King_Hrothgar

It is a really nice map, we just need a few more airfields and some more towns in the high/medium detail area modeled. Fortunately, that is being taken care of according to the latest newsletter.

It's a current production airbus helicopter. The Alouette 2 hasn't been produced in a very, very long time. This is the current list of Airbus helicopters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Helicopters#Products As for the Tiger vs Ka-50, I think it's a bit mixed. The Tiger is much newer and has far more advanced sensors. This should give it a substantial advantage in night time attacks. However, the Ka-50 holds all the other advantages. It is faster, more agile, climbs better, has a higher service ceiling and carries 50% more anti-tank missiles with equal or greater range than anything the Tiger carries. In any case, I like atonium83's solution, just do the Tiger and then make the Ka-52 :D. Bluefor would be really outclassed in that case, though. The Ka-52's modern sensors, excellent ECM systems, superb flight performance and 24 above average range antitank missiles would be fairly dominating on the virtual battlefield.

I think that's the main issue. A lot would actually really like the Super Tucano but the basic trainer model has far more limited appeal. Or is it the Super Tucano that is being made? If so, much of this thread is just a misunderstanding.

So exactly what I wrote then, just a lot wordier.:P To restate my previous post, I don't care one way or the other. I'm simply arguing for the status quo as I don't see a reason to change plans at this stage. The F-14B will have massively improved engines and other refinements. A little idiot proofing might be nice for some, but I just don't see it as necessary. This is especially true since it's being packaged with the F-14A at what I'm assuming is no additional cost to us. If it were a separate module, then yes, more separation in the models would be more appropriate, but it isn't a separate module.

I'm all for modern upgrades of older aircraft, but only after a mainstream model is made first. The F-4E or F-4J is what I'd like, after that I'm all for going nuts with some oddball upgrades the Turks or Iranians are running to squeeze more life out of an otherwise hopelessly obsolete aircraft. With that said, the F-4's are a little lower on my wishlist. I'd prefer to see the Russian/Chinese side get a bit of love first.

The full mission editor works just fine and is going to be your primary source of missions for the moment I think. It works all playable and non-playable units in DCS. I do not know the status of the instant action or quick mission generator functions.

I really don't see how DFCS would make the module any more or less interesting. It's nothing more than a marginally different control augmentation system that makes flying it ever so slightly easier for a novice pilot when stall fighting.

Iran allegedly had much better luck with them, but yes, complaints about the AIM-54 are inevitable. I predict half the forum will be screaming how broken they are. Of that half, half will be claiming it's too accurate, the other half will complain it isn't accurate enough. How the missile actually performs compared to the real one will have no impact on the forum debate.

Not the hook's purpose, I'm not sure it would survive that much abuse. Obviously we'll try though, if it is coded. Come to think of it, we'll try it even if it isn't.

It doesn't need to be detected. When flying the Su-27, I have no clue when an F-15 actually fires an AIM-120, so I start doing barrel rolls or zigzagging once I'm within absolute max range. This bleeds the missile's energy so that it cannot hit unless launched within about 10km, at which point I'll see the missile trail. The same will apply to the AIM-54. If you know an F-14 is in firing range, simply take light evasive action to cut its range from 100km to 15km, problem solved. Now yes, the wikipedia max range of the AIM-54 is closer to 200km, but we all know it's max range against a target flying mach 2 into it when launched from a mach 2 fighter is going to be well under 100km at 14km height. Even if the missiles were realistic, this method would still be effective with a little modification (wider zigzags mostly). It's also important to remember that the Su-27's R-27ER isn't exactly a short ranged missile either and the Su-27 does have the radar to make use of that range.

I'm pretty sure I know the procedure for selecting sidewinders, various bombs and jettisoning individual stores just by looking at those two pics. I do love simplicity.:smilewink:

This is how it will go down 95% of the time in MP: 1) F-14 fires AIM-54, AIM-54 misses. 2) Su-27 fires R-27ER and F-14 fires a second AIM-54, both miss 3) Su-27 fires another R-27ER + R-27ET, F-14 fires a third AIM-54. All 3 missiles miss. 4) Su-27 fires R-27ET WVR head on, F-14A fires AIM-9 head on, both miss. 5) Su-27 takes a high off boresight shot with the R-73 going into the merge, missile may or may not hit. 6) Assuming the R-73 misses, fight will go to the better pilot. Until we actually have the modules, I do not think it is possible to determine if one or the other has an advantage. We're just going to have to try it.

There isn't anything even remotely secret about the Super Tucano. The reason they picked the trainer Tucano instead is because they want the trainer version more than the attack version. It's that simple. Don't like it? Don't buy it. I happen to be among those who won't buy it.

59 F-14's vs 1 F-5E, I think I'll pass on that. I'm more interested in F-5E + AH-1 + UH-1 vs MiG-21Bis + Mi-24 + SA-342 + Bo-105 + Mi-8. :)

There is a lot of truth to that, it has become fairly common to release a "beta" product and then never actually finish it. You aren't the only one who's tired of that kind of thing, but I don't consider the Mi-8 to be an offender in that regard. The stuff they left out (other than the bomb sight) was largely unimportant in the context of a home flight sim and most of it has now been added. The C-101 is a far better example of an abandoned beta product. Regardless, I too am eager for some news on the Gazelle. Seems all the recent updates have been on projects not expected to be released for a year or more.

It isn't a licensing issue, DCS would simply be the newest in a long series of flight sims to do the Apache. Now there might be an issue with the very specific UK variant VEAO wanted to do or some of VEAO's own internal requirements, but not with an AH-64 in general. There is also that myriad of Boeing aircraft available for FSX/P3D, so clearly Boeing is an approachable company. I think this is mostly a case of no one with the means to make it has decided they want to yet. And that's true of a lot of major aircraft types that fit the main DCS time frame (1970 to present).

Some more helipad options would be great, as well as some static ones known locations.

No, the RL Typhoon is the product of a dozen countries with wildly differing requirements for their fighter. Many of them do have extensive ground attack ability but others have basically none. The one VEAO is trying to make is the early UK model. The UK does not believe there is any scenario in which an aircraft might actually need to attack something on the ground.:P :tomato: As for the OP's question, no, nothing preventing it. And most of the fighters in DCS are decent fighter bombers for their period. The whole "multi-role" thing is nothing more than a traditional fighter-bomber with the ability to drop modern bombs. Obviously, the ability to drop modern bombs generally requires the aircraft to be modern. The only truly modern aircraft in DCS is the A-10C. All the others predate widespread usage of PGM's.

Pretty rendering of the 3d model but not something I'm going to buy for more than $10. Unarmed and marginally armed trainers just aren't worth anywhere near as much as a mainstream proper combat aircraft is to me.

mmm, air to air SAM. Funny as it would be, I don't think the Hawk was ever operationally used by Iranian F-14's. So like the others, it doesn't belong on it.

He's not alone in that. I suppose it shouldn't surprise anyone that on the English forums planes made by English speaking countries tend to be favored, but I am more interested in a balanced approach. I'd like the MiG-29A to go with the Mirage 2000C plus the MiG-23MLD and MiG-25PD to go with the upcoming F-18 and F-14's. DCS: Su-25SM (or comparable) would also be a good idea to go alongside the A-10C. Everyone here keeps demanding more western aircraft, but as it stands today, there are about a dozen western jets in development and zero eastern aircraft to go with them. Right now it isn't a problem since all we have are a couple ground pounders, some trainers, the Mirage 2k, MiG-21 and then FC3. But in a year when we have 3-4 DCS level western jet fighters and still just the MiG-21 + FC3, it's going to be more problematic. Stretching 2+ years out, it gets a whole lot worse. Note: I'm ignoring the F-86 and MiG-15 in the above statements as they are reasonably self contained.

Vote with your wallet, the devs will figure it out. That said, one doesn't need to look too hard at the MP server list to figure out where most of the interest is in DCS. On a related note, I too found VEAO's comments on module development a little surprising. That is an awfully small amount of money for labor and seemingly too large if it is for everything but labor.

The question I have is why would any of you think he'd be in anything other than FD mode (or full manual) while doing that stuff? The FD off modes are for flying in a straight line or hovering. The instant you're trying to do something other than that, you really should be switching to another mode. At least that's how it is in game, obviously the real thing could be totally different.

Dear RTL, might I suggest a stock photo next time? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=awacs+plane

I have to wonder who voted no as this is one of those things that should get unanimous agreement. Regardless, I think the real question is how high of a priority this should be. I consider the damage modeling (particularly of AI units) as the single biggest weakness in the core game right now. Thus it's #1 on my list of core improvements with AI flight models being #2.