GUFA

I see the 'single' as very much a fundamentally different and unique aircraft over the 'Marine" Cobras and as such the 'Cobra's' really deserve (at least) 2 modules no matter who develops them. Reason I would like a G/S is that there really need to be something to compete with the MI 24 in that 70s time-frame and see Belsimtech has already got the UH-1H so they are part of the way there. But you are right in regards to the UH-1Y.One thing I would like for a AH-1Z is the ability to use AGM-122 and possibly TOW, but how to go about that...

I really want a Cobra G+S(single). A 'G' for Rockets + Minigun + Grenade Launcher. And an S for TOW. I wouldn't say no to a T or a W but after Granddad & his younger brother

If you read the article you would have noted that Bell was a partner on the AW-609 up until they decided to develop the V-280. And the fact is that the Osprey and the AW-609 are based off of the same 70s tech. They both rotate the whole propulsion unit eg. engine + rotor, to VTOL They only differ in the 'role' specific 'T' tail on the AW-609. No I'm talking about the Cross-shaft that I've highlighted. \ This picture is the research bird from the 70s. Can you tell me how it differs from either the MV-22 or the AW-609 in it Propulsion & VTOL profiles? Seeing the AW-609 is designed to cater to the business sector and they're wish to fly 'office to office', as such doesn't spend any significant time in VTOL mode. The V-280 on the other hand Has a 'Fixed' engine that doesn't rotate. Instead it uses a 'novel' gearbox'/actuator' that does the 'repositioning' of the Rotor From VTOL to Forward flight mode. A quick vid on how it works. Not if Bell/Leonardo beats them to it.

I know I've got some cheek to ask being we're discussing 'Swedish Assets' and all. But CH, are you up for RBS 70 AUSSIE STYLE And the RBS 70 Only Perentie

Honestly would definitely welcome more Assets (of any era), but would like ED to Focus on the Macro rather than the opposite. Outside of what that particular DLC I think It would be quicker to have 3rd parties take up the challenge. Example: there's 2 particular Modders (Current Hill, Admiral 189) that are producing really first rate assets. What I would like to see is these guys be encouraged to become 3rd parties. I would quite happily pay for these guys mods to become properly supported assets. When I actually expend some thought on what ED is trying to accomplish, I am 'daunted to say the least at the enormity of what DCS is becoming'. Sure there are occasions when I shake my head and think ED has 'kicked an Own Goal here', or am critical of other particular directions, strategies or choices. But make no mistake I am excited with were DCS is heading. I am hopeful that some 3rd party asset creators are on the cusp and I hope ED has a strategy to enable Asset making,3rd parties to sell DLC to us eager customers. And leave the big stuff to ED.

Point out to me where I have ever said DCS world is developing FF Land or Sea modules. All I have said is that land & sea is playing a part. I don't think doing FF warship modules is ever going to be practical. I think pulling 200+ players to man a FF warship module is an impossibility, let alone 3500+ for a CVN. I think the point is that DCS World is a game that could possibly bridge between Simulator & Strategy Genres. With Air being the Simulator part & Land/Sea the strategy part

Why make Combined Arms & Supercarrier then? Aren't these modules TACIT signals from DCS to the community? I'm not saying DCS is headed into 1st person shooter territory just that land & sea have always been intended to play a role

Just pointing out that DCS intentions are to include the other Domains as well

Speaking to the choir here, To ED PG may be "Feature Complete". But to us 'Users' it is incomplete, and it should also have 'at minimum Northern Oman as well

No I think the opposite works better, DCS Builds the Land-form + air & water interactions. The 3rd Party then builds the unique features as a layer over the Map "Blank".

It is very much MV-22 tech as the engines rotating up, to enable vertical takeoff is the same. It also shares the same emergency propulsion with both rotors being connected with a long shaft, that in the event of a single engine failure. One engine can power both rotors. The gen 2 tilt-rotor tech does away with the need to rotate the engines, as well as the propeller shaft that connects the rotors on the gen 1 ( MV-22,AW-609) tilt-rotors.

Very very good work, just remember many of us intend to wreck it

Just wondering why ships don't have "numbered parking spots as per airports. Also adding a "snap to" function would also assist mission makers I would think

Personally would like to see an A-5c Pakistani spec, Xi'an JH 7, but think its probably too new. or the Chinese SA321 license build.

So I've known of this development since the mid 90s. I did actually think that AW, now known as Leonardo had quietly dropped this innovative design. But that appears to be have been the wrong assumption. So far Bristow Group a large private helicopter company is the first customer and the UAE's Joint Aviation Command seems to be looking into developing the AW 609 for SAR. The article also discusses the FVL initiative and one of its competitors the Bell V-280 Valor. So having been quite interested in tilt rotors for quite some time, I'm thinking maybe Leonardo has missed the boat, Bell's V-280 if chosen by the US Army will bring 2nd generation Tilt Rotor technology to a much bigger user. that in turn will possibly kill interest in the first gen AW 609. Valor 2nd gen tech is hopefully safer and cheaper than what the AW 609 uses (MV 22 Osprey). But time will tell IO guess. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/first-production-aw609-tiltrotor-finally-flies-after-decades-of-development

Doesn't look like it does anything better over NH90, AW139 or S-92 Helibus which it'll have to beat to get orders. I don't see it catching the eye of a major military operator and a lot of the civil air users in my neck of the woods have already gone for something else...

Well looks like the Chicoms have beaten us to the punch This came off the Deka Ironwork simulations page yesterday: I won't hold it against you if you have to switch out of you underware now. Long Live ZI!!!

Good movie, pity we don't have a FF SH-60 (or U/MH-60). Even though ASW ops are probably a step too far for DCS. I do think ASuW could be something a FF Maritime Helicopter could and should do. Would really like all these helidecks useful for players as roleplay elements .

Ever thought about adding this guy to your stable Special MPA before Poseidon was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. And you could always add this guy as well Looks downright sinister.

If you are talking about the "Airplane Simulation Company" and they're FF C-130 module then a this stage no. But they have inter-mated a AC-130 "IF" they sell enough C-130j tac trans. I am hoping that ASC will at least offer the "J" with Tanking and "Harvest Hawk capabilities as I don't think that these missions would be hard for them to add.

Yes wouldn't mind having this bird in DCS and have my own personal wishes as far as COIN planes go . And please RAZBAM, show us civvies some love and release the Emb 314 Super Tucano at earliest possible convenience. But that being said I voted for the F-104 Zipper, absolute "must have" with the "Flogger" inbound. And I had 5 preference votes and seeing IFE are doing Italian Aircraft designs, possibly exclusively. Then these is were my vote would be allocated/ 1: F-104s+g. 2: 1 of the Augusta-Bell "Huey" license builds preferably would really like a maritime helo that can kill ships. 3: Augusta 109 both land and maritime builds. 4: Alenia G222/C27j 5: Macchi C.205 Veltro Now this doesn't meant I wouldn't like to see (some) of the others. But: A: I think there is risk of "over-saturating" the DCS market with jet Trainer/light attack aircraft,(personally) want to see more Cold War aircraft in the mix first. B: Don't see IFE doing non Italian aircraft designs yet, and I doesn't bother me in the least. With Crosstail Studios and Grinnelli Designs working on they're first modules, I could see these guys doing the American Dagger &/or Thud. Desperate to see more transports and helicopter brought quickly bought into DCS. And I want to see some shipboard helicopters that can, at minimum be able to conduct ASuW ops off of Frigates, Destroyers and other surface combatants.

PLUUUUEEEESSSSEEEE ED Have a team find this guy and write him a BIG FAT CHECK Fantastic work Currenthill Absolutly brilliant models

Leaning in that direction myself Right now I think that DCS has, likely hit its limits on trainer light attack aircraft. I'm kind of half expecting ED to announce that they are bringing back the BAE Hawk as they're next module. And that would possibly turn customers away from any more TA types, at least for a while. Right now what I would jump at would be asset packs. Ariete, Centauro, Dardo Freccia, Iveco trucks and MRAPs, Skyguard (Gun & Aspide), Orrizzonte, FREMM,Meastrale + ambious and support units. If you guys could do some asset packs I happily buy them.

Cool movie thanks man, Yeah sexy aircraft wasn't she.

Thanks for the welcome bro and as it appears you are "new" to DCS as well same to you. I happen to come from an English language country so it is entirely possible that I'm also not quite interpreting the message properly, either. Yeah I've tried War thunder, World of... and there's nothing wrong with those games some people like them, some don't I'd say we both fall in the Don't column. Look I'm fighting for the Italian Zippers cause I see endless scenarios I can use the in. As someone who's keen on learning mission/ campaign editing it's something that I have a personal interest in seeing happen. I also hope that the Gee is also developed as a FF Module. The easiest way would be an amalgam of both Gee & S but this is DCS and the "Fundamentalists would take a dim view... I honestly don't know a lot about the "ICE" upgrade. I may have moved off of the drawing board and started a test & evaluation cycle, just don't enough. But I do know German Politicians killed it much the same as Israeli polys killed they're Phantom 2000 upgrade. But no doubt DCS has been a ":Long Hard Road". Look I lobby hard for what I would like to see in DCS, but should someone come out tomorrow and announce they are doing a Zipper Gee then I would have to accept that reality. But until that day arrives I will try to get up the "Italian option". I'm not against a Gee, just want the Italian variants to be very much in the plan as well. And I'm not even Italian (or Euro based) Anyway It was good to hear from you. And have enjoyed the debate with you and the other guys.