upyr1

As it looks like we might be getting a folda gap map, I would love to see an A or early C model

I have stated this before, if there are noticeable but minor differnces between two blocks such as weapons then it would be nice to have a multipack. Though with the 50 and 52 I would like a few things cleared up, my understanding of things is that the main difference between the Block 50 and 52 was the engine, and the CJ came in both the 50 and 52 variant as the defining trait of the CJ is the harm targeting pod. Next do you have any documentation about either the 50 or 52 carrying the Shrike, as I'm thinking the last Shrikes were fired in Desert Storm and the 50 and 52 entered service after the last Shrike was gone. I know the F-16 carried the Shrike in Desert Storm and earlier, and with the upcoming folda gap map those blocks would be nice to have. Lastly, the Harpoon, if this is, in fact, a difference then it would be a good reason to add the 52 to the existing viper module. I know the engine and flight model would be slightly different so even if I am right that would be the only difference then that alone would be the reason to have the block 52.

The question though is what % would be the same?

While simply slapping a Soviet livery on the model we have won't work, I'm still wondering how hard would it be for Dekka to tweak the model and add the tail gun, right nose and antennae?

and if they had waited until the 28th it would be on the anniversary of the first flight

My dream map would also include Sicily

The main question here before we get to the technical issues, are if you saw a Tu-16 and an H-6 sitting on the flight line without any markings how hard would it be to tell them apart?

I know there are quite a few differences, though the question is how hard would it be to convert the existing model?

We have the H-6 in the Chinese asset pack would it be possible to get a Tu-16 based on the H-6 model?

While they might not be identical the real question here is how much time they think it will it take

I think this would be a good request for Dekka. I don't think it would be too hard to convert the existing h-6 into a tu-16.

When comparing real-world and DCS explosions it is important to ask not only what sort of bomb was used but also what was the target? If a massive explosion in a video could be an ammo dump exploding or it could be the DCS explosion is too small

My qustion right now is if there is enough information for an F-111B?

I know we can't have a Mideast map now due to TDK limits but looking at what ED is doing with Afghanistan, I could see it as an eventual possibility. ED could model blanks spots then set up a system where the maps would load as needed

I would love to see a WWII or Cold war Eastern Europe map. I don't expect tosee a modern era one . I would love to see an expanded Caucuses map and one for Kurks in World War II.

Yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCB-27?wprov=sfla1 It looks like the SCB-27 rebuilds were done shortly after WWII the 5-inch turrets by the Superstructure were removed.

The La-7 is in the works by Octopus-G so there is no reason to cancel it. I would agree we need the Zero and other Japanese planes especially as flyable modules. However we still need REDFOR assets for the Korean era as well as World War II. There is no reason to to have both.

We have the AD on the way it's the A-1H variant (ad-6 pre 1963). The A-1D (ad-4N) was a night attack variant I would like some more information but that could be interesting. My next question is would the planned Essex Carrier work? I know they went through a scb refit. We also need the redfor

We need some ground assets at the minimum some infantry with ppsh.

The last time that I know for a fact a battleship fired her secondary battery in anger was New Jersey during her Vietnam deployment. More often than not the secondaries were dual purpose.

They really need to change their mind. There minimum I am asking for would be assest redfor that would work for both WWII and the Korean-war era.

I've had mixed feelings about the death of MAC, just as I did about it being developed in the first place. On oneside it would have been nice to DCS to be strictly FF and MAC as a separate but related product. However, I've also stated that if we are going to have FC-level modules then I think ED should make it a point to add aircraft that would otherwise not be available in DCS due to lack of data. My biggest fear with the FC versions of the MiG-15 and F-86 is that they will continue to exist in an asset desert since right now all we have in the way of Korean War era assets are those two, BlueFor's WWII leftovers, and we have the AD in the works and while they weren't used in the Korean war the La-7 is planned as well. No matter what we get in the way of Korean-era assets, I'll be a bit miffed, though I'd be less miffed if we get said assets. If we get the Korean war-era assets then why didn't ED ad them to the WWII asset pack or DCS core depending on what was appropriate and if we don't get them then why did ED even bother with FC versions of the MiG-15 and F-86.

I've said it multiple times before, ED really needs to work on East Front assets. I'd love to see the Caucuses map expanded to include Volgograd, and a 1940s version included so we could fly the I-16 over Stalingrad. As for the assets to add I would recommend starting with those that served along side both the I-16 and MiG-15 first

It's that time of the month