Dudikoff

Unlike in the F-14A/B, the RIO in the F-14D had an extra MFD as well which was used to show the LTS picture AFAIK (and not the TID screen).

Balance is not the main reason when asking for older F-16/18 variants. Some people would enjoy late Cold War scenarios where the airplanes were not that multi-role (so, single-role aircraft still existed), the weapons were less smart and missions were probably more adrenaline inducing. Thus, IMHO, it would be great if ED would offer some older variants of Falcon and/or Hornet (kind of like A-10C II or the now defunct Ka-50 BS3).

A puzzling perspective, IMHO. For me it's quite the opposite and any FC3 module is a logical candidate for a DCS level module made by ED since a good chunk of work is already done, mainly the FM. The main benefit is that after flying full DCS modules, a lot of people don't enjoy flying FC3 modules at all because of their very shallowly modeled systems, so e.g. with DCS MiG-29 we'd finally get its radar, IRST, WCS, RWR, GCI and navigation systems properly modeled with all their submodes and various limitations. These things most certainly are not in the sim at the moment and without them, it's just some simplified black box hulk which flies the same and fires the same weapons. And once they have these subsystems modeled, they can be reused for other Soviet aircraft from the period (like, e.g. navigation and RWR systems could be reused for DCS: Su-25, etc.).

Yes, only three. You can see the three buttons (top row, the bottom one is for the three home base waypoints) on the right panel in DCS.

I never said we have access to it now, but said that because it was relatively widely exported, there is a higher chance we might get some data (like pilot weapon employment manuals with some performance graphs) when the given airforce retires its carrier aircraft (e.g. various obsolete MiG-29 export variants of the 9.12S/9.13S). But, all the minute data you mention there, we don't have it for any of the missiles in DCS, nor would DCS be able to use most of it.

I agree with the need to push DCS to add more 80s options, but this is not really factually correct. IIRC, the missile was chosen by Soviet Air Force and the initial order of 200 missiles was made. But, Soviet Union collapsed and with it the financing of all the advanced fighter variants which would have used the missile (e.g. MiG-29M/K, Su-27M, MiG-31M, Yak-41, etc.). So, without money and any airplanes which could have used it (apart for about two dozen MiG-29 9.13S airframes), all the missiles made afterwards went to export as RVV-AE (to China, India, etc.) and Russian Air Force used its small stock for operational testing and integration (e.g. Su-27SM3, MiG-31BM, etc.) while waiting for more airframes to enter service and for the Russian companies to be actually able to produce the somewhat updated R-77-1 in any significant numbers because most of the Soviet missiles were produced by Artem in Ukraine and thus Russia had to develop their own production capabilities for them (TMC). So, it wasn't really just a prototype, but being mostly exported should make it somewhat more likely to gain reliable data on it (perhaps when some of the smaller operators drops the carrying aircraft from service).

I remember getting the impression they had added R-60s to those Hind regiments at the borders only after that Matthias Rust incident (which happened in 1987).

Hmm, I would say the opposite to what Lurker said. IIRC, 6800XT should be generally slightly better in 1440p, but because of a 256-bit memory controller, gets hit at 4K and above.

Agreed. This arc version visually reminds me too much of the Virpil CM2/3 throttles and in that design I get the impression that the base of rotation is set high so there's more handle rotation then I'd be comfortable with, unlike e.g. with Warthog throttle. Plus, it's rather ungainly looking with those high mounted handles and a very small base, IMHO. Fortunately, 1) a rails version will come as well, and 2) this is a prototype, whereas the production base will supposedly end up being much larger to house the extra controls.

I would support any older F-16 variant that could fit a Cold War scenario (same for other modules like e.g. F/A-18A or at least early C, A-10A, DCS F-15C early, AH-64A). A Block 40 with LANTIRN would be great for Cold War low level strike missions, though I remember reading they had too few produced LANTIRN sets by the time of ODS that the Block 40s there didn't get to use any (they went to the more capable F-15Es) and that the F-16s in general did rather poorly overall.

I understand, but Bradleys are really sticking out like a sore thumb since they were deployed to Europe in mid-80s at best.. At least I hope they're not as deadly as BMP-2s are against A-10s.

Fictional Cold War campaigns are always welcome and this one might give me a reason to get into the MiG-21. I know that DCS is rather limited in its assets (e.g. is there any older BTR in the game apart from BTR-80?), but some of the things in the video could have been avoided, surely (e.g. Su-17M3 could have been used instead of the Su-24M, M113 instead of M2 Bradley)? Unless the reason is that the mentioned assets are much older looking and that's why unsuitable but updated ones were used?

I'd say it should be reasonably representative of the state the cockpits were in the targeted timeframe.

It's not really a fair comparison since MiG-25 engines are turbojets and it was most certainly not designed for high performance at low altitudes, unlike Viggen.

I don't think it was pre-programmed, as it was not that advanced, but the receiver in the seeker head was made in multiple variants matching different SAM radars and their known frequencies and then you'd have to choose ones for the loadout carefully based on the expected threats. It would be quite nice if DCS ARM modelling supported such limitations to begin with (similar seeker limitation is valid for e.g. Sidearm IIRC).

While I agree with your sentiment in general, isn't this exactly how a Longbow Apache is intended to be used? Though, as a Cold War enthusiast myself, I'd have preferred the AH-64A, I have to admit that the Longbow one is a more flexible choice in general.

I would begin with more realistic restrictions on AI spotting, reaction, precision, etc. I remember those BMP-2s in the A-10A instant mission were more precise and deadlier than Shilkas and would shred the A-10s to pieces, even though they're actually engaged in a ground battle at the same time and/or advancing. Though, I would be pleasantly surprised if this has been changed in the meantime.

For what its worth, I remember checking a few of these game-loading tests comparing SATA and NVME drives and the differences were in fact negligible. Like 2-3 seconds max on a 30 second loading time. At the same time, last time I checked I got the impression the NVME prices have dropped considerably and there's not that much difference anymore compared to a good SATA SSD.

I would presume that they want a user to be able to choose which of the DCS included maps he wishes to install with the DCS World. It's quite an obvious feature to have, especially once they start adding more maps.

I'd presume it's because of various military installations present there, like e.g. the naval base which hosts the Black Sea Fleet.

This is from the translated Q/A session on the stormbirds link posted on the previous page: Q: Are you planning to do video lessons and familiarisation ones like the F-16 and F/A-18 or a training campaign? A: We’re only planning to make a combat campaign, no trainaing campaign and some video lessons. Usually at release the users make so many good tutorial videos, but we’ll try to make some of our own. I can’t promise it though. So, based on this translation, it was never asked if there will be training missions included nor did the interviewee deny such a thing which is presumably a standard feature.

From the translation, I got the impression that he was saying that there won't be a training campaign as such as that's what the main question was and this was then spinned into "no training whatsoever".

So, is this made by the same guy who designed the Virpil War BR-D (can't remember what it was called originally)? How does BR-D compare with the NXT Ultra, if anyone has tried both?

Yes, apparently I've forgotten that everyone got the newest systems instantly and we can only fly the Mi-24P in combat within scenarios where it actually fought in real life. Following the same logic, since there's no Afghanistan map and the list of Mi-35P operators is pretty limited, ED needn't have bothered, I guess.

Well, it's hopefully something for the 'Mi-24P Hind 2' module then.