WHOGX5

As an A-10C owner I would gladly cough up the money to buy a full fidelity A-10A.

Personally, I'd take a F-16 above pretty much anything else. However, I'd really like to see some Russian full fidelity modules since right now we pretty much only have the MiG-15 and MiG-21, while the US are, within a year or two, going to have the A-10, F-18, F-14, AV-8B, and a rumored clickable F-15. The only upcoming Russian aircraft I know of is the Tu-22 by Black Cat Simulations, and they aren't even a confirmed third party yet. So a clickable MiG-29/25 or Su-27/33/25 would be amazing. But not as amazing as a F-16. :D

Any H-60 will be an instant buy for me, but I'd prefer a special operations variant, like the HH-60G or MH-60K.

Does anyone know if the AJS-37 had a winter camouflage? Or did it simply use its splinter camo all year round?

The 2K22 Tunguska has an optical tracking system in addition to its radars which means that it can track you while remaining undetected.

+1 This!

Actually, the block 40 can carry the HTS pod and AGM-88's for SEAD missions aswell as the sniper, litening, and (unlike the block 50) the lantirn pods with flir displaying on the hud and a terrain following radar for low altitude and night time missions. So I'd actually prefer a block 40 over a block 50. And I'd prefer a block 50 over anything older than a block 40. Just my two cents..... :D

If you press Alt+F2 the camera will pivot around itself instead of the unit, allowing you to do just what you're asking for.

If Leatherneck decides to make an E-2 (which I pray to god someone will do), then please, PLEASE, give us a C-2 aswell! :D

An OV-10D and/or OV-10D+ would be great fun in the AFAC and light attack role. Also, hellfires were never cleared for use with the bronco.

About your first point, if you prefer IL-2, then play IL-2. DCS is pretty much the only clickable combat sim out there, while there are many alternatives for non-clickable sims if you prefer that. I would rather have one clickable than 5 non-clickable. I would rather have full-fidelity modules than FC3 style modules. About your second point, you should check this out. This is leap motion. No gloves. No nothing. Just a sensor. As you said, motion controllers are too much of a hassle. I really think leap motion or some kind of motion gloves that work with the htc lighthouse setup for instance, is the future of vr and the way to go. Just let go of your hotas and reach out to whatever you want to interact with. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

ED rescaled the HUD so that they could move the default viewpoint further forward because it was hard to see the instruments and gauges while maintaining a decent FOV. AFAIK you can't have a realistic head position in the A-10C without getting an oversized HUD. Maybe there is some .ini tricks that I don't know of... Here's an active thread spanning from 2011 to present day about this issue: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=68821

Why not just add an option in the special settings for the A-10C. One option for scaled up HUD and the current head position, and one option for a regular sized HUD and the default head position being against the seat. Everyone's happy.

This. I'm all in favour of orange versus green because red versus blue is indeed polarizing. I chose to join blufor purely on reflex, since i live in a western country. And as long as one airframe isn't on both sides, I wouldn't mind mixing it up a little with a mix of eastern and western aircrafts on each side. It would probably balance the rounds making for more interesting gameplay and stop the teamstacking on the blue side.

+9000 This would be an amazing adition as an option in the editor. It would be nice if all the equipment that had been retired by the selected date was unavailable aswell.

That is indeed true. I guess it wouldn't hurt having access to both trainers and the system you propose. IMO, anything that will ease the learning curve will prove beneficial to the growth of the community.

That's great! I don't think there is any point in updating missile data due to the rumored updated missile model in 2.5 but once that is out, maybe one should do a DCS remake of that document with accurate data and make the descriptions more general instead of describing everything from a F-16 pilots point of view. And as you pointed out, some things are missing like the SA-11, Su-33, etc.

If you turn on your night vision and switch to the other pilot before the goggle animation is finished, the pilot you switched to, who has his goggles in the up position, will see everything in green while the pilot with the goggles down won't. I played around with it a little and even managed to get both pilots with goggles down but neither actually had night vision. Got this in DCS 1.5.4.55584 Update 3.

It is indeed. Thrustmaster Warthog and G27 plugged in with the trim working like a charm. Thanks ED! :D

If anyone has the time and willpower to do it, they could just edit the values and adapt it to DCS. According to Wikipedia (if that is anything to go by) the AIM-120B has a range of 75km while the R-77 has a range of 80km, and the AIM-120C has a range of 105km while the R-77-1 has a range of 110km. In DCS though, the R-77 sucks ass. And whether the Su-27 can carry the R-77 or not, I don't know. There has been a lot of arguing on this forum about it. Microprose chose to implement it, ED chose not to.

Me and a friend bought the L-39 (which I wasn't interested in the least, but it had multi-crew, so I bought it) specifically so I could teach him how to fly and it was way beyond my expectations. You're there. You can see every little movement he does with the stick and throttle. You can correct him at a moments notice if he is flying too slow or coming in too low. I can even take over the controls if he is about to stall or crash, or if I just want to demonstrate a landing or manouver. And then there is that great feeling of accomplishment when you're finally just along for the ride when your student has mastered all of the basic skills. I'm one of those guys who was growing tired of the endless stream of trainer aircrafts coming to DCS but the L-39 changed my mind on that. As soon as all other trainers get multi-crew, they'll be worth it. I've spent far too much time trying to teach people to fly via Skype and the like, but it will never even get close to actually being in the same aircraft. Can't recommend it enough for training purposes!

I have an old Falcon threat guide that I thought I'd share. The awesome thing about it is that it has info on all kinds of hostile aircrafts, missiles, SAMs, and AAAs, with just about any info you need. Guidance mode, speed, min/max altitude/range, strengths and weaknesses, CM and ECM vulnerability, and appropriate offensive and defensive measures. It also specifies which aircrafts can carry which missiles so you know what to be prepared for. It is by far the best threat guide I've come across, which is why I still use it. f4_threat_quickguide.pdf

I suppose they just eject from one aircraft and walk up to another one. Don't know for sure though.

That looks awesome! Your effort is much appreciated!

+1 Seems like at least we'll probably be getting some sort of ground crew with the carrier modules.