lmp

MiG-17F would be the best dogfighter and perhaps the most historically relevant? If we could get two variants, the F and PF would cover most historical scenarios (and the PF's radar would differentiate it from the MiG-15bis a bit more). If we could have three... the Lim-6bis would add some air to ground options.

Oh, absolutely, it is very much underrated as a fighter. Thing is, the P/PD variant could do pretty much only A-A. The recon/bomber variants on the other hand weren't good at it at all, and quite limited in their selection and weight of A-G ordnance.

MiG-21F-13 - it's so pretty. Su-7, Phantom obviously, MiG-23 obviously. I'm on the fence when it comes to the MiG-25, all versions of it were very specialised, but at the same time effective in their little niches.

Il-10, Il-28, MiG-17F/PF.

It has both RSBN and an ADF.

I'd say either Operation Bagration or Berlin 1945. This way our late war German and Western planes still fit and we can play out post 1945 fantasy scenarios. Also, competition doesn't have it yet. And a Yak-9 to match, maybe the most common M?

People recommend the F-5E for your first DCS module mostly because of its simple to wrap your head around avionics. On the flip side, it's not the easiest aircraft to fight in (or navigate, or fly in weather...). I would say if you're comfortable with some of the more complex airliners in FSX/P3D, such as the PMDG offerings, something like the Hornet, Viper or JF-17 should be well within your grasp when it comes to avionics. The 4th gen jets give you the most bang for your buck. I would say, if you specifically want to fly the F-5E (or any other aircraft), go get it. If you want an aircraft that is more about flying than it is about operating the systems, the F-5E is also a pretty good choice. If you want an aircraft that'll rival your PMDG 737 when it comes to avionics modelling, get the A-10C, Hornet, maybe the JF-17 or Tomcat. Or wait a year and get the Viper. If you want something completely different than your FSX airliners, get a helicopter.

I think you're not giving ED's business intelligence people enough credit. The module's sales will be a result of many factors and I'm sure ED can understand them better than we can. I don't think they are making it because they expect it to sell amazingly well but because it's a low hanging fruit. If they want to avoid another long development and EA period, the MiG-29 and the other FC3 aircraft seem like the way to go due to their relative simplicity and the work they've already done. Also perhaps making and maintaining two fidelity levels of one aircraft is something they want to get down for their MAC project?

I know and I don't agree with the position I outlined above. I just summarised what I believe Maximus' argument is. That whine fest already happened actually... Some people don't believe anything that isn't top of the line American tech deserves to be made.

But that's not what Maximus' position is (to the best of my understanding). From what I can tell, he doesn't want the MiG-29 to be developed because it will not be competitive against the Hornet and Viper and as a result will flop and that'll convince ED not to make any more Soviet/Russian planes. I don't believe he argued at any point that FC3 aircraft shouldn't be remade into FF ones?

They would sell for sure but they would need as much work as the Hornet or Viper for a fraction of the return. In addition to Eastern airplanes plainly selling worse, there's the saturation of the modern multirole fighter niche and the overall disappointment in the long early access periods - and a modern Flanker or Fulcrum would certainly need an extensive one. The 9.12 on the other hand is closer in complexity to the F-5E and a lot of research and work has already been done with the recent upgrade of the FC3 Fulcrum. While saying things like the SPO-15 can be copy pasted is a stretch (that system isn't modeled particularly well in FC3) I believe ED can get a mostly complete MiG-29 9.12 done fairly quickly and it will sell well enough.

It's a very logical conclusion. If the Sabre sold better than the MiG-15bis despite similar capabilities, why wouldn't the Hornet outsell the Su-35? Eastern aircraft will sell worse than Western aircraft to a mostly Western audience. Also the Hornet was the first modern multirole aircraft. A Su-35 would now be at best the third of a kind.

ED, or rather BST at the time, released first the Huey and Hip and later the Sabre and MiG-15bis back to back. Two pairs of aircraft similar in terms of capability and notoriety (in their respective countries/cultures). If ED claims redfor stuff sells worse, they are probably basing it on the sales of those modules. Their audience is predominantly rich Westerners who care more for aircraft their airforces fly or flew. I'm pretty sure ED are smart enough not to compare the MiG-19 to the Hornet and well aware that things such as aircraft capabilities, era or developer play an even bigger role than country of origin of the original aircraft. So no, I don't believe you have any reason to worry about ED making such simplistic conclusions.

Not as a full fidelity module - and you know that's what I meant. I mentioned assets that will allow content creators to create content when - and I stress this again - the full fidelity MiG-29 is released.

I will buy the MiG-29 9.12 when it comes out. I think it will be a great addition to my roster of modules, just like pretty much any Soviet Cold War aircraft would be. On the other hand I have no interest in another AMRAAM boat (the current selection is more than enough for me) nor do I find modern Russian aircraft particularly interesting. I don't care about air quake meta and I don't care how well the MiG will stack against whatever rules the roost there. There's enough late Cold War assets in DCS that I'm sure we'll have no shortage of interesting content for the MiG. I can see there are enough people who share my view that the MiG will sell great and hopefully more modules from that era will follow.

The first campaign I did was the default one (back in the days when it was the only one available). As long as you're comfortable with flying in the mountains, visual/doppler navigation and you can shoot straight (in that order), you'll be fine. There's no sling loading in the default campaign and that makes things a lot easier.

Oh yeah, operating from Incirlik AB in the Viper is a lot of "fun".

The unlimited fuel/weapons options are great for all sorts of tests where you would want to eliminate as many variables as you can. I used it to confirm a flight performance bug (constant weight was important) or to test manual bombing profiles. I'm sure others have their use cases, these are some of mine. I wouldn't say bug hunting (in general, not just my humble contribution) has "little use".

Su-25 would be a day one purchase for me but I think a faster platform like the MiG-27 or Su-17/22 would be an even better choice. It would give red fast strike/SEAD capabilities that it currently lacks. The level of complexity is similar to a Su-25 - most of the systems are similar and since the Su-25's FM is the oldest in DCS, it would probably need to be redone.

I don't really know all the different versions and subversions of the F-4 that well, so I'm not fixating on a particular block or feature set, but the "end result" I want is an airplane that'll fit as many different scenarios as possible, taking into account the maps and assets that we have. So something that would fit a Yom Kippur War scenario for example, or a Persian Gulf gone hot scenario or a NATO vs Soviets in the Caucasus scenario. And AFAIK Israel, Iran and Turkey all got their F-4Es around 1970, hence my vanilla (as in, straight from the production line without any mid life updates), 1970ish vintage F-4E suggestion. If a later version added, let's say, a weapon system that I can not load and still have the 1970s experience, that's great, it still works for me. If the upgrades are harder to ignore (radar, engine, gunsight...), then that'll make the plane less appealing for me.

The Hip and the Huey also have a surprising amount of SP content. They both come with an included campaign and the Huey has 2 while the Hip has 4 (!) additional payware campaigns. That's more than pretty much any module other than the "flagship" ones.

Another criterion that I think should be taken into account is what kind of gameplay the map supports well. Let's consider the Caucasus map because I think it's really good in this regard. You have a nice selection of both "red" and "blue" airbases divided by a big mountain range, obvious hot spots in the form of the two breakaway regions and terrain that supports helo ops and naval warfare well. It's not hard at all to create a believable scenario that'll work well with most modern modules in DCS. On the other hand we have Marianas... what kind of a believable scenario can I play out on the Marianas map?

How much of that is the meta of the game and how much is genuine historical interest? Do you think an Eastern Front aircraft would be more popular with English speakers than an aircraft from any of the theatres I mentioned above?

Well, let's agree to disagree then. I'm pretty sure the Pacific theatre, Battle of Britain, Western front, Southern front... All capture the imagination of the average Westerner much more.

My thinking is a vanilla, 1970ish vintage F-4E could fit most scenarios well enough. An upgraded F-4E will only really fit with the one air force that upgraded it. But I don't really know how big are the differences between a USAF vanilla F-4E, an Israeli vanilla F-4E and so on. In case of other aircraft the differences can be huge despite a similar designation, that's why I'm asking.