GUFA

Yeah that was my intent in starting this thread and the only reason I included the Tu 95 Bear was because you can buy the "Hardware" to use as a FF module. My intent at looking at the Medium Bomber and Fighter/bomber designs is they are more likely to be used by the player base. People simply do not have the time or physical capability to fly 20 hour + missions even if they want to. Mediums (& F/B) on the other hand would be a fantastic addition to DCS world and are more likely to be used. I think that it's likely to be the other way around. If ED made a "Large corporate Donation to the Ukrainian Government " right know I'm pretty sure they (the UK Gov) would be more than happy to provide ED with the design/performance data. And a metric <profanity> ton of SME to enable development of a FF module. I don't see the Fencer being operational much longer in Ukrainian service, Mig 29 and Su 27 though... As far as ED Russia goes are there any left? Those who didn't bail after "the Special operation" kicked off are possibly in FSB care now I would think. The Aardvark yes nobody uses that aircraft as a warfighter anymore. I would be Quite surprised if there was any OPSEC concerns in regards to the Pig. The Nighthawk though is being used today in the "aggressor role so???

Yeah gonna call B$ls^&*t on that statement... This Excerpt from the DCS newsletter: 07 October 2022 Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends, We are delighted to announce that Ugra Media’s next map will be DCS: Normandy 2. Using the skills developed whilst creating the outstanding DCS: Syria map, the new Normandy 2 map will use the latest DCS mapping technologies to create an epic World War II battlefield. During the last months, IndiaFoxtEcho Visual Simulation has been improving and completing the features of DCS: MB-339 for its imminent release. These improvements will significantly enhance the unique flying experience that only DCS World can provide. Please check out below DCS: Normandy 2 map details and the most up-to-date development progress of DCS: MB-339. These modules are both coming soon to your DCS World. Thank you for your passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics So Nothing about any discounts for N1 users or any other "goodies to be offered. Now if your information that you posted today is correct the great as it should be, there are 2 other maps concerning this area we don't need 3. Will N2 overwrite N1? Even though I just upgraded my SSD to a larger one I do not want 2 Normandy 44 map files on my system will N1+2 be 2 separate terrain folders or not? This is also a gripe when it concerns OnReTech's Sinai map as well. Frankly ED needs to sort out the map system so we have a base make (1939) with different time era added as layers. This would solve a lot of problems as far as making maps goes. So If this is an Update why are they passing it off as a "New" map. I just find this as incredibly lazy and dishonest if it is a new map. I won't be taken for a mug, neither should anyone else

Or even as a modestly price DLC... I like both (and own) Ugra's Maps, sure they could be improved... So The Top Dogs at Ugra sat down an debated: Vietnam-Indochina-no Central America-no Anywhere in Africa-no Any other choices that people have asked/begged offered the wife for-no And finally settled on (Drum Roll Plz) <PROFANITY> a Normandy REE CO/RETREAD...

Okay

First off WHY... With all the choices Ugra could have gone with! just seems Ugra has puckered up for a minority. I won't be buy this map at full price (if at all) and am really not happy with this announcement.

Are you Meaning the J-35 Draken because the 135 (KC-135) is a tanker and already in game (as AI). Also I have never seen any firm promise from Heatblur to do a FF J-35 Draken module. It has always been mentioned as a AI only project. But it is coming... Just to Clarify a World map as in all the world's areas playable not at the same time though. If you had a map setup such as Slitherine's Command: Modern Operation. Were you can exclude areas so the map doesn't require massive resources to draw the playing area, I would think this would be achievable. Example Iraq, Saudi,Kuwait as the playable areas, but with No Navigation+ exclusion zones over Syria and Iran. I mean we are getting maps such as Sinai, Normandy 2 that are "lazy" and already mostly mapped out offerings to DCS customers. So 3 maps that are the in same area( I am counting the Channel to Normandy 1 + 2) or (Syria) and Sinai that add mostly a whole lot of nothing (desert). When I read that Ugra are doing a Normandy 2 map today. It was very much a WTF moment. With people willing to sell they're left testicle for a Vietnam, Korea/s, Fulda Gap, North Africa or my fervrant hope for a Southern Saudi peninsula map/Update (looking at You ED) I mean really... Not every customer is European and wants 50 million variations on the Same Effing Flavor... I again, appeal for some common sense to Aerges (and DCS community most of all) get a FF Mirage 3/5/50 module up "Poste Haste".

She has many suitors Foxy girl. Was mainly looking at that medium bombing class which doesn't necessarily exclude the Bone. put doesn't exactly support it either.Should conflict Kick Off in the SCS and the Bone is still operational it Will be hitting PLAN shipping in that range gap. As such why I added to this poll.

Now this would be were a VEAO Simulations could have really made a positive contribution to DCS. Plus they could have also added the best Tonkas. Brit spec IDS+F variants. Such a shame... Are you speaking to the electronic warfare mission set? Just looking for Clarification.

On a North African Map with Libya-Chad or the Sinai Map extended to Tunis-Southern Chadian Border. "OnReTech I am "looking at you!". Got no problem with this approach just just looking for a "period" bomber to scratch my itch. Can you actually start a thread talking about the B-66, maybe even have your dad regaie us with his "Destroyer" tales. She'll always be the "Pig" to me.

Okay as my last post of the night I will cast my vote/s for what I would like. 1 & 2 F 1-11 & Su 24 now this is were it gets interesting: 3 & 4 Badger, Destroyer/Canberra Now I'm not going to give a vote to all my choices so the last votes would go to (in know particular order to the Backfire, Bone, Buccaneer and a Fantasy Mirage IV. The reason I haven't gone for something like the Bear or V Bomber is I simply think that anyone will be able to fly day long (24+hr). Whereas the Choices I have gone with work well over a 3-6max hour mission length. So for mean medium range + is where I see myself using a Fighter Bomber/ Bomber and I think these would be good choices for DCS FF modules.

I remember reading, sometime ages ago of account of RAF pilot/s that participated in Iraq 1, He (the pilot relaying his tale) used this phrase when talking about the Tonkas aerodynamics bombed up. He said "it had all the aerodynamics qualities of a thrown brick". And hey all the Tonkas deficiencies are the Germans fault anyway. Seriously though the Tonka deserves its place in DCS it's just <profanity>s me that REDFOR cant have a competitive capability to balance it in (Multiplayer games) the game.

Same but we as customers need to make the choise of what comes first Personally cant wait to be able to smash target with 24 "slick"/Snakeye/ Cluster bombs. And no an A6 can carry the same, but not over distance and not as fast

Could god damned kick myself for forgetting both of these. Could a forum moderator add these 2 to the list as I can't see how to edit the poll box. Thanks in advance

I Could see a Sprey (Brit) variant being pursued By Heatblur in the future. Question is will Heatblur do it? (British users would be up in arms if they didn't). Yeah OPSEC (Operational Security) concerns could keep a "Gee" off the table. At the end of the day I am already getting the variant (E) I want, so what others want is not really my worry. But that doesn't mean I want them to miss out either 100% on the money

So as of now we have the Tornado IDS in early development. Now as much as this pleases me, I am also a bit annoyed there is nothing on the OPFOR side to offer some balance to it (multiplayer particularly). At minimum a Su 24 needs to be made "Post Haste" to offer that balance, and my preference if I am playing team BLUFOR would be for the "Pig" (F-1-11). But as much as these aircraft would be great FF modules, there are other choices. Note: I will not be including the B-47 and B-52 in the poll because present Flight simulator hardware simply does not support this being turned into a module ( No one makes an 8 engine throttle controller). I will also not be adding TAC or Frontal aviation type to this poll or "A" Class USN aircraft. If you think I forgotten any others let us know

Yeah that aint happening. For a start the Mudhen hasn't even been sent to ED for final evaluation. Then there's the Emb 314 ST and Mig 23 to develop and release. RAZBAM aren't going to put the Mirage III out until 2032 at the earliest and I would prefer them to develop The EE lightning. For Aerges, I just don't see how they make money on Spanish F-4 when Heatblur has already stated they will be building multiple variants of the Phantom. If Heatblur releases USN,USMC Phantom variants then to the 95% of player base, is there going to be any reason to buy a Spanish "C" model. And seeing ( and I don't mean any offense) the Me 109 is already in the game who's going to buy the Hispano clone? So if you want a "Spanish" aircraft wouldn't these be a better and more saleable choices: And I would definitely as a Non Spanish customer be interested in these: As far as the map goes. A Eastern Mediterranean map encompassing Spain and North Africa including the Canaries would be a fantastic map. Simple Fact is I and a majority of the community want bigger maps (many of us want a "Earth map")

So how many variants of the Phantom II are Heatblur likely to develop? I think 2 on top of the E are feasible, a navy model and the Sprey powered Brit. I don't see any significant sales for Heatblur out of the rest. And a G might have OPSEC issues and it might simply be easier to allow these modules the ability to configure in the 'in game' load outs menu for WW mission sets. Let me Be clear I'm not against a G (or more/all Phantom II variants) being developed. Just don't see how Heatblur manages everyone's favorite variant on top of the A 6 development as well...

So Has anyone got any news on the ? Heli, Been a bit quiet about this module lately. Or is it Fragger's Bo105? I have, after reading the hint interpolating/thinking/ hoping it is SA 330/SA 332 Puma/SPuma (really would like some more Blufor transport heli's) or AS 565 Panther. Would dearly love to see a FF Cobra Module/s, "In darkest days, in blackest nights…… ha, and you guys thought I’d give you a Little hint." Doesn't seem to fit the hint though... Anyway got to love me some AH-1 Cobra though, 3 modules/dlc please G,S ( want TOW plz) and Marine twins.

I am 100% on board with this proposal . The only downside is the NAFT crowd gripes . Yeah just give the "GEE" the bolt-on and call it a C. Got to be a Indochina/ Thai Peninsula map so we can play dominoes.

First off, allow to apologies if you felt I was putting words in your mouth (referring to the modding statement) I am sorry. I was simply saying that a Kfir based module would be to far apart across the flight envelop, minimum. let alone how it handles on the ground( Kfir is primarily a 'Striker' so were canards added to improve MTOW performance?). Or the cockpit layout (are all the control switches for the J79 the same as the Atar?. Right Know the Kfir is a (very) early in development FF Module. So I would say 4 years minimum to get the Kfir into early access at least. Aviron are the new kids on the block so I would say 5 years minimum to release the Kfir. If RAZBAM or other existing developer do it, they will have to start at the beginning so that that would mean we wouldn't see a FF Mirage 3 (from RAZBAM at least) for another decade. This is why I'm passionately pushing/lobbying for an Aerges Mirage 3/5/50 module/s. Right know there is a poll running on the Aerges: Now as far as I know this isn't an official 'Aerges' topic but the results so far place 2 aircraft in the lead. In first (slightly) is the F-104c, and in second is the Miracle. Know I am attempting to lobby the community to vote for the Mirage 3, I do own that for better or worse. And do I want another developer to do 2 of the F-104 model/s (F-104 has always been one of my most favorite fighters since childhood). Now how long until the F-1 doesn't need most/all of the Aerges team to do major bug fix's I don't know. But I am Confident that Aerges can look to move to its next module very soon. I believe the simple fact is that Aerges above all others is the best option (by far) for a Mirage 3, because the already have modeled the engine and radar for the Miracle. They are more advanced versions yes, but they are Atar 9 series Engines and Thomson-CFS Cyrano radars and that should in itself have a significant impact on the development schedule. Cockpit layout should be fairly close so this also shaves time of development. I simply want people who want the Mirage 3/5/50 family in game and Quickly that supporting an Aerges FF module is the best way to go. The only module maker that can compete on the timelines I'm thinking of are Eagle Dynamic's themselves. And I don't believe that they can A: deliver a Miracle Faster. And B: ED have made statements in the past that they prefer working on the more advanced 4 gen anyway. Let me also make it abundantly clear also, If RAZBAM (or other developer) announces tomorrow they hold the license for an FF Mirage III then I Don't see anyone delivering said module for 5 years minimum and likely a whole lot longer. Beside if Aviron make a Miracle FF module and stuff it it up, Imagine the "<profanity>storm" that would come afterwards.

G'day Rick I don't really think that would work because A: They started life with 2 different engines, The ATAR (which is present already in the F1 in a significantly upgraded form) as opposed to the J 79 in the Kfir Here are the thrust ratings: SNECMA Atar 09C afterburning turbojet engine, 41.97 kN (9,440 lbf) thrust dry, 60.8 kN (13,700 lbf) with afterburner IAl Bedek-built General Electric J79-J1E turbojet, 52.9 kN (11,900 lbf) thrust dry, 79.62 kN (17,900 lbf) with afterburner And I'll even include the Atar out of the F-1 SNECMA Atar 9K-50 afterburning turbojet engine, 49.03 kN (11,020 lbf) thrust [152] dry, 70.6 kN (15,900 lbf) with afterburner So off the bat the Kfir has 4000+pounds (in Afterburner) and I just think that way to much of a gap if simply modding a Mirage 3. Also The Kfir has the Canards which means the flight models changes. Now I'm no flight dynamic expert, but I think this is also to far of an alteration on flight performance. Also not having looked at it myself, will the Kfir be of a mid/late configuration. The C.7 variant had HOTAS (yes I see the Irony) and if they go for a C.10 Variant then the original Thomson-CSF Cyrano II dual mode air / ground radar (A much earlier variant of the radar already on the F-1) gets replaced with a Elta EL/M-2032 + MFDs, 2 new hard pionts. As I said earlier "A Kfir is not a Mirage 3" and I say both can and should be separate FF modules. Besides if Aerges do develop the Mirage 3/5/50 family the radar and engine are already pretty much sorted. And the Mirage 50 is essentially a delta winged F-1. Besides Aviron can build the Sufa, Ra'am, Stallion Delta and/or my favorite whirlybird, AH 1 Tzefa (Want a Cobra single just as mush as the Miracle).

GOD DAMMMMN... Thing of Beauty. Nothing gets me good and stiff as does a Starfighter, Especially F-104s Variants We really need the "Affordable" option to the F-4 for multiplayer even if it doesn't have a gun. Simple fact with the Mig 23 in development and I really want the Foxbat/Foxhound as official modules at some stage. this would provide at least some balance in that mid 70s time space in multiplayer.Heck I say do both the F-104s and the "GEE". Very much like to kill ships with Kormoran, and Penguin and if Italian "S" models can also fire "Marte" well "that's just the cherry on top".

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3301664/ This is the Thrustmaster Warthog Profile for the Yak 52 and I am asking were it needs to go in DCS. Have the Thrustmaster "Target" software and Track IR.

Yeah funny I got infomation off of this Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter So we were both right and wrong as many users used mixes of F-104Gs with CF-104s and Turkey even bought F-104Ss. And in Taiwan's case it used new builds and surplus, this is the quote from the Wiki page you supplied: "ROC operated a total of 282 aircraft funded by the Military Assistance Program (MAP); a mixture of new-build and surplus F-104A, -B, -D, -G, -J, -DJ, RF-104G, and TF-104G were used. The Starfighter was phased out of Taiwanese service by 1997." So not quite as cut and dried as we(both) believed. Simple fact most users including Germany who was the main user procured F-104g models A: they were cheap, B: the Starfighter was not they're only option in regards to the Fighter role, and C: Production in Italy didn't start in Italy for 2 years after the German start and probably the same for Canadair builds. So even though F-104g was the most prolific model does not invalidate my case for F-104s (ASA) as the Italian's also built 240+ Aeritalia F-104s. Or the Mitsubishi 200+ F104Js or the 200 CF-104s built by Canadair. Not to mention what Lockheed built itself. No rather have a Zipper that can much more than the F-104g....

Make an educated guess I got what you meant Did you get what I meant Thought they only used the CF-104, Were these attrition buys or did they buy it for the Ital AF specific capabilities eg: BVR Sparrow and/or Aspide?