Avimimus

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.

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?

Yes. Definitely. I probably got the decimal in the wrong place, then sorted the list without looking at why I was sorting. Do feel free to suggest corrections. This list was made quickly for my own use, then I decided to share it (in case people were curious about what the biggest gaps are). It wasn't intended to be flawless. There are undoubtedly more mistakes to be caught. The issue around variants is quite tricky, and probably unsolvable. Assessing when changes were large enough to constitute an aircraft which can't be substituted for by another similar variant is quite complicated, and very dependent on doctrine (e.g. for some purposes an improved bomb-sight makes a major difference, for other purposes a new engine may have a marginal effect). So, it is always unclear what should be 'lumped' and what should be 'split' (with subvariants listed separately). I checked through these. I've updated the Mi-6, but the others were pretty close (with rounding being the major source of error). I've tried to keep it to two significant digits where possible.

The first photo in the thread actually shows one. But here is the door gun position on the other side: And the weapon system with additional forward firing guns: I believe the four fixed forward firing machine guns precluded the carrying of rockets or missiles. However, the fixed forward firing cannon (and at least one door gun) can be carried with rockets and missiles. Some info from: http://www.samolotypolskie.pl/samoloty/2284/126/PZL-Mi-22: Mil Mi-2US (peaked at 30 examples) - Four fixed forward firing machineguns saw limited use prior to upgrading - but export to Burma in the 1990s. Typically upgraded to Mi-2URN (peaked at 28 examples, delivered from 1972) with 32 57mm rockets. Mil Mi-2URP (peaked at 44 examples, delivered from 1975)- Eight anti-tank missiles, four ready to fire (five minute self-reload time). Upgraded to Mi-2 URP-G - URP with mixed armament of rockets and Strela air-to-air missiles. Apparently most of these variants could be fitted with the 23mm cannon and the door guns (which are staggered).

I think it would be neat if Polychop kept specialising in light helicopters. They will have an American one and a Western European one, but we will still be missing an Eastern European counterpart. The only real opportunity to do this is the PZL Mil Mi-2. Why the Mil Mi-2 is a worthwhile addition: 1) It is the closest Soviet equivalent to the light NATO helicopters (e.g. OH-58, Sa-342, Bo-105). Although it is slower at 210 km/h, with a lower disk loading, its payload and role put it in the lighter utility helicopter category (good for spotting, medivac gameplay etc.) 2) It is the next most produced Soviet helicopter at ~5500 examples (after the Mi-8 with ~17,000 built and the Mi-24 with ~2650). 3) It pioneered the twin turbine roof arrangement of the Mi-8 and Mi-24 (and other later Soviet helicopters). It is also cute. 4) The Polish variants (particularly the Mil Mi-2URP) have a remarkable armament including: Fixed forward firing 23mm cannon Flexibly mounted door guns Air-to-Air missiles (Strela) Rockets (up to 32 rockets) MCLOS anti-tank missiles (4xMalyutka-M ready to fire, four reloads in the cargo compartment). Furthermore these weapons could be carried asymmetrically in the URP version - allowing up to three types of weapons to be carried at once (giving it a more varied armament than the Western light helicopters we are likely to get).

I agree (and the F/A-18A could include a CF-188, so easy sell to me). The 1970s should be pretty great (lots of analogue dials, a bit less switchology, unreliable missiles...) I'm really looking forward to the Mig-23, Su-17, F-8, Kfir etc.

@Silver_Dragon @MAXsenna - Done. I almost put 'on develop' out of tradition in tribute to Silver Dragon. But I decided to keep it simpler. Anyway, I tried to incorporate your advice and add the developers. The gaps are currently the C-130 and La-7 (as they didn't really fit with the existing categories). I should add those and the PC-9 eventually. Anyway, I made this list mainly for myself to see how many aircraft could be developed before getting around to the ones I want most (e.g. Su-17), and decided to share. I don't expect it to be perfect but I do appreciate feedback. Exactly! It is just a matter of time - if they keep developing the sim they'll have to develop a more complete planeset due to simply having built everything else already! Of course if they get into variants (e.g. F/A-18A) that could slow things down. There is also the issue of aircraft modules not really filling in vehicle or AI aircraft assets (Hopefully map developers will step in there). I do find it a bit strange to have the exact switchology of a particular production aircraft (often down to the year or the specific airframe) - but not have anything appropriate for it to fight...

I'm quite excited by this - a newer flightmodel and improved view! Plus more options for observation and weapons (and even utility/liaison unarmed use)!