King_Hrothgar

And I seem to have missed that bit about one being modern, Slipp. Thanks for quoting.

Oh ye of little faith. I have no doubt Top Gun 2 will be worse than the first.

IL2:BoS is a hardcore sim, it has 9 distinct planes and 11 if you count variants. Another 10 are planned for IL2:BoM which will be standalone or an addon like the original IL2 series. If you think BoS is not hardcore, then you don't think DCS is either since FC3 planes are substantially more simplified than those in BoS. One open source project and one closed project are enough for WW2 imho. Not that my opinion is going to stop VEAO from attempting to build the entire British fighter force from 1942 to 1955.

This is a global problem not limited to the MiG-21. All IR missiles on all planes go for the tail in DCS. That doesn't make it any less annoying but we can't expect LNS to do anything about it. It's an issue for ED.

And 770 replies including this one. Not too many announcement threads on these forums have garnered this much attention.

I loved that game to pieces. :) Edit: Also, pretty sure our F-16 in DCS still uses the same 3d model from the intro video. :P

A big part of it is that DCS is an evolution of LOMAC. The entire franchise, starting with the flanker series, has been based on somewhat modern air combat. The last module released dealing with modern air combat was the A-10C (and the BS2 update) in 2011. Eight aircraft have been released since then, none of them are both modern and suited to air combat. Instead we have gotten a random assortment of cargo planes, trainers and relics that were sent to the scrap yards long before most people here were even born. It's exceedingly frustrating watching our modern air combat game get sucked into WW2 and the civilian side when there are already plenty of other current flight sims covering those topics.

The Ka-50 isn't a substitute for anything, it's an oddball. Claiming it's a substitute for an AH-1 is like claiming our Su-27 is a valid substitute for an F-4E. It's an absurd statement. The AH-64 is more iconic, but both are important attack helicopters. I don't have any real preference one way or the other on them and would like to have both added. The only sticking point for me with the AH-1 is I want a version with effective guided missiles. BST's upcoming AH-1W fits that requirement. I do agree that additional transport choppers are not needed at this time. Missions builders are still figuring out what to do with the ones we have and so adding more won't add any new content beyond free flight.

Confirming our MiG-21 needs 4x AIM-54's on it. :P

The Ka-50N has LLTV but we don't have the Ka-50N, we have the vanilla Mk.I Ka-50. I think what this thread is really asking for is DCS: BS3 (with Ka-50N) or DCS: Ka-52. I'd buy either in a heartbeat having already bought BS1 and BS2.

ED should scrap all the WW2 stuff and give us DCS: Ka-52 + DCS: BS3 instead. Not going to happen of course, but one can dream. :) In regards to the Ka-50, I'm not so sure it lacks a future. India has been eying it as have a few others I think. And Russia itself has used them in combat. Last I heard, the Russians were planning a half and half mix of Mi-28's and Ka-50/52's. I think they are leaning heavily towards the Ka-52, but I suspect some Ka-50's will be mixed in. Not that my opinion matters on the topic, but I've always though 3x Ka-50's + 1 Ka-52 is the ideal mix. The Ka-50's do the shooting while the Ka-52 acts as a commander, assigning targets via the data link.

As far as I know, all the planes in DCS have a auto start cheat command. Once running, they aren't any more complicated than FC3 planes with the exception of the A-10C. The Ka-50, for instance, has a nearly nearly identical procedure for firing a vihkr as the Su-25T. The only extra step is to turn master arm on. Other than that, it's the same. The WW2 and Korean stuff is even simpler. Since they lack targeting systems, it basically comes down to pull trigger to shoot, push button 2 for bombs/rockets. The gunsights have some extra features on them you can control, but you don't have to. In the Sabre I almost never uncage the sight, I find the fixed mode more accurate in combat. And this is why no one bothers with game mode. The FC3 planes are already very close to full study sim. The only things missing are the radio, navigation system and startup procedure.

The AH-1Q was the first to have TOWs. The G couldn't carry anything but gunpods and rockets. Many G's were upgraded to the Q standard, but an actual factory G couldn't carry anything guided. So yeah, the AH-1G is rather pointless. It's nothing but a thinner Huey. I'm not against its inclusion, but I'd stick it at the bottom of the priority list, somewhere between the Fa-223 and Fl-282.:D

I wouldn't expect anything earth shattering. I would be surprised if they departed from the current DCS functionality here. So no working elevators or anything like that. Only the flight deck is likely to be modeled and you will be magically repaired after 3 minutes. As for damage modeling, I suspect it will be possible to crater the flight deck or sink the ship. Any repair functionality will likely be left to mission designers in the mission editor. But other than respawning the ship, I'm not sure if that works. I've never tried to repair a ship or uncrater a runway in the ME.

They very likely started these 3 projects last summer, I don't think they are making the F-14 in just 10 months, more like 1.5 years. That's longer than it took them to make the MiG-21 (ignoring all the restarts) and that's with adding a few new people to their team. From a flight model standpoint, I don't think there is a complexity difference between a prop and a jet. The only difference is in the systems that have to be modeled. The reason I think a Su-24 is a likely possibility is due to the numerous statements they've made and that it recycles many of the systems used by the MiG-21. If your thoughts on ground radar are correct (bearing in mind we already have EWR), then something like a Su-15, Su-17 or MiG-23/27 seem very likely. They reuse many of the MiG-21's systems and are all relatively simple systems wise. It would be a lot easier to make a flyable MiG-23/27 (ground attack model) than a flyable A6M I suspect.

MiG-21, just like the plane in the front.

It's tough to stall fight planes with no stalls modeled. The engine management side is the least important aspect. It's the ability to fly straight up at 10km/h and shoot with laser beam precision that's the issue. But it does mean that time could have been spent making something more relevant to the game. X-Plane developers and DCS developers are not the same people for the most part. Those asking for silly things like DCS: Cessna 172 are not just asking for a 172, they are asking for a 172 instead of something else. Hence why I take issue with it.

If ED updates the game so AI use the same FM and DM as players, then I'd be all for adding WW2 stuff. But I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. As for civy stuff, X-plane is a viable reason. A game should pick something and focus on it. Trying to be everything to everyone has never worked out well. Digital Combat Simulator should focus on combat aircraft.

Things I'd prefer not to see in DCS: anything civilian, anything pre-1950 (too late). The reasons are simple, the DCS cheater AI FM's may work fine with supersonic jets but they are a real problem with prop planes and low power jets. The damage modeling also doesn't play well with anything under 20mm, see F-86 vs MiG-15 for endless infuriating examples. The reason for no civies? Go play X-Plane if you want that.

Are you asking if it will be possible to damage the flight deck or are you asking about repair timers for player aircraft? In the latter case, it takes 180 seconds from the time your turbine/rotor/propeller stop spinning to repair so long as you don't explode first.

I agree with him tbh. DCS doesn't do WW2 planes nearly as well as BoS does. The physics, damage modeling, spotting and AI are all problematic in DCS for anything with a propeller. I have DCS P-51, it leaves a lot to be desired. That won't stop people from churning out WW2 planes for DCS, but I won't buy them. I'm certainly not alone in that either. LOMAC/DCS has always been about relatively contemporary stuff. I think it can safely drift as far back as the 1960's, but anything below that is beyond the capability of the core game engine to perform well. It simply wasn't built for it and short of a major overhaul of the physics and AI, it's never going to do it well.

It's a matter of perspective mostly I think. If you are looking for something that feels like a real plane, the X-55 isn't it. If you are looking for an excellent PC joystick with a lot of features and good quality, then the X-55 is equal to or better than a WH.

^MiG-21 can carry 8 if you like R-60's. Regardless, I don't think the F-14's missile load is going to be an issue.

Why would that pic carry more weight than numerous written statements? We've been given a lot of clues on what the other two are. But with the exception of that single pic, none of them suggest more than a single WW2 plane is coming. There are a lot of pics of WW2 stuff floating around, but that doesn't mean more than one flyable WW2 plane is coming. LNS has said they are trying to develop more complete modules instead of releasing planes in total isolation. So if one of the other two planes is an F4U (or F6F or P-38...), does it not make sense for them to build some AI planes to support/oppose it? Does it also not make sense to build ground and naval units too? In the context of the various statements made by LNS, the single pic to which you are referring suggests F4U vs IJN, not F4U + A6M (or any other plane). It's also worth noting that many Soviet planes of the 1970's share a lot of the systems and instruments as the MiG-21Bis. I looked up Su-24 cockpit images, about half the stuff in there looks like it was pulled straight from our MiG-21 pit. The MiG-23 is even closer, though it lacks A-G radar.

It's an F4U cockpit. In any case, I think what we'll see is F4U first + some AI aircraft (A6M, F6F, P-38 and others) + a carrier (no catapult code required, existing carrier code works) + an island map. It's a relatively simple project compared to something like the MiG-21 or F-14 even if there is a lot more 3d modeling to do. But they did just hire a bunch of new people, not all 3d modelers but I think there was at least one in there. However, given the A-G radar bit and the fact that they said they were doing something for everyone, I don't think there is any chance at all of a second WW2 fighter in that list of 3 flyable planes. My guess for release order is: F4U, F-14, undetermined jet with A-G radar (Su-24 seems probable).