WarbossPetross

There you go. With the two other combat sims DCS is frequently measured against you get procedurally generated campaigns that simulate an actual war. That adds a lot of immersion. In DCS you either need to bust your chops to make an interesting mission full of exciting action or wait for someone else to do it for you. That's probably the biggest turn-off in DCS for me. I know that ED's developing a dynamic campaign mechanism of their own, but I will judge it when I see it.

I had a really hard time wrapping my head around the fact that modern jets with parking brakes have wheel chocks while old props that need to actually warm up their engines do not. What am I supposed to do, hold the W button for minutes until my Bff-109 warms up? Come on, ED!

I vote Yak-9TK or UT, almost the same performance as Yak-9U for the latter and the ability to literally swap the central cannon. TK dates to the second half of 1943, so plenty of timeline to cover. Yak-3, as good as it is in the stats, hasn't seen as much production compared to Yak-9, but as prolific as Soviet props are in DCS, literally anything will do at this point.

Yeah, I get that a lot in any Russian aircraft. All it means is that the generator is, well, not generating enough. It's expected on startup, and after that it means that engine RPM is too low. It's not necessarily a failure per se, just a reminder so that you don't drain your battery.

Not sure if it's actually in the works but there should be at least an English voice-over option like there is in the Jeff. Also Russian pilots call her "Rita" because RI-65 ("Rechevoy Informator", voice informer), not sure where does "Nadya" come from (probably a Russian female name that's known best in the West).

And the vapour cone too, it's displayed in certain conditions. Can't believe DCS as a whole doesn't have it!

Well, they may or may not be working on La-7 that would be a much better fit with the current 1945-ish stable. Maybe with I-16 they just wanted to try their hand in DCS, who knows? Here's hoping!

I vote Ju-88, much more production and deployment on pretty much every front.

This. At one time I struggled with maintaining energy and landing (on the ground, the carrier is a different story all along). Then I bought some warbirds and after a fair share of falling like a ton of rocks I started to more or less hold myself in the air and arrive on the ground in one piece. I then fired up my good old MiG-15 and was amazed how easy it was to haul around. And that made me realise how wrong I was before, writing cheques the machine couldn't cash! And all of a sudden Yak-52 starts making an awful lot of senseFBW or not, the older planes have a lot of tricks to teach dem youngins. The need for human RIO is relative, in fact I tend to do BVR from the back seat, Iceman does perfectly fine before the merge once you get the hang of the menus. The conversation about Razbam has more to do with their general business strategy, I own all three of their current modules and so far they are very good.

Yep, but he turned out to be so useful that the designers changed their mind

Well, that's why I'm posting in the wishlist forum The fundamental bomb sight mechanics are already present in the game, and WW2 bomb sight systems were not all that complicated. A bigger dumb bomb should not be terribly hard to make either. And it's not like it won't have demand seeing how the Spudknocker poll showed that players like to do pure A-G more than pure A-A (multirole is still more popular though, and the Mossie is actually in a great place in that regard). Yeah, sorry, might be some sort of perception bias on my part. Rest assured I would jump at the chance to try it out thanks to the trial period program!

Carrier-based bomber, are you kidding me?! That would sell like hot cakes!

I don't have pedals and generally I'm fine with Mi-24. Agree on the rest of it though. Both modules are definitely worth the purchase, but if the OP is not familiar with helis in general it would probably be easier to learn Ka-50 first. It doesn't have Petrovich to assist with certain tasks though.

...can we have a Cold War one? Or more? I'm not talking B-52 and such since they would look awkward on our teeny-tiny maps (within the scope of their range) and would be very complex to model, but, say, Il-28 would not be much different from the Mossie within its intended purpose and stuff. It also had a lot of export sales and plenty of action from the Suez Crisis to Afghanistan (even had a sortie in Vietnam). Another option might be Tu-16, lots of action as well and the ability to carry a FAB-over9000. And of course there is Yak-28, not used in action but capable of supersonic flight and carrying air-to-air missiles (as a dedicated interceptor variant). As for Bluefor, I'm sure a case can be made for EE/B-57 Canberra. I know we're getting A-6 Intruder, but I don't know if it's a Vietnam or Desert Storm variant.

1. You do realise that you have just made a very compelling argument in favour of the Tomcat, right? Because... 2. I bet that was more spectacular, demanding and, shall I say, involved than designate-pickle-rinse-repeat. I mean, we have three planes capable of doing the latter already (with more on the way), and it's not like there's some big difference between them in that regard. I already own all three of them, and as it is two of them are collecting dust. I guess I would buy the Eurofighter, if only for European weapons and out of my general fondness for deltas, but the F-15 purchase is currently really hard for me to justify.

I guess to fly the Hornet you need a good understanding of aircraft and weapon systems, the procedures of employment of such systems and MFD menu structure while to fly the Tomcat you need a good buddy and just a teeny-tiny bit of... ...the right stuff... Good thing is that flying the Tomcat in and of itself is a good way to get both.

There was an old navy sim, Dangerous Waters, that had more or less these recon mechanics. You had to get to the target area, find and identify contacts there, possibly make photos of them (in-game screenshots from a periscope or optical recon device) to satisfy mission triggers. What you describe can probably be made to work with existing mission editor tools, but it would require a lot of tedious scripting. Much better would be to implement it when dynamic campaign AI comes out that can make decisions based on the recon data available.

Full-fidelity clickable T-72 as displayed on, you know, CA main menu theme. Don't even care about the exact model. Would pre-order for $80.

That also begs for a 1940-s version, you know... And a La-7 that may or may not come someday.

Why wouldn't it? It is a flying material object that has some RCS and velocity towards the target, so it can be tracked by radars and destroyed by munitions that are up to the task. It's not some magic trump card. In fact, one of my brightest memories from Lock-On Flaming Cliffs is Su-34 engaging an SA-15 in pretty close range, it was launching missiles and SA-15 was shooting these missiles with its own, and at some point I thought "my God, this is better than Matrix" Although I have read once at this forum that in DCS bombs are treated differently than missiles by the game engine and therefore SAMs don't shoot them, don't know if that's the case now.

Guys, plenty of answers here and yet nobody has mentioned the most obvious argument against it - The Hound. MiG-31 is still in active service. And given the fact how hard it has been to negotiate the Shark (and we have yet to hear anything binding about MiG-29) there's only so much room for optimism.

For the northern map I suggest the Baltic Sea. It's pretty large even if you count without the Gulf of Bothnia, but it's mostly sea, and there's plenty of action to be had there in pretty much any historical or alternate timeline, the siege of Leningrad alone providing enough Warhammer-grade action to account for nearly the entire WW2 timeline (granted, that would necessitate two asset versions, sue me). Not much to go wrong there.

Is the carrier burble effect related to the wake turbulence option? Like, if I turn off the wake turbulence will I still get the burble? Edit: did some testing and did not notice the burble with wake turbulence off. Makes sense since it's fundamentally the same thing.

Which is exactly why we can't have nice things like MiG-25 even if we have MiG-29 - because it has too much in common with The Hound. Oh well...

AFAIK it's immobile, you move the pod around with something like a trim hat on the stick.