King_Hrothgar

I think a lot of people here greatly over-estimate what is and isn't allowed due to secrecy. The OH-58D is in the process of being scrapped, only a handful remain in active service. Now it does have secret parts still, but the thing is, we aren't trying to build the actual aircraft, only a video game representation of it. The fact that the IFF circuit boards are a closely guarded secret simply doesn't matter to us, we aren't trying to build those and IFF is a magical system in DCS anyways. Things like encrypted radios, datalinks, ECM and all those other fancy parts are the same way. They simply are not relevant in the context of a flight sim. I have no doubt we could have a fairly accurate AH-64E and Ka-52 in DCS if someone is willing to do the work and pay the licensing fees to get permission from Boeing and Kamov respectively. That said, I prefer real world scenarios over fictional ones and preferably two sided as well (as opposed to blasting ISIS infantry with Mi-28's). So my top choices are Mi-24D/V/P, AH-64A and AH-1G/J/W (all with TOW capability). I certainly wouldn't skip a modern attack chopper, I'd just prefer the more historically significant models first.

I think it would be an interesting feature as a buddy refueling system if anyone ever decides to make an F-18E or some other fighter/bomber with that ability, but I have no interest in it as a full fledged module with just a refueling aircraft. I likely wouldn't even bother with a free download of such a thing.

It can be hard to separate the propaganda from the actual stuff at times when talking about Iran, but there is absolutely no question that they are still flying along side their old F-4's and F-5's. From what I've read and seen, the Iranian F-14's are running digital radar (based on the original analog one), cloned AIM-54's (almost certainly with modern electronics), new engines (Russian if memory serves) and PGM support (LGB's confirmed but maybe others too). I've also heard they can also use R-27's and R-73's but haven't seen any evidence of it. Ditto for glass cockpit. Edit: I'm actually far more interested in the 1980's Iranian F-14A's that fought in the Iran-Iraq war. Those were plain vanilla F-14A's very similar to what we will get with this module. The main differences are the lack of an RWR screen in the front seat (still in the back of course) and the Iranians were still using AIM-7E's. I doubt that last part required any sort of modification, but it would be nice if DCS gets the older 1970's versions of missiles instead of just the AIM-7M and AIM-9M from the 1980's and 1990's

Yes and no. The thing is, we have advantages the real aircraft didn't have. The biggest one is we can map any button from any position to our HOTAS/keyboard. I don't have to reach 2 meters off to the right to hit the flare button in the Mi-8, it's a thumb button on my throttle. I also don't have to reach across the cockpit to cycle the pylon knob, it's left/right on one of my X-55's many hats. The simple fact is, there isn't a single control for the copilot that's used in flight that isn't mapped to either my HOTAS or my keyboard. In game, the only thing a copilot adds is an extra set of eyes, but that extra set of eyes can just as easily be in a second Mi-8. There is no reason for that other player to be in the same aircraft as me riding along as a glorified spectator. In the case of the Mi-24, AH-1 and F-14, it's a bit different. A skilled gunner/RIO combined with a skilled pilot can improve the effectiveness of the aircraft significantly. The problem in game is that no one is forcing anyone to fly as a RIO/gunner. It isn't like you order DCS: F-14 and upon payment you get a dice roll that says you will be pilot only for the next 8 years and are required to fly a minimum of 300 a year or you are a RIO only for the next 8 years and have to fly as that for a minimum of 300 hours a year. There will be more player pilots than RIO's, a lot more. In fact every single one of us will be a player pilot with only some flying as a RIO too when the opportunity arises. I know this from 15 years of MP combat flight sim experience. It is literally insane to think that DCS is somehow going to be different from every other flight sim released prior in this regard. It's human nature and you can't change that, no matter how much you may wish it isn't true. But as said, it will be a useful, even if rarely used, feature for some of the more complex aircraft. But for simple ones like the Mi-8, it's a waste of developer resources far better spent on other things, like finally making the Mi-24 and AH-1!:yes: Edit: We shouldn't derail this thread, so I have nothing further to say on this issue here.

I think a lot of people here are relatively new to flight simming and like the idea of MP multicrew without actually having any experience using it. MP multicrew is a bit of a gimmick. It's cool and can be fun, but will very rarely be used. Far more important are things like AI crew and the ability for a single player to control multiple positions at the same time. This is how the Mi-8 and UH-1 currently work. I've been flight simming since the early '90's and been doing MP flight sims since around 2001. I started using MP multicrew pretty much right from the start of venturing online. It's something I use in around 2% of my time in MP and it's mostly for a laugh rather than to improve effectiveness. Human gunners for the UH-1 would be fun I think, but for the Mi-8, UH-1 copilot and possibly even the Gazelle, I don't think it adds anything. The pilot would be frustrated at not being able to use half the aircraft's stuff and the gunner/copilot would be bored to tears since he/she would have absolutely nothing to do for the vast majority of their play time. I agree with the decision to skip it for the Mi-8. Developing MP multicrew for it is a complete waste of time and all those clamoring for it will quickly realize this after the novelty of their first MP MC aircraft wears off.

Meaning someone, at some point since 1995 when Flanker 1 was released, created a 3d model and stuck it in game for some pics and then never touched it again.

n+1 for DCS is generally measured in years, so lets hope not! I expect it will come no earlier than 2 weeks after the Gazelle even if it is ready the very same day. Reason being I don't think ED wants the headache of trying to patch two new modules at once constantly, that's just asking for trouble. So I bet they wait a couple weeks for the major issues to get ironed out before releasing the second.

Then do a vintage helicopter, like the Mi-2URP-G. :D

I'll give it a try but I haven't gotten past mission #3 in any campaign except the BS2 Georgian Oil War one, where I think I got to 4-5 before getting bored. In any case, day 1 is usually a learn the machine day for me. I have some COIN missions for the L-39 and transport choppers I should be able to plug it into anyways.

Forget the Typhoon, stuka and all that other fixed wing peasant nonsense, give us an epic selection of choppers instead! :D Typhoon/Stuka fanboy flames coming in 3, 2, 1...:protest:

I didn't forget, I simply ignored it since there are literally thousands of possibilities even if you ignore every single transport ever made. Many of those thousands will be possible, though not all. I agree variety is important. I have absolutely no interest in buying every single 4th generation fighter ever made. I have the Mirage, will add the F-18C and would like to add an eastern equivalent if ever made, but that's it. I have no interest in an F-14/15/16 in addition to those aircraft. The thing is, there is a staggeringly huge list of aircraft not in DCS that aren't transports that fill roles that DCS doesn't represent well or at all. We do not have a single production attack helicopter (Ka-50 is prototype), we do not have a single scout helicopter (Gazelle will fix this, but still missing eastern equivalent), we do not have a single eastern 4th gen fighter, we do not have a single 3rd gen fighter of any nationality, we do not have a single super sonic attacker, we do not have... get the idea? Transports are on that list of do not haves, but I don't think many people would place them as a higher priority than all the other things we don't have.

The thing about these sorts of wishlists is it's not so much a question of whether or not people want it, but how many people want it over all the other possible options. Who here wants a C-160 more than an AH-64? Who wants a C-160 more than a Tornado? Who wants a C-160 more than a Su-17? Who wants a C-160 more than a B-25? The list goes on and on. There are an awful lot of aircraft I would greatly prefer over any fixed wing transport. And then there is the question of what people are actually willing to pay for it. I'd happily pay $60 for an AH-64 or Tiger and I'd grudgingly pay $10 for a C-160 (PFM/ASM only, wouldn't bother with a free download without).

"All weather" is a bit of a relative term. Anything a pilot is willing to operate in foul weather and/or at night is an all weather aircraft. This varies pilot to pilot though, and what was generally considered acceptable 50 years ago may not be considered acceptable today. It also varies across nationalities. Calling an F-5E without AP, ILS or radar guided missiles an "all weather fighter" might have been a bit of a stretch but was not totally unreasonable in the early 1970's. Today it would be, but then calling that same 1970's F-5E a fighter at all is also unreasonable today given how obsolete the electronics and weapons on it are.

It should work exactly the same as when rightside up in a reasonably detailed flight model. The equations the computer is running do not care if a number is positive or negative. In any case, we'll get a pretty good idea of how detailed Polychop's flight modeling is once we get the Gazelle.

There are a few good ways to improve your chopper handling. The first place to start is simply taking off and landing in tight places. This can be between buildings in a town or on a roof, but anywhere well defined will work. For high speed maneuvering, try weaving between powerline poles (under the lines of course) as fast as you can. Weaving between buildings in a larger town is also helpful but harder to find a good place to do it. Finally, try playing peakaboo with a SAM by side slipping out of cover until shot at, and then side slip back into cover. Do all that, and you'll be better than 90%+ of Ka-50 pilots in MP.

I don't see an intrinsic problem with strategic bombers even with small map size. The reason being, flying in a straight line for 8 hours over the ocean before the real mission starts just doesn't add anything for me. That said, big carpet bombing machines simply don't interest me. I would like a mix of attackers and light bombers like the Su-17/20/22/24/25, MiG-23BN/MiG-27, A-6/7/29, F-111 and Jaguar. I wouldn't buy all of them if all were offered, but I would like 2-3 options for east and another two for west (bearing in mind we already have the A-10C, so 3 options total). I have no interest in recon planes.

An official community skin pack would be great, especially if added to the core game. It would really help boost the skin variety in MP. :)

12 per gun, RoF is low enough that firing single volleys is easy and what will typically be done.

Only in theory, there are problems with v2.02 so critical and universal that the official advise is to rollback to the previous version while they come up with a new version. Hopefully both versions of DCS get sorted out shortly. It's irritating not being able to use the Mirage or MiG-21.

There are two Russian wishlist threads, the other one is filled with the current production Russian aircraft, this one is for the older stuff.

That's not full manual control but pretty funny regardless. :D As for the quote, maybe, but there will still be a pilot!

Pretty different as said, the F-20 is single engined instead of twin. The other big change was the addition of radar guided missiles as standard. It also got the typical 4th gen cockpit update, so mostly glass instead of dials. Aerodynamically, they are pretty similar though. But then so is the F-18, which is another branch off the F-5 series. It's an interesting plane in that regard, the F-5 never really went away, it simply evolved little by little over the years until it had nothing in common with the original.

That's the thing though, it will still require a pilot just as cars will continue to require a licensed driver. The whole fully autonomous thing is cool from a robotics standpoint, but from a pure liability standpoint, it is dead on arrival. It is impossible to turn a profit with such things as any company selling them will get sued into oblivion on the first fatality. And there is no viable defense other than admitting the company failed to take something into consideration and hoping for a merciful judge or settlement. The solution to that little problem is to make them mostly autonomous but still require a licensed user. That way, even if the machine screws up, you can still blame it on the operator and the company that made it is arguably not liable. Additionally, the rotor design has absolutely nothing to do with automation. You can make a full manual control quad copter without a single microprocessor in it. I'm not aware of anyone doing so, but doing so wouldn't be difficult. You can also retrofit a 1960's UH-1 to be fully autonomous. The rotor design has nothing to do with it.

They don't do that for the ground objectives and non-fighter aircraft though. It's still almost always T-90's on both sides + Strela's and Shilka's. I don't think I have seen a single Vulcan, Chaparral, Avenger, Stinger, Roland or Hawk in 2+ years of playing on 104th. Occasionally the T-90's are swapped for M1A2's, but even that is rare. I've also never hopped in and found the Ka-50 on red only and the A-10 on blue only. And it could be done, both are equally popular atm it seems. It's far less of a problem than the spamram F-15's. But this is about more than just 104th. I am unaware of any non-WW2 servers that aren't 104th clones. And I've looked very recently for one. So this isn't just a 104th problem, it's community wide.