WinterH

No, but a lot is happening with IRL stuff so I can only enhance it every now and then. I think last I've updated github was about a month ago. I've seen someone add two new issues/sugesstions now though, assuming that might have been you Also the latest thing I'm working on is a big feature so it is taking time. Edit: Ooops, assumed you've meant my script. I'll create a thread when I finish that feature and go "v1.0", hopefully in coming weeks, so I can stop highjacking MBot's thread.

AH-1W existed since 80s though. And I think, pretty firmly, that 80s or early 90s AH-1W and/or same vintage AH-1F is by far the best fit. Can fit a wide range of time periods, great mix of old-school and modern, fits what I and many others tihnk of as the best period for DCS, pretty much a direct counterpart/play-mate for Mi-24P we have. AH-1G would be a HUGE shame. It's literally almost UH-1 but slim. You can do pretty much the same posterior-clenching in that just fine Equally, a later 90s, or 2000s, or even beyond AH-1W or Z would be at least as much of a great shame, it can only fit modern shenanigans, and would be "Longbow Apache but with slightly different flavor". Army Cobras like F would probably be the easier module to make by ED themselves, considering it would have more directly shared stuff with our existing UH-1H. I think it would also be more representative of worldwide Cobra service, as some description of single engine Cobra was/is being used by a lot of countries, while the twin engine ones were only a few in addition to USMC. On the other hand, 80s-90s W would be more interesting from capabilities point of view, with being able to use either TOWs or Hellfires at mission maker's discreation, and I believe also some Marine Cobra specials like Sidewinders and Sidearms, and of course also the twin engine performance.

An AI AH-1W existed, I think as long as DCS itself did. There was also an unfinished AH-1G model viewable through model viewer, but not accessible in DCS itself, don't know if it's still there. We have also always had an AI UH-60, at least as far as I can remember. As for ED not using mods in trailers, that is usually the case, yes, but I'm fairly sure-ish they did use A-4 once in a video, and I am sure Heatblur did use A-4 at least once. But in case of UH-60, no need for using the mod either, because we've always had an AI one in DCS. According to an interview by Wags sometime last year, and if I recall correctly, ED does have a secret helicopter module in at least plans, it may or may not be the UH-60, but that AH-64 video is not the place to look for hints about that.

Not in any way, shape, or form.

Here's the deal: that's a complete strawman. Extra liveries not being forced down the throat of everyone does not equal those who want can't enjoy them either: make them optional downloads, and no one loses a thing, and people get choice.

Fully agree that HB livery runaway needs a check. Space isn't cheap for everyone, if anything, it is at a premium for some of us, and I don't fancy having to shuffle files with every big update to make enough space just so I can update DCS. If all the other liveries combined makes 33 gigs and Tomcat alone makes 12, that is literally INSANE. Don't get me wrong, they are really nice to look at. But I'd be pretty happy if we don't get any more added, well aside from A FEW for upcoming additional variants I guess. I'd also be happy if F-4E won't take up that much drive space for liveries, and I say this as a phantom phanatic for whom F-4E is the thing I anticipate in DCS the most, by far. Liveries should be "download as you like" kinda thing, which I sometimes do for my favorite modules.

Strela-10 (SA-13 "Gopher") is an IR SAM. It will not trigger your RWR, and won't show up on any HARM pages. Technically, Soviets did put a little radar dish on it, but that was only meant for rangefinding before firing the missiles, not for searching for, nor tracking targets, and AFAIK it ended up not being used much, probably even removed altogether in later modernizations? SAMs will not always, but usually stop before engaging aircraft, so that may have stopped it from showing on GMT radar. I personally feel like, FLIR targeting pod video is the best way to find things on ground in most cases, if their general whereabouts is known at least.

AFAIK, F-4S had the slats, but that happened fairly late into Navy F-4's career. F-4Js, not entirely sure if they got it or not.

Heatblur so far says we're getting a pre-DMAS and post-DMAS F-4E each, and then most likely naval variant(s), and they don't seem inclined to do any of these late upgrades. While I wouldn't mind these sorts of things for the sake of curiosity, I'd even say I'd enjoy the idea of doing new-fangled things in old-school stuff, I too think I'd much, much rather see more significant variants first, and these über-upgraded birds like Kurnass, Terminator, AUP, ICE, EJ-Kai etc are both harder to find proper documentation and SMEs for, and a lot more niche birds that may or may not have the customer interest to warrant all that effort. To be fair, we'll most likely get a slatless F-4J too eventually. I mean, that's essentially what DMAS F-4E is, which is the second variant we'll get. Though that modernization was late 70s-early 80s kinda deal, and even by then not necessarily state-of-the-art Not sure about the Litening-II TGP to be honest. Don't think Terminators ever used them, all the photos I've seen were with the ancient Pave Spike, and locally developed ASELPOD was supposed to be its replacement AFAIK. Don't know about HARM either, kinda doubt tbh. Maverick, LGBs and pretty much all the other air to ground ordnance listed were already part of F-4Es arsenal before the update, apart from Popeye, that was the start of the show when it comes to this upgrade. I think nowadays locally developed SOM cruise missile either replaced it for Terminators or is about to. I've read but never been able to confirm that AIM-7 compatibility was lost with the upgrade, but still not sure if that's true. German ICE and the related Greek AUP birds were more multirole with AMRAAM capability as well, while the Terminator was more strike oriented that didn't add as much for air to air.

Correct AFAIK, still no on the RWR, but a missile approach warning system was on cards at some point, it is unclear if it still is however.

Yep, a late J-7 like the G is my choice by far too!

In my experience, yes, they do. I am thinking of moving entirely into dynamically script spawned units instead for my future mission building escapedes to see if that improves upon that aspect of things. Now that I look at Dangerzone's post, seems like it did work for them!

MiG-21Bis we have is technically from 1972 originally, but R-60M is from sometime either very late 70s or probably even 80s though, so I'm not fully sure that 7F is entirely out of the realm of possibility just yet.

Yeah, for me this is the answer in DCS for just about anything. Although, in F-111s case I guess I'd be semi happy with a Nam era version at least, but I vastly prefer a later one as it's a better fleshed out, and imo plain more interesting era for DCS.

Since we are gettin a German bird, it'd be a MW-1 if we get anything of the sort, but MW-1 seems to fit the date.

MW-1 was later I take it? So I'm guessing iron bombs, Kormoran, maybe also a couple of HARMs right? Or was HARM an ECR only thing, I seem to recall German IDS' could carry a couple but I may be wrong. Anysi, sounds good to me :))

Yeah, seems we can't change votes, F-104 and F-102 both would join my list as the bottom two, but they'd be in it anyway. Edit: C-27J would be in it too, and I'd rate it higher myself

In descending order of interest for me personally, I'll cut them into 3 categories: "Holy crap YES!", "Would be cool", "Yeah, sure wouldn't mind one" So the Holy crap YES! category goes like: - F-105 (though there isn't supposed to be enough primary sources out there according to the internet lore?) - Stuka, especially a D-5 + G-2 pack And the "Would be cool!" category: - G55 - M-346FA (if a YaK-130 could be wedged into it somewhere too it'd be double awesome) Finally, "Yeah, sure wouldn't mind one" - A-129 Mangusta, just because it is a helicopter, and an attack helicopter at that - AMX - Macchi C.205 The rest I personally don't care for.

J-7G is my top wish by quite some degree, but would love Su-30 or J-10 too, even though I don't find them to be too likely sadly. They may surprise us and do something western as well, I even remember saying something to the effect of "we may do something western too perhaps" years ago. Anyway, regardless of what it is, I'm looking forward to hearing about Deka's next project.

Solutions I'd like to see (just throwing ideas): - F10 map markers with certain syntax that will turn into markings/waypoints on helicopter's map - Ability for the pilot to use something like a white board marker to mark/scribble on the map and be able to also erase it or at least just put a point/erase it If it was exposed to lua scripts, I could easily throw together something that will use F10 markers and add them to the helo map, but exposing that would also open a can of worms I guess. Custom images would be very welcome, but it isn't the end all. If you want to be able to mark dynamic destinations/targets in a mission post spawn, regardless it being multi or singleplayer for example, it wouldn't be helpful with that. To be fair, there still would be ways depending on how the mission is built/work. I don't really do public servers myself, well maybe once every 3-4 years or so so don't exactly know how they work these days. But I do build missions with intention to fly with buddies, and they do sometimes include targets at unknown places etc. There can be a human controller giving directions potentially for example, and that would be in line with capabilities of the platform. Or the mission builder can put ADF stations you can tune to be able to navigate to known target areas, or when a target pops up/or detected by recon units mission can display a message giving a bearing/distance from a known point, and you can use doppler system or dead recknoning from that point to get there etc. At least that's how I'd do it if I was making a mission (well that's a script idea to add to my list now). After all, we need to remember that Mi-24 doesn't have an INS/coordinate based navigation option on board. Nor anything to precisely mark a point from its targeting system realistically. So ideally solution should be in line with its capabilities, like using bearing/distance from a known landmark etc.

Realistically, 2 I would say, and it is safe to assume it will either one will abandon it, or some form of cooperation may be considered. OctopusG is one, Magnitude3 is the other, SniperSVK was working on a model, and he was hinting his work was going to be used by a 3rd party, which is almost certainly Magnitude 3. There used to be another modder working on one but that does seem like have fell by the wayside long ago already. Anyway, none of them is licensed from ED yet. Su-17M4 or Su-22M4 is the thing I am looking forward to by far the most, only equaled by F-4E for me. So I am hoping we will get the best one, and get it before the hell freezes over but we'll see.

With all due respect, reactionary comments in the thread are hillarious. Sorry to put it bluntly, but all it ever boils down to is not being able to contain personal hype and manage expectations. 1 - Things take as long as they do, and not less. It is the nature of the beast, and it is good for them to take as long as they do to arrive on our virtual hangars at least mostly properly. We've seen otherwise enough times, and I'm sure great majority of us agree we'd rather stick with this approach. 2 - Not announcing a product early on makes ZERO business sense, especially when it will take years to put it out into the market. It builds interest in the potential buyers, and it also helps avoiding conflicting efforts of multiple vendors (see recent case of Magniute 3 and OctopusG both working on a Su-17/22M4, or the L-39 many years ago) 3 - I do personally LOVE knowing that an aircraft I am very interested in is in development, and love to learn of it as early as possible. Even if I know it is many years ahead of any sort of release. I can start deepening my knowledge of the type, and think of/start working on scearios and/or even lua scripts to use with it when it comes etc. 4 - It does no real harm to anybody if we have to be honest with ourselves. Yes, I know it does get annoying if you let the hype to control the ship, if you know what I mean Hell I have been in that boat, I was screaming "GOOD FOLKS!? SEE THEE, HOW THEY MOCK US! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS I SAY!!" with pitchfork in one hand, torch in the other when waiting for MiG-21 for example and while not as sure of it, I may have done so for a few others too back in the day. But honestly... knowing something is coming WAY in advance, and learning of delays etc later on only has the side effect of disappointment on us, but it doesn't have any sort of malice or real harm behind it. If you've been in DCS for many years, but still haven't learned to adopt the rule of "take an announcement, add a year or two to the estimated release date", honestly it is on you Now, there are outliers like Kiowa and Corsair. But again... c'est la vie... I'm sure devs would want it more than any of us to be able to have it out there and sell it already yesterday, but for one reason or other, they are taking as long as they do. Still, unlike back in 2013-14, it's not like we are lacking for alternatives to keep us entertained until they get here.

39 since a few days and think that possibility of enjoying as many of my favorite aircraft as possible in DCS is an ever diminishing goal but well, things take as long as they take, not any less Looks like the number of 3rd parties is increasing exponentially these days, so hopefully we may get more and more frequent module releases in the coming years. But yeah... the Corsair is really taking its sweet time I am happy to see a lot of the aircraft I've always been interested in being announced these days. And then, there are the new wave of almost full fidelity paid level free mods from community that plug some of the gaps pretty greatly. A-1 Skyraider is one of those things I always wanted to see in a sim, so cool news for me

Right and where were the two new map makers on the forums then, which according to you seem to be a prerequisite for becoming a 3rd party? I've been following Hercules, Kfir, and Grinelli's Edge/Extra projects for more or less as long as they have existed. They weren't licensed 3rd parties, they aimed for it, convinced ED, and got it, simple as. While I also don't think MiG-17 will be among the 4 expected announcements just yet, Red Star Simulations not being an official 3rd party yet to our knowledge has no bearing in whether the module can be among the upcoming announcements or not. Great majority of the recent announcements were new 3rd parties, that we'd say "they aren't an official 3rd party yet" anyway

Neither was Grinelli Simulations, nor Airplane Simulation Company, nor Aviron until recent announcements Edit: Or indeed the company making the Sinai map, or the one making Australia map, or even Orbx themselves despite being otherwise pretty famous in sim industry.