Avimimus

We already know - they talked to Mi-24 pilots who said the P was a much better choice. The fixed gun does more damage and is more reliable. Of course, that doesn't mean that a lot of us wouldn't pay for an Mi-24V as well (perhaps an export example with UPK-23-250 to help make up for the reduced firepower, and maybe the 10xFAB-10 loadout and/or PKT)? Anyway, I think I already mentioned it but there have been a number of cases where I was attacking trucks or infantry and really wished I could use a turret. I think there are some cases/contexts where the Yak-b is more useful (provided it doesn't jam)!

Is this really true though? I'd buy an FC3 level model for 2/3rds the price of a full fidelity module if it was an aircraft I liked. I'm also more likely to buy multiple modules - as I don't have to take the time to learn them, it is easy to explore different aircraft... whereas I feel pretty oversaturated with just two or three full fidelity modules.

A suggestion: The 358 / Saqr would be very interesting. Getting accurate performance data might be difficult - but the idea of a slow LOAL loitering missile is fascinating. It'd be very interesting for helicopter pilots especially.

Considering they're already working with someone who has done a lot of research creating a 3d model and researching systems for the Su-22 - that might be a good choice (especially as the license still appears to be free).

Yes, that is what I was thinking - both SVKSniper and OctopusG have done some work - but I hadn't heard of a license (unlike the others). Sad that the Mig-23MLD isn't on the list. The Su-17/22 and Mig-23/27 are the two aircraft I'd be most excited about.

Su-17?

Always with you on that! Although the wellbeing of you, your friends, and family will always come first. Wish you the best with the rest of life as well as with this project (which many of us will always be excited for, with or without frequent updates).

I suspect it is this - two export customers vs. nineteen export customers (some of whom build components for the fighter). That said, one would think that the AN/APG-81 would still be just as classified (or more classified).

Thanks for trying to answer the questions. Two more: - Shouldn't the Su-17 and Mig-23ML have enough references? - When will we get fuse options for Soviet bombs/cluster bombs (to allow different/lower attack profiles)? Similarly, when will improved fragmentation simulation be added (important for older Soviet helicopters/aircraft which often rely heavily on the use of unguided rockets).

Any chance that the Su-25A rework (or Mig-29) will lead to an ability to set RBK/KMGU settings in the mission editor? Fuse settings haven't been added for Red. Similarly, is there any chance that rocket warhead fragmentation will be better simulated? These aircraft that use primarily unguided weapons for ground attack would really benefit from these improvements. Also, will the realism of FCS for the Su-25A be improved (i.e. only having a couple of ballistic pre-sets)?

I'm a little bit confused "There are of course many other improvements, fixes, and new additions in this update for the Mi-24P, Mi-MTV2, Flaming Cliffs 2024". The change log seems to show four instant action missions and two bug fixes across all three products/thirteen aircraft. Am I missing something?

It is always very interesting to hear more. I feel like this interview spoke to ED's audience as it has been developing in the past few years, but didn't speak to me as someone whose been in this since the Flanker 2 days... I do hope some of the questions in the next interview upload will cover some of the issues I think about. P.S. Honestly, the lack of support for some of the earlier Soviet/Russian/Warsaw Pact content is frustrating (e.g. the lack of fuse settings for Soviet cluster bombs, lack of fragmentation simulation impacting the Su-25/Mi-24/Mi-8, the inability of the Ka-50 to carry less than a full load of missiles per hardpoint - when all the other helicopters can now do this, the lack of 4th generation designs even as AI)... there is this extensive and ever increasing gap (in even basic features/maintenance) which seems to be going completely unnoticed by the developers.

For the F-35A Q&A: Any plans for more contemporary (2010s) AI opponents? It would be great to have a 2010s pack with AI Su-35, J-20, maybe even an AI Su-57... to give us something more challenging to fight.... otherwise this might get a bit too easy - even in single player.

Pod and boom construction... (basically having a main fuselauge - including the engine - and then having a relatively narrow rear fuselage that just supports the Empennage). Different people find different designs charming. For some reason I'm one of the ones who finds this engineering elegant in its apparent simplicity. But I was also sort-of making fun of the common themes in aircraft I like. There are a lot of much better reasons to find the TS-11 or Mi-2 charming aircraft (other than the pod-and-boom layout).

Reasonable! Totally reasonable - my apologies as well. I just like tadpoles and analogue instruments. A little bit more common in Warsaw Pact aircraft I suppose? Although, I suppose the Mi-2 and the TS-11 are both Polish, and the only Soviet tadpole I can think of is the Mi-8 (maybe some of the early Yak Jets?) Anyway, I desire to see the Iskra project get licensed so we could have that little Polish airplane...

Any reason why? Other than Poland technically not being part of the Soviet Union? I'd also take an Mi-2URP btw.

It'd make me quite happy to have another Warsaw Pact bird. If we can't have the Mig-23 or Su-17/Su-22 approved, then maybe at least ED could give a green light to this little one: Give us something other than a Mig-29!

One of them is technically in a Swiss livery. Although it is worth noting that most of these modules aren't perfectly accurate to other operators (i.e. they only come with U.S. inventory weapons, and are modelled to be prototypical to a U.S. variant of these U.S. designs).

Worth noting that all nine images in this are American designs. I'm not really complaining - I appreciate any and all updates - but I thought it was an interesting observation...

Source?

I do hope that the Mig-29 will give us the ability to set RBK release settings in the mission editor / on the runway. Same for KMGU!

I think it is quite reasonable for people to expect backwards compatibility with patches - at least up until there is a major reworking of the game engine (e.g. the move from LOMAC to DCS). Other developers have managed this. Even most of the content from LOMAC is still here after twenty years.

My two cents: - Western aircraft have complex bomb fuses. The Su-25 (and other Russian aircraft) can't even set the release altitude for cluster bombs... an option that should exist in the mission editor at the very least. This renders the RBK series pretty useless in almost all attack profiles (especially after updates to cluster bomb simulation were made in the game engine). - The Ka-50 has to load 12 ATGMs whereas all Western helicopters have the option to use partially loaded racks. There are a lot of areas where I've paid for updates (Black Shark 3, FC2024) and even very basic features to keep the Russian aircraft in line with developments in the game engine haven't been added. Meanwhile we see a constant stream of new systems, subsystems and fixes for the American aircraft. At the same time projects like the TS-11 Iskra haven't been green lit (in spite of the fact that it should be quite doable to at least the standards of many of the older DCS aircraft). The Mi-24P was/is the only ray of light in this.

Is there any chance that the FC Tiger could eventually get the same air-to-ground functionality as the older FC planes? Currently we have to drop all underwing bombs simultaneously (something which isn't the case for the Mig-29, Su-27, Su-25 etc.) I feel a bit disillusioned and less interested in the F-5 after the disappointment of having less features than other (earlier released) aircraft have.

White paper that accompanies that video: