WinterH

While it is the one without any historical significance, the Mirage III I'd like the most after at least one historically relevant variant would be Swiss Mirage IIIS with (non moving afaik) canards, ghostly gray paint schemes, and completely out there systems equipment compared to other Mirages IIIs I have a weird, inexplicable sympathy and interest for that bird lol. But yes, while there are people who already say "hey enough Mirages already", I'd love to see a few different Mirage III/V variants as they could have vastly different characteristics/capabilities, and would fit really beautifully into growing up later 60s-80s stable. I'd similarly love a Mirage F1 vol 2 separate module eventually with F1AZ/AD and F1EQ5/6 if they prove to be possible to make. For the Fishbed side, while between the two, MiG-21 has always been the aircraft I was more interested in than Mirages, as DCS modules I am personally interested in MiG-21F-13 and then late stuff like double delta modern J-7s or even things like LanceR or Bison rather than second and additional third MiG-21 generations myself. F-13 though, I really want, even if only for the novelty. MiG-17, yes I very much want a MiG-17F, I hope those Red Star Simulations folks will be able to make a good one for us and convince ED for a license like Aviron did for their Kfir Now if only someone would start making some Jaguars, Super Etendards etc too. And if finally we get confirmation of an official Su-17/22M4 from either OctopusG or Magnitude 3

Early on they had an idea of perhaps making an FC3 JA37 as a sort of bonus, but even that had to fall by the wayside. A full Jakt Viggen module would be quite an effort, and seeing that HB has it's plate full for a good bit of time with finishing touches on Viggen, Tomcat, as well as development of F-4Es, Eurofighter, A-6, naval Phantoms, I'd rather prefer their next Swedish aircraft to be a Draken to represent its uniqueness as much as I love the Viggen. What I'd love a JA37 for would be not having to baby the engine at high AoA turns. So I can't say I would really need a JA37Di with AMRAAMs myself, would be fine with an earlier JA37 variant. But again, I'd rather prefer them make a Draken when they look into Sweden again.

Magnitude 3, after their F4U-1d Corsair.

While I do agree that lots of US and GR liveries and little for other operators isn't particularly ideal, I do think that the number of liveries for it is pretty good. High res liveries eat up a lot of space, and DCS folder is getting mighty bloated. Especially seeing that next maps look very likely to be giant space eaters when they come, I don't think having a million official liveries per module is the correct path forward.

Slightly off topic but, these days I realize that Desert Storm was an absolutely bonkers operation when it comes to aircraft variety and the gap between them. Between the nations, you had some latest/greatest gear like F-15E, Tornados of all kinds, F-15C, F-16s, Hornets, Tomcats, Harriers, A-6 and -7s, and some MiG-29As to oppose them, but then you also had F-4s, Mirage F1s of all versions on both sides, A-4s, F-111s, MiG-21s,23s, 25s, Su-22s, Jaguars, Buccaneers, even EE Lightnings were technically still in service with Saudis I think. Not to mention all kinds of helicopters. Sheer variety and also the generational gap between aircraft that took part in or at least were around in the conflict is crazy.

Yeah been doing some reading since then and to my surprise even C2 had a HUD apparently, which is cool :). I have also seen a few places mention Mavericks, don't know if they really had it but if that's a yes, it'll be a suprisingly capable little bird!

https://github.com/erdenizsanlav/Dcs-Dismounts/releases/tag/v0.9.21-beta Give this a try and let me know, I've added both ways to add troops to not normally supported vehicle types in the script: - If you add "TRANSPORT##" at the beginning of a vehicle's unit name in the editor, it will take 7 men squads. - If you use addTransportType(vehicleTypeName,troopCapacity), every vehicle of that type will get squads of the size given in troopCapacity parameter.

Yes, that was a planned feature from beginning but was postponing it after completing some other stuff, I can add it soon then, I can see that it would be helpful for people using the script.

Quite honestly, only childish thing here is this silly tantrum you are throwing Moving from many assumptions, incorrect ones at that. First off, many of my favorite aircraft aren't necessarily dogfighters, duh! Air to air is probably one of the things I do the least in DCS. Su-25 is a dogfighter right? Or A-4. In fact, helicopters are some of my favorite things in DCS and Mi-8 is one of them I regard/enjoy the highest. "Why does everything have to be a dogfighter" question may apply to many folks around here, but I don't see myself as one of those. But, I do want them to be fun to fly regardless. As opposed to a brick that can barely lift itself. Secondly, "buys into NATO propaganda" isn't how I tend to roll either, as I try to be as impartial as I can be, we are all fallible of course, so am I at times. That said, you don't make your airplane eject pilots automatically if you don't know it is a little doo-doo when it comes to flight characteristics with those tiny wings, two lift engines that are deadweight after takeoff, not being particularly fond of carrying ordnance under said tiny wings etc. It will be historical in what context? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying something has to be historical for someone to like it, I love Viggen to bits, looking forward to hopefully get things like Draken and Su-15 too eventually, none of which have a great history of battles to show. That said, I'd have to ask how exactly is Yak-38 historical, aside from "having existed in history", which can be said about every aircraft. From what I know (which I am open to change improve if you can show me any significant operational use of the type), Yak-38 isn't any more historically significant than Su-25T... Carries R-60s, yes, sure, what doesn't from its vintage though? I don't know if I'd call Kh-23M an ATGM, good luck hitting a tank with it, especially a moving one. Anti shipping, to the degree it will give a NATO fleet pause? Ok, compared to that doing tank plinking with Kh-23M suddenly doesn't sound bad anymore Not everything bad said about a particular aircraft have to be propaganda from other side you know... As for the MiG-23, I am looking forward to it A LOT. But that doesn't mean I think of it as the best fighter of its generation either, nor does it have to be. I don't care for an aircraft to be the most capable thing ever, heck I love L-39 and C-101 FFS and they ARE fun to fly, which is where I draw the "line", yes.

First off, thanks! Glad you're enjoying it. I did add French Pack vehicles to the pack recently, and thinking of adding a few others as I find time. For other mods, or anything really, you can add specific vehicles their squads using "assignSetSquadTypeToVehicle" but that would be one by one and not randomized so may not be ideal for every situation. If you would like it to work for the mod you use like it does for vanilla vehicles, you will need to first find the vehicle's type name, you can find it by opening a .miz file with a zip utility like 7zip or winzip, and take a look at the "mission" file inside, there you can find the type names of the vehicles you need to use. Then, you will need to add them to the code within mechanizAll and determineRandomSquad functions both, as these are the sections where it a: only automatically add squads to supported vehicle types, b: actually going about giving them a squad. I am adding some code these days to make it a lot simpler to support mod units and/or adding squads to random units though. So soon enough it'll be easier to do hopefully. Actually, this gave me an idea. I can add something like "addTransportType(vehicleType,transportCapacity)" which can add squads to all vehicles of the type given, with the given size, so it is easier for end user to add unit types that aren't supported by default.

Considering that I've already said in my previous post that "of course (this) doesn't conclusively say it still wasn't/wouldn't (be) done in any aircraft anyway", you are engaging in full on demagougery at this point, pulling strawmans while pointing at me screaming "logical fallacy! logical fallacy!" :)) Without ranging, and almost certainly without fancy terrain data in a 70s-80s at best secondarily strike jet, CCIP would be pretty damn crappy indeed, and I stand by this position, yet, I do not, and did not claim that "thus, it wouldn't be added, certainly so", at no point. Since then, the example was to show that "you can be acurate with CCIP without ranging, if you have other fancy tech", which samples an entirely different aircraft, not sure I follow you logic here either. Now I am real curious for how that would work, genuinely so...

I mean, of course, to each their own, and we all have our preferences. That said though, for me that would be below absolute bottom priority personally. As far as I'm concerned, the most interesting thing about these particular airframes in these particular versions is the flight characteristics, which we already have in FC3. I'd be quite sad to see them being made, which I'd consider low hanging fruit, instead of more full fidelity Cold War types like Su-17s, MiG-27s, MiG-25s, Century series fighters, Jaguar, Tornado, EE Lightning, more Mirages, even additional MiG-21 versions (I'd sooner buy either a MiG-21F13 or a waaay post Cold War upgrade 21 like Bison or LanceR, or a late J-7 for example). I'm already quite ambivalent about DCS: MiG-29A idea. But I'll reserve judgement until I see navigation and bombing modes etc. Personally I'm always more for obscure, weird aircraft than poster children of aviation, and I tend to like Soviet planes a lot. But Yak-38 is where I draw the line I suppose, that one's too much even for me with its famously mule-like flight caharacteristics, with very little joy to provide in the way it flies, as well as its generally non extant capabilities in the missions it was supposed to perform :P. But I do see it being at least a curio to try for some people, so I guess I do somewhat understand the draw.

Like others have said, F-5 and F-14 use different guns. So comparing their accuracy isn't really meaningful. However, F-14 uses the same gun as: F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C modules too, and it is still much more accurate than those. This must be the comparison we are looking for, right? Weelll, the thing is, M61 can have several different kinds of dispersion patterns depending on mission, and installation on different aircraft can be different. This is achieved through installing different clamps near the muzzle area of 6 barrels, either leaving them more parallel, or squeezing them together to create more dispersion. So we are back to square one regarding the validity of comparisons sadly Still, though, just as a gut feeling, I too feel Heatblur's implementation of M61 is probably a little too low dispersion even if we assume it using the lowest dispersion clamp available, but again this is a gut feeling/assumption on my part. To know for sure whether it is right or wrong, we would have to know what type of clamp is used on the Tomcats, and what is its dispersion pattern. Also like Northstar said above, there has been some dispute over whether DCS F-5E has too much dispersion with its guns, and as far as I recall some people who argue it has provided some primary source data too. Similarly, I'd argue that probably MiG-19 and Su-33 are a bit too laser-accurate too, GSh-30-1 does have some reputation for it, but especially the NR-30s on the MiG-19 leave me wondering about them seeing how they seem to have almost zero dispersion.

Seriously now isn't A-10 with a terrain elevation DB pretty heavily besides the point in discussion here though? Most oldie aircraft, and especially those with air to ground as a secondary consideration won't have anything like that, and with no ranging and no terrain elevation information either, their CCIP pipper was more of a suggestion than a solution as a result, even in best conditions. I personally am not saying rangefinders lead into magic either, if anything, I've always felt that the accuracy we have in sims with CCIP and CCRP is probably way better than how they would be IRL, but I don't see how that ties into discussion of whether these earlier Spanish Mirage F1s had it or not either.

I don't, and quite honestly, I won't try to dig it up. I have a vague recollection it may have been from a pilot, but that may well be wrong. But at this point, without concrete evidence either way, it is indeed about which one one chooses to believe until said evidence is brougt up. I will admit though, it can indeed be (even semi) educated guess. While you can theoretically do CCIP without a range source, it tends to be "Continously Crapped Intentions and Prayers", as in Hind's rocket sight, over which I often prefer to just eyeball it which of course doesn't conclusively say it still wasn't/wouldn't done in any aircraft anyway. There's an AZ and a CZ manual floating around, but they are flight manuals and not combat employment/armament ones, and in any case not the same variants as we have, and AZ does have a laser rangefinder and not a Cyrano radar anyway.

There was, yes, but I don't remember where right now. You're free to believe whatever you prefer of course There's a Mirage F1 discord that was created in anticiation of the module here: https://discord.gg/S8QFqRUn perhaps dig around there.

CCIP bombing won't be a thing before F1M, but radar ranging and lead computation for air to air gunnery will come for CE in one of patches, it's just not in yet.

IMO Abrams is ok enough for at least a few more years, and would rather see other things added/updated instead. Getting that Pantsir for example. IMO B-1 is an odd choice too because it was one of the "mostly ok" AI models if I recall correctly, unlike Tu-95 for example, which is basically late 90s level almost .

As far as I know, no, it's not. "Under the tarp" could be many things really, anything about it here is speculation at this point. If the interview was done a week or two before its airing time, during which period OctopusG did tease their own (not yet ED licensed) Su-22M4, it could have been (also not yet ED licensed) Mag3's Su-17M4, which was under a tarp in 2021 new year update image, and was again teased in 2022 new year update in the background. I personally believe it was that.

What's on CT has nothing to do with CE, and pretty much most other C versions. EE doesn't get CCIP/CCRP either, that'll come with F1M. Reason being, apparently Spain never wanted air to ground telemetry, aka rangefinding feature for the radar until F1M. CT doesn't do it with the radar either, it was an upgrade to give Mirage F1Cs a better ground attack capability, and has that laser rangefinder under the nose to achieve that. As far as I know the other F1s that could do it were AZ and AD, which had a much smaller radar, but also a laser rangefinder like CT added later on, and they were mainly ground attack intended variants anyway. Probably EQs could do it too because they basically were "ALL the options please!" :). The much later MF2000 upgrade for Moroccan F1s can do so too almost certainly, but that's a modern birds in Mirage F1 dress at this point. EE's improvements are mainly refueling capability, INS navigation system, and the option for a better RWR. Currently with CE we need some sort of beacon available for us in order to navigate anywhere.

Against my better judgement, here I go and reply to thread. First off, Magnitude does indeed probably have 2 coders, maybe more now not sure, but up until recently they had two. Where does this out them in overall 3rd party dev landscape? Puts them right in the standard level. Only 3rd parties I know with 3+ coders are Heatblur and Razbam, and Razbam if I recall correctly only became so in last couple-ish years. Now that we've established what's the average coder count for 3rd party studios, let us take a look at how many of them are full time DCS developers. Another simple answer: zero. AFAIK just about all of them have one or two full timers, usually one being the owner. Most of the art and coding force, as well as research and community folks, tend to either do DCS dev as their evening job, or are working on a contractor kind of setup with the 3rd party. So, we'll have to say that the following is a bit emotional and reactionary at this point: By this definition, almost none of the 3rd party devs should exist, and I'm rather happy with them existing, than you very much. To be fair, all modules, including ED developed ones have some problems, and (almost :p, I do have my pet hates too) all modules also show the love and effort poured into them. Aside from Belsimtek, who were not quite what we call a 3rd party, and now are back in ED, MiG-21Bis was the first ever truly 3rd party module. Many things it was bringing into table didn't exist in/supported by DCS by then. And they've came up with creative solutions for them, even if some may have been somewhat janky by standards of what's supported now. The module also got almost cancelled at 11th hour before the release. But but in features, graphics, and feeling of flight, it charted new grounds when it eventually came into our virtual hangars. Does that mean it's perfect. Hell no. There are well known systems related issues, others here already listed them. NAV system being a total jank workaround that was ok for 2014, ASP sight being weird in having CCIP for one thing that shouldn't (bombs) while not having it for one thing that should (AG guns), iffy locking feature for fixed beam mode (which both gives ground stabilization to already IRL unsupported Kh-66, which it shouldn't, but it almost makes fixed beam a defacto dogfight quick locking mode, as opposed to just a ranging mode mainly for A/G), auto pilot being weird etc. I am hoping these will be reworked in upcoming MiG redux they talk about. We'll see. But flight model is probably pretty much there where it needs to be. Maybe apart from edge of/post normal envelope stuff, but it probably wasn't even explored and reported back in Soviet days, and those regimes are just very hard to properly model in sims it seems like. Flight model, especially edge of AoA limit portion of it has probably seen 6-8ish drastically different versions in 8 years of module's existence. Which makes sentences like "I'll believe active MiG-21Bis pilot who programmed it" to hold a lot less water than I'd like to believe back then. So... What am I saying then? Am I "for" or "against"? How about neither? Both sides seem to approach a bit partisanish, for lack of a better word. Do I know of MiG-21Bis flight model is fully right, honestly, I just don't know anymore, but then even the best modules sometimes leave one wondering. But it seems to be broadly in a good place now, it hits the numbers, it handles great both fast and slow in that fabled high AoA regimes, is hard but fun to fly. So FM really is probably the better face of the module I too was thinking that "it got too hard to fly and I'm too out of practice, I'll probably not be good with my once favorite again' until recently. But with the release of Mirage F1 and flying it against F-5 and the MiG, I did find the drive in me to try and use it again, and with being patient and careful like in Mirage, I got pretty decent at least against AI again in a day. Come to think of it, in almost all versions of MiG's FM, one would do well when respecting limits and riding their edge juuuuusst. Only thing changed was how much you could go past it or where the limit was, as well as what happened/how severe the punishment was/is for overshooting it. I do get the frustration of not being able to so well in your favorite MiG, because I had it myself as well. But then, really persevere just a little with patience and it feels lovely again :).

Both C-101 and Mirage F1 can use arguments in skin choice to display parts of the 3d model differently. However, I don't know if this is a feature only possible for aircraft 3d models or if it also work on AI ground/naval objects. Some ground objects do have model differences we can choose from a separate tab like having tents, bushes, a rifle, being loaded or emtpy etc. Examples would be most WW2 vehicles, and also the Land Rover 101FC. Perhaps it can be handled that way for other ships besides the Ariadne.

Unless they have an intention later on to model differences between each ship (if that exists of course), it stuck me too as an odd choice,. cluttering the units list this way with a separate entry for each ship despite the being, at least right now, exactly the same.

Interesting how you still insist since before the announcement of F-4E, that naval phantoms are more relevant and fit into more scenarios, while in fact, it's completely the other way around

At the end though, it is still souped up compared to more vanilla Mirage III family even if not quite up to the level hoped for. Cheetah though, it definitely looks better than Kfir too... I'd love it too but I'm happy enough to see the Kfir added to the stable