Dudikoff

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.

OK, but the number of these older IR missiles will increase with time (with e.g. perhaps some equivalent Western A2A missiles of the first or second generation). The benefits of adding this system are not only linked to the Mi-24P in the game, but for the wider game itself as it would require some changes in the base game to differentiate between different types of IR seekers which leads to a more detailed simulation overall. BTW, the Ukrainians seem to have developed a more modern variant of it which covers the more modern IR seekers supposedly. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ukraine+modernizing+Mi-24+self-protection+systems.-a0131812535

IIRC, they were planning to add President-S MWS system with the BS3 as one of its features as I think it was tested on one of the many Ka-50 development prototypes. Since the system only recently entered service, I can understand its considered sensitive stuff, but I don't think this will in any case influence modelling the basic 9-12 variant.

Yeah, it's a rather silly excuse. Like, they're modelling the old variant (not a modernized PN or something), but according to their excuse they intend for it to be used in the more modern scenarios only, apparently.

I would definitely be interested in Cold War asset packs, but I think it would help if some of the relevant AI aircraft are included in these packs as well. You could perhaps offer these organized by some time periods and maps. E.g. an Arab/Israeli asset pack intended for the Syrian map might be interesting (AI vehicles, perhaps SAMs, skins, livery for AI aircraft, new AI aircraft models, etc.).

It does have what appear to be two bumps which could be the double wing fences of an Su-17M3 or UM3 perhaps. But, there are enough confusing shapes in front and back that I can't really make anything out of it and since I've been burned before, I'd rather not get my hopes up again for something cool only for it to be another Christen Eagle. I do hope there will be a few more hints and not too far ahead

Well, I'm pretty sure the one taking off from CAT3 in front of you had AIM-9X's as you can't really mistake them for M's.

Minor issue, but IIRC, the campaign is set in early 90's since the opposing side is still Soviet Union, right? Asking as I've noticed the Hornets taking off before you in the first mission carry AIM-9X, so that looks odd.

+1 I'd rather have the new carrier model with all it brings and (presumably?) a wrong hull number in the campaign, than have the old Stennis model. Speaking of which, I've seen a mention of three carriers of the TDR subclass being included in the DCS Supercarrier manual (71 to 73), but since Stennis is apparently a part of the same sub-class, couldn't ED add it as well? I remember there was some mention of adding more hulls to the pack, but not sure which ones were mentioned.