MiG21bisFishbedL

AWACS and jammers probably won't happen, but tanker? Heatblur is going to bring us an A-6E Intruder and part of the Intruder squadron experience was flying the KA-6D, so they'll need to really look at providing that to us.

Hopefully one with a J to get that AWG-10 cheese.

It'll have to do until the naval F-4s coalesce years down the road.

Can't do a 'stache, but I can do mutton chops.

Well, when you're right, you're right.

Everyone forgets the Fishpot

Not a Pound for Air to Ground makes some pretty well researched videos. I loved this piece on the F-102A.

I REQUIRE NOOOWWWW January 2024, calling it.

Curly, ED ought to be paying you for the work you've done.

I'll def grab it since I'm so happy with what Aerges delivered in the F.1

This is kind of an important and needed feature if you want to simulate COIN operations.

Oh yeah, it's an odd experience to see models left over from as far back as Flaming Cliffs. Would it be sufficient enough to simulate the differences between mud, asphalt, sand etc., though? Well, first step is to issue FOIA's and other similar measures to see, exactly, what's accessible enough. Then, just go from there. That said, the real issue is going to be modeling ground physics + CPU computational impact. Once that gets tackled, though? Open the flood gates.

That would be absolutely baller and reason alone to get the F-104 outside of it being an F-104.

I have one of those old model's as one of my discord server's emojis.

So far, it's accurate. Should that hold, then: BMP-1 - 8 BMP-2 - 7 M113 - 11 MTLB - 11 BMD-1 - 5 What I can come up with off the top of my head.

Hard yes, the new rotorwash effect is outstanding.

Ignoring products is not a good look and ED already does that plenty. I'm not sure adding to that backlog of work would go over very well. Sure, initial roll out would ideally be for the Black Sea, PG, and Syria, but how long until the others? Should ED saddle third parties with having to go through the maps to add different ground frictions and behaviors for vehicles? That already sounds like a giant mess. After all, there's a pretty sizable group of WWII enthusiasts who'd love to see that level of fidelity for their Shermans and Panzers. This would be a project that could potentially balloon real fast. In actuality, the sanest choice would be to actually give CA the love it so desperately needs. Better AI pathfinding, decision making, and options are the first stepping stone before we ever see better armored simulation. We'd REALLY need some AI changes if we wanted IFVs like the Bradley or BMP-2. What's the point in using those if you can't deploy and support infantry, you know? To me, the damning proof is in CA's state. It desperately needs a little bit more love, some better physics, and handling, but it isn't getting that. Using it feels so rough, so janky, and not very engaging at the end of it. It really lacks immersion. What ED should do is revisit CA and bump up the standards of vehicles. Not to a full-fidelity level, perhaps, but to a level comparable to FC3. Some decent interiors, the ability to ride turned out so you can see your whole AFV, etc. Pick a few to update and provide those updates overtime. Especially the GHPC approach of giving us an external camera riding in the turned out position and completely absenting rendered interiors. It's vastly superior to what we have at the moment. And very, very doable. There's a very reasonable and attainable goal for them, but we haven't seen them even consider moving in that direction. Hopefully, this catches the eye of someone and they at least workshop it.

Second verse, same as the first.

Known Issues - Hotfix planned Objects moving at speed may begin to jitter after some time in mission Improved spotting - some visual issues may be seen in certain hardware/graphical options combinations - Please report any problems to help us resolve these. AH-64D Attitude Hold sub-modes are causing occasional oscillations in pitch and roll. AH-64D BDA message via datalink not implemented, please do not attempt to send BDA. F/A-18C - Possible issue with display of jamming targets on FCR page Voice Chat - Aircraft control binds will take precedence over room mode PTT bind Airflow effect on vegetation not fully synchronised in MP In game scoreboard does not show kills or losses in MP

Yup, them's the brakes. I'd love me the most modern J-8II there is, but I don't want Deka boys doing hard time a bit more.

Once you come to grips with the Viggen's oddities and the kind of mission it very specifically flies, it's some of the most fun you'll have in DCS.

Redfor Vipers? Yes, please. This would be awesome.

Proper terrain simulation could add a lot of processing overhead. If by good time, you mean several years, sure. CA needs love, but to expect Steel Beasts in DCS is an immense under taking. It could be a case of that ship having sailed given how many maps we currently have. GHPC is pretty great, check that out, instead.

This is correct. They'll resume it as soon as they can, but don't expect any time in the near future. Also, for the topic at large, there's a world of difference between the systems of the MiG-29 and an Mi-24 when it comes to what is and isn't classified. We can play internet sleuth all we want and dig up all we can, but this is the word coming from ED in regards to these aircraft and the difficulty in creating them.