Avimimus

It'd be nice to have a variant with some unguided ordinance at least... missiles are fun, but ballistic rockets are funner :D

Not entirely, if the radar emission is turned off intermittently, or is highly directional, and changes its direction periodically... the missile would lose track. IMHO, such a missile would work well as a deterrent against keeping a jammer on continuously. *If* it worked, it could have a tactical role (other than shooting down the target).

Very good post Fri13... of course there is an exception: The Mil Mi-26 can lift most Russian IFVs, APCs (not just the BMD series). Furthermore it can lift the PT-76 amphibious tank, the newer 2S25 Sprut-SD light tank, and the 2S9 Nona turreted self-propelled gun system. So, escorting an Mi-26 while it drops off a tank is a definite plausibility!

Missing a few: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=115034

I just want to see the door gunners for the Mi-24 / Hind - it'd be the first in any sim. Other than that - it might be neat to see the strut mounted machine guns (Polish use?) as a field mod, and the S-24 rockets... just for variety and making maximum use of the Mi-8. I do hope they find a way to include both the 12.7mm and the 7.62mm door gun positions.

Btw. This is a strong reason to prefer flying 1941 or earlier ...less high velocity cannons means longer dogfights with more close range maneuvering (rather than conserving energy and firing a few longer bursts at range as is the case in 1942 and later).

Well, the Mk-108 was analysed during the war and it was found that one to three hits should be enough to put a single engined fighter out of action. That said, damage in real life is a lot more probabilistic than the hit-point system we're used to (e.g. exactly what form of damage did that wing spar take? vs. how many hits did the wing take?) - so sometimes the Mk-108 shouldn't take down a plane immediately and sometimes machine gun fire should...

Let me know if any of my inferences are correct ;) :D

Since Flanker 2 anyway... :D I'm a bit odd in that I really want the European rocket pods for variety. The trainer I really want though...

As can be seen from the attachment: The Hawk has a much higher maximum take-off weight, making it a much larger aircraft. The C-101 is closer to the L-39 in both speed and wing-loading. Manoeuvrability (at first blush) - All of the trainers have similar wing area. This means that the best turn performance and handling should go to the L-39, while the Hawk has a very high wing loading (when fully fuelled). Speed and climb - The Hawk has a much higher speed than the other two trainers. However, the C-101 has a higher thrust-to-weight than the L-39, making it intermediate with the Hawk. This suggests that the C-101 should climb closer to the Hawk, but max-out its speed closer to the L-39. Warload - All of the aircraft have a decent weapon load for light-attack purposes. However, the C-101 and the Hawk clearly have an advantage. So, I'm think that the L-39 is cute, the Hawk is trying to be a fighter-jet, and the C-101 is a nice compromise. I'll probably buy the C-101 early because it has the option of carrying 12.7mm machine guns (which will make hunting trucks much more challenging) :D Thoughts?

You might try the Kh-29 as well (320kg warhead is almost as large as the 380kg warhead on the KAB-500)

Oooh... it'd be really nice to get some of these European rocket pods as options...

Although there might be a pressing need for opponents (and other period objects) to exist! After all, even the MP guys can fly coop against period AI targets.

I take it collidable trees might be in DCS World 3 but that we shouldn't expect them in the Alpha? Rotorheads care :) You fast jet jocks only care about your radar models ;)

I want the radar pod for the Su-39... it was 'promised' back in 2002 I think (or maybe 1999)...

Little known fact: The Su-39 was promised as part of a Flanker expansion featuring many of LOMAC's features. It was cancelled eventually. However... I still want to play with that radar pod after all of these years. Could it be done to FC3 level? I don't know. Will it? Unlikely. Do I still want what was advertised back in 2000? Yes...!

I was reading this article: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html It would seem to me that the best way to model armour would be an almost totally probability based system. For instance: (Probability to hit at a given range) * (Probability to get through countermeasures) * (Probability to get through ERA) * [(Warhead penetration / Armour effective thickness ratio)*(Constant Multiplier)] * (Probability of doing internal damage after penetration). Of course, to do it well you'd need to have separate values for front, side, rear, top, and turret. You'd also need values estimating the effectiveness of each weapon vs. each type of countermeasures. Finally, it looks like it'd be important to have a separate critical hit roll for weak spots ...and you'd want a separate roll for surficial damage (e.g. knocking optics out). Anyway, the point is - you can remove hitpoints entirely (replacing them with a single 'probability of doing internal damage' with multipliers for each weapon and receiving vehicle). It would look like 'A T-90 can take three shots on average' but the possibility for a one shot kill or surviving three shots without any serious damage would exist. Basically, it'd turn it into a 'knocked out' vs. 'still functioning' damage system based upon layered probabilities. What do you guys think? What is the best way to simulate modern armour?

Lots of loadouts have gunpods or missiles and two types of unguided munitions. So, I'm assuming that the ballistics computer can only be set up for two weapons at a time (and that is the source of the limitation). Another reason to take an S-25L...

Yes, but we have an earlier variant. I'm sure it'll shine in the mountains through - there is lots of rough terrain, and visual acquisition at short range becomes key. One can also use terrain masking against BVR attackers. It'll still suffer in the power department though. I'd love to see an F-5 as an opponent (although I want a Mig-27 or Su-22 as a fast ground attack platform).

It is a shame that the retarded and incendiary bombs won't work. I've been wanting to patch these on to my Su-25 for some time. I assume ED is aware that they need to add more core engine support for weapons with these features?

Some more fun for 3d modellers - a Sturmovik with a Mi-24 cockpit... http://pkk-avia.livejournal.com/52236.html These are real projects (as hard as it is to actually believe). They were intended to be cheaply manufacturable using surviving infrastructure after a major war.

Sturmovik for the 1990s - with performance figures, weights, and detailed layout information: http://pkk-avia.livejournal.com/58714.html?nojs=1 As it didn't get passed mock-up, a certain amount of creative license is possible for this Su-25 successor. If you build it - I'll buy it... ;)

This is a great plane to fly - it surprised me - but it was my favorite in one of the FC2 flyall mods.

What I really want - one of the ground attack variants (similar to the Mig-27)

I always understood that the IR jammer was a way to saturate a MANPAD's seeker (causing it to fly ballistically). So, it increases your odds of survival while flying *away* from enemies at lower altitudes - a good thing considering the lack of reward visibility.