MethWolf

On the contrary, chaotic systems are quite well represented in simulations and as a result simulations are the primary tool used in understanding them. That is neither here nor there, though- aerodynamics of the sort we're discussing are pretty deterministic. Further, his chess simile doesn't need refutation in the first place. He's not saying "this is like chess, in chess something happens, therefore in this that something also happens." He's saying "chess is like this; in this something happens, in chess that also happens." as a way of explaining.

so BMPs can no longer lase for SU-25?

i'd be much happier learning about the plane than listening to self appointed DCS business experts. What are the non-pilot crew roles? Hows the tail gun work? Who runs it?

I won't buy this for $100. That is crazy.

He's not being rude, he's being both polite and patient.

thanks dart!

I'd love an apache if it was done well and I have no problem with Rudel bringing it up. I'm just really tired of reading "this module would get so many sales" from everyone who just wants to say "I'd love this as a module if it was done well." Why do we always gotta talk about business I wanna talk about planes

This whole "you guys should make X because it would sell well" meme is getting pretty tired. There are at least 18 aircraft in DCS, depending on how you count (something like 25 if you include variants) and many more planned. Not one of them is an F-16 or an AH-64. Do you really think the reason for this is that the devs just hadn't considered potential sales?

Thanks for being mature about this; this is exactly correct. This is all just opinions and wishlisting anyways. Besides, "having a gun" is a void that a lot of other airplanes already fill pretty well. "which variant would get more sales" is a question that is better answered with market research and I'm not sure its a real useful point here: LNS isn't going to be picking aircraft based on what forumgoers say will sell best. They also have a number of other factors to consider when picking which aircraft to make, and an F-4 would probably sell well regardless of variant. People will still buy a plane even if it isn't the exact variant that their country got, too- even if you do pick an export variant and most countries actually ordered that variant, the countries in question frequently perform their own modifications. People can and will make liveries and fly as their own country regardless of which variant they actually get; the mig-21 and F-5 are excellent examples.

So far, we've got: F/A-18, F-14, AV-8, AH-1W, A-6, A-7 planned. Nothing needs to "fit" together, but asymmetric multiplayer (cooperative and competitive) can be a lot of fun- look at the buzz about multicrew alone. Remembering that we don't get to make decisions for leatherneck or anyone else, I think a late-period naval F-4 would be the most fun, and would integrate neatly into online carrier ops. If you don't like flying with other people or landing on boats, I can see how you'd feel otherwise.

no, that's it, the work is going to be solved by the other jets, so you hopefully wouldn't lose much time making it able to land on a boat. The reason for getting it instead is because it fits in with the other aircraft we're getting better. I understand your opinion is different than mine, but that doesn't give it primacy: service record and export sales aren't the only driving force behind how developers pick aircraft. Plus, the name of the company is Leatherneck. Maybe they'd make a USMC aircraft because they have a Marine? Plenty of other "hints" too, enough to last us years before you would get to the F-4.

In part because a lot of the work on carrier landings is going to be out of the way, but also because for coop and mission possibilities are greatly expanded when you have the ability to launch multiple aircraft out of the same carrier. Not that any of this matters in the least (lol they're not making any F-4 variants), but why not flesh out USN/USMC aircraft? Having all the aircraft on a (1983-1993ish) carrier at DCS level would be a result much greater than the sum of its parts or any individual aircraft.

We're getting those planes which is exactly why we need a naval F-4 to match

+1 for more eastern aircraft or even more USN/USMC aircraft. Even if it's just FC3 level, we need more options of any sort for red team. If we do get an F-16, i hope it's FC3 level as well. It'd quiet down these threads a fair bit, it would pair well with the FC3 Eagle we already have, it'd much quicker to implement, and it would give mod teams a cockpit with advanced air-to-ground air-to-air capabilities. I'd like to see DCS-level US aircraft development focusing on to stuff that lands on a boat, we've already got the F-14, F/A-18, A-6, A-7, AV-8B, and AH-1 at least planned; doesn't rounding it out with an F-4, CH-53, CH-46, OV-10, A-3 or A-4 give us more opportunities?

no fun allowed :( (i wanna shoot the hawk)

yeah. the time of release will be: "when it's ready"

I'd really like the L-39 module! thanks for this giveaway!

Here are some things i think are pretty achievable in the near term (ps vote dedicated server): Improved AI unit damage modelling. DCS shouldn't be outdone in realism by War Thunder Arcade Mode, and should be using a similar damage model. This would include various major components, armor and crew modelled, as well as a penetration model and different types of ammo-- AP shouldn't just be "higher damage and smaller explosion than HE" like it is right now. This would be a huge improvement for anyone who does any groundpounding at all. More ground/air AI units and theaters from ww2 to vietnam. ECM overhaul- Pretty much just as detailed by GGTharos here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2411970&postcount=21 . Would greatly improve multiplayer, especially for ground-pounders, but also for regular fighters. FC3 level (SSM/AFM) Mig-31/Su-30/Su-34. We're probably not getting DCS-Level versions of these aircraft anyways, but now that western multirole is on the horizon (f-5, f-14, f/a-18, mirage 2000) this would keep "red vs blue" multiplayer interesting and easier to balance for mission makers.