Kaktus29

@ranqi.. i disagree.. the build up of ABM in Europe, Alaska, and in close future Japan, South Korea shows US is gearing up for a major war against a much more capable opponent than Afghanistan Ak-47 army.. the fact that world in inter-connected works in so much that prevents war from occuring when IT WORKS.. when the structure begins to CHANGE/OR fall apart space is released where WAR can occur against major nations.. First avenue of the war will not be even cyber-space but financial space..and its already happening.. Assault on the US dollar is in place, and US assault on everybody assaulting US dollar is happening as well.. soon second phase of financial attack coupled with cyber warfare and psychological psy-ops will commence and then we go into last avenue of war-Actual militaries engagments.. China knows very well that the first two phases will be very important and that if you loose the two phases you enter a war at a major disadvantage to your forces, morale and ability to wage war successfully.. So, yeah, the fact that US air force is upgrading its fleet of drones with jet-drones and replacing the prop drones with faster, stealthier jet engine drones shows you the need to have an air force that can wage war against hi-tech enemy not talibans..

i must say in retrospect that i was wrong, A-10 is obsolete, even in CAS role that will be waged in future much different wars than today's.. with new generation satellites, all kind of battlefield communication flowing from infantry assault rilfe lasers to HQ units to F-35 flying at 40.000 feet miles away with GPS glide bombs... we have a situation where more of power will be delivered faster and much more accurately than A-10 plus the force delivering this will be able to do other missions such as air-to-air and data mining and sharing for other assets-arty units, mortar units etc.. A-10 does look out of place.. but this works only if one wages a real hi-tech war against complex strong opponent.. for hunting talibans A-10 is obviously better in deliver of bombs per cost associated with this than F-35 ever would be.. but it seems (logically) Pentagon rather have an army able to defeat larger more sophisticated enemies than be cost-effective at battling taliban ak-47 army ..

as some (me included) assumed the Light Fighter multirole project is coming on or has been on for some time.. now question what will it look like.. i think it will be a crossover of Su-25/Mig-29 but in a modern stealth way.. so the light fighter project will be as air-to-air oriented also capable of doing lion share of CAS work in the future when Rooks get replaced.. http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131211/185462424/Russia-to-Develop-Light-Class-Fighter-Jet.html

i read couple of months ago that yes, most probably long term Su-25SM will be replaced by a new design CAS plane that will probably have stealth features and have some air-to-air capability.. so F-35 that is more ground oriented and less expensive and more armored and much less stealthy but still much more stealthy than Su-25.. and it would go online in 2025-35..

yup, read this news 2 days ago.. its going to be a reliable missile especially in the last stage of flight when enemy starts pulling serious G's to evade it..or even before.. but it is expensive as such..most probably will be reserved for high-value targets and not for drones, and teen fighters of the west..

@vekkinho yeah, i like the designs, some have drone designs almost and would do the job nicely if designed in such a role..

interesting.. the range extends to 1000 km, it is mostly slower, but overall i would see this concept as a nice drone program than piloted plane.. take the pilots out and fill that space with fuel and that prop plane-drone gets to stay in air 10 times longer than Su-25..

would people accept platoon size units that would act as 1 object to make it easier for the computer and most of the firing/defending etc. would be non-simulating in graphical world or it would be minimal at best to reduce CPU overload..but it would be simulated in F10 commander screen and this unit would be able to call in CAS or ask for back up by other squads, or brigades, or ARTY etc.. for me personally i wouldn't mind having more of Tactical platoon sized units that graphically wouldn't act 1-soldier at a time, but more like Total War series platoon or brigade or whatever size.. and then simply APPLY logic in strategy games like (if 1 platoon fights 1 platoon in open field than equation for who looses is this..and t-time needed is such, if 1 platoon faces 2 platoons -one at front, one from flank- then this implies 0.45 more losses to the 1-platoon surrounded and reducing time for finish battle by etc etc.. so in graphical world this wouldnt' look much, but it would still give great depth in tactical and strategic world.. we can have F10 commander with option to move those 50 soldiers platoons that computer would see as 1 unit in traditional sense and only apply (variables as i mentioned before according to the situation at hand) and you would have radio contact if in F-10 or if playing CAS etc.. same can be done with tanks, recon, armored BMP brigades etc.. so we can still limit all of it in 20-40 units and still in reality it would look like anything from 1000 soldiers to 10.000 soldiers..

@sobek, well its not like they are using this as approved livery for the series.. just playing with colors .. to me it looks awesome, very slick, nice, smooth color .. but in fight, 5gen fight i think the color of this fighters will matter the least .. unless one paints it in bright fluorescent orange i think they are fine..

i think there is some truth in both camps here.. R-77 obviously exists but is it really needed for RuAF? right now? Russian army is in big re-armament stage right now as such many new weapons designed that will have to do their work for the next 20 so years at least.. meaning is it wise to spend money on a 1990-1998 product? especially if it involves some western parts that would make it much easier for the western company to carry this info to CIA and US gets exactly insight of how much stock does RuAF have.. not to mention painful embargo situation in case of political tension as well.. So, i think R77 as it is will not play an important air-to-air missile part in RuAF in the future.. there will be of course something new, and more home-made than R77 since some parts of R77 are foreign.. but for playing game sake, its not controversial for Mig-29S to use it in DCS.. or in real life.. unless we are in a WW3 scenario where you can run out of stock in 2 hour battle over Georgia.. lol.

just found a new theater that would be good to simulate and would be NEW to all the options i listed before.. the 1971 India-Pakistan war that involved all the superpowers influencing, threatening and deciding.. it ended with the creation of Bangladesh and we have India armed with Russian weapons and Pakistan with US weapons.. also battle is in mountains, valleys, sea, air .. its hard to simulate of the non-fighting that was involved that would make this scenario especially HOT as it almost was..but even with that, lots of action in the navy department and air department.. here to read if you were unaware of that war or have little info .. http://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html

god this would be a great setup for my living room )) i'm just not sure i could find any bank financing the loan for this setup )) how much do you think this simulator costs? .. 50.000 USD? 400.000 USD? ..

Tu-22 )))

interesting, doing a more simulated T-72 is of course wonderful and amazing, of course only if your side will win the air war.. if not, it will make more sense to play from tactical point of view on F10 where you decide to move units around the map, hide units (camouflage), activate SAM's according to EW radar stations and lead more of a guerrilla style warfare and if you are wining the air war obviously it would be great being in the tank and supporting the troops, leading the attack etc..

@winz.. as i said, what we need is a functioning AI of sorts.. an AI to monitor the units and "write them down" as you hit "SAVE" button.. i mean I CAN DO THIS right now.. PAUSE the game, write the coordinates of units, groups, their waypoints, altitude, speed, banking, yaw, pitch.. it will take me some 45 minutes to put down some 30 - 40 units but i can do it.. then in ME i can put those numbers i got from F10 map to a NEW mission and voila.. we have "SAVED" a mission.. i can't see why this is so hard.. i mean a computer can "write" this numbers down much faster than i can.. it shouldn't take more than 1 second.. the problem as i see it is not-functioning AI logic.. we would need ME-F10 AI logic tha would understand what "SAVE" the picture means.. and translate it to "new mission" that is updated with the situation.. about mid-air A-10C etc..and all the new things that are changed and complications as you said it, why? why is it so hard.. as you said, in the beggining of the mission there is a DEFAULT setting for the plane.. so plane that is NOT shot up, that both engines work, fuel tanks not ruptured etc.. all that "save" button would do is do a reduction equation from the default setting.. like default was this and this - (as in MINUS) new realities.. (lower fuel, less ordnance, damage to left wing ) .. i know that if one really wants SAVE mission to work when major AIR WAR is happening is very hard, and i'm not saying this to be done since it could prove lot of work-not impossible-but lots of work..but even so, people are forgeting that the biggest problem to creating Dynamic campaign IS the SAVE option... in that view i think its the most important thing in DCS ever.. more than new modules, new engine, new whatever.. A Save option gives you ability to actually START a war with so and so units and prosecute a WAR.. over limitless missions or until war is won/lost (considering the damage you have done or territory you have won/lost).. after SAVE is enabled we can start working on AI logic in understanding Air POWER/Air dominant vs. contentious air space/SEAD/Tactical ground attack with Air cover-Escort/CASARTY/Armor/Infantry/- .. Right now its all dry and empty cuz its basically one mission at a time-without any real connection between one and the other especially since there is no SAVE enabled that would give you a sense that when you destroyed a bridge to prevent armor to cross it you see this result in next mission that forces enemy armor to go around to different bridge or wait for engineering brigade ... SAVE option is more important that anything right now..

kaktus29 points with hand at fishbreath.. -what he said! ))

why would we need "current motion in space"? .. i think ending the mission would be possible only when planes NOT in combat.. so if they are just flying and not being engaged or engaging something you could press "end mission" and "saving" of ground units to ME and all other flying crafts would automatically be stationed at their home bases.. so when you start a new mission it would be from that point BUT with planes stationed at their bases.. i think this would be a low-cost option to make "save" possible.. no matter how we look at it, SAVE is more than doable.its a shame it hasn't been implemented even in the most modest ways.. especially with CA as it expands this makes things easier.. since you could do stuff if you are not flying and waiting for some 5-10 minutes for an engagement of some planes to finish.. missions can be designed in such a way that they "close" by 2 hours..reactionary forces like GAI, or CAP are irrelevant as when there is no opponent they can easily be put back to their home-bases for next mission (plus minus the ammo they used and planes they destroyed as info stays with them-again easy to do since this is what debrief already does now)..

don't speak Russian but understand quite a bit.. i would say google translated it more or less satisfyingly to get the picture.. the dude needs some help with engine specifications of T-72 tank, .. so what is this a MOD for CA so to have more units or something.. controlling Roland.. or some 3rd party thing going on..

@cichlidfan ... okei, let me put it this way.. when in ME we put waypoints, planes, tanks, etc.. we build a mission.. this is in ME..then we press FLY and this materialized in the Sim.. why can't we have this process in reverse? .. like, the moment you stop the mission this waypoints that were already in ME and planes that were already in ME at the beginning of the mission now get UPDATED in the ME when you come back to de-brief.. its basically debriefing in ME .. translating the debrief we see after the mission where you can see who fired which missile and killed which guy etc.. basically translate this data into pics on ME.. so a crashed plane is GONE-not needed on the map, and the one alive is now on the airfield it landed and was recorded where it landed... i still refuse to accept why this is so hard.. a freaking save option for cryin out loud.. i don't care if it wouldn't be 100% correct..like a tank column of 20 tanks was driving on road on a waypoint of 30 miles.. it got hit with ground assault planes and 4 tanks were destroyed.. mission ended at lets say 12:24 ..meaning mission lasted 24 minutes and in this time column moved so much miles ahead to its goal waypoint.. we already have the GRID in the F10 map.. we can implement this to "TRANSLATE" the picture to ME.. you have a tank on this coordinates here and here, you have helis on this coordinates.. this are just numbers, no huge task for modern CPU's.. no graphics needed.. nothing.. but AI capable of registering this things before mission finally shuts down and takes you back to ME or whatever..

the recent news about incoming development of SR-72 the REPLACEMENT of old SR-71 with this new DRONE btw is proof that Aurora WAS REAL.. they developed it and tested the plane to the max and after all this time now doing the drone version of it.. and all this talk about satelite versus spy plane.. US air force is not doing this for recon purposes but for Offensive capabilities.. to have the option to bombard without fear of retaliation upon the aircraft.. they call it "the new stealth" .. this thing will fly mach 6 in upper limits of our atmosphere dropping bombs around the globe.. and being practically unreachable by all known defenses we have now.. since it is designed to be of stealthy nature plus high altitude plus high speed makes it pretty much invulnerable to make all kind of bombing missions around the planet.. Aurora was integral part that culminated in this new drone being developed..

a save function is a must, and its more than doable.. don't know why is this such a big issue to enable.. its even easier than the "save track" thing since the computer would not need to save the whole track but only that one particular moment in time, .. and then you open the save point and continue from there on.. i don't get it, why don't we have this by now? .. being able to save a point would make dynamic campaigns much more possible with better continuity along the war as it happens..

Happy Birth Day to our main man.. ! .. hope its great weather wherever you are and use the day for celebrating all your hard work you have been giving during the past year..

haha, lol.. you come to a professional pilot to ask him stuff he ends up asking you how he can fix his stick in DCS )) lol...

@bushmanni .. i know, which is why i would love a more structured teaching course of DCS.. where one could actually learn how to deploy its aircraft together as a team with others.. this is what is missing in all sims right now.. there is no real training.. its like, here is the aircraft, this is how the plane goes zoom-zoom, and now go out there and blast away.. no structure, no real "academy" if you will.. i know DCS can't recreate 4 years of flight school or even military flight school for us, but some rudimentary things that would test our abilities to listen, respond to orders in correct manner and be proficient enough at bombing, rocket attacks, gun attacks, etc.. would be fun.. like you do this thing and after if you pass you get your A.I. diploma approval )) as somebody said, it would make recruiting new pilots in virtual squads much easier if we had such a "base of graduates" on list somewhere..

yeah its hard, if i would get a chance to be in a military simulator and military officers would be testing me and grade my performance i just might get so nervous and flip the plane at take-off to complete my short professional career as a military sim-pilot ))) but yeah, i think it would be nice to have more strict formation not just training of flying but also in attack, egress point, ingress etc.. i mean, in real life there is quite small space to move with your plane when coordinating an assault on enemy position in regards to the other planes in your formation..in 2WW it was even more strict since plane's were less accurate and had to follow their lead-plane quite closely when dropping bombs, machine-gunning etc.. so the effect would be like a constant barrage on a particular area where enemy happens to be and making sure probability of destruction is high enough to call that mission a success.. in modern situation this formations when 4 or 8 planes attack in CAS or in Ground attack are different, but how so, we don't know-at least i don't.. and it would be nice to add this feature on DCS to train in this, and be graded, so if you are capable of performing in a team-squad of at least 4 planes it would count as "PASS" as a CAS pilot ))lol.. i know that when i give my order to my fellow AI Su-25's to attack they use their own thing and fly their own way in formation, repeating the assault over and over again with very high probability of hitting the enemy with each pass, but with me i fly like solo almost, it looks like if somebody would watch TAC view that there are 3 pilots in a squad and one crazy dude doing his own thing there obstructing the air pathways and making sure some sort of collusion in air is possible with his team-mates.. (p.s.:i actually collided once with my fellow Su-25 AI as he was egressing and i was diving in.. ) ..