Avimimus

An F-4 variant? I think people might feel a bit cheated. I'd personally go for an F-103, F-107, or F-109... but I don't think any of them could be modelled to DCS standards (even if the F-107 reached flight capable hardware - sort-of anyway, and the F-109 had a technology demonstrator built by the Germans).

Maybe - or he might have just forgotten that those two had already been publicly announced? What is left? The F-102 and F-106 are dedicated interceptors (although the F-106 was also used for ground attack). The F-101 was largely an interceptor and recon aircraft (with the earliest examples also having an escort and then a nuclear strike role). The F-105 is a possibility (but I've heard there are some issues getting enough data)? Does the F-111 count? The other Century Series are quite interesting, but they didn't make it into production!

Technically the F-100 and F-104 are announced Century Series aircraft? Not sure why he was cagey about that? Also, the G.91 and Tornado are both planned to have recon capability (even if ED isn't providing it, third parties appear to be working on it anyway). Honestly, peacetime recon can be boring, but if anyone has read about wartime flying 'alone, unarmed, and unafraid'... there is a lot of drama to recon (and trying to get pictures in spite of weather etc.) I'm not sure why people don't find it exciting. P.S. I do hope that the fragmentation model improvements extend to rockets... and we get a few more warhead types... especially for the Cold War era Soviet designs that rely upon them.

Yeah, it'd be nice to finally see them in the sim... definitely would make me more likely to pick up the F-104 at the pre-order level.

It'd be pretty cool to get the CRV-7... exceptionally high velocity rockets with very high kinetic potential and very low dispersion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction It is also an open secret that we retain sone breakout/incipient capacity (i.e. we could probably field weapons within a couple of years if we really felt threatened).

Some really cool info in this earlier reply:

That would make a lot of sense. Honestly, if they could keep the same core (e.g. improvements to various aspects of the engine, mission editor) and FC levels of fidelity this could be pretty good. You'd disagree if you knew what aircraft I was flying (e.g. taking a solo Mig-29 into American troop formations, shooting down five enemy aircraft and destroying twelve tanks in one sortie). You probably wouldn't be so happy about that

That sounds optimistic! Somehow I missed that interview (probably the lack of a subscription?) Of course, the game could still weaken the enemies relative to the player and make the scenarios very arcady... but I'm optimistic.

One where you can get a 20-1 kill ratio Often unrealistic unit distributions combined with excessively easy targeting/acquisition and extra 'hit-points' for the player. Everything dies but you! Speaking of it though - maybe I'll reinstall the original Comanche or Werewolf!

Exactly. It might be nice to pay for simplified avionics for some aircraft I'm not sufficiently interested in to want to memorise the start-up procedures but if I can only use them in an arcade environment... what is the point? I'll just buy the full fidelity module or focus on the handful of aircraft I'm most motivated to fly. Whereas, if there was a Su-24 or Saab Gripen or Mi-28 ...and if it was kept up-to-date with DCS and could use other DCS content in its missions - well, I'd be exceptionally excited!

We can hope At least there is a lot of interesting DCS aircraft coming out (although I find it hard to learn more than a couple of modules). One thing I wish these reviewers would ask: Are there any plans to update the fragmentation modelling of unguided rockets? Given that so many 4th generation types can't be modelled, those of us flying older types that rely on unguided weapons often find ourselves quite disadvantaged. There are a lot of types which rely on rockets as their primary weapons (e.g. Mi-8, Mi-24, Su-25, AJS-37, F-1, A-1H)... It is hard to look at all of the detail going into complex avionics and radar simulation for some of the more advanced modules (F/A-18C, F-16, F-15E, F-14 etc.), and then watch interviews which are focussed on them, and not feel like us 3rd generation types are being overlooked/neglected. I've watched a half dozen interviews over the last two years and no one has asked about rocket warheads - in spite of it being a known issue and in spite of it being so important for some types of aircraft (especially some types of helicopters).

I suspect this won't be remotely what I want, at least based on what has been shared so far. - I'd like a sim with more aircraft (so far it appears to be limited to already released aircraft) - Realistic flight models (so far they've indicated they want an accessible game, and it isn't clear that they won't simplify flight models or weaken opposing AI to make it more arcade like) - An ability to use the aircraft in DCS environments/missions alongside other modules I've purchased (it looks like this won't be the case), and ongoing development to continue to use the most recent DCS engine/simulation/assets (unclear). - Simplified avionics that can be used with the keyboard, rather than clickable cockpits (it looks like they might deliver this). However, I'd want the avionics to have performance that is similar to the real-world (when Black Shark was first released the 'simplified avionics' mode allowed instant acquisition and switching between targets). So I suspect that MAC will have maybe 1/5th of the features I'm looking for in an 'FC4' replacement.

It'd definitely be neat to have an ability to fly some aircraft types that lack sufficient documentation. I'd be fine if they were 'nerfed' to be worse than full fidelity modules (in order to counter any claims that the simplified avionics make them easier to use in combat)... sadly (for those of us who like survey sims or certain aircraft), it doesn't appear that they are interested in this

Yes, the tree-line is also pretty far north there - but there is also the issue of the size of trees and the types of trees. It looks to be an environment dominated by relatively small Larix (Larches/Tamaracks) and Spruces, with some Cedars/Cupressaceae (but very little in terms of broad-leafed trees): 9 Great Things to do in Rovaniemi in Summer - The Lost Passport

In the recent screenshots I'm seeing a lot of deciduous trees. Shouldn't the trees be mainly conifers (and shouldn't they gradually get shorter and give way to tundra?

1) It would replicate operational loadouts (as observed in training and in combat). We regularly see balanced loadouts with two missiles on each of the outer hardpoints, or asymmetric loadouts with four missiles on one side and a fuel tank on the other. 2) Also, the AH-64 and Sa-342 have this feature - do we want the Ka-50 to be completely left behind? P.S. Asymmetric loadouts don't work well on the Ka-50 (it lacks the updated WCS of the Ka-52). So letting us save weight and gain agility by carrying only as many missiles as we need for a mission (but doing so symmetrically). It would work a lot better than carrying 6 Vikhr and a drop-tank.

Best case scenario - we see both (Soviet version, and a slightly more modern export version).

Shouldn't the tie bomber be more manoeuvrable than the Y-Wing? The Tie Bomber doesn't have shields.

I suspect there may be licensing issues even for mods. That said, there have been a lot of interpretations by different artists over the years: Ornithopter | Dune Wiki | Fandom I believe they are described in the books as having both jets and variable geometry beating wings... and obviously - no computers. Everything has to be analogue. Which makes it an actually interesting project for a DCS level of fidelity.

Exactly. It was a time when Kamov had recently offered a customised Ka-50 derivative to a NATO member state, and France was building two helicopter carriers for Russia. A different time with different anti-espionage laws. I I recall correctly, there was also a deal worked out for Blackshark - and I gather the development of the sim was actively encouraged/supported.

As a guy who has only flown helicopters in sims - I'm still very impressed! You won't dissuade me of that. But it is very interesting to hear. I assume that the down wash combined with the NVG would make it extremely difficult in terms of visibility? I'm getting rather nervous just thinking about it (sitting here at my desk in good lighting conditions).

Interesting to note that the Sa-342 module has the partial loading ability (as will the OH-58D) and the AH-64... so it is only the Ka-50 and the Mi-24P which lack this feature (and only the Ka-50 really needs it). It is also interesting to note that a lot of aircraft have partially loaded TER racks (e.g. one or two Mavericks per rack). So, this feature is becoming standard.

I really like the ability to clean up the cockpit (removing sights, removing the tablet)... helps create a civilianised feel - even if a lot of the avionics are there for weapon controls, I can feel like I'm flying liaison in peacetime at least. Nice to have that more peaceful experience along with a clearer view of the ground/forward.

Trying out the open beta: - There is a pretty strong "pendulum" effect still - is this accurate to the actual aircraft? Has anyone here actually flown a Gazelle? Something about it feels a bit unnatural to me. - Is the tail-rotor really that sensitive?