Vampyre

I really enjoyed the German twins back when my main flight sim was Il-2FB. The modded version was great fun online and I usually took the Me-410 when it was available. I also quite enjoyed the Me-210, Hs-129B, Ju-88, He-111, Dornier bombers and the variants of Bf-110 as well. I used the Me-410 mostly as a fighter in mid war scenarios and as a fighter-bomber in late war scenarios. Load her up with her standard 20mm and 13mm cannon/gun armament with additional cannon/gun armament in the form of the 30mm MK-103's in the weapons bay and belly mounted 20mm tray and you could cut through bombers like a hot knife through butter and vaporize fighters with a single burst of fire. It was great fun back in the day.

I think he was trying to focus on American Phantoms... only problem is that he threw the K in there which was Royal Navy.

Not true. The F-15C CFT's were used on 57th FIS Eagles out of Iceland, 1st TFW Eagles out of Langley, 21st TFW Eagles out of Elmendorf and the Israeli C's and D's carry them as well. The USAF hasn't really used them since the cold war but they are capable. EDIT- Just found a photo of a Kadena based 18th TFW C Eagle with CFT's as well.

I still want the Me-262. It was one of the two, along with the D-9, that I actually wanted. I already own the Mossy because it is one of my favorite WWII planes. Now, if they want to go back and offer something other as a replacement of the Me-262 because they do not have and cannot get everything needed to do the module for those who backed the project then it would have to be something new. I'd accept something like a B-26 Marauder, Me-410, Beaufighter or TBM Avenger as a substitute but never something I already have. I don't want a second Mosquito. Edit: Actually it would be a second and third mosquito.

We are talking about a 35 year old bomber. There is hardly anything in it, even in its upgraded form, that is state of the art anymore. Many of the things required to do a good simulation of the Bone are already in DCS World and would need to be tailored to the new module. As with any aircraft to be considered for development, documentation availability could be a sticking point as could any classification issues plus the fear, uncertainty and doubt of a positive ROI could stop the development of the Bone as a module. I know that I would like to see how good it is at all of its missions so anything less than full fidelity is not worth including in DCS World. A "dumbed down" half baked module would be a hard no for me. If I ever see something less than full fidelity like what you have said you would accept here offered by ED then I would see it as a quick cash grab and I would be worried about the future of DCS World in general. That would be an indication of a problem with the business model. Maybe ED will put something like what you are advocating for in MAC if that ever materializes. As for me the only FC3 plane I regularly fly for fun is the MiG-29 and as soon as the Full Fidelity version is available that will go straight to the circular file with the rest of the FC3 planes I have. FC3 was necessary to maintain the player base at its time of inception but it is becoming less relevant now. I feel FC3's place in DCS World would have gone away by now if not for certain Russian laws prohibiting the simulation of their equipment. "Dumbed down" is not in ED's mission statement for DCS World, in fact the opposite is true. That is why I suggest MAC. MAC is supposed to be a lower fidelity version of DCS for people who don't want to or don't think they can grasp the systems management aspect of DCS World. It has been really quiet on that game though so it may just be vaporware now. I really don't know. I would never support a dumbed down aircraft in DCS World and ED have stated it is not their intent to include such content in DCS World in the future. Until they change their stance on that the point is moot. IIRC, there was a game modification that allowed one to use the AI B-1B model with an FC3 cockpit that might interest you. It was super limited and had unrealistic flight performance. It is also one of the reasons why I dislike game modifications in general. The creators not supporting them as they should, questionable capabilities, general over performance and poor damage modeling makes them not equal to the quality standards of most of the DCS paid modules. Their problems are pretty glaring if you know what you are looking for. I avoid them like the plague for the most part. There are some pretty decent game modifications out there like the VNAO T-45 and community A-4E but by and large, most modifications are not good realism wise. The creators of these modifications enjoy doing this in their free time and they do have people who enjoy the content they make but I have problems with the suspension of disbelief and I am primarily a multiplayer flyer which means there are compatibility problems and failures of the integrity checks to deal with. That makes them not worth the time and effort for me.

When I say full fidelity I mean almost exactly like the Heatblur F-14 with its implementation of Jester AI and human controllability. Human or AI crew is not an either/or argument. the Heatblur F-14 is evidence of AI and human implementation with almost any combination of crew requirements. The crew stations on the Bone will lend themselves well to the Heatblur setup because of the redundancy of the stations and the limitations of DCS. The Bone has two stations for flying the aircraft and two stations for operating the systems. While, in a perfect world, all four seats would be manned by humans I don't see that as feasible every time one wants to fly the Bone just like it is not feasible to have a RIO in the Tomcat every time someone wants to fly it (unless you are in a virtual squadron that specializes in the aircraft). Depending on the Heatblur implementation of Jesters LANTIRN capabilities the AI could also use targeting pods or other sensors to aim air to surface weapons... that is still a big question mark at the moment though. I do believe they will get it working though. At a minimum, I would envision having one to four human crew with AI to fill the places of everyone but the pilot. That seems to be a DCS multiplayer limitation. In single player offline the player would be able to use AI or be able to "jump" to any station of their choosing as it is currently implemented in DCS for other multi-position aircraft. If the AI is not capable of operating the offensive systems well, then a minimum of two human players will be required to operate the jet. One to fly the jet and one to operate the systems. There is only a need for one person to fly the jet. The OSO is critical to mission accomplishment because that station is required to aim the weapons. As for the DSO, the DCS EW implementation is so basic (and I don't see that changing anytime soon) that you don't even need someone dedicated to operate the defensive systems. Stream/retract the ALE-50, dispense chaff/flares and turn the jammer and associated EW systems on and off and verbal cues to tell the pilots what to avoid and that is it. An AI could easily perform that task. How the Bone will be used in DCS: I imagine that not a lot of 10+ hour missions will be completed. I expect around one to three hour missions to be the norm simply because this is a high fidelity simulation of aircraft within a game framework and very few people have 10 hours to burn doing big circles on the maps we have. Yes, it will be more difficult to operate effectively but that is part of the draw for me. Combat aircraft rarely operate alone in non-permissive environments and even when they do they are usually aircraft specialized for that like the F-117 was. I have always been a fan of bombers. I find it fun to sneak in and hit targets under the noses of the enemy and then try to sneak back out. Back in my Il-2 FB days I always enjoyed the Warbirds of Prey servers Bomber night event we had every other Friday. Some of the most fun missions were when we would get 70+ multi engine level bombers like B-17's, B-24's, B-29's, or Ju-88's and keeping formation at 30k ft to bomb a single target area. I enjoyed the pressure of being in the lead bomber and having to jump from the different pilot gunner and bombardier positions, calculate the drop for the rest of the formation while under attack from enemy players in 15-20 fighters and friendly escorts in 10-15 fighters. Having extra crew to do some of those tasks would have been appreciated though. That was great fun and very memorable. I think there are still videos of some of those events on Youtube. As for rage quitters that want the feeling of glory of doing it all themselves, there will always be those types out there. My suggestion is to not let them in your aircraft in the first place. I never let random people in my aircraft. I have to know you and trust you to allow you in my aircraft. They are usually a lot less effective than they think they are as they are not really team players.

The C+ was intended to bring the earlier lot 10-11 airframes more in line capability wise with later lot Hornets like the lot 20 we already have in DCS. Asking for a C+ in DCS is asking for a very slightly downgraded version of what we already have. Lot 10-11 jets as originally built did not have things like JHMCS, APG-73 or MIDS. A production standard A or lot 10-11 C would be a better candidate for a DCS Module due to them simply not having all the 21st century upgrades. They were true Cold War aircraft.

The problem with an FC3 level B-1B is that, without a ground radar or targeting pod (which are limitations of FC3), it will be a iron bomb or basic CBU truck. Without multicrew or a suitable AI alternative it will not have a reliable way to aim the bombs as It has no HUD. It has to be a full fidelity module to use a Sniper targeting pod, air to ground radar and multicrew so it can use JDAM's, WCMD's, JASSM's/LRASM's or even simple Mk-80 series bombs or CBU's. Anything less than full fidelity wouldn't be worth including.

That video is from five years ago. The jet's were lot 10 and 11 C's and all were scheduled for delivery between 2016 and 2018. In the end only about 19 (of the originally projected 30) were delivered and the majority of those went to the JRB Fort Worth bases VMFA-112. The F/A-18A+ jets operated by VMFA-112 were redistributed to the active fleet or retired due to airframe flight hour timeout.

Neither are MiG-23's. The one on the left is a MiG-27K and the one on the right an upgraded MiG-27L.

I too get this problem. I have found that if I grab the switch and give it a tug forward once or twice the left long function will start working again for a while.

Is it both the F-14A and F-14B having problems? I would rename/delete the F-14 and F-14B folders in saved games/DCS/config/input then restart the game to see it that fixes it. Mind you this will get rid of all of your control settings for the Tomcat so I would rename them first before deleting them.

Historical Fidelity- The fact that a weapon was never used in anger should not preclude its inclusion. There are instances of weapons never used in combat that are in DCS already which effectively nullifies that argument. My position remains that if it was in service, actively trained to by its crews and has enough information to be modeled it should be included. As far as the scope of DCS is concerned the tactical weapons being proposed for inclusion fit well with the size of the maps and add to the variety of mission sets, both offensive and defensive, within DCS. The political side, if it is mentioned at all, is usually a generic afterthought and is also not really considered within DCS at all. Carl von Clauswitz said that "war is a continuation of politics by other means" and the only attempts at the inclusion of this aspect are usually generic blurbs in the mission briefings. There are no political factors built into the game at all so it is up to the user to assign purpose to the missions they fly. In its current state, DCS is primarily a single sortie simulator. This is evidenced by the fact that multiplayer servers have to use mods to enable respawnability of aircraft slots so they are not permanently lost when a user loses the aircraft. A single sortie can have any type of storyline attached to it to justify the use of nuclear weapons. The dynamic campaign, if they so decide, could limit or exclude the use of any weapons but being that it is not yet released that is just speculation on my part, but it could be designed in. The gravity of using such weapons within a campaign should be an integral component of the campaign and similar to real life, the release for use of the weapons should be dictated by higher authority. I see it as an end game weapon. Understand that there are no winners in war, only losers. That is a good lesson to learn in a simulated environment don't you think? Agreed. DCS does need a weapons damage overhaul. ED know it too and have indicated a desire to fix that issue as well. The fact is that a lot of the same physical effects present in the use of nuclear (blast, overpressure, heat) are also components of the vast majority of conventional weapons. Think Thermobaric warheads, Unitary warheads, fire bombs/napalm and high explosive bombs as well. I imagine they will design the new weapons with SDK tools to ease the effort of redoing all of the current weapons and the tools will include a function to be scalable for all of the different types of weapons they will be used on. I Imagine that is how they would do it because that is what I would do. As for the other effects, only EMP will really be needed to be modeled as radiation takes far more time to take effect than DCS allows for. There are other ways to simulate that as well some of which will also require improvements to the AI. So, one side are psycho's and the other side are just whiners. If you were being completely fair you would call one side sociopaths or psychopaths and the other side dictatorial or authoritarian. The truth is those types are the minority, the extreme fringes of the userbase. I don't see this debate that way. I view this as a scale of emotional maturity where both of the fringe elements you mention are on the same end of the spectrum. The real problem is that some here cannot separate fact from fiction and wish to impose their ideas on others for their own moral purposes. The problem lies with the fact that no two people have the exact same moral code they live by. This is a simulation and it is up to you, the user, to draw the moral line where you see fit. That shouldn't involve imposing your will on others because of how you feel about something in a simulation. Besides, to your only real point in this paragraph, I posit that we already don't have the minority you think we would lose if nukes were included because there are already two nukes in DCS already. A rhetorical question is meant to make a point. Turning the question around means that you missed the point because you didn't think about it. The point being made was that it is a simulation. Simulation means not real life. Not real life means it does not matter so there are no moral consequences. That is where emotional maturity enters the equation. If someone can't separate fact from fiction then they need to pay more attention to that aspect of their personality for their own personal growth. That is why I found that reaction interesting. The last paragraph on unit morale is a universal AI problem in DCS and is far less relevant to your argument. Morale and suppression are non-existent within DCS and that has been pointed out in many threads in these forums. It affects the employment of all weapons within DCS not just nukes.

It's hard to beat a logical argument and you put forth a valid position for the inclusion of nukes. When individuals against the idea are arguing from an emotional position which, judging by his previous posts seems to be the case here, their only recourse for the lack of any effective counter argument is retreat. People fear what they do not understand. The argument against does not stand when it is fueled by an individuals irrational fears. It is not really worth debating against emotional responses. This case is especially absurd because we are not even talking about real life, but a game where the consequences have no bearing whatsoever. I do find the morality of killing people argument put forth by the other guy who chose to ignore you interesting though. How many people is it ok to kill then? One? Three? 10? 100? 5000? It doesn't really matter anyway. You cannot reason with people with a morally righteous opinion. They think they are being virtuous by letting everyone else know their opinions and, in their mind, it is not possible for them to be wrong morally. They are grandstanding. That is why they are ignoring you. It's actually better for your argument that they are weeding themselves out of the debate. Not every win ends in agreement. If an aircraft had a capability (especially so if it was actually trained to by real life crews) and enough information could be found to model it properly then it should be incorporated into the module. The argument for less capabilities for a weapons platform in a simulation that is aiming at the highest fidelity possible seems nonsensical. Of course, there is also the real life nations involved who would have a say as well. If they don't want it in the public sphere then it will not be included. I would not fault a simulation developer who also works on military contracts to keep certain capabilities under wraps for the sake of their business. I have never been against nukes in any sim as long as they are properly modelled. They are just another tool to be used. I would also like to see the D-704 pod included in the A-6E's loadouts but I imagine HB would have to wait for ED to redo the core game with the basket and hose physics and allow the transfer of fuel from one player controlled aircraft to another. They did mention that air refueling would be further worked on a couple of years ago but haven't mentioned it recently. I imagine it's way down on the list of things to do if it is still being considered at all.

In the book "Gunship Ace" there are instances where the Hind was indeed used to deliver supplies. It's a good read if you are interested in helicopters. Gunship Ace: The Wars of Neall Ellis, Helicopter Pilot and Mercenary: Venter, Al J: 0884489134650: Amazon.com: Books

+1 on this. It's inconvenient to have to open up single player or the ME just to save a preferred loadout you want to use all the time.

Excluding everything known to be in progress or soon to be released from ED or third parties. 2000+ B-1B Lancer Block E MV-22B Osprey HH-60H 1991-1999 F-14D Super Tomcat MH-53J/M Super Jolly Green CH-53E Super Stallion MC-130H Combat Talon II 1965-1990 F-111A,E,F Aardvark F-4D, E, E DMAS/ARN-101, G, J, S and RF-4C F-105D, G F-100D A-4F, M and OA-4M Skyhawk OV-10A, D Bronco E-2C Hawkeye KC-10A Extender C-130H Hercules Su-17M-4 Fitter K MiG-27K Flogger J-2 AH-1E, F Cobra UH-60A, L Blackhawk Mi-24A, D, V Hind A, D, E Buccaneer S2B Jaguar GR1 Mirage F-1AZ, B, C-200, CR, CT, EQ-4 MiG-21PF Fishbed D MiG-25PD Foxbat E and MiG-25BM Foxbat F F-15A Eagle F-104G Starfighter F-101A, C, RF-101C Voodoo Tu-22M-3 Backfire C An-26 Curl 1950-1964 F4U-4B, -5NL Corsair F9F-3 Panther F-84F Thunderstreak MiG-17F Fresco Pre-1949 B-26B, G Marauder Me-410A Hornesse TBM-3 Avenger F4U-1A Corsair B-25G, H, J Mitchell B-29A Superfortress Hs-129B-2, -3 Ta-152H-1 He-219A-5, -7

F-4E DMAS/ARN-101, F-4G Wild Weasel V, F-4J, F-4S... and a RF-4C.

C-130 would be an instant buy for me. The C-130H of C-130J would be fun to perform missions in with basic trash hauling or to drop paratroopers and deliver equipment (think HMMWV's, APC's, Trucks or even a OH-58D) to capture airfields or other other important targets like bridges, road junctures, tunnels or towns. While the vanilla H/J models would be nice to have, what I really want is an MC-130H Combat Talon II. In addition to the missions the standard C-130's perform, with the MC-130H we could do low level night time flying, Special Forces Infiltration/Exfiltration for deep reconnaissance, Helo/fixed wing air refueling via probe and drogue, act as a forward refueling point for non-probe and drogue equipped aircraft and drop the GBU-43 to... eh... clear LZ's for helicopters. Lots of potential for DCS gameplay.

BUNO's are assigned to individual airframes so the Navy and Marines can keep track of that individual airframe over its lifetime. Think of the BUNO as a serial number. MODEX's are not airframe specific as they are assigned by the type wing or squadron.

Yes on multiple variants. Pricing... not really an issue for me as long as they are similar to other full fidelity modules. There are significant differences between many of the variants. There are certain types where the airframes and systems and flight dynamics are very similar like the F-4B/C and F-4E/F. I'm not really that interested in the B/C/F airframes although I would probably get them anyway. I'll take an F-4D, F-4E, F-4E DMAS/ARN-101, F-4G Wild Weasel, F-4J and F-4S. Oh, and if they get the mechanics for ISR gameplay sorted out out then the RF-4B/C as well.

Looks like it belongs to an M2 20mm autocannon. The M2 was used in WWII, notably on the F4U-1C Corsair, B-29 Superfortress, P-38 Lightning and A-1 Skyraider.

Thats what she said... You should see it drop its load.

With today's announcement of the full fidelity A-6E from Heatblur a few more of boxes are ticked for tech needed for the Vark! Hopefully one day...

I agree that there is a lot missing from the current implementation of ground forces in DCS. The missing vehicles and personnel are really the low hanging fruit though. Command and control for ground units isn't really a thing in the DCS environment. Also missing is any kind of implementation of suppression from units under attack. The AI is all seeing, all knowing and fearless in its current state. It needs a lot of improvement. One of the main problems DCS has is that once a mission has been played three or four times, everyone knows exactly where all the units are placed and it is not really challenging anymore. Having built MP missions, I have found that most DCS pilots who attack ground targets have a tendency to only do Armed Reconnaissance, or strike missions in the current state of the game. Almost no one does CAS. A FIST-V, JTAC or FAC. Having the proper equipment modeled would go a long way to improving the CAS mission within DCS. The Fog of War needs to be better implemented and reconnaissance needs to be added as a critical mission for Sea, Air and Land forces. What would be nice is to have actual orders of battle from the differing armed forces through the eras. Properly sized units and their equipment complement that can be selected and added to missions would be very handy. A selection menu should be available for picking the force size you want. Want a platoon of M1A2SEP's? How about the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment? Maybe you want the 11th MEU, maybe the entirety of VII Corps. Currently, it is necessary to research the assets a certain country has within its formations and add each Section/Platoon separately (with the limitations of what is available in DCS) to have any semblance of a realistic force structure. It would also be handy to attach different sized units to others to form different task forces and teams. The ability to add platoons or sections to existing units would be handy as well. These things require a lot of research and would be very helpful when putting together missions in DCS. Proper battle formations need to be a thing too. The AI should not just have a squad or platoon of soldiers standing in a line in the middle of a battlefield. DCS is not a Napoleonic war simulator. They should automatically take find cover when stopped and move in differing formations in regard to the mission at hand. Vehicles in combat should react differently and have different formations to vehicles delivering supplies to the frontline along a road... there is so much that can be improved as far as CA, the ME and the AI are concerned. More new vehicles and personnel would be very welcome in DCS. I hope a way can be found to make this happen.