King_Hrothgar

Actually, that would be a very practical thing to do. F-22's and F-35's serve no purpose in the USAF/USMC/USN. They were built to fight the Russians and Chinese, countries the USA will not go to war with in the next 20-30 years. Against the countries we will fight, some modernized F-5's (F-20 would be a good pick) are more than sufficient. And don't forget what Stalin said, "quantity is a quality all of its own." Between our vast numerical advantage, better training and better support (such as AWACs and satellites), a near 0 loss victory against any nation other than Russia or China would still be assured in the air.

This one The only F-14's to see significant combat! Excuse me while I run into this bunker over here.

Not really. Plastic can be cheap or nice. There is the CH products cheap plastic that both feels and looks like it was made by Fischer Price and then there is the X-55 which has a nicer plastic grip than a high end handgun. Not all plastic is created equal.:smilewink: Note, I'm not knocking CH products. They make first rate equipment that puts both Thrustmaster and Saitek to shame in terms of longevity. But that doesn't change how it looks and feels. In any case, I haven't had any issues with mine. It seems well built and has plenty of buttons on it. The only plane that it runs short on is with the A-10C, but you have to admit that thing requires 2-3x as many buttons for any given thing as it ought to. Even so, I've managed to get everything I actually need on it. I only use the keyboard for things like flaps and gear and this is with a single mode assigned in game. I don't use the Saitek software and thus don't have 3 different modes on it. Most of the switches on the throttle base are unassigned btw. The things that aren't assigned are those that I couldn't figure out what they did.

To me the F-14 is just another plane. There is nothing even remotely special about it. Thus it's competing for my cash with every other DCS plane that may be released in the same time period as well as other CFS's and even totally unrelated games. I am certainly not alone in that. The higher the price, the fewer people will buy it. It's that simple and LNS knows it. Cobra has stated very clearly they aren't going to break from DCS pricing conventions. If you really want to pay $500 for it, no one is stopping you. Buy 10 copies and there is your $500 F-14 module. I'll consider paying $50 for it, but may wait for a sale if other more interesting planes/games are released in the first few months after release. And to the person who spends $100 at the movies, I don't think I've ever spent more than $30 and that was for 2 people + a medium pizza + drinks. And that record setting price was only a few weeks ago, on a Saturday.

The X-55 uses Hall sensors for the stick and pots for the throttle and rotaries, just like the warthog. Accuracy is not an issue with the X-55 or X-52. Both are high end sticks. In any case, I replaced my 8+ year old X-52 Pro with an X-55 a couple months ago and haven't had any real issues with it. It's accurate and is made of high quality plastic with a nice feel to it. I will say it doesn't feel like a cougar or warthog. Those have extremely heavy springs on them, the X-55 is sprung more like a regular PC joystick. A lot of WH users dislike the feel of it for that reason and I've heard stories of a few hamfisted users actually breaking it, though that seems unlikely without deliberately trying. In terms of longevity, my old X-52 Pro still works fine after 8+ years of heavy use. I can't comment on the longevity of the X-55 but I haven't had any issues so far. With all that said, there are two common problems with it that pop up. One is power usage. It uses too much power for the average back panel USB. You will probably need a powered USB hub for it to work properly. Common issues due to a lack of power are ghost button presses, losing calibration and in my case, the entire computer switching off when I plugged it in the first time. The other common problem is the stick tends to come without lubrication, thus it is sticky. The WH has the same issue of course, as does pretty much any other joystick. It is easier to lube the X-55 with a little silicone grease than most, so not a big deal imho. Overall I'm very happy with my X-55 and would recommend it to anyone. But coming from a metal stick with an absurdly heavy spring, it may not be for you. I'd recommend checking one out at a store to see if you like the feel first. It comes with 4 springs, the default being the heaviest. Most I've talked to prefer the lightest spring and I do too.

The Su-22 would be a nice addition but I'd rather see a MiG-23MLD or MiG-25PD first.

You should make the poll based on logical categories such as air defenses, ships, aerial bombs and so on. None of your poll options reflect what I'd like to see added. I want some more variety in air defenses such as the SA-2, Nike and assorted AAA. A few older tank designs wouldn't go amiss either given all the WW2 and Korean stuff being released.

Yep, now the great debate has moved to how the F-14 module should be priced in the announcement thread. I'll give it a few days, then it'll move to something else. Clearly we have too much time on our hands while waiting for new planes. :P

I think they have gone for the best of both. They get $40-60 from those who absolutely have to have it on day 1 and then let the rest of us buy it for a more modest price a month or two later. It's a sensible way to go about it. Whether or not it's optimal is a hard question to answer, one I doubt even the devs could answer with certainty.

Except actual sales support the other position, even if the specific numbers he used are made up. Wags himself has stated they do sales as often as they can since that's when they make the most money overall. Jason Williams over at 777 Studios has said the same in regards to RoF. In any case, it isn't as simple as it's been made out to be so far. It isn't like people are only going to buy at the full price or discount price. If the full price is lowered, more are willing to pay it instead of waiting for a sale.

I don't think comparing the Iraqi airforce vs the USAF/USN in the 1991 Gulf War tells us much of anything. It was a terribly one sided affair. According to wikipedia (shudder), Iraq had 204 3rd and 4th generation fighters (MiG-29A, MiG-25, MiG-23 and Mirage F1). Of those, only 37 were fourth generation. Compare that to 1000+ F-14/15/16/18's flown by vastly better trained pilots and supported by AWACs continuously no matter where they went. And that's only looking at the US, never mind everyone else who piled on. It was no contest.

They didn't lose money on the MiG-21. If they had, they wouldn't double their team, get an actual office and start working on three new projects, all of them more ambitious than their first. $50-60 is a fair initial price. If you want to spend more, buy a second copy and give it to someone who can't afford to pay that price.

I'd be surprised at that price tbh and would not buy it. If you look at the other plane that broke the $50 price, the C-101, it did not sell well at all. Very few DCS players have actually purchased it as best as I can tell. That's a clear sign it is far too expensive for what it offers. The F-14 certainly offers more and is more desirable, but I think you've over estimated what most players are willing to pay. For comparison, at $90 I could buy IL2:BoM when it goes on offer. That's 10 planes at well above DCS quality in flight and damage modeling, comparable graphically and using a halfway point between simple and advanced systems management. Sticking with DCS, I could buy BST's upcoming AH-1W and Mi-24P on day one for the same price too (within $10). Both scenarios are things to take seriously, as I suspect all four will be released within a few months of each other. Some on this forum may have an infinite video game budget, but most players don't.

You might but a lot of others won't. Getting a right price point for a product is a tricky balancing act. Make it too cheap and you won't make as much money. Make it too expensive and people won't buy it in sufficient numbers. Try to do both by making it expensive at first and cheaper with a sale 6 months later and you'll see the same thing. A lot of people are willing to simply wait if it means getting 2-3 planes for the price of one at release date. Anything beyond the $60 mark is likely to fall into this latter category. To me, no individual plane you could possibly develop is worth more than $60 and even that is really pushing it. But I do agree two seaters should cost more than single seaters of comparable complexity. I guess what I'm saying is the $50 price for single seat fighters, especially WW2 and Korean stuff, is way too high atm. Just as an example, I am interested in BST's MiG-15. But as much as I maybe interested in it, I will not pay more than $10 to get it. Anything more is just a ripoff imho.

Convenience here too.

$60 is a fair price for the pair given the two are closely related variants and that they are two seaters.

Cobra has already mentioned the cockpit is done. We'll probably see a number of pics of it as well as some more external shots. I'm honestly not expecting any major news with this update. The other big reveals will come next month it seems. So yeah, the Hype Train is taking on water and replacing some valves that blew a couple weeks ago. Expect it to be at full speed again next month.

Thanks for the suggestions. Looks like the Sennheiser 350 might be it, going to see if I can find one locally to check comfort. With that said, anyone using Turtle Beach stuff? I had one of their headsets many years ago with surround sound (analog, 5.1 I think). I was always surprised at the quality of the sound and the mic. Sadly they were of shoddy construction quality and the cheap plastic head band broke after a year or so.

Slapping anything even remotely related to Top Gun on DCS: F-14 would be a mistake. No sense sending money off to Paramount Pictures for no reason. Their logo certainly won't attract any new customers and might even put a lot of them off. Words can't describe just how annoyed I would be to have the Top Gun logo slapped on the background image on the DCS menu screen. Terrible movie and not because it's unrealistic. It's the bad acting, bad story and being little more than a homoerotic navy recruitment video that puts me off of it.

You might not but others would, including myself. I prefer a more balanced approach to things like BST does, alternating back and forth between opposing pairs or offering greater variety (such as a fighter + an attacker). My ideal planes to be paired with the F-14 are the MiG-23MLD, MiG-27K and MiG-25PD. But I don't consider any of those 3 highly likely given the various statements made over the last 6 months.

The F-4 might be a little too complicated given the time frame but the F-104 is a possibility. I doubt they will do three American planes in a row though.

I use the standard TIR clip on a hat, so the headset shape isn't a concern.

I'm looking to get a new headset to replace my ancient Creative Fatality headset in the $0 to $150 range. It needs a good mic, good construction quality and superb sound quality across all ranges at low volume levels (will be used for music/movies too). Also needs to be comfortable with glasses. Beyond that I don't much care. Any suggestions?

The most likely possibilities I currently see for the modern plane: "Ground radar" means air to ground radar and is included on the modern plane: 1) Su-22M5 2) Su-24 3) Viggen 4) A-6 "Ground radar" means GCI or is intended for something further down the pipe: 1) MiG-23/27 2) MiG-21 modernized 3) MiG-25 4) Su-17/22

DCS AI is omniscient but also really dumb. How that balances out for a RIO is hard to say at this time. I think we'll have to wait and see. That said, I can tell you right now that no matter how good or bad the AI is, most F-14's in MP will be flown with an AI RIO. Why? Cause that's just how people are. It's the same thing with gunners in RoF and BoS. Other than some well known pilot/gunner pairs, most people fly solo. The same will be true here too.