MiG21bisFishbedL

No amount of armchair lawyering is going to get us a Super Hornet. Period. The only thing that would is a US DOD and Boeing willing to play ball and then finding the resources to actually make it. Sometimes you need to just move on.

I'll main it. Give me that MiG-21-on-an-all-carb-diet that is the J-8A and I will happily get clapped in dogfights. And I will love every second.

J-8 doesn't excite me, nor does even the Su-30MKK, but what I have seen with the JF-17? I'm probably still going to get it simply because Deka delivered a stellar module with the Thunder and I think I need to fly it more. I can get excited about something I've no real previous attachment to when the developer producing it is this good. Of course, if Deka wanted some dirty deeds done dirt cheap, they just need to give me an F-7PG or something.

I got a little time in the L-39 and Yak-52.

Let's make carriers out of Saturn V's.

This is the sensible conclusion to arrive at and this is the correct solution.

If we get a J-7, I will flip. H-6, same. 'Nam map? Same.

Because, they're actors, they don't know what they're looking at, and they were probably vetted. And, what they could look at, not much could be glibbed from.

Tossing out empty crayon boxes would be easier.

The MiG-21 needs to be divided up into at least 2 generation of aircraft. Some argue even 3, but I tend to stick with 2. The fighter evolved from an interceptor into a tactical fighter over the years of its development. There are a lot of differences in capability, performance, and aerodynamics between the MiG-21s. So much so, it'd require some serious updates to the dynamics. There's very big differences in CG behavior, acceleration, slow speed, and weapons. You illustrated that nicely by bringing up the monster that is the 21-93 and also the MiG-21F-13 which is so much more modest. Sticking with those extremes, the F-13 would require that total FM remake and a lot of new modeling. On the other end, the 21-93 would need new cockpit and canopy art, but also much more complex radar modeling for a set I'm not sure that's much forthcoming information on. Believe me, I'd love to smirk and see Flankers lobbing semi-actives while I have FOX-3s and the F-13 would be a sweet whip, but these would be the obstacles we face. And then, there's the *weird* ones, like the MiG-21SMT. You know, the fat one. The one that had trouble getting past 1.8 mach. It'd be pretty similar to the bis. So much so, it might be hard to justify the work for a worse performing version of that. Not that I'd complain.

Well, it was the best ED could do at the time of that project starting. I'm not complaining, since the 80s and 90s are my jam

LC wields his retribution without mercy!

Framerate might also play a little part in it, since we target 60+ as to avoid everything look like smeared garbage in game.

Seems like it could just be a matter of allocating resources and finding the right mark of F-15 to work with that balances accessibility with how modern its integrated systems are.

At least the ED iteration of it. I'm not so sure they'd turn down a third party looking to craft their own experience with that. I think there will be still some issues, but it's still a significantly better chance. I actually think they ran into the same issue with the MiG-23 years ago. That didn't stop RAZBAM from working on one, so there's definitely a silver lining. And me, too. Some of those LOMAC models are probably looking at retirement getaways in the Bahamas given their age.

You take that back

bruh he's got PIPES

The second seat is for me to stack full of pizzas, what of it?

Any Fulcrum is welcome. Period. That said, I wouldn't be looking to ED for it. A Third Party would have obstacles to over come, some of them being the usual while others being signs of the times, but they're clearly lesser hurdles than what ED's in-house developers have to clear.

This is true, I've used it plenty with the Hind and Huey, but it's not the most intuitive nor polished. It gets the job done, no arguments there, but for something like the CH-47? We'll want something more involved. We want to see troops exit, vehicles exit, proper weight and balance, and the like. It's more of a case of adding value and depth to the simulation since you can deploy Abrams and Bradleys with the Huey through CTLD. If we're going to be paying full price for a CH-47, we want something a lot more convincing than what is on offer at the moment right out of the box. EDIT: Also, there's something to be said for making it a lot more intuitive. I'm saying that as an ArmA 3 and DCS mission maker.

There's no gatekeeping nor pleasure. We all want the MiG-29. We honestly do. We're not happy with the status quo, I am truly sorry you don't want to believe us. But, this isn't something you can argue. These is the cold hard facts of the matter. Remember, this is about a computer game for us. For ED developers in Russia? It's potential prosecution. For now, it's on hold until further notice. This is not coming from me, that's ED's own statement.