MiG21bisFishbedL

110%. Good reason for someone to give us a MiG-27, as well.

When ever you see an image like that in defense circles? You just know a great mind like Mike Sparks is behind it. Only the same genius who came up with flying M113s could cook up such a masterpiece.

I'll have to jump in to a MiG and try later to see what I get. Will post stuff.

We just turned DCS into a survival horror game.

That's right, the first pair of Superbugs came with Lot 20, didn't it?

I'm not sure how applicable that is the Hornet/Super Hornet considering the Super Hornet is an entirely different aircraft. I'd imagine you'd be making an new module from the ground up.

Way to go, now some model kitbasher is going to go out, buy a JF-17 and MiG-17 kit, and use them to create some kind of monstrosity.

I remember when beczl departed and it was doom and gloom. I was legitimately heartbroken that I might not get the Fishbed.

I get your point, but consider this: There's almost no commonality between legacy and Super Hornets. This could come off as really anti-consumer. Including it with the regular Hornet as HB has done with the Tomcat and Phantom or Aeges with the F.1? Well, that's a LOT of work to give away. And they wanted $10 for the F-5E and A-10C updates. I would expect it to be treated as a new project as that'd feel more fair to consumer and developer, here.

So, I remember this vividly since I was mega-hyped for the Fishbed and the circus it took to get it. That beczl is probably the same beczl that was heading the development of the FC2 mod and, thus, the DCS mod. The two are one in the same. There was some issue, some kerfuffle, that caused beczl to leave the team. We all assumed and were even told by him that development was over. Well, we've been enjoying the Fishbed for 10 years, now. I've not a clue what he's been doing in the interim, but that's a gist of his involvement with DCS MiG-21. He started it, something happened, he had to leave, but then Dolphin and the rest of Leatherneck picked up the pieces.

This post fact checked by real DCS patriots?

Jumping the gun, no doubt.

They also dangled the MiG-19S for the longest time. I'll believe it when it's on my drive.

Your vids really highly how damn fun the Kiowa is.

Well, I certainly HOPE the new MiG-29 will be a MiG-29. Those of us who want it might be a little cross if we downloaded only to be presented with DCS: MiG-8 "Utka". But, this is an issue for mission makers to handle. The last thing ED should consider are those who throw everything into a mission and call it good for their air quake servers. If you take issue with it, then make your own missions where you limit the edge blufor enjoys one way or another. We aren't being dropped into matchmaking, after all. Not everyone desires to have the latest and greatest. The Phantom's success is proof of that. Enigma's server is proof of that, too.

It's honestly a very fascinating airframe with what the SwAF demanded out of it as a family of aircraft. It's probably one of the more captivating stories of development and the 'what if's' are easy to obsess over.

A lot of folks don't usually get that the Viggen family has shockingly low levels of part commonality. The difference in engines between AJs and JAs are the first thing that comes to mind. I can't imagine the real nitty gritty of radar etc.

You can try and find 'gotchas' all you like, but it won't change the reality of DCS development. Actually, I think it was 9L indicated that they'd be doing a FF Su-27 if it weren't for the fact that the team that would do it is busy working on the MiG-29. @NineLine Please feel free to correct me.

Everyone's acting like they've already parted ways with money for this. "I'm losing hope! Oh woe! Lamentations!" Let's put away the Shakespeare and get a grip. Backend coding work is not sexy and doesn't make for good hype material. Chill out and play with the toys you have. It will arrive when it is ready. If it doesn't? That sucks, but oh well. Nothing really tangible is lost.

True, though you won't see immediate structural failure. It could lead to damage over an example's operational lifetime, though. It'd be nice if we could get that modeled. I practiced landing with a clean Fishbed @ 2000l of fuel. WAY above the limit. It's possible and very easy, but we don't honestly see the accumulation of that stress over time in DCS.

Yeah, that's the takeaway. If it were only so easy to just add things into the game. Between legal concerns and stability concerns, it's quite a set of hurdles. The latter, especially, considering that the engine is held together with positive thoughts at times.

Over all, AAR needs a major overhaul. This should be part of that.

There's some back and forth on it. It's clear it was never a practical addition to the 117's repertoire. The real question is if it could interface with AIM-9s. We've had a lot of pilots say it couldn't, some say it could, but at gut level for DCS? One would be silly to expect it in a prospective module release. It's at a point where whether or not the Nighthawk was able to use them is irrelevant since the USAF clearly preferred to use them for something else. I'm leaning more to the camp that say it didn't simply because those involved in its development say so. There was the concept of the A/F-117X, but that exists on the drawing board only. All that said, careful reading Rogoway's stuff. He can be a hack.

You have immaculate taste.

Which one will move more units at the checkout? Exactly.