WinterH

Yeah, had to pay out of posterior for the Mirage F1 here

I'll keep this one short as it treads pretty close to no-no territory in forum rules but, for me personally, the biggest reason of not flying BMS is I don't care an iota about F-16. I didn't even have for DCS until very, very recently, and the whole reason I got it for DCS was impulse buying at a sale and FOMO But I'll admit if we talk majority, their reason probably lies in graphics. And yet, the comparison is feel odd as DCS' graphics are already pretty strong today. To a degree only though. Weeeelll... you kinda didn't, because 1.8 GHz CPUs didn't exist back then :)) I think the fastest were around 400 MHz maybe in 98? I had a Celeron 300A as my first PC back then, the memories... As for the rest of your post... well... then people in this thread misunderstand each other at some level, people who appear resistive like myself, I'd say, react to the idea of "let's switch to UE5 wooohooo!!", and I frankly still think that is the idea of most of the pro-UE5 camp here. On the other hand, if we are talking about a far future, 15 years or so like you say, why even discuss it now? 15 years ago DCS didn't even exist as "DCS", and since then it got multiple major engine changes/upgrades. 15 years from now, pretty sure UE5 will be a thing of history too. I can agree yes, a lot will change by then. DCS may or may not still be around, and it may have moved to an entirely different engine even in such a long time, I see no way it'll remain as it is by then. But then, it already didn't stay what it was during the time I've been using it, which is more like 9ish years. So, I've just learned UE5 is apparently a religion huh? You need to a- revere its miracles, b- ignore those who proclaim that said miracles defy logic and maybe questioned

No speculation here, when the soft-announcement took place early this year, they've given an almost exact date regarding when they have started developing the F-4E, which was "early 2021". It was also known pretty early on that F-4E is the first in the line for release among the 3 new modules we know to be coming from them. With all that, my stance on F-4 in 2022 is "I'll believe it when I see it". This isn't negativity by the way... Just saying what I feel like as an accurate-ish expectation for when we can see it. Now if it doesn't arrive this year, and people start throwing tantrums about it not being "on time", that's what I'll call negativity :P. That time period would be 2 years to slightly less than it even, and no one released a quite complex jet in that timeframe in DCS yet as far as I can recall, including ED themselves. Anyway, between Mirage F1, Hind, Viggen, A-4, and newfound love Mirage ignited for old favorites like MiG-21 and F-5, I do have quite enough to tide me over until we get the Phabulous Phantom

Because that is precisely what they are doing. Tools you probably already have in house for your specific purposes as a FS dev, and no need for external support for the engine vs almost certainly no tools for your specific niche from vendor as well as a dependency on them for support. Not to mention probably having to mostly/fully rewrite SDK/API ED shares with licenced 3rd party devs so they can develop their modules to interact with the underlying air combat/sensors/weapons/aerodynamics structure the sim provides. As a dev I'm pretty sure you can at least somewhat relate to "fully rewrite: oh hello things getting broken beyond recognition, new bugs breed out of nowhere etc!" Besides, I'm fairly sure ED would have to drill in any new dev due to these proprietary foundations of the sim regardless of the engine used. This isn't like, say, CDPR trying to (and eventually abandoning) stick to their engine vs UE5 for mainstream AAA games. Though, even in that sort of market, there have been horror stories of going to new engines that weren't specifically made for the genre negatively impacting franchises, ie people trying to hammer out RPGs from Frostbite. Now, UE5 is probably a lot more of a univerrsally supportive engine than that example, but there's still the fact that what makes DCS, DCS is a lot more than just graphics engine, and porting that leviathan to whole another engine would be an adventure to say the least imo.

It was worked on by Belsimtek for like a year or two, then binned when ED gobbled Belsimtek up and decided to go "nah fam... we'll go full low hanging fruit and do F-16". Then, in early 2021 Heatblur started doing theirs, from scratch, and they did say it a few times, that theirs is from scratch. Heatblur is probably my favorite 3rd party, but Aerges has a decent chance of ousting them from the spot, we'll see. Regardless though, they are notorious for their modules taking a looong time to arrive, and missing at least 2 release estimations, or 5 I'm ok with that so long as we get a- aircraft I subjectively consider cool (which they always do make), b- result is of a high quality already from arrival (which they also do). But Viggen, Tomcat, and if we extend the lineage to MiG-21 all seen multiple long delays, sometimes even multiple calendar years. Is that proof that everythnig will? No. But I'll err on the side of caution for F-4s arrival, I don't think it will be around within this year. I'd love to be proven wrong, and F-4E is what I want the most in DCS right now among the upcoming modules, and I'm glad it is Heatblur making it.

Sigh.... roight m8, 'ave a good one! I'm out.

Never Render engine has, in fact, changed in 2015ish to EDGE (shorthand for Eagle Dynamics Graphics Engine, duh :p) Switching from one in house render engine to another took years. Literally years. And brought about plethora of new bugs, as such things do. Many ED and especially 3rd part products had features that worked fine got broken, and some took forever to be reintroduced. But, DCS did change engines over half a decade ago. And kept adding into/improving it, like new weather, much improved lighting, PBR, and if all goes well, multicore and Vulcan will both change things up again for better at some point in future that is nearer than what is essentially throwing everything to trash and developing a new sim. Will it have UE5 visuals? Probably not. Does it have to? As long as it keeps being the most well developed consumer combat/flight sim with greatest flight models and a whole stable of meticulously created stable of aircraft modules, I couldn't care less that it maybe isn't as pretty as hypothetical UE5 sim. Not to mention we have a dynamic campaign coming which may or may not have engine dependent bits in it, but those things take years to develop, according to legend even dragging Spectrum Holobyte down back in the day, but are also basically the holy grail for sims. We'll see if an UE5 sim that is a direct rival in fields like systems and flight fidelity and ability to develop multiple aircraft from all over the history and all over the world comes. If it works, I may even be among the first to get it. But with so many modules here it'd be more "get it" and less "jump ship" unless it has a lot more going on than pretty graphics, which I doubt will happen. If it happens, heck yeah, the more choices the better for us end users. ED can then decide whether it's time to jump ship for them or not then and there. But right now, or even in foreseeable future, trying to port DCS to a foreign engine is a fools errand. Both for ED and for us end users. Also I still don't believe that UE5 means an ARMA level, even remotely so infantry experience will be possible in a flight sim. They have competing engineering choices/requirements as genres. Buildings with interiors will remain a counterproductive luxury for a flight sim for the foreseeable near future imo for example. As for the vehicles, again high fidelity vehicles have relatively little to do with game engine and more to do with limited resources who are better spent on doing work on more essential things for the flight sim. I feel like this whole thread is "I've seen tech demos and bought into all marketing hype for the product" and not a whole lot more really.

More so than trying to port a whole decade of development and fixes into a new and foreign engine, otherwise knon as "la-la land".

It isn't nearly this "black and white", "this or that" though. I am one of those who prefer quirky handling and quirkier systems of old aircraft in DCS, and I tend to get bored by modern aircraft. To each their own, I don't mean to say "this is the only true way!!" of course, I know modern aircraft offer different things to explore, learn, and do, it's just not exciting for me. On the other hand, I see absolutely no reason for NOT having 70s-80s-90s smart but still oldie tech like we will get with F-4E variants. Old school targeting pods, missiles, "computerized" bombing modes (that are still VERY involved, or on the flips very simple compared to more modern ones), etc on those old quirky handling birds are super cool for me. In my view, they really don't make it quite as dull as modern aircraft tends to be for me. Using LGBs with those aren't the same as with more modern things after all, there is a lot less systems helping, and a lot more effort put in. Viggen's RB 04s don't feel like a complicated magic bullet, more like "throw enough, try not to die doing it, and see if any sticks" kind of experience. RBS 15F is different, but it is from mid 90s AJS update after all, and I'd argue even its use is weird and funky and somewhat cool compared to later systems, but this latter part is very much subjective I can admit. Not to mention that Mirage F1EQ would be super fitting to many Middle East scenarios. While we don't have the exactly right terrains, we can still make a semi plausible Iran-Iraq war match up, or a Desert Storm, or a hypothetical Iran vs West, or hypothetical counter insurgency operations by Iran etc. Thus, IF information was found to do justice to it, I'd much prefer Mirage F1EQ than F-104, which wouldn't be a particularly interesting aircraft for me despite I tend to like that era a lot. Mirage III can be discussion, I do want some Mirage III/Vs in DCS, but Razbam is already planning/working on one. 104 is just "climb fast, go fast, (now I will annoy its fans) crash fast" and not much more imo If we'll get something like that, I'd like it to go full meme and be a MiG-25 instead

Looks like it will be the same satellite textures tech as it too is, which I personally despise in combat flight sims. While up high they look gorgeous, down low they're just no-no for me, and in DCS with helicopters and also jets trying to sneak under radars, down low is where we are 80% of the time. And still they take crazy drive space too. I get it some people love it, and more power to them, but I really hope this isn't becoming the default way to go for next DCS maps. Kola Peninsula is very interesting for me, but not with those satellite imagery sort of textures. If that's the future of DCS maps, I'll happily stick with what I have and just get aircraft myself. Of course the map is a while in the future yet, and I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong. But from what I've seen so far of this tech, I've never liked what I've seen at low altitudes, and unlike a civilian flight sim that's of primary importance here imo.

Considering multicore rendering and Vulcan API are both in dev, I'd say the answer is yes. UE5, regardless of it being suitable for sim development or not, is irrelevant for DCS. Using it means chucking everything, and I mean everything to the bin, and developing a new sim, nothing less. And that everything almost certainly includes 3d work for every ED or 3rd party module as well as AI objects. Not to mention FPS, assuming meant as playable infantry, is still a counterproductive pipedream in a flight sim regardless of the 3d engine. Better AI and 3d engine are hardly related at all too. Does DCS have some chronical issues that need fixing? Hell yes. Is UE5 the answer? No, not really.

One may hope that with the arrival of a Kola Peninsula map, we'll get more Cold War naval assets indeed. Also who knows... with sea floor being modeled for some years now, and with submarines now being able to dive and release torpedoes... is it too wild to dream of anti submarine warfare helicopter ops at some point, with an appropriate helo?

Yeah, sorry if I came off a bit like "this shouldn't be the priority", that wasn't my intention. But it is super hot here these days, and I am a lot less eloquent than I'd like to be autumn can't come soon enough

Right now most of the AI variants seem to be mostly cosmetic/placeholder capability wise, they mostly have a default-ish weapon set. Hopefully if their schedule and resources allow Aerges can improve them as time goes. However, for now I'd expect them to be fairly hands-full with working on F1CE items, and then starting work on EE, BE, M tasks.

Yes but those are F1EQs, I've meant more as ATLIS or other targeting pods being a thing on other F1 variants.

None. ATLIS was only a thing on EQs in later batches apparently. Aerges said about a year ago they may much later down the line consider making other variants too if relevant docs/info can be found on them, but that may not be too easy/likely for the EQs. Apart from F1EQ5 and EQ6, the only Mirage F1s that ever used targeting pods seem to be much later MF2000 ASTRAC update for Moroccan F1s from 2005. In any case, Spanish ones never had the capability, not even the F1M. I've read airvectors page on Mirage F1 many times but there really seems to be no solid reference at F1s with any sort of targeting pod apart from off the cuff mentions in articles like that one. Edit: I'd really love it if we eventually can get the EQ though. Also edit: In the photos you share it is an even crazier combination though: ATLIS + Kh-29L missiles, as Iraqis did adapt some Russian weapons they had to the Mirage apparently.

Hmm wouldn't NASAMS be kinda later?

Based on my DCS experience with it, I really don't know if I'd put current SA-9 and super brutal in the same sentence myself, and I'm a mediocre virtual pilot imo :)) But I really think that we need more early generation anti air missiles in DCS. Especially old MANPADS are crucial in my opinion. Redeye, Strela-2 and 3, Blowpipe, early block Stinger etc. Some BLUE towed and/or emplacement AAA for Cold War would be great to have too.

They did once say, at least a year or so ago, that they MAY consider further variants much later, once the planned variants are really done, and IF required information could be obtained. I wouldn't read too much into it to be perfectly honest. Once this module is done, I would honestly not mind getting a DCS: Mirage F1 Volume 2 with additional variants that could be simulated if enough info was found, like F1AZ, F1EQ5-6, maybe F1CT etc. But I don't know if that will be feasible, as in being able to get all the necessary docs and such. Especially the EQ was more or less the top Mirage F1 version before the much later MF2000 update for Morocco.

Pretty good suggestion really! I'd quite like seeing this, yes.

This just won't die will this... No, adding basic infantry controls won't make it even a rough equivalent to ARMA, including the first one from 2001, and it won't entice any ARMA player to jump ship, or even try DCS just because. And adding anything more than that is both out of scope and even at times counterproductive for DCS. Being able to lean or switch weapons won't make ground level detail look any better, nor will it make building interiors modeled. Without which it'll remain nothing more than a novelty to joke around with when bored. And making ground level textures and details and object density as good as an FPS as well as makin building interiors modeled is anathema to having a well performing flight sim that covers huge swathes of land while still performing well. Look at 90 percent of user complaints about DCS, do they tend to prefer it to perform better or allow them to be GI? What's needed to really much improve ground war experience in DCS is giving ground AI a huge overhaul instead. Like soldiers having loadouts portion of such an FPS can be helpful, ie give most infantryman the ability to use and anti tank weapon etc. And to make the "RTS" control aspect of ground units with combined arms module much better too. Let FPS games be that and flight sims be flight sims is the answer here and no, it's not coming from a place of narrow mindedness. It's more from understanding huge differences in priorities of the genres and the fact that engineering anything is often an art of compromises. Also any effort that'd be put into a tacked on FPS experience here would be effort not put into making ground AI much better than it is, which is something that's really needed.

No wonder I agree with about 0.003% of your review :)) Still, thx for posting it anyway, the more and the more diverse the views, the merrier I guess.

It looks like we'll get it on all versions when the missile is ready.

To be fair, F1M is relatively modest when it comes to these sorts of modernizations on older aircraft. There are quite a lot like it, but imo it is more interesting to count more in depth modernizations. In Mirage F1's case, that would be MF2000 ASTRAC upgrade for Moroccan Air Force. It gets modern avionics, I think either RDI or even RDY radar, potent new weapons like MICA, Damocles targeting pod etc. A-4 had a few like that too: A-4AR Fightinghawk, A-4KU Kahu, A-4S. F-5 also got F-5EM, F-5S, F-5 Tiger III. For F-4 there are F-4EJ-Kai, F-4 ICE, F-4AUP, F-4E Kurnass 2000, F-4E Terminator 2020. MiG-21: MiG-21Bison, MiG-21LanceR-A and LanceR-C. Mirage III and V got the ROSE program for Pakistani Airforce. For Kfirs there is the Block 60, and I think there may be a similar one for Cheetah too. These are the ones I know of anyway. Today most of these are on their legs of course and the rest are already retired.