Vampyre

I wonder how many voters realize that the Cobra they are voting for doesn't have a turret mounted 20MM Cannon, missiles or an EO telescopic sight. It's basically a skinny Huey with a GL and 7.62mm minigun in the nose and 57mm rockets and gun pods on the wings. I voted F-105 and HH-3. I'm not really big on the Vietnam era and most of the options on the list I would rather see as mid 70's-1991 versions... I would also like to see a post Vietnam F-105D T-stick II and an F-105G Wild Weasel III as well. The original HH-3E Jolly Green Giant would be nice to have as it could also be used historically until the mid-80's. Other options I would want would be the OV-10A Bronco, A-4B-F Skyhawks (although I really want an A-4M/OA-4M), B-57 Canberra, F-5C Skoshi Tiger, A-37B Dragonfly and A-26K Counter Invader.

But Willem Defoe was in the movie... not the book. I stopped reading at Final Flight. I have an autographed copy of that one from the late 80's.

Technically, Tiger Cole is in the Morgue too. Perhaps Doc the flight surgeon could fill in. He can't run the systems and says a bunch of random stuff all while being scared of your flying.

You have it backwards. In the Air Force the Crew Chief is responsible for assisting the pilot in getting the aircraft started. The Crew Chief is called Chief in that service. In the Navy, the Squadron final checkers, assisted by the deck crew manning so equipped tractors, are the personnel that attach the huffer hose and are directed by the Plane Captain to start the huffer. That is all done through hand signals. It is a very rare occurrence that you would see a Navy Chief hooking up and running a huffer to get a jet started on the flight deck. Usually, the only squadron Chief on the flight deck is the FDC and his main purpose is to ensure timely and efficient squadron maintenance operations on the deck. The menu callout is correct for Air Force and incorrect for Navy.

The KC-135 we have has a refueling receptacle. It is labeled as a KC-135R but it is actually a KC-135RT of which less than a dozen were built. I wouldn't mind seeing a KC-135A, KC-135E and KC-135R as variants of the KC-135 are the most numerous of all tankers. The A model would cover tankers from the 60's, 70's and early 80's. Also, the KA-6D is desirable as well... the S-3B would be worthy of a full fidelity as it is far more than just a tanker. My hope is that Heatblur will be able to implement a D-704 pod on its A-6E and if that is possible than that would open up so many more possibilities for tactical tanking with full fidelity modules.

Victor K2 KC-97 KB-50 As for the KC-10, I'd like to see that as a full fidelity flyable at some point.

The J8II PP and BSIII are fictional drawing board aircraft that didn't even make it to the prototype stage as they never actually flew with the upgrades planned for them. The F-20 was an actual functioning aircraft with real capabilities which would put it into a category all its own.

It looks like the failed prototype arguments are out the window with the recent announcement of the J-8II PP and Ka-50 BSIII release. At least the F-20 actually flew and fired weapons.

Does that mean Norm 81A and B?

Probably, they are not good with either directions, English or they are just lazy. They could be trolling or it could be a combination of all of the aforementioned causes. It would be nice to be able to clean out all of the irrelevant posts and maybe move them off to a random Phantom livery thread.

Yup, that sounds like a huge legal mess.

In DCS, a HUD is not necessary to be effective if you know your aircraft. In BFM (If your module is well designed) you will know what state your aircraft is in with visual and audio cues put in to offset the lack of haptic feedback. If you are constantly looking forward to check your altitude, attitude, airspeed and lift vector then you are fighting yourself as much as you are fighting the enemy. In BFM if you lose sight then you will lose the fight. The Heatblur F-14 is a great example as its HUD is not a primary flight instrument. It will buck, shake and wobble visually and the sounds of the airflow and rattling in the cockpit plus knowing that the lift vector will always be directly out of the top of the aircraft tells me the same thing a HUD would with the added benefit of not having to take my eyes off the bandit. The HUD will only become useful in the last seconds before the kill... same as a gunsight. For BVR all of the instruments can be viewed with a good cockpit scan which should be done even with a HUD. For air to ground, having CCIP and CCRP functions with release cues are handy, but again not necessary. Having flown the DCS F-5E a lot in the past (because it was the closest thing I could get to an F-4 at the time) I got good at manual depression bombing... to the point that I could kill moving MBT's with Mk-82's consistently. That kind of skill is honed over time with practice and is perishable. Having a HUD is easy mode for air to ground and is where that instrument shines. It makes a poor pilot seem mediocre and a mediocre pilot seem good. The F-4 spent the vast majority of its service life and made its reputation without a HUD. That, and the fact that all of the HUD modified versions are small in number, from differing countries, vastly different from each other in both form and function and the difficulties of finding required information/SME's combines to make them less desirable for a module maker in DCS. It seems to me that, simply to cater to the HUD cripples or a minority of nationalistic sentiments, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. As for the game modification people I'm sure they will jury rig something up.

The Tu-22 would add interesting cold war gameplay and an actual bomber in DCS. The Syria map has the H3 airfields where the Iraqi Tu-22B's were based. The upcoming Kola Peninsula would be a great map for the missile carriers. Pretty much any map would be good though because this is DCS. The mission maker will decide how to best use the assets available. The cold war MP servers would have a deep strike platform to add flavor to the missions. Another issue I have noted is that there is no equivalent bluefor aircraft available as with a similar capability. Most of the bluefor types in the same category are nuclear only platforms (B-58, Mirage IV) so the closest to similar bluefor aircraft in the time period would be the F-111.

If ED were to create a better representative full fidelity free trial module, I highly doubt they would sink time and money into something totally new or substantially different than an existing DCS module especially with the existence of the two week free trials. If they were to push forward and do it, I imagine it would be something along the lines of a full fidelity F-5F. The base F-5E-3 is supposed to be getting an update with possible new features. A basic F-5F would add to the experience being a combat capable two seat aircraft. The two-seat configuration will allow for an experienced player to bring along a new player and show off DCS and it is not an aircraft most would pick to take to a fight on a regular basis with other paid modules being better in almost every respect. It will show off DCS without impacting sales of most other modules. A completely new or more complex aircraft is highly unlikely. Like I said though, I doubt they will do it with the two week free trial.

If you don't intend on using DCS World for entertainment purposes, then I would recommend not spending money on it. If you want to create a video with DCS World for presentation purposes only then I would reach out to someone who uses DCS World regularly and can record and edit it. If you don't know anyone, which it sounds like is the case, then I would try reaching out to one of the Youtube content creators like Growling Sidewinder or C.W. Lemoine. You need someone who knows how to use the game software, recording software and editing software. They do the Youtube thing for money so you might have to hash out some terms. It sounds like you have an interesting story there.

This is a wish list sub forum thread. We are indicating that we want it and elaborating as to why it would be a good subject for DCS.

Don't forget about the meta game where you take a shot of bottom shelf vodka after every successful sortie until you either die in a fireball or pass out at your controls while waiting for refuel and rearm.

I'm a big fan of 70's and 80's cold war aircraft and would really appreciate an actual cold war bomber like the Blinder. I highly doubt we will see a full fidelity Tu-22M3 in game so a Blinder would be the next best thing. Tu-22KD and KPD missile carriers and the Tu-22B bomber versions would be very interesting platforms to have in game. Not only would they be difficult to handle, they would also be difficult to employ successfully. The western contemporaries like the B-58 Hustler and Mirage IV were nuclear only platforms but the Blinders had a robust conventional capability and long service life that lends itself well to DCS. Even the Tu-22RD had a conventional bombing capability and if ED ever creates any actual reconnaissance gameplay that would be another mission it could be used for. The Iraqi and Libyan Tu-22B's were Modified Tu-22R's that had their cameras and other sensors removed. ED, being afraid to model special weapons in game, should not have a problem with the Blinder as the missiles used on the KD and KPD versions (ASM, ARM and Land Attack) had both nuclear and conventional warhead variants. They could just do like they do with the Blinders what they already do with the modern aircraft already in DCS and completely ignore the nuclear capability. The biggest problem I see is the maps... not particularly the size of the maps but the size of the runways on the maps as this particular aircraft used a lot of real estate for its takeoff and landing rolls. The four RATO bottles under the wings would help a bit but it will still be extremely limited by the airfields it can be based at within the DCS maps. I would like to see this as a full fidelity module in DCS because Soviet aircraft designs are interesting and for having a supersonic aircraft that cam lob toss a 20,000lb conventional bomb. Just imagine the fear that would cause in cold war MP servers. Being the number one target and successfully executing a mission would be great fun.

I did. Thats why I know who owns the aircraft and you do not. The 21st Fighter Squadron operates the ROC F-16A/B Block 20 aircraft at Luke AFB for training Taiwanese F-16 pilots in the US. It only takes 30 seconds to verify this is true.

That is a block 20 F-16A from Taiwan. Good luck getting anything official in DCS from the Nationalist Chinese Air Force.

It's basically an easier DCS as an alternative to more arcade games on the market.

To be fair, I don't think any third party has a good track record for meeting the schedule... except possibly Aerges. It is what it is though. I'm just happy to be getting a Phantom and there's plenty of other things to do while I wait like fly the Mirage F1, get back to the Harrier after a long time of not flying it or even head out to the lake and do some fishing. It'll be here when it gets here.

With the Caucuses map, Syria map and the upcoming Kola Peninsula map I'd like to see the Tu-22B/KD/KPD Blinder A/B, MiG-25PD Foxbat E, Su-17M-4 Fitter K and MiG-27K Flogger J2. I highly doubt we will see anything much newer from the Russian side for the foreseeable future. The Blinder would be of particular fun for lob tossing the FAB-9000... it's the next best thing to a nuke.

The C-23A was a straight Cargo only version which could not open its cargo door in flight. The US Army C-23B and C were more capable all around tactically with the ability to deploy paratroops and cargo while airborne and the C model had MWS equipment fitted for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. The A does look good in Euro I though.

Honestly, I don't want ED to do a H-60. They have not done a family of anything yet so I suspect that they would do a single UH-60M with a few different skins and be done with it. As varied as the H-60 family is, I think the third party developers would do them the most justice between the different versions of the H-60/S-70 platform. ... and to stay on topic, yes A Sea King would be awesome. The US Navy did operate stripped down Sea King utility helicopters. The SH-3G and UH-3H were both used for cargo/rescue work. An HH-3E CSAR bird would be nice too.