King_Hrothgar

BST's past releases have been relatively hype free. On a related note, I wonder if AAAO pizza is any good.:D

You broke it. No more flying for you!:D

My wallet is ready...

I bought the NTTR map with the intent of using that as a generic middle eastern map, should work for Iran/Iraq scenarios. The SoH could also be interesting for a hypothetical Iran vs Saudi + allies scenario (F-14 + F-5 vs F-15 + Mirage 2000 in addition to choppers/attackers).

Some of these would be highly appropriate given the SoH map and possible scenarios in DCS in general.

If you check the log you will notice it takes 4-5 hits with them to kill a single infantryman. And since they are traditional 7.62mm rounds, they have to score a direct hit to count at all. It should probably be changed to 1 hit takes down an infantryman. Not sure why it's set to so many. I haven't had any issues against trucks.

Except most of that is basically the same anyways. It isn't like one has radar and the other doesn't. And both carry AIM-9's, AGM-65's, laser guided bombs and unguided stuff. The key difference is an internal gun vs gunpods. Not exactly a night and day difference imho. From our standpoint playing a video game, the differences strike me as largely cosmetic in nature. They are the same airframe with the same engine with the same weapons (mostly) with the same or comparable sensors.

The towns in NTTR are detailed enough. Trying to land on a street corner is a pretty tight fit and often too tight for the UH-1 and Mi-8. But as I already stated, I think a few attack helo's would add more at this time. These little choppers require totally new infantry modeling + damage modeling (small arms fire vs aircraft leaves a bit to be desired imho). I don't see either happening anytime soon, just too much other stuff going on.

That struck me as a bit funny too. In regards to missiles, for our purposes in air to air, the only things I care about is for how far and how long the missile is above mach 1 when fired at mach 1 at an altitude of 0m, 5km and 10km ASL. That gives a reasonable effective range estimate. The problem with wikipedia and other such things is they generally assume the target flies mach 2 straight into the missile as it falls helplessly out of the air. Hence 160km AIM-120's and other nonsense like that.:megalol:

The aircraft is much simpler in terms of systems management compared to the A-10C but the aircraft itself is far more difficult to fly and operate effectively. In terms of learning curve, the MiG-21 is a bit easier. It's more a question of can you actually fly it than can you remember how to navigate 500 MFD pages to find the option that lets you shoot unguided rockets in volleys. :P

Didn't vote as no appropriate option is present. I would like these aircraft, but I consider them of secondary importance to proper attack helicopters atm. After the Mi-24, AH-1, AH-64 and Mi-28 (or Ka-52, only need one of the two), then I would support more utility types.

Variety is important. Completely ignoring the MP side of things for a moment, think about the following: DCS F-18 is released to massive fanfare. You, I and everyone else snatches it up in an instant and plays it daily for a year. After that year, the F-14 and AV-8B are released. We grab those too and play them constantly another year with a little F-18 sprinkled in. A year after that, the F-15 (full study sim) is released. It uses the same weapons and very similar systems to what we've been flying the last two years. Are you going to rush out and buy it? It's then followed by the F-16, using the exact same stuff the F-18, AV-8B and F-15 use. I don't know about you, but at some point I'd decide more of the same just isn't worth my time and I'd buy The Elder Scrolls 6 or something instead. Now imagine that instead of an F-15 and F-16, there is a Su-24 and a MiG-31 thrown in. They have completely different weapons and design philosophy behind them. They would be something genuinely different from what came before. Would you be more likely to buy those? I certainly would. And then of course there is the MP side, which currently has a reasonably strong base. The guys at 104th know better than most just how lopsided the current situation is. And it's only going to get worse with the F-18 and F-14. The only remedy they have during side restricted events is to remove the AIM-120 while still keeping the relatively exotic R-27ER. This is not an argument for any specific aircraft btw, I'm merely making the point that variety is important. I think some eastern block 3+ and 4th gen fighters would help in that regard in addition to more than just fighters being added.

Don't think so. It was a joke about how the AH-1 and Mi-24 have been next since the UH-1 and Mi-8 and yet we keep getting random jet fighters instead. I share his irritation with that even if the F-5E is the module I'm looking forwards to most of the officially announced projects (AH-1 and Mi-24 aren't official imho). BST said late last year that the Mi-24 would be unfrozen this year (possibly already has been) but I haven't seen anything about it since. Back on topic, I voted for the W. In truth my pick would be the export J model used by Iran, since we are getting so much relevant to the 1980's Iran/Iraq war + 1991 Gulf war already. It makes sense to focus on that period and region. But the W should be a good emulation of a J if fitted with TOWs instead of Hellfires. So in a way, it might be the better option as it offers more versatility in mission design even if not 100% accurate for an Iranian J.

Complain to Rudel for bringing it up.

Sad thing is I didn't take that as a joke, so many here would make that kind of argument and be completely serious about it. Anyways, yeah, Firebirds is deserving of much ridicule, if for no other reason than this: I think the same of Top Gun, but for some reason most give it a pass. I blame it on the abs. So many abs in that movie.:P

Yes, because everything I say is completely serious and I'd never make a joke or use sarcasm. You should be reading this in the most boring monotone voice imaginable too.:noexpression: :D Seriously though, there is no question the AH-64 would be one of the better selling DCS modules. It's sitting next to the F-16C as the most requested module. Whether it would sell better than the F-14 or not is hard to say. I suspect it would sell slightly worse among US buyers, but should have broader international appeal given how widely used it is. Where that balances out is anyone's guess. I also have zero expectation of LNS ever making a chopper for DCS. Other than Rudel's little jest, they've shown no interest in making any. I'm looking at BST and Polychop for that kind of thing.

I consider it buggy because it has fair number of unintended "quarks" such as the FBW logic being reversed for the rudder and an above average number of CTD's. RAZBAM is making excellent progress with it and I still recommend the aircraft as it is fun to fly. I also think the Mirage will be in much better shape in a couple of months. But the question is about things as they are today. And today the Mirage is fun and fairly simple, but also incomplete and buggy. It's still on my recommended module list, but no one should buy it without knowing before hand that it does have some issues.

The L-39 is my recommendation. To add to Vedexent's summary, the ZA version is a good COIN plane too. It is better armed than the Hawk and as said, it has a high fidelity flight model right now instead of only the promise of a high fidelity flight model at some point in the future. The Mirage is also a simple aircraft and is of course much more capable. But that module is also very much a work in progress right now. It does have a high fidelity flight model though, so that's something (even if buggy).

The MiG-21-93/97/Bison would help fill the void I think. As mentioned, the radar is a fair bit different but that's actually a good thing. It's a newer radar even if less powerful overall. There is also nothing secret about the 93 and 97 as they are made exclusively for export and detailed information is available (even if a little hard to find). I do think a MiG-21-97 would still face an uphill battle against spamramming F-15's, but it would be a solid alternative to the FC3 Su-27 and MiG-29.

It's worth mentioning the US likes to claim losses to fighters as losses to ground fire and SAMs when there is any ambiguity. I don't doubt the VPAF numbers are inflated, but official US numbers are also deflated. A better figure to go on is how many aircraft were lost in total. On an unrelated note, what do fights between F-4's and assorted MiGs have to do with the F-5E? As for news, I expect the next news item to be a release estimate + pre-order page or a Q&A video by Wags. We may get those today, we might get them in 6 months. There is no way to know.

Think about all the moneyz you'd make. Yes, greed is good. You know you want to make an AH-64. You know it would outsell the MiG-21, Viggen, F-4U and F-14 combined.:yes:

This is a choice between COIN in a 1980's light attack plane and F-86 vs MiG-15 dogfights. Both modules have wonderfully recreated aircraft but lack official campaigns.

On the cheaper side, CH's pedals are reasonably indestructible. They aren't the smoothest pedals around and lack adjustments, but they are accurate and 1/3rd the price of the MFG Crosswind. They are also mass produced rather than being made to order, which speeds things up a bit. I bought mine from Amazon ($100 USD + free shipping). In terms of additional displays, I don't know of any. I recommend waiting on that part until you get used to head tracking. I think you'll find that additional panels are a bit pointless once you have a good head tracker.

Every flight sim ever made has gone for a mix of realism, gameplay and profitability in addition to being constrained by technology. Different flight sims aim for different points on a continuous spectrum. DCS aims for medium-high fidelity on systems (ignoring FC3) and high fidelity flight modeling (excluding SFM) but sacrifices damage modeling, EW, missile modeling and AI to keep costs down. RoF/BoS sacrificed clickable cockpits and some systems modeling in favor of better AI and damage modeling. War Thunder sacrificed all of that for quantity of aircraft + being approachable (mouse aim, simplified joystick and so on).

Yep, got it, tested it and IFF works (just remember to turn it on).