not a complete list, here are our priority items for the Hornet and Viper in our roadmap (please note that the items listed are not in any sequential order):
External art
Complete external skin and provide a template to the public
External lights
Centerline fuel tank
Add wing flex
Additional skins
Visual damage modelCockpit Art
Add pilot body to cockpit view (VR)
Systems
EEGS Level-5 and Lead Computing Optical Sight (LCOS) gunsight when target is locked on radar
Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) system
Corrected AIM-120 Dynamic Launch Zone (DLZ) that correctly accounts for A (active) and T (time to impact) times
Track While Scan (TWS) radar mode
Air-to-Air Radar to include Control page (set PRF, contact fade, etc.)
Targeting pod (target range indication, SP/CZ/TGT indications, azimuth indication angle indication [waterline with line], GRAY indication, north arrow, M mask indication).
If AIM-9 and AIM-120 are loaded, selected aft on the dogfight switch should select AIM-9 and pressing forward should select AIM-120
Emergency jettison button
Ability to create and modify steerpoints form the UFC
Steerpoints must auto-sequence when option selected from STPTY DED page
Toggle missile type select with missile step button for more than .8 seconds
Lock indication on the RWR is missing. It should be a circle. At missile launch, then the circle should flash.
Complete CMDS manual mode programming.
When a contact is locked while in NAV mode, changing to AA mode should not remove the lock.
Only a long press aft on the DMS switch should turn the HMCS on and off. Currently, up, right, and left also have this function.
1 Like
For a sec I thought that was some extra changelog, but that is just the roadmap. Still, looking forward to all that good stuff
Considering both planes were designed as light daytime WVR dogfighting machines, it’s amazing they are capable of the multirole at all, let alone so good at it.
Few remember the original F-18. It was so tiny.
While the Super Hornet is (H-W-L) 16-45-60ft, and the legacy Bug 15.5-40.5-56, the YF-17 was only 14.5-35-55. The original F-18 design was slightly bigger, but still smaller than the F/A-18A/C.
I recall watching a show on the Viper where they stated the designers were rather pissed off about adding stuff to it for non-fighter capabilities, thus “ruining” the design.
However, we’d have neither of these then as pure fighters would have been phased out for multirole replacements based on modern needs.
The YF-17 shows the F-5 heritage, the legacy Bugs deviated enough to my eyes the comparison is not as direct.
1 Like
Interesting. How did they compare landing on the carrier? 
2 Likes
Haven’t tried the Viper, but if you’ve seen the screenshots thread, I have landed a F-15 on deck and taken off again, so I gather it won’t be too bad.
I wonder if that could be done in RL? 
I don’t suppose the USAF would want to try it.
3 Likes
I think the last time they tried something like that the navy spontaneously developed the F-14
5 Likes
Technically I think the last time it happened (with the Viper no less!) they developed the Hornet. Tomcat was the one before that.
1 Like
I feel an F-111 reference brewing… 
1 Like