lmp

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.

So a Phantom that would fit on another map that we don't have? How about an early F-4E that would make sense for Turkish AF, Israeli AF, Iranian AF - the air forces we can create realistic scenarios for right now - and possibly Vietnam Era USAF if we ever get the map and assets? Would this be possible? I don't know what the exact differences between the variants delivered to those 3 or 4 air forces were, but I bet some of you know ;).

Hand on heart, do you believe Soviet WWII aviation is particularly popular with most of the English speaking crowd? I don't. No, possibly a little bit more considering the German assets we have in the game. But not because the Yak is such an obviously great and safe choice, but rather because doing the Mustang at the time was, how to put it, very brave.

Could very well be the case. Complexity wise it's closer to the Tiger than the Hornet or Viper, especially considering all the work they already did and data they already have, while at the same time it's a much more attractive product. The sales to man-hours ratio seems to be why they keep releasing WW2 fighters. I don't think anybody believes these sell nearly as well as the Hornets and Vipers do, especially considering the competition, but they're easy enough to still be worth it.

ResonantCard1, what's your point in this thread?

Soviet WW2 aviation isn't terribly popular in the English speaking world and DCS has neither the map nor the assets to make Eastern front scenarios viable. I'd buy it because I'm interested in the aircraft itself, but realistically it makes little sense to make it.

Their laws have blocked the BS3, I don't believe there was a statement about the Su-27? Do you know what exactly is this new law and how it is worded? Without that, we can only make uneducated guesses what was and wasn't banned. To the best of my knowledge, all we have to go on are ED's actions. And those are: BS3 was cancelled, Hind was not and MiG-29 was announced as planned. Rest is pure speculation. The Hind is known primarily for its service in the Afghanistan war, the even you're talking about is by comparison pretty obscure. You're trying to make it look bad, not to be objective. It's hard for an aircraft to be shot down in a conflict it didn't participate in. Unless you mean the other (current) Afghanistan conflict, in which 13 Apache's were lost compared to 4 or 5 Hinds. Cause it's less multirole. Cause it will compete with the F-15E. Cause there are already 3 "teen" fighters in the game with a fourth one on the way and more and more players are no longer thinking "I need this in my life" but rather "do I really want another one of those". The "teen" fighter niche is saturated and it's time to mix things up. That's why we're getting the gunships and after the gunships - we'll get something else. Right now it looks like that something else will start with the MiG-29.

I'd buy it.

What I meant is, assuming this is at all realistic and practical to implement, there would need to be some serious limits on what can and what can't be done, taking into account both what the helicopter can carry and what the crew can accomplish. It is my hunch that it wasn't really done "often", as OP wrote, but at most occasionally if at all in combat. If anybody has any good info on this, I would be grateful if he provided it here. It just seems too impractical and the negatives (mostly weighing the helicopter down) defeat the positives. If the helicopter was able to carry more weapons and ammo, wouldn't they design it to carry more under the wings, ready to go? A much better way to accomplish rearming and refueling near the front line is to use a FARP. CasmoTV in his great video on the topic explains how it is done at least in a NATO army.

We definitely need a Polish skin (or two - the one above and a modern, dark green one). I would also love to see Syrian and Georgian skins. We have maps that focus on those two countries and at the same time their air forces are seriously under-skinned. Makes no sense to me at all. A Cypriot skin is a must have for the same reason.

Another consideration is if the crew chief plus two pilots (all having very limited tools and equipment) would be physically able to put the weapons on the pylons. I can't imagine three people pulling a FAB-250 out of the cargo compartment and safely suspending it under the wing. All on uneven ground somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

No need to guess, the list of weapons is public and it includes the S-5 pods.

Yes, but actually no. When the question is "should I buy this module now", or any variety of it, then the current state of the module is important. Nobody is claiming the Viper won't be completed and improved but at the same time we can't ignore the fact that it isn't anywhere near complete now. For many people spending money on a more complete module will be a better choice, so it deserves to be mentioned.

Sure, that played a big part. But I tried to learn the A-10C many times and just couldn't get over the HOTAS complexity. With the Hornet I figured it out in no time and Viper also felt pretty intuitive in this regard. In the A-10C you can do much more with just the HOTAS but the price you have to pay is each button's function is very contextual while the buttons and hats on the F/A-18C and F-16C mostly do the same thing in all modes.

Latency issue sounds plausible but let's rule out two simple mistakes. Was anybody at less than 1G when releasing? Could be a case of flying into your own bombs. Was it really 400ft AGL? Maybe you got the terrain altitude wrong? I pressume there's no track or Tacview record?