King_Hrothgar

The F-104G is more directly comparable and the F-4 is a two seater. I'm really not a fan of two seat fighters. I'm sure an F-4 would sell better overall, but I probably wouldn't buy it and we're allegedly talking about MiG-21's anyways.:P

That's also on my wishlist, but I think we'd need an F-104G to go with it. The MiG-21-93/97/2000/Bison/Lancer would fit better as a single module.

Agreed.

I've been keeping an eye on that project but I'm not holding my breath. There have been a lot of nice looking 3d models made for DCS but the number that got turned into actual modules with a proper high fidelity FM can be counted on one hand with a few fingers left over. I hope that MiG-23ML doesn't get added to that sad list of failed projects, but as a realist, I can't ignore the odds. So until it looks like it really is going to happen, I see no reason not to push the established devs towards it. It's too important of an aircraft to not be made. This isn't meant to take away from what SVKSniper is doing. I really do hope he pulls it off and makes a high quality module out of it. I just want some insurance on that for this particular plane.

Corrections: RAZBAM is not currently working on the F-15E for DCS nor is Polychop working on the Tornado. Both have made that pretty clear. So with that out of the way, the L-39 is first and has it partially working right now (very limited from what I've heard). For something meaningful, my bet is on the SA-342 Gazelle by Polychop. They've said it probably won't have multi crew in the initial release but that they intend to add it when possible. The Gazelle is certain to be released this year and likely to be the next module released. The Bo-105 by Polychop may or may not come this year, too early to say. BST has said they will restart the Mi-24 project this year, so depending on the state that's in, it is a possibility. For fixed (mostly) wing, LNS's F-14 is the only thing officially announced. I do not think there is any chance it will be released this year but next year is likely. Multi crew in MP should be an established thing by then, so it will likely have it on day 1.

200GB should be plenty for the next year or two at least. I expect additional maps to all be around 25GB and aircraft to be under 1GB each.

That's why I bought it. Can't say I have much interest in the C (though I did fly it some last night) or a training campaign but the ZA should make a fun COIN plane.

And sweep is the winner on guessing what "falcon" was.:D Anyways, I never noticed a problem with it but I've never done an ILS approach in DCS either, with any aircraft.

I would love a MiG-21-93 or 97 but I agree, the MiG-23 seems a more likely addition after the current 3 are out. I also think the MiG-23ML/MLA/MLD should be a higher priority as it was and remains the more common type. There is no telling what kind of timeline we are looking at as far as releases go. There is no chance of seeing a MiG-23 this year unless someone pulls off an epic surprise, next year seems possible if work is started sometime this year though. Not saying I think it will, only that it's possible. And to john, good luck. I wish you the best on it.

The very first DCS module has 1/10th the real world align time with no option to set it to realistic. The A-10C's systems are heavily faked (allegedly), half the Mi-8's systems didn't work for a full 2 years after release and it's been confirmed that some will never be implemented (such as the bomb sight). The UH-1H doesn't model a single fuse out of the 5 million or so it has and the MiG-21Bis has options for invincible engine + fake gunsight/HUD in the misc menu. But no, it's adding an additional icon option in the realism panel (server enforced) and maybe shortening a simple timer for a completely uninteresting and mundane thing from 8 minutes to something else that will ruin DCS's realism and turn it into an arcade shooter.:doh: This whole thread has gotten rather silly with posters whipping themselves into a frenzy over nothing.

Maybe he meant Flaming Cliffs?

Edit: Corrected totals, made more readable. Total Eagle Dynamics folder: 71.5GB (contains 1.5 beta + 2.0 alpha) Module break down: 1.5 beta (25.1GB): contains everything except C-101, Hawk and addon campaigns 2.0 Alpha (46.4GB): contains the above plus NTTR and minus WW2 stuff

No, the F-15C and Su-27S previously acquired PFM's. It didn't change any of the controls. Edit: ninja'd

k, thanks

I was actually looking at doing that, how the heck do you apply bonus points anyways? I only see a coupon (not bonus) box.

Yep, nothing draws in the MP crowd like ILS practice.:megalol: Seriously though, it just needs a couple more airfields added (that aren't in Vegas), then I think it will pick up some in popularity. But until that happens, we'll just have to be content with COOP type missions like F99th is running. Those can be fun too. :thumbup: Edit: It also has a lot of potential for a subsonic fight. Something like L-39/Mi-8/Su-25A vs Hawk/A-10A/UH-1H would work pretty well.

Aimed at me? My post had two parts, the first part explaining that ED had to takeover two of the maps in question from third parties and expressing sympathy for that. The second part was about favoring actual wars over hypothetical ones.

I agree that the current list of maps is a bit underwhelming. NTTR is fairly pointless as is but with a few additional well picked airfields, it could be a decent "generic desert map #1." This map is forgivable though as it was basically forced on them. And I do have it, it makes a pretty good chopper map if nothing else. Normandy is the same way, the entire WW2 nonsense was forced on them by a 3rd party that took pre-orders before work began and then immediately collapsed. ED got left holding the bags from that one and I can't help but feel a little sorry for them about that. It definitely sucks being left having to fulfill other people's promises. SoH is the only map they really chose and its choice is perplexing to me. It's a solid map from a MP standpoint since the classic channel setup has always been a popular choice for MP team death match. But that's what throws me, why bother doing a real place instead of a fictional one if your map's main draw is as an entirely fictional team death match MP map? It certainly isn't any good as a carrier showcase map, the waters are far too constricted for that. It's of no value from an aviation history standpoint, the only air battle ever fought there to my knowledge is a USN destroyer shooting down a commercial airliner. And this map choice was done in preference to the northern Persian Gulf which has seen about 35 years of continuous air combat involving hardware from every major arms producer in the world. And that area has more room for a carrier battle group as well. Excluding the WW2 stuff, there are very few aircraft either in DCS or planned for it that don't belong in that particular area. So doing SoH instead just doesn't make any sense to me regardless of the rational. I guess ED has their reasons but I have no clue what they are. I am curious though, seems like the answer would be interesting.:)

I don't think that would work. As it stands today, the MiG-21's only real advantage over the Mirage is its missiles. Take those away, and the Mirage will simply walk all over it with its greatly superior agility. I think the Mirage vs MiG-21 thing right now is only temporary, I doubt it has any future. The MiG-21 will have to wait for the F-5E while the Mirage 2000 takes its place alongside the various FC3 aircraft.

Tonopah, Laughlin and Boulder would be prime additions and greatly enhance the map's usability for more general scenarios. I'd put Tonopah at the top of the list though as it looks like it would work the best for a north/south scenario. It's also a military base, so that's a bonus and is relevant to the whole NTTR training thing too. NTTR as it stands is a good map though limited in functionality, but with a little more effort it can be great with lots of possible uses. :)

I was surprised to see the NTTR server list suddenly shrink to almost nothing a couple days ago. I had been playing those primarily COOP missions on F99th but they've disappeared. Could be a bug though, didn't try connected by IP. As for NTTR, I agree it has a problem regarding red vs blue. The map itself is big enough but it only has a few airfields crammed into the center of the map. It's fine for subsonic aircraft, but much too close for supersonic ones. There are other airfields you can see on it thanks to satellite textures, but they aren't programmed as airfields. And in regards to combat maps, sand is sand to me. NTTR = Iran/Iraq/Syria/Israel/Egypt as far as I'm concerned. We just need a few more active airfields so that there can be ground starts for both sides.

I think this is a question for the modding section.

95 deg is a really wide FoV, the standard in video games at 1080p is about 75 deg. So the fisheye effect is to be expected at 95 deg. I agree the instruments are hard to read in comparison to the armament panel and HUD, but that seems to be because the instruments are just really small and the HUD's base sticks out past the rest of the instrument panel substantially. A quick search of Mirage 2000 cockpits on google shows this to be at least qualitatively correct. Only thing I can say about it is send your complaints to Dassault Aviation.

Sounds very promising to me though.

Call replacing the AIM-120C with an A model whatever you like.