Avimimus

Ah, but it means that FC3 players may not see FC4... we may not get the ability to pick cluster bomb pre-sets on the Su-25 etc. It also means we may not have any pathway towards including 4th generation player-controlled Russian aircraft...

I don't understand how people can confuse the lack of a clickable cockpit with low fidelity. The weird behaviour of Mig-3 flaps (fully retracting for a moment whenever the detente is changed) and things like the possible failure of the latch holding the cockpit canopy of the Yak-7 open to catch properly are modelled... a lot of aircraft specific idiosyncrasies exist in the systems modelling. The damage modelling has also been superior (although DCS is now challenging that).

What is awaiting being done on the Gazelle? I thought it was complete. I could see deleting the door gunner in order to get an unarmed variant? Maybe updating the flight model to eventually incorporate the advances made for the OH-58...? but it feel very complete to me as it is!

Still only 2-3x the combat radius of an F-14 though...

Yeah, I was thinking that - Xi'an JH-7 isn't exactly a fighter... I rather like the idea of an Il-28 / H-5... But if they are taking a break from Chinese aircraft there are a lot of other possibilities (Su-22 was mentioned). Note: Some Sepecat Jaguars do have an MFD...

Well that is a fear right? Kindof like the 'simple avionics' for the Ka-50... the decision to have fewer button presses will also mean a major sacrifice of realism (and the modelling details/gameplay quality that goes with it) on the assumption that players who don't use clickable cockpits are people who wouldn't notice... ...that and fear of the abandonment of support for the FC3 aircraft...

The original specs apparently had a 114mm recoil-less rifle with proximity fused shells... it appears it was a way to keep out of the range of the defensive gunners without having to rely on air-to-air missiles and unguided rockets (the eventual solution adopted)... In contrast the recoil-less rifle that the OV-10 was to have been designed around was to simplify logistics when operating from forward bases (as it could use the same ammunition as used by the army) and to have more fire-power efficiency for weight than unguided rockets would provide... They were two of the last proposals for recoil-less rifles on aircraft.

Yes, the Buccaneer would be a better choice objectively... and it is a great aircraft... The Sex Vixen was some thing of a death trap as well... But the ultimate development of the Vampire bauplan? With an asymmetrical cockpit? And an odd variety of air-to-ground ordinance...? I'd pre-order it over a Buccaneer (and just about anything else other than a Su-22)! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Sea_Vixen_of_892_NAS_on_USS_Forrestal_%28CVA-59%29_c1962.jpg If the recoil-less rifle version had been made it'd have been even weirder...

If just wish there was some information about FC4 or support for FC3 aircraft now that MAC is officially a separate product... the Su-25 could really benefit from having an ability to adjust cluster-bomb presets (now that the modelling is designed around aircraft with complex systems) and we've been waiting for years for an overhaul of warhead effects modelling... P.S. I find it amazing that my excitement around so many expansions and announced features could actually be dampened by this question... it makes me question my own judgment. I guess I just really like ground attack and Russian aircraft - it is weirdly the majority of the sim for me (in spite of owning several clickable high-detail modules).

Well, we have some news... and it kindof makes me feel like Flaming Cliffs might be being abandoned... there are basic quality of life features such as being able to change the settings for the cluster bombs (even prior to the mission would be nice) and fixing things broken in updates. I was also somewhat hoping that MAC would pave the way for medium fidelity models for aircraft like the Su-17 or newer aircraft... and it might... but I do wonder if the 'action' focus will lead to a loss of underlying realism... cockpits do not have to be clickable to have sensor modelling... but the 'action' settings for the Ka-50 and other modules have removed many of the system limitations in addition to simplifying controls (and thus made the aircraft overpowered).

This thread has a German article and a short English language report on the 'Panther': https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/panther-anti-tank-anti-helicopter.715/ One might need to log-in to see the scans though.

This may seem like an odd request... There were designs for AFVs with elevating turrets with ADAT or later Trigat missiles, and sometimes other weapons. The idea was to elevate sensors over surrounding terrain and line of sight obstacles. This would allow a vehicle in dense cover to take out helicopters or tanks without facing line-of-sight issues. The end of the Cold War terminated these projects, but some of the Trigat ones apparently reached hardware and they would have been in service by now. I think they would provide a very interesting air-defense unit for us Ka-50 pilots... a possible "present day" asset and a window into what would have been if the Soviet Union didn't break up...

Include a bit more of Norway and you'll have the old DID/EF-2000 fans happy...

Okay, now we need a B'rel...!

What do you guys think of the new missile? https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sukhoi-su-57-t-50-pak-fa-flight-testing-and-development-part-ii.15626/page-30#post-369842

I'm kindof hoping that this will open the way for a few additional aircraft - particularly as they'll be a bit faster/cheaper to model and the lower fidelity modelling of systems means that some newer aircraft might appear. That said, I'd like to see this have the option of compatibility with DCS... and I'd like to see incremental improvements in sensor modelling (e.g. acquisition problems) still make their way into it even if the avionics are simpler... It'd be nice to know more.

I so want this... I so want automatic track errors and sometimes having to feed in manual corrections... it'd just be wonderful! Having better sensor modelling (with contrast issues etc.) would be much more interesting than the night attack upgrade (if it were to be done without such issues anyway).

I wish we could adjust burst height for other cluster bombs... or do something that would bring their modelling in line and make them more realistic/valuable... but the CBU-97 is impressive in its modelling and in its effects! I agree with the original post.

It'd be pretty interesting for us helo pilots as well!

It'd be really great if the contrast settings and the terrain background impacted tracking. I'd love to have the Shkval ocassionally fail to follow a target and have to step in to manually correct it!

It'd be great if someone could do an improved FM for it (perhaps ED's GFM will actually accomplish that)? Right now it as weird, artificialy, and difficult stall behaviours. Anyway, this is one of my two most desired planes... almost the armament of a Su-25, but with higher speed, and the two 30mm cannons really have a satisfying thunking when doing a strafing run! So I can't really express how alluring this project is!

Exciting! I love these things - especially as AI opponents! It'll be really interesting to hunt the S-70...

Just for clarity: AI=Airborne Intercept rather than Artificial Intelligence

More like 25 years... the need to have everything follow actual systems in well-documented and high detail means that modern systems simply aren't possible at the level of fidelity some people in this thread are pushing for. But I like confusing idioms! :D Anyway - Thanks for the info! I'm going to duck out of this thread for a bit... as I'm tired of the trivial arguments. But a great place for compiling information on projects is http://www.secretprojects.co.uk ...so I'd invite you to drop by their from time to time.

I don't know about 'fluent' machine translation... "И рыбку съесть, и на ёлочку залезть вряд ли получится." becomes "And it’s unlikely to climb a fish and climb a Christmas tree." Thanks :D It is a bit off-topic - but since you seem knowledgeable I had a question about the Mi-24... I've read that the Mi-24 sometimes carried 10xFAB-100 during the Afghan war. I've always assumed that the two inner hardpoints each carried four bombs using an adapter (i.e. something like the MDB-4 rack used on the Su-25)... it seems the only solution which makes sense... however, I've never been able to find photographs or more information. Have you heard anything?