upyr1

If we ever get another f-16 variant is think the block 30 would be a good option they entered service in mid 1980's and may be the definitive storm falcons

This is why I would only support the mandatory refund if the modules become unusable. Though if that happens I'd welcome ED developing replacement modules. (I'd be fine with in store credit)

If I were rich I would have paid for the development of the module,

Do you think there would be any chance that we could at least get an early model of the Fencer?

awesome photo

awesome

I follow up interview with "Starbaby", where he goes over the back rear cockpit and one about the front cockpit I figure there are two ways to get the G. The first is obviously the flyable model and the second would be as an AI asset. I'll address the AI Weasel first. The AI G would clearly be the easist to get. At the minimum this would simply involve Heatblur adding an F-4 with the ability to carry STARMS and HARMS. (To be blunt if that's the only way to get the G, I'd be fine.) If ED were to change anything to DC core for the AI G it would be two things. First would be to model the difference between a RWR (Radar warning receiver) and RWHR (Radar warning and homing receiver). They should have modeled this with the F-16 and the second would be to have the Weasel report sam locations (automatically or via coms menu) An improved IADs is needed no matter what. I'm not sure wether it is deadlier or not, due to the fact it isn't as well molded as it could be. The first issue would be as you pointed out have the SAMs turn their radars on and off. As well as proper stand by and reactivation time. We also need to simulate flak crews diving for cover when attacked. Then of course we got the various tricks will need to be modeled. Even if the improvements are only AI I've been asking for this for a while. I get it there is good reason we might never have a flyable Weasel or ECM plane but That's true which is why in this post and others I have stated that I'd be happy if we just got an AI G. Now as for getting flyable G here are the issues I see. Documentation is what is available, good enough? I don't know EW modeling- Right now there isn't a lot of ambiguity modeled, and there are a lot of systems I don't think we'll be able to get audio files for. Without ambiguity or the sound files the G basically becomes an R with an HTS and we don't use the systems on the right side of the cockpit. It won't be the full experience for the EWO's seat. You'd still end up with a SEAD powerhouse for the 1980s. Both issues bring us back to my suggestion for an AI G. At the minimum, we have an F-4 that has AGM-88s and STARMs; in the ideal situation, we have ED and HeatBlur work on an AI system that simulates a mixed ship formation with a G. The G would be the opposite scenario since there is a lot of difference in functionality but there isn't much difference in appearance

definitly

1982 This would be awesome. Flying low and fast over the fulda gap while the F-4s provide air superiority

I'm not sure how close they actually were but as I have said before part of this thread is a strong plea and desire to see Razbam and EAgle to patch things up.

Thud. The thud would be awesome for the cold war Germany map. They were retired in the early 1980s

I would love to see this with a damage model overhaul

Which is why I say settling the dispute is part of the request. I don't know the full details of the dispute and frankly I don't care i just want a settlement and Razbam modules 5 years is probably optimistic

There are two possible fitters in the works. If I would love an early model su-24. the mla would be awesome.

If you don't want to buy anything Razbam that is your choice I don't care who does the floggers. The improved models are really a different subject. I know but both would be awesome

It's just the fact that you keep being a bit of a downer- If the fastest way to get the Flogger is a resolution with Razbam then that should be implied as part of the wish. Heck even a community module might be possible

are you saying you don't want Eagle and Razbam to settle things? If you aren't saying that join the flogger request

yes.

I know some people will say the MiG-21 was the more iconic match up, though the Flogger and Phantom would be a good BVR show down. I'd also state a late cold war Germany map without or Afghanistan without the flogger is just wrong. The only way I can see getting a good multiplayer lineup is with more Cold War modules.

cool find

No matter what happens with the mess with Rambam, I think we should the MIG-23 and 27. I don't care what version but if possible I'd love to see them as a twofer pack if that's not possible that would be fine as well. Either way it would be awesome for Afghanistan

Makes me wonder if the G would be possible

The asset set needs to reflect the modules and maps we have as well as what would be in demand Here is what I have for the cold war. I divided it into a few eras Early Cold War (1945 to 1953)- I consider Stalin's death and the end of the Korean War to be the end of the early Cold War. A lot of World War II leftovers were still in service in this era. So here is my list of modules we currently have or are in the works for this era (we'll ignore the specific variants). F-51, F4U, Spitfire, F-86, MiG-15, La-7, A-1, the I-16 was technically in-service in Spain I'm not counting it tough total period specific : 0 passable post period variants : 2 WWII leftovers: 4. Total 6 period conflicts : Korean war, Mid East wars possible : WWIII period maps none. Khrushev era (1953 to 1964) Right between the Vietnam and Korean wars. The modules we have for this era are the Mig-17, MiG-19, F-100, F-8, F-104, and G.91 to the best of my knowledge these are period variants. The A-4, A-6 and Huey entered service in this era. The A-6 with dumb bomb would probably pass. The F-86 and MiG-15 were still in service, and the last F4U, as was the A-1, The Avionic might be wrong but I am counting the C-130 as passable period modules : 5 passable post period variants 4 Leftovers: 5 total : 13 period conflict : suez crisis (we have the map though not period) Vietnam Era (1965 - 1975) Here is what we have most period correct Mirage F-1, A-4 F-4E, MiG-21 Bis, F-5E, , leftovers : Mig-15, F-86, MiG-17, A-1, MiG-19, F-100. Passable UH-1, CH-53 , C-130, A-6, A-7, Gazelle, Kiowa , BO-105(?) F-14A period : 6 left overs : 6 Post period passable 9 total : 20 conclusion : even without a vietnam map we have a large vin diagram late cold war (1975 - 1991) Most period correct : A-10A, F-15C, MG-21 Bis, F-4E, F-5E, Mirage F-1, A-7, A-6, AV-8B MiG-29, Su-27 , UH-1, Bo-105, Gazelle , Mirage 2k, Su-33, MI-18, Mi-24, Su-25 20 (not counting armed trainers) Left overs : F-100, F-104, MiG-19, MiG-17, G.91, A-1 total 6 Passable : F-16, F/A-18, F-15E , C-130, CH-57, AH-64 F-14 (A and B are both 1990s updrages) total : 7 total : 32 that would work for the period. Conclusion: ED's main focus should be on the late Cold War, followed by the Vietnam era. The late cold war is probably the most complete in terms of assets. The assets that are missing would mostly overlap with the Vietnam era. My top choices for blue for Blue for assets would be F-105, F-102/6, A-3, B-66, F-111 (should be a module), EC-121, Tu-126, for ships battle groups built around the Clemencu, Iowa-class battleships, angled deck Essex or midway-class and Kiev-class carriers. My second choice is the early period- because of the World war II leftovers. Also I believe the Korean war map is a must have for DCS .

ED's size mixed with their priorities and the community's dislike for asset packs. ED has 10001 things on its plate, and no matter what they prioritize, someone will scream about it. I firmly agree that assets is one of the short comings they need to address. I keep saying ED and the other developers need to think about the maps, modules and assets as forming an eco system. Let's take the F-4 and MiG-21. The versions we have are mid/late 1970s versions. There is a list of aircraft and other assets I want to see added to DCS. These two have their place on most of the maps we have.