Vampyre

Here are a sampling of liveries I'd like to see on the Soon™ to be released Starfighter. Most are according to the maps we already have and those that are announced. Some are just what I would like to see.

Still looks like test drops to me as all the bombs seem the same. Need more evidence.

Did they paint all their bombs day glow orange? Looks like a test drop to me. I can't seem to find any other evidence of the Spanish Air Force regularly engaged in ground attack training.

Probably not the Spanish zippers. Most other countries had them though. I'm hoping that they decide to expand the weapons selection a bit more to include air to ground ordnance.

F-104G for sure. Even though Spain only used them as A/A platforms, I hope they include more weapons than just two winders and the gun. Liveries for Spain are a given and I would also like to see Luftwaffe, Marineflieger, USAF, Norwegian, Greek and Turk skins as well.

Most likely a F-104G as it served Spain for about two decades. It would be nice to have liveries for all the countries that used the G and also for weapons such as Kormoran and Bullpup missiles, various other bombs/CBU's (Rockeye, BL-755) and rockets (2.75 in FFAR, CRV-7) from other air forces. A two seat TF-104G would be nice as well if they could pull it off as would a RF-104G. I would not expect a Sparrow or Aspide shooter version such as the F-104S or ASA.

APS-137 is an ISAR radar. The S-3B had it as well. I worked on the Viking for 11 years in the Navy.

Watched the video, It looks like you have too much nose up trim and you never really matched speeds with the tanker. Tomcat, being a non-FBW aircraft requires trimming to maintain level flight. My suggestion is to fly formation and try to maintain a very specific point off the tankers left wing until you have matched speed and adjusted your trim to neutral or very slightly nose up depending on what works best for you. Then maneuver to position trailing the tankers drogue and attempt a hookup. Increases or decreases of speed change the required trim settings because they change the center of lift of the wing either fore or aft. Once you are connected you must still be making minute changes with throttle, stick and trim because as you take on fuel, your aircraft will get heavier necessitating those changes. Being good at formation flying makes tanking so much easier. You should take every opportunity to practice tight formation flying. Good hardware makes precision flying a bit easier as well. Mediocre hardware is not a show stopper though, it just makes things a bit more difficult.

How I think most DCS flyers will react to tanker turn direction announcements.

In a perfect world, the aircraft/LCAC would be full fidelity and ships would all be player controllable. AI almost never does what you want it to do. The AI CH-53 is worse than just low res, it isn't even close to proper scale. We really need a better implementation of combined arms and a way to allow players to man ships and fully control a naval task force. Imagine planning and executing a Marine landing with 20 or 30 of your online friends performing tasking to ensure its success. Getting the forces required to places they are needed, keeping them supplied and supporting them with air support and naval gunfire would be quite interesting and would need good teamwork to be successful. The instant gratification crowd probably won't like it, but those guys aren't really fun to fly with as they don't really have a concept of what teamwork is anyway.

I'd go further than that. I was trying to build an MP base capture/roadblock mission that centers around a Marine landing force. The lack of assets was glaringly obvious. I would go further than the LCAC and Wasp to include San Antonio, Whidbey Island, Austin, Lewis Puller, Montford Point, Newport classes of amphibious ships. I'd also want smaller vessels to support the landing force such as LCM's and PC's as well as a more fleshed out air wing that includes CH-53E, UH-1N, AH-1T/W, CH-46E, MH-60S, and possibly MV-22B. A wider variety of vehicles such as more HMMWV variants, LAV-AT, LAV-M, LAV-C2, LAV-R, M777, FMTV, MTVR, LVS, LVSR, Cougar and JLTV would also be appreciated. The only native DCS USMC assets are the LAV-25 and AAV-7. The Tarawa, KC-130 and AV-8B were added by Razbam and I do appreciate them very much for adding those to DCS world.

TBM-3 Avenger, F4U-4 Corsair, B-26 Marauder, He-219 Uhu, Me-210/Me-410.

The F-4 was referred to as the Rhino before the even the legacy Hornet was a twinkle in its designer's eye. The Super Hornet picked up the moniker because the Navy needed a way to quickly differentiate a Hornet from a Super Hornet around the boat due to the different weights for, mainly, landing.

Thats not just by the road, that is in front of the Threat Training Facility. When on det there and staying in the transient barracks, I would walk past it daily. Lots of cool stuff in there... they even have a Hind.

If you have about two hours its a pretty good watch. There are a few redundancies between the presenters but the cockpit parts were interesting... The B-one can give fuel back to the tanker.

I made a similar argument in a similar thread a few months ago for the F-5F. The systems already exist and the combat capability isn't overpowering. The F-5F would showcase the basic features of DCS very well. It does make the most sense from a capability/feature/financial perspective but the only thing that really kills it, and any other free module, is the two week trial. As for a counterpart to the Toad, another FC3 level aircraft doesn't fit within the DCS mission statement.

Yeah, good luck getting any information on TIALD due to the classification issues you will get from the British MOD. A GR-1A or Jaguar A would probably be the best way forward... am I the only one who thinks the T-2 looks snazzy?

I agree that more assets would be good to have, asset packs are not the way. The problem with asset packs is that they fracture the multiplayer player base because they require everyone who wants to fly that particular mission to have the pack if even just one unit from the pack is included. This has been discussed ad nauseum in previous threads. I think the better way to get assets into the game would be to include them as free to use assets with modules/maps and sink the costs of developing them in with the price of the module/map itself. Razbam has done this already with the release of the South Atlantic map and the 1982 period assets from the Falkland's war and their Harrier II with the AI KC-130. Those assets have become really useful for my MP missions. Razbam don't get enough credit for this. I think that is the way forward. Oh, and the Tu-22 Blinder needs to be a full fidelity module.

F4U-4B/-5 OV-10 Bronco S-3 Viking A-3 Skywarrior Hawk Harrier (first gen) Q-5 Fantan Tu-22 Blinder Helicopters- CH-53 NH-90 AW-101 SA-330/332/532

They will always droop unless the safety foam spacer is installed while on the ground. The seeker freely moves with airflow, or in that case, the lack there of.

Do not expect a discount. If your friends only want a naval aircraft then your best chance to turn them around is to fly the E in their presence and that may sway a few of them. If not, then they are not real F-4 fans so that is a clear indication that you need better friends.

While I can refuel at night better lighting would make things a bit easier. I'd also like to see the bow waves and burble for all aircraft modeled. I've been wanting a KC-10 in DCS for a long time and I do hope one day ED will also throw us a B-one.

Get them while you can for the end is nigh for the double ugly.

Interesting to see how the swiss cheese model works.... what a goat rope!