Dragon1-1

Zuyev's account seems to indicate they did like the name Fulcrum and used it sometimes. Same as with Su-27, that one also got a cool name. "Bear" for the Tu-95 also quickly got traction once the crews found out about it.

The A-10 isn't officially called the Warthog, either, and the F-16 isn't officially named the Viper (not the Block 50, anyway). MiG-29 is called Fulcrum by the Russians, too, mostly because it's a cool name and they haven't managed to come up with a better one. In the mission editor, it'd be nice to have the proper name, especially if there might be more variants in the future, but as far as the official product name goes, I'm not bothered. The name serves its purpose and perhaps there's a legal point to not calling it exactly the same as the real plane.

In other words, almost just like in the actual military, only it's easier to hide the beer. I'm all for using proper procedures and a detailed planning session, but "milsim" really shouldn't mean simulating the BS, too. Most of us get enough of that already.

Not only does this aspect have a long way to go, I'm not really seeing it getting much better, even compared to the old days. Finishing a campaign mission still boots you back to the main menu (as opposed to loading up the next one, as is the industry standard), the briefing UI is clunky at best and neither especially powerful nor immersive, there's no way to include custom post-mission debriefing text, nor a way to make any customizations to the campaign completion screen (or even replace the music). Here's a few suggestions that would help: 1. Better briefings. A "slideshow" with large format graphics and rich text below the graphic. For DC, it could use a few (handmade) slides with spaces for DC engine to insert things like target names and callsigns. 2. Custom debriefing in similar vein, with the ability to hide or show slides according to mission logic. 3. Ability to play a video clip before and/or after a mission. 4. Custom campaign intro and outro, in the same vein. Since this would be a large UI overhaul and probably include significant dev effort, you could start by opening the campaign completion screen up for people to insert something other than the generic congratulations (which sound especially silly when the campaign was purely a training one). Good, immersive UI is a big part of the game aspect. I'm not asking you to hire Mark Hamill to do a Wing Commander 3 level of immersive environment between missions (that said, old space games could be great for inspiration), but it could be a lot better than it is now.

I want to play at my convenience, not when others have the time. MP is always a commitment (unless you play with total randoms, which I don't care for), with SP I can play or not, and nobody else will care. My at times unreliable internet connection (I'm on a radio link) also doesn't bother me, nor am I affected if someone else doesn't make it, or has connection problems. Playing with others just adds a whole other level of fuss that I'm unwilling to deal with. Plus, as a VR player, I don't have performance to spare, and MP is poorly optimized in DCS.

In the end, the problem was likely that Stinkbug was too slow for it, though it's also possible funding concerns or even office politics also played a role. It would be interesting to hear just how advanced that idea was, for instance whether wiring for Sidewinder rails was ever installed in the bay. Actual tests likely never took place, but perhaps it could have had this capability added in short order if necessary.

A real idea, actually, but one that did not pan out. At one point, hunting Soviet A-50s was indeed considered as a mission for the F-117A. The "F" designation suggests that the idea of making the Nighthawk an actual stealth fighter had some traction. In the end, though, it was judged it didn't perform well enough to be useful for this. That IR sensor above the nose might be a remnant of this.

AIM-120 actually does use the new missile API, including stuff like Kalman filter and other advanced guidance stuff. As for SPO-15, even if realistic errors are introduced into RWRs on Blue jets they will have an advantage over the Soviet ones. The US learned how important RWR is in Vietnam, where they were vital for dodging SAMs. The Soviets were always the ones with the SAMs, so they never had a similar experience. Their RWRs work for avoiding being nuked by a Nike-Hercules, not for pinpoint-precise notching of other aircraft.

This is realistic. SAPHEI is not really armor piercing (hence semi armor piercing), it can deal with basic armor, but it's more of a HE and incendiary round that simply doesn't go off on the first thing it touches, like pure HEI does. It's basically a combined effects round that works best against soft skinned targets like aircraft or trucks. It can punch through something armored against small arms fire, but real plating, like on a BMP-3, will defeat the round.

Does it state otherwise? Because just because it doesn't explicitly state that it can't doesn't mean much. It'd be worth mentioning if it didn't work. So far, I've seen it mentioned either in other countries' manuals or in uncertain terms.

Maybe we should have a checkbox, then. A brand new (or at least properly maintained) Soviet MiG-29 would have the radar working OK with the SPO-15, but for most of the jet's lifetime, it seems that it was a common problem which was very often left unfixed. That said, if we're being consistent, this should just work. DCS doesn't simulate bad maintenance, deterioration due to conditions (big issue for F-4 and its missiles in Vietnam) and other such concerns that often determine real world performance much more than factory E-M diagrams do.

Exactly the realistic Vietnam experience. The F-4s that were covering the Thuds or other, bomb-laden F-4s had no recourse but to try to dogfight the MiGs that routinely jumped them. This is why USAF flights got their clock cleaned on a regular basis, and part of why USN got so much mileage out of TOPGUN. If you can't help but be forced into a dogfight in a BVR-capable fighter, you had better be good at dogfighting. More likely, the MiG-29 wasn't considered a likely target for radar missiles. It would either be bushwhacking NATO attack aircraft like the MiG-21 did in Vietnam (its primary role), or it would be escorting friendly bombers, in which case the bombers would be the ones soaking up radar-guided missiles (and hence they had the ECM equipment to defeat them). This is also why the MiG-29 got the helmet sight and R-73, it was envisioned primarily as a WVR combatant. Unlike modern AMRAAM boats, the threats that the MiG-29 was expected to face carried few BVR missiles and would likely try to launch them at their targets, rather than wasting them on escort fighters.

My point was more about the role the controller played in each doctrine. The F-4 was a multirole aircraft, and didn't always get AWACS coverage, for instance when escorting, or on a strike mission. The MiG, while it can be shoehorned into doing something other than GCI-guided DCA or CAP, really isn't very well equipped for that. Worth noting that in general, the impulse for developing the RWR system wasn't air combat, it was the SAMs. Which, notably, the Soviets were much less worried about, what with NATO being somewhat deficient in that area. There's a reason SPO-15 features a separate light (that gets absolute priority) and a whole subsystem for detecting what Nike Hercules is doing - you want to know when you're being painted by a nuclear-tipped SAM. Likewise, F-4's RWR was mostly a response to the proliferation of the SA-2, and further development took place to account for superior Soviet SAMs. Early on, RWRs on fighters simply weren't a thing, even when they were expected to face radar guided missiles in air combat. IRL, air combat depended not on locating the missile, but on watching what the launch aircraft is doing. As such, the SPO-15 was mostly concerned with ensuring the MiG didn't blunder into a Nike Herc envelope and get nuked out of the sky. It is adequate for the purpose of countering radar guided SAM threats of the era, not so much for surviving in a modern Fox 3 environment.

Check out the preview branch of Oasis that just dropped. They've had trouble with the G1, but G2 supposedly works. It won't necessarily be perfect, but that could keep you going with the Reverb for a while longer.

Hey, as long as you make your time on station, you get paid the same no matter if you actually commit to anything while up there.

The US AWACS services were generally up to snuff. Other nations could be more... variable. Like with that story with the Brits, or how one South Korean AWACS guy seemed like he didn't know what "Judy" meant (their pilots apparently require talk-on right up until the merge), to great annoyance of the USAF F-15 driver who had to listen to his prattle, despite long having the bandit acquired on his own radar.

That's how it's supposed to work like. That not every controller lived up to that exacting standard IRL was sometimes a problem, but when following proper procedures it should indeed let the pilot create a mental map of the battlefield. Also worth noting, in Soviet aviation, GCI had more of a command role than in USAF, where AWACS is more of an advisory that the pilot can use or not. NATO pilots in general have a lot more freedom than Soviet ones did.

You don't have to post this in every thread, it won't be any more correct. HB just announced the AI A-6 for the next patch.

Well, presumably not a campaign hotfix that may or may not come out later, but I'd expect it in the next month's big patch.

There will be no forum section for an AI asset. Only when they start developing the FF version, which is still a long time away.

It's coming in the next patch.

Maybe because the only real AdA module was made by them, and hence French aircraft fans would congregate there. I suspect quite a few Mirage 2000 drivers would appreciate the Rafale.

Not true, it's a normal way to land all warbirds at an airfield, including interwar ones that long predate corsair. Fat nosed fighters existed long before the Corsair. IIRC, the US copied the overall pattern from the Brits. I'm not sure it was around during WWI, but in WWII, fighters on land and at sea used the overhead break. What Corsair did was basically a very short final where you rolled out seconds before hitting the deck. That was what they did differently to other aircraft. Others landed more like on an airfield.

Well, a year ago the brouhaha with RB was already well underway. The Rafale is being made by another studio: https://msfsaddons.com/2025/04/12/azurpoly-announces-dassault-rafale-for-microsoft-flight-simulator/ It appears the schedule slipped a bit since this was posted, but we're used to that, and so is the MSFS community, I suspect. I would expect AzurPoly to be the ones to bring this jet to DCS.

Zero is, fundamentally, a naval aircraft, and as such, I'd expect we'll be flying from a WWII Japanese carrier most of the time. I'd expect them to use an approach pattern similar to what every other nation did, but I wonder what they did differently from the US and British carriers. Any info about how to realistically take off and land on a Japanese carrier would be appreciated.