King_Hrothgar

The above is mostly true, but is only half the story. The armament at the time must also be considered. The F-16A entered service in 1978 if memory serves, that's about the same time as the MiG-23ML's were coming about. But while the MiG-23ML's had true BVR capability with the R-23/24, the F-16A and 1980's C's were armed only with AIM-9's and a cannon, it could not use AIM-7's or any other BVR missile. Against this kind of foe, the MiG-23 would actually hold a substantial initial advantage. It's also worth noting that the MiG-29A was introduced in 1982, only 4 years after the F-16A. The F-15A was better than the F-16 of course (also far more expensive), but the AIM-7's in service at the time were the same ones used in Vietnam, which is to say marginally more accurate than an unguided rocket:lol:. The engines on the early F-15's were also problematic from what I've read in pilot accounts. One notable comment from an F-15A driver was something along the lines of engaging the AB was just as likely to have the flames shoot out the air intakes as it was the nozzles. Obviously an exaggeration, but they were clearly problematic. With that more nuanced look, it isn't anywhere near as one sided. The MiG-21 was still out of date by the end of the 1970's, but that's true of the F-5E too. Both soldiered on due to low production and operation costs. They were the poor man's fighters and never intended to be the best. As for the F-14A, it was a something totally different from anything else at the time, sort of like the MiG-25.

Agreed on more European stuff, my vote is MiG-23, MiG-25 and Su-17.:D

It is not difficult to create a new program to use multiple cores from the start. It's actually pretty easy tbh, you just have to do it. But going back and trying to modify an existing program with millions of lines of code to use more than one core is another matter entirely. That is a huge undertaking, so huge it borders on rewriting the program from scratch. As for the payoff of doing that, it would allow us to have bigger battles or allow for higher fidelity AI flight and damage modeling. The former isn't a serious concern, the current I5's can run a fairly big mission just fine as is. So there isn't much to gain there. The latter creates it's own issues as flight modeling is the single most time consuming part of something like an FC3 level aircraft. And that means that not only would they have to rewrite DCS's foundation, then they'd have to create dozens of new FM's and not get paid directly for it. It would have some monetary benefit in the role of keeping DCS fresher, much like the new graphics engine. But it's hard to take a screenshot of an AI flight model and thus harder to advertise.

Rockets have a fairly decent blast area currently. It's true that fragmentation isn't modeled, so ED exaggerated they blast radius instead. With that said, you shouldn't expect to kill any modern tank with an 80mm HE/frag rocket even with a direct hit. They are most effective against infantry and unarmored trucks. I typically do barrage fire, letting all 40 go at once from 2-3km away. You do need to keep in mind that they are an area of effect weapon rather than a point weapon. So unless absurdly close, you should be trying to carpet an area of targets instead of trying to pick off individual units.

It's time to move on I think. XP was a good OS for its day, but that day has long passed. Windows 7 was the proper successor to it and Win10 is the proper successor to that. Some stuff was shuffled around of course, so you will have to learn where various things are again But the new features and the ability to run programs and hardware made in the last 10 years more than outweighs that minor inconvenience.

I didn't see anything in there that suggested it was going to take a long time. It all looks fairly mundane to me.

I see no reason why you can't learn basic airmanship on an A-10, Ka-50 or F-86 for that matter. And the T-45 is little more than a renamed Hawk. As for the Yak-130, I don't consider it high priority, it's just an aircraft that is of interest to me and the one to do if someone really wants to do another trainer. My main interest in DCS is 1970 to 1991. The reason is there were a lot of aircraft types fielded and most of them are still around in some form or another. They also have the advantage of readily available information unlike the truly modern stuff.

I don't think anyone is disputing the AIM-9P4. In regards to MP, there is the 104th server and time period restricted servers (WW2 and Korea atm) that are occupied. Given the popularity of the MiG-21 even on 104th, I think a MiG-21 vs F-5 server will do fairly well provided it has decent mission design and support. It could also be a good playground for the Su-25A, A-10A, UH-1 and Mi-8 too.

DCS draws in new players at a fairly decent rate from what I've seen. Just about every time I hop on 104th I find myself training a new Ka-50 pilot. So the continued sales of the older modules should be sufficient incentive to keep them up to date. They don't generate as much revenue as a new module does, but basic upkeep is also a lot less work than building a new module.

Thanks for the update Zeus. It's a shame we couldn't have it this weekend, but I fully understand that sometimes it just isn't possible. Hopefully we can get it early next week.

I seriously doubt LNS will be releasing anything before the end of the year. They aren't likely to get much done next week and though we know what the modules are, they haven't officially announced them yet. An official product announcement before the end of the year seems possible, though I'm not expecting one.

I find rockets perfectly adequate (or did last week when I last used them). I don't use bombs often so can't comment on those. Now I would love to get an F-5E with AGM-65 support, as it was very common among those actually used in combat. But I don't think anything beyond that would be appropriate. It's a 1970's F-5E I want, so things like AIM-7's and LGB's aren't on my wishlist for it. I also think 2x AIM-9's should be enough. Ideally we'll get the AIM-9P (rear aspect only) + AIM-9P (all aspect). For the sake of completeness, AIM-9L and AIM-9M support would also be nice. I don't think the aircraft had to be modified to use them, but I could be wrong.

The Yak-130 is a trainer I'd actually be excited about, but not because it's a trainer. That thing can carry everything from laser/GPS guided anything to dumb bombs and sharpened sticks. And it does it in an agile airframe with a fully glass cockpit. Additionally, it seems the Russians are eager to sell them to anyone with the cash (and even a few without), so there shouldn't be any issues with secrecy. I doubt RAZBAM will take that one up though, they've toyed around publicly with a lot of different planes, but none of them are eastern designs afaik.

Easy choice for me, Mirage 2k. Didn't even know the new Star Wars movie would be out this week till reading it here.

All of that seems rather dubious to me. Especially the part about needing two American trainers. I question the point of having even a single trainer aircraft in DCS and we already have 3. Now I do get that some people just want to fly trainer aircraft forever because they like them. That's fine and a perfectly reasonable thing. The MSFS series made its name off the Cessna 172, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a T-38 or T-2. But you shouldn't lie to yourself or the community. You don't want them because you think a training campaign is going to help new players learn to use combat aircraft. Instead, you want those particular aircraft because you want them. It's ok, I promise not to make fun of you. I have a bit of a thing for the Maul M7 with floats, so I'm in no position to poke fun at anyone for liking the T-2 Buckeye.:smilewink:

ED is doing the F/A-18C, it doesn't get any more multirole than that. I would like to see an eastern equivalent as well such as a modern MiG-29, J-10 or JF-17.

I greatly prefer single seat aircraft when it comes to fixed wing because multi seat involves dealing with dumb AI, even dumber humans (assuming any are even available) or trying to do two crew positions at once. Thus, the A-7 is what I'd be most interested in from those. DCS could really use a few supersonic ground pounders, the A-7 and Su-17 series are top of that list for me. The SEPECAT Jaguar and MiG-27K would also be cool. I probably would not buy an F-15E as the F/A-18C is more appealing to me and does the same thing and more. Currently, I have every plane in DCS except the three trainers. And that's despite some of them being offered for as little as $12 at one point. That should tell the developers everything they need to know about my thoughts on those.

Nah, they will keep things as is for a month or two more I think. So the Mirage will require the 1.5/2.0 beta/alpha just like the L-39 and NTTR do. Eventually it will all be merged to a single "stable" client, but I think we are a couple months from that. They've said the first step towards that will be merging 1.5 and 2.0 once the Caucuses map is made compatible with 2.0.

I saw that too, but I still think it will be Friday.

Funny thing is I'd be surprised if it were released today, I'm expecting tomorrow at the earliest.

The store says by December but everywhere else I've always seen them write something along the lines of mid December. In any case, Friday seems a likely date, assuming it's good to go.

Pre-ordered, they can now release it. :P

Thanks, exactly what I was looking for.

I'm just trying to get a clearer picture of what it can do. I know what its air to air capabilities are and I am also well aware that the Viggen is mainly a bomber, not a fighter. I play both roles, so both capabilities are of interest to me with these types of aircraft. A forum member posted an armament sheet for the AJS-37, so I know what that offers. Just trying to get the same for the Mirage 2000C RDI S5.

Limited budget mate. Just trying to figure out how much use I'd actually get out of it. I'm also eyeing the Viggen but will probably only get one or the other, not both.