Vampyre

Because the Hind has been used in conflicts all over the world and is an iconic aircraft. I'd like to see the Mi-24A, Mi-24V and Mi-24P before any iteration of the Mi-28... but that's just me.

It's been my experience that a plan is something to deviate from. Unforeseen circumstances have a tendency to require changes to any plan and to blindly stick to a faulty plan is just plain ignorant. It's interesting watching the progression of the next big release. Back to the topic: I'd like to see combined arms developed for WWII. It seems like a natural development alongside the aircraft and maps being developed and hopefully we can have warships and other naval assets as well. As for tanks, I prefer the Sd.Kfz. 171 Panther.

Or the front seat of an Apache!:thumbup:

Well, I do differ. The stated goal of DCS World, from what I have read, is to be more than just a flight simulator. It seems not everyone shares the idea of ED's grand scheme of a digital combat simulator and only consider DCS World to be just a flight simulator. ED's vision is far broader than just flight simulation and that is the disconnect for a lot of the players who have flown aircraft in DCS (Flaming Cliffs, LOMAC, Su-27 Flanker) for many years... they think it is just a flight sim and the effort ED is putting into other areas to improve the immersion level for all aspects of its digital combat simulator is a waste of resources. That kind of thinking will keep your niche market a niche market. Expansion of the options within the simulation will serve to draw in more people. Computer simulations are similar to movies or theatre in that they require the willing suspension of disbelief by the audience to be successful. If EDGE is the game changer I think it is then the features I have mentioned may be possible for the first time and open up so many more possibilities. That was the purpose of my post in a thread for DCS World 2.0 and new maps vice the wish list thread. The terrain varieties are essential to any DCS armored/helicopter/ship simulation and for immersion of the players who wish to truly use the digital combat simulator to its fullest extent. It doesn't matter for jet aircraft flying thousands of feet in the air so it is not needed right? I see the list as being a necessary list of terrain features to truly make for an engrossing virtual battlefield. I have been happy with everything ED has done to improve the game and make it more like a simulation to date. As for the attitude perception you have dredged from my post, it is indeed your opinion... as is almost everything posted on these forums. Assuming it was aimed at me, I'm not sure where your "we the customers" argument comes from but you need not put words in my mouth that I did not utter.

Can the grass, trees and buildings burn and can we put deep craters in the terrain with a Mk-84 or similar weapons? That's what is needed for CA or any other module that is closely tied to ground combat, terrain that can be molded and shaped by participating forces on the battlefield... destroyed. A 70 ton tank cause a lot of damage to the land it travels over and a lot of them will really scar the land and destroy roads/trails and can create mobility difficulties for follow on vehicles. Trees that are modeled for collisions and AI units that cannot see through foliage are very important as well. The screen shots are very pretty... I hope that is not the extent of the 2.0 edge implementation. I'd like to see a difference in the soil as well with Hard packed earth that an aircraft can land on, bogs, swamps, ponds, lakes, rivers, creeks, streams, rocky terrain, ravines, freshly ploughed fields, forest, jungle and sand dunes to name a few examples. Differing terrain types and flowing waters are essential for the Combined Arms module and any DCS level Tanks/Fighting Vehicles that may be on the horizon. The ability to mold the terrain would be epic as it would enable the possibility to set up user made FARPS and forward airstrips virtually anywhere. DCS Seabee anyone?

Lately, I've really been wanting to fly a fixed wing transport... I'm thinking C-130H Hercules, MC-130H Combat Talon II, C-141B SOLL Starlifter, C-17A Globemaster III, KC-10A Extender, C-5B Galaxy. We need a much bigger map and a way to adjust the cargo loads to account for bulking out before reaching maximum weight and realistic cargo loads though. Oh and Paratroopers... Airborne, Rangers, SEALS, SAS, Delta... more variety in ground forces. I'll second the want of the F-111 but I prefer the F-111F, F-111E, F-111D in that order. I'm sure the Aussies will want the F-111C... it was really the most capable version but it had not seen combat in its service life... that and the WWIII Europe scenario intrigues me much.

I learned by trial and error (mostly in Il-2, Falcon 3, and Janes F-15) but the basics I learned by watching The Art of the Kill video by Pete Bonani and reading Shaws Fighter Combat book. Situational awareness is the key. In multiplayer, a solid grasp of 1v1 BFM will serve you well most of the time because most people do not use wingman tactics. Wingman tactics are much harder to deal with.

Or a MiG-19 and MiG-21PF/PFV/F-13 and the obligatory An-2 Colt for all your very special operations.:thumbup:

All of them! :pilotfly::thumbup:

I'd fly the AH-1G in a Vietnam map, but my true want is an AH-1F (AH-1S Step 3) along with a Fulda Gap map. The AH-1W was a good attack helo but was never as advanced as the AH-64A was and the Apache is the yardstick by which all modern attack helicopters are measured. The Zulu is a totally different aircraft altogether and will be very hard to model with any accuracy without a contract from the Marine Corps. As opposed to the Zulu, all of the other AH-1's are simple in comparison. Regardless of which one Belsimtek models, it will be a day one buy for me.

The F-4E in the photo is an ARN-101 bird modified after the war. The F-4G Advanced Wild Weasel V did not show up until after the war as well. The Navy F-4G's, 12 modified aircraft with automatic carrier landing equipment, were modified in 1963 and after being de-modified in 1967 the designation was dropped by the Navy. I'd love to have both of the Air Force birds in DCS for a mid 80's scenario to work together in hunter killer teams. As for Phantoms in Vietnam, an early F-4E would be a great start but I'd also be happy with an F-4D or F-4J as well.

You would think the F-110 would be popular as well. The Century series planes are the aircraft in the voting selection. I suppose it ended because of the F-107A as that was just a redesigned F-100. I voted F-105... a D or a G please.

I see an new module... DCS: Seabee , or how about DCS: Red Horse:smilewink:

I'd buy an F-105D and an F-105G if they were available. :thumbup:

The OV-10 did FAC well as it was one of the multiple missions it was capable of but it was overkill to limit such an amazing COIN aircraft that way. The O-1E and O-2A were doing the same exact job with similar effectiveness. Think about it like using dedicated A-10's armed only with marker rockets for FAC... which the AF did as well. I'd also like to see the OV-10D NOGS for a DCS:Vietnam. The OV-10 is one of my most desired aircraft for DCS along with the F4U Corsair, F-14 Tomcat, F-4G Wild Weasel IV, CV-22 Osprey and MC-130H Combat Talon II. I'd like to see the OV-10D+ as well. Is an OV-10G+ out of the question... IIRC there are two of them being used by AFSOC right now seeing that the Combat Dragon II program is officially over. I'd love to have a AGM-114 armed Bronco.:thumbup:

Give me a Bronco and I'll do Navy Black Pony CAS in the Mekong Delta just like the original mission intended for the OV-10. The OV-10 was really overkill for the FAC mission but the Air Farce insisted on artificially limiting the airframe to a support role. They have never wanted the CAS mission and still don't as evidenced by the repeated attempts to kill the A-10. VAL-4 stood alerts around the clock to support the other units in the delta and were far more responsive and effective than the Air Force fast movers detailed to cover the area. At one point the air force FAC's were forbidden from passing targets to the Navy OV-10's because, get this,... they were making the Air Force Close Air Support system look bad. I'd prefer to be low and slow in an OV-10 popping guerillas with 5" Zuni's and 20mm cannon fire than zipping around at 500kts scattering sticks of Mk-82's around the jungle hoping to hit something other than friendlies. Anyone want to stand alert at Bien Thuy with me to support the SEAL's, PBR's, HAL-3 and the 21st ARVN Division? Also, on a personal note, my dad was stationed at Bien Thuy (Air Force) in 1970 while VAL-4 was there and it would be interesting to get his reaction to that.

Yes, I flew out of Kuwait International on a 777 in route to Dulles in October of last year. I like to watch the progress of the flight on the headrest monitor while flying and we definitely flew over eastern Syria. When I boarded the flight I knew that was our most likely route but I also knew that it was highly unlikely that we would be shot at even over a war zone. It is not good for anyones propaganda campaign to shoot down civilian airliners. Being a well traveled air corridor, all of the airlines that ply the routes that cross the Ukraine routinely had no reason to think that they would be shot at by SAM's capable of reaching the altitudes an airliner cruises at. As for criminal negligence on the part of the airlines, I really don't see a strong case for it at this time. The negligence is on the part of the SAM battery commander and his leadership who should have known that not every contact in the airspace is hostile and exercised due caution in targeting and firing on contacts. Basic weapons training teaches that a positive identification is a requirement for firing any weapon which leads me to believe that whoever was responsible for firing the missile was less than competent at his job. I agree with Scrim's Occam's Razor analysis of what transpired.

SA-330L Puma... how's that for a fit? Of course it could also be a P-39L Airacobra leatherneck is doing a WWII Pacific module.

I love it!... fuel for the fire. The next one I had lined up was the EA-7L but it looks like I might have to re-evaluate... Kitty huh?

Indifferent. I like aircraft. ***EDIT*** After reading the choices again I'm not sure why you would want to exclude aircraft built in the 70's. The Tomcat is one of my all time favorites and many people like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 as well. That leads me to the conclusion that you possibly mean to say historical from 1903 to 1969 and Modern from 1970 to present.

Yup, F-5E/F's. Actually I've devoted all my posts in this thread to wild speculation and conjecture for the sake of humor... I wrote it that way for a reason. With that being said I think they will be developing an L-382... Now that will be fun for Haulin Trash! Oh! Wait... Is it an L-500?:thumbup:

My number one want for DCS:WWII is an F4U Corsair. It makes me drool just thinking about finally being able to put a DCS Corsair into the drink... Imagine taking off from Vella Lavella with a group if VF-17 Corsairs to go wreck havoc on Rabaul.

I'll second the Hercules request. I'd like to see the MC-130H and maybe an AC-130H/U as well. Turn down the sound and pay attention to all of the missions being preformed. I wouldn't mind doing SF infiltration/exfiltration or some precision landscaping with the GBU-43/B or maybe using the BLU-82 for those times when you just don't care what trees you prune. It's a bit overkill but it could also be used to haul trash in a pinch as well.:thumbup:

+1 :thumbup: All of the aircraft most often flown for ground attack in DCS World are first and foremost CAS platforms. The Su-27, Su-33 and Mig-29 can be used as strike aircraft rather effectively. Can anyone say DCS: F-111F

The MiG-28 looks like an F-5E... which was flown by Top Gun when they were at Miramar... and they also flew the A-4... Is the -L an A-4L Skyhawk?:smilewink: