lmp

AFAIK all ATC frequencies are AM, so writing it on the map would be rather redundant

If ED wants to continue rising the realism bar, they will have to do an overhaul of IFF sooner or later. The limited change that you're proposing would help a few Viper and Hornet pilots split neutrals from bandits but ultimately would only be a small first step. A friendly MiG would still respond to your MODE 4 interrogation despite not having a compatible transponder. You could still leave your transponder off and not worry about getting blue on blued. And AI planes and SAMs would still be all knowing, ROEs aside. A lot of work needs to go into properly implementing the various IFF networks, integrating all the modules from all the developers and - which could prove to be the biggest challenge - giving AI the ability to work with all that (to some degree at least). I suppose it would have to be optional and per-mission enforceable, at least at first. This would change so much though and make fighting so much more interesting and tactical.

IMHO the Dora has one of the nicer looking cockpits in the game. The Anton on the other hand does look washed out. I'm pretty surprised no one mentioned it earlier.

Western theatre is actually very well fleshed out by DCS standards. No other era in DCS is even close to having three full fidelity aircraft on each side with at least two more in the works. I'd say a new theatre would be a breath of fresh air right now. And since we're already getting a new map that makes no sense with the current plane set...

It's time for anything from the Pacific theatre because right now the Marianas map (both the WW2 and modern variant) makes absolutely 0 sense from a history enthusiast's point of view.

Yes. ED historically often released similar aircraft in relatively quick succession. The Hornet and Viper, Anton and Jug, the Korean jets, the Huey and Hip were all released pretty much one after another. This year we're supposed to get two helicopter gunships. Getting another WW2 twin/multicrew aircraft soon would not surprise me at all.

On the flip side, if ED started with the less capable variants, they would be accused of forcing people to spend money to stay competitive. It's a no win scenario.

Not really, I think one would be enough for me.

Voted no. I have enough teen fighters already.

I've noticed some people mix up metric and imperial vertical velocity units. If you aim for the "little 5" in the Huey, that gives you a safe 500ft/min or 2.5m/s descent rate. On the other hand if you aim at 5 in the Hip, you're going down twice as fast and not nearly as safely. I don't expect this is a particularly common mistake, but you never know.

Heading hold works better if you have rudder trimming enabled. Trim the aircraft for cruise, feet off the pedals and you can have heading hold prevent drift over longer distances. That is pretty much the only time I use it though. I find it unreliable if turned on for the entire duration of the flight, mostly because of some of the control compromises the developers had to make. I don't really use alt hold.

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.