WinterH

It looks somewhat unlikely for us to get any new Fishbed family members sadly. Personally what I'd love are the earliest and the latest Chinese J-7 variants. Earliest one would be basically MiG-21F-13, but with the option of having another set of pylons, and not sure but I believe retaining the second NR-30 gun from the MiG-21F. Not sure but maybe it also had a better engine too? In any case though, they are so close with F-13, I think it would be very feasible to include both in a single module to be fair. A very late J-7 on the other hand, is a very cool separate development of the MiG-21 family to explore. With a bubble canopy, enhanced double delta wings with (admittedly small) leading edge slats, somewhat modern avionics, keeping the lightweight early MiG-21 fuselage form, but enhancing it in every way etc. Of course it was vastly outdated compared to the latest available at its time, but I don't mind that in the least, all I care about is that it is a very interesting development of the MiG-21 lineage that would be very cool to explore, and it would still be an interesting light fighter for lower intensity 2000s scenarios. Personally any no-gun original MiG-21 variant is a no-no for me. I really dislike the second MiG-21 generation, PF, PFM etc, but I guess I'd find even those somewhat interesting if someone would make one. But strongly prefer F-13. LanceR and Bison would be cool, but I don't think they are very likely to happen, and they will have a comparatively limited sales appeal I'd guess. I'd get them for sure, but many will find them unappealing for this or that reason. This isn't fully true tbh. Kh-66 "Grom" does mostly act as a beam rider (and it's an A-G missile), there are problems with its implementation probably, but it doesn't act like a SARH missile. Air to air beam rider however, RS2-US, does act like one, and that's unrealistic, very much. Also being a basic beam rider, you should be able to guided it onto groun just as well as Kh-66 I'd think, which doesn't work because of how it acts like a SARH. In any case, Bis shouldn't even be able to use these missiles anyway, as they needed the older radar type, which in turn, couldn't guide SARH afaik. As someone who clamored for variants for almost as long as I've been doing DCS (which is just over a decade now), this really depends. In some cases like F-14 and Mirage F1, it is relatively plausible, though F1M could be argued to be different enough nobody would bat an eye if it was a separate module maybe, kudos to Aerges indeed. But other things like F-15C vs E, F-16A or early block C vs C block 40+, MiG-21F vs PF vs MF vs Bis, F-4B vs E vs J etc are sooooo different, they really are essentially making a separate module from scratch, so it isn't realistic expecting them all in a single module. Only way to, perhaps making that viable for both developer and customer could be, if they are being made by the same company, owner of one variant would get a discount for the other etc. But even then, only if it at least shares considerable enough effort from earlier module to make it a shorter/cheaper enough development for the studio making it. Yeah that doesn't work quite that way, no. As far as I know, it'd basically need to be a new flight model custom coded for other MiG-21 variants. Besides, if it's made by another company by default it'll have to be so anyway. Again, it doesn't really work this way. Popular analogy is, getting 9 women pregnant won't yield a baby in a single month, and it applies quite well indeed. Making a full fidelity DCS module roughly comprise of a few separate disciplines: 3D modeling Texturing Systems programming Flight model programming Writing manuals Creating content like missions, trainings etc Each tend to require a distinct specialization, and throwing two flight model engineers won't necessarily improve the speed at which an FM can be made by much, if at all. I would personally say pretty please NO. I don't believe FC level aircraft belong together with full fidelity ones. Having said all that, do I want more MiG-21s in DCS, or indeed, a hopefully improved module of the Bis? Hell yes I do. Perhaps Red Star Simulations will consider one after their MiG-17F, we'll see.

Ancient video I've made when someone asked the same in a Facebook group. Still applies. Though, long in short is as Volator already said above.

I could be wrong, but I remember it being rather good. Perhaps it was so only by the standards of fighters in Pacific Front early on though? If so that'd mean it'd probably still be behind the Spitfire in that regard I guess.

Yeah, the radar is more capable than APQ-120, and R-24 is supposed to be better than even AIM-7F as far as I know. For memes and shenanigans there's also the IRST and R-24T. I think, among the possible modules we have, MLA will be one of the best in BVR for a late 70s-early 80s setting among the 3rd gen aircraft, and still at least a contender vs 4th gen ones.

To be fair even most of the famous WW2 aces weren't necessarily crackshots it seems. Hartmann himself said something to the effect of "get close until see the white of their eyes, then get closer, and then shoot when the plane pretty much fills your windsceen" and was damaged, by debris from his victim. Even was forced down because of it once if I recall correctly. I think Galland was kind of like that too. In fact he apparently refused to leave his Bf-109E with two wing cannons for a Bf-109F despite its all centered firepower. Marseille on the other hand was said to even prefer just machine guns for their flat trajectory, and walked his high deflection shots neatly from enemy aircraft's engine to its cockpit, which is kind of grizzly in a way. I think one of the Soviet aces was also a rather gifted shot. But even among the best aces great shots seem to be more exception than the rule. Even in DCS it seems to be a very perishable skill. I could hit insane high delfection shots with most guns at first or second try out of instict when I was a very regular player, now I'm happy if I can hit broad side of a barn with some regularity It may not be particularly surprising to be honest. They were used to being more maneuverable and better climbing aircraft in most of the possible match-ups before, but at least until mid war most of their opponents could outrun and/or out-accelerate them. Then suddenly, it was the exact opposite against the Zero: Spitfire had the speed advantage, but Zero climbed and turned better, so Spitfire pilots had to fight in the exact opposite way of how they did thus far.

To be fair, I think the MiG-23MLA we're getting went into service in (really) late 70s, and MiG-29 early 80s, the gap between the two variants really isn't that much in my opinion. I will probably get both, but 23 I will almost certainly though, it is a lot worse an aircraft, but also something I find a lot more interesting, and from a generation I like more to play with in flight sims.

I think discounts for two full fidelity versions of the same aircraft made by same developer is a good idea, somewhat necessary even in my opinion. However, not sure just a part of the FC3 warrants a discount on a full module. It would be nice gesture if ED decides to give a small discount perhaps, but I can't really say I see it as necessary to be honest.

Yeah I wouldn't take a promotional image for a WIP thing as gospel. I guess this would also mean "goodbye R-27R + R-27T together" memes if we indeed can take only two types of AAM?

They've even used AGM-62 there allegedly, I think I've seen some photos of F-4C or Ds with Zunis, but not sure, however there's been some shenanigans with weapons on USMC/USAF shared bases back in Vietnam days apparently. I think some F-5s and F-104s were also seen with Zunis in non-US service, but can't find any photos for now. As for Ukraine, apparently 4000 rounds of Zunis were sent there and are used on Su-25s and Mi-24s. In case case though, I really don't think they were a thing on A-10.

Aside from maaaybe F-4s during Vietnam, I don't think Zunis were used on any USAF aircraft, they are really a NAVY/USMC weapon. Although I think some export customers did get them for aircraft made for USAF and didn't use them there. As for the A-10, can't say I have any primary source info to prove this, but I doubt they were ever a thing on A-10. They may have been tested before A-10 going into service maybe, at most.

Interesting but what exactly would that be? As for weapons retrofitted lately, I personally am not that interested in them either. If I get this module it'll be for what it was in the 80s.

That's something I'm curious about too. Although I think it's more likely to remain as is in FC3. Especially thinking that we'll get an early variant, I wonder if it had anything beyond those. Kh-25s seem unlikely, nothing to guide them with, though there was an early radio command Kh-25 version I guess, even that would require a pod and extra controls in the cockpit. Given no TV screen etc, don't think Kh-29T was ever an option on these old birds either. Only thing I dare to ask myself "hmm could it?" would maybe be something like Kh-25MP anti radar missiles but I don't think that was really a thing either to be honest. I wonder is there anywhere to read about air to ground capabilities of early Fulcrums. After all, it was an aircraft mainly intended as a fighter, so I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't have anything beyond unguided ordnance. What I am really curious about is though, if it has more bombing modes than FC3 or not. For example something that is tied to NAV system may be? I doubt about it, but I'd be happy to find out if it had any. Bombing modes of Mirage 2000 is so fun for example.

Well that goes both ways, Silver saying something to the effect of "Octopus-G didn't give a release date on 2023", is just false, as are a good bit of his often rushes to the defense of devs even when no offense is intended by anyone but at the same time, you are absolutely right too, anyone of us who has been here long enough should know release dates don't mean much of anything, can and will be missed, sometimes by multiple calendar years, and that's just fine. It takes as long as it takes, and we're better off with getting things cooked well enough after all. As for the warbirds, I absultely love the way warbirds feel in DCS, and hope there will be more devs giving us some. Though we do already have La-7, F4U-1d, and F6F, seems -3 all lined up. But I really, reaaally want Octopus-G to give us that beautiful Su-17M4 too. It is an aircraft I've been wanting for a long time, in fact could be the only one I'm quite as interested in as I am for F-4E. I know there are other potentials for Su-22/17, but I personally hope for an Octo-G one. Regardless of who makes it though, hope we can get one sooner than later, and most importantly, hope it will be made well. A good, cool, Cold War red striker is something that should be done right hopefully and I personally have the most faith in Octopus-G among the devs who hinted at making one.

Let me tell you guys something funny. I can read Cyrillic. Don't understand much of anything of course, but I can read the alphabet almost %100. How did I learn? Well how, of course with using Russian vehicles in DCS and other titles for many years! At first started understanding some letters, and eventually, very much suddenly, I was like "wait... I... can read Cyrillic now..." However, I must say, I don't really understand the necessity of having English cockpits in aircraft without complex MFD menus and such, like in Ka-50, which I still use in English. In everything else, it's pretty easy to tell what's an ADI, HSI, altimeter, speedo, VSI, G and AoA indicator etc, and for switches we already learn what's what from manuals and videos when starting, and they have English tooltips anyway. And as a bonus, you may slowly learn another alphabet as a side effect as did I Don't get me wrong, I hope people who want it will get it of course. I just personally don't get why is this that important. For flight manual however, agree %115!

Is it really though? As far as I know, they went into service pretty much the same time with MiG-29, 1982 if I recall correctly, and the version we have with RDI radar went into service in 1986-87ish. Ours have a few later updates, but they aren't really big things, it works very well as the late Cold War type. FM I won't comment beyond I also think it probably is on the optimistic side, but that's just me thinking, have nothing to prove it either way. Systems wise however, it is one of the best modeled modules in DCS, and is a great representative of the most advanced fighters from 80s. And while it may be easier to win in a guns dogfight with 2000, if they both have their expected dogfighting armaments, I'd say helmet sight + R-73 still means MiG will more often be the one coming on top. I really hope when we eventually get an F-15C or A, it will also have an 80s version included. 1975-1995ish period is by far the cooles and most fitting for DCS imo, and it is becoming more and more fleshed out. Give me AH-1W of that exact vintage, Su-17M4, Jaguar, and we're more or less golden. We already have Tornado, MiG-23MLA, A-7E, A-6E either coming or planned anway. MiG-29A will fit very well into this, as does the Mirage 2000C RDI.

AFAIK, FC3 and all but the most recent full fidelity modules do use RCS values, but the catch is that it is a singular value independent of the aspect, and also most fighter sized aircraft are set at the same value for the most part I think. Some recent Razbam modules' radars (Mirage and Strike Eagle) I think also take aspect into consideration, and I think some recent ED radars like Hornet and Viper either have also added that or will do so. Not sure if I really agree with Fulcrum being much more agile than, or even as agile as Flankers overall though. Sure it accelerates better, and turns maybe better at a certain speed band, but Flankers seem to be a lot less picky about the speed range or when you have to pull higher AoAs to me. And with a Flanker you can actually use that afterburner without the fear of having to catch a van ride home afaik Flanker is theoretically better in numbers too, both in available manuals and in DCS tests on that website listing modules turn rates etc in each patch. As for the cockroaching meme, it is indeed a meme overall, but it isn't as alient to reality to be honest. There have been cases when it happened IRL, Iraqis vs Tomcats being one I can think of, and in current conflict Ukrainian MiG-29s also had to employ it. It isn't ideal of course, but it is a last resort to try when you are significantly behind tech-wise. I suppose essentially cold war tech Fulcrums and Flankers facing lots of active radar guided missiles would qualify for that. But last I still at least occasionally did online multiplayer, back when the "hot server" was 104th, everyone did it, even F-15Cs were mowing lawns of Caucasian countryside

I'm not a MiG-29 expert by any stretch, so take what I say with a pinch of salt, but as far as I know: MiG has pretty insane acceleration and climb performance, as well as a pretty great turn rate at medium speeds, and pretty good control authority also around those speeds. In my experience though, if you get slow vs a Hornet for example, it won't go well for you. I think the speed sweet spot is around 650-750ish km/h, people who know better can give you more precise numbers. It's control authority can be too good for its own good though, without a FBW to limit what you do with it, it is easy to bleed off speed in it, so takes a really steady hand to control it. While being super slow isn't ideal for Flanker either, it remains somewhat controllable in that state too, but MiG's controls feel like the plane gets encased in rock at those speeds :P. However, unload and those afterburners can get back that speed surprisingly quick. It isn't an easy plane to do well in, which is part of the charm for many of us. It can be very fast and maneuverable, but only when controlled carefully. Flanker is the somewhat better of two overall in my opinion, but MiG is the one we can get in full fidelity for the foreseeable future. The great initial maneuverability, and the helmet sight together with R-73 makes it still very dangerous up close, especially for aircraft that doesn't have such high off boresight capability.

It's usually used to describe people who tends to more or less think "only the variant with most capabilities matters", and in general enjoy aircraft that makes it easier to "win"

I hope this will be the case and we can invoke a mission planning screen within mission. Of course, it should be possible to disable this for the mission if it is desired for players to really and only follow a certain scenario for canned missions. I think I should clarify myself a bit here, my slight disappointment for the possibility of not being able to assign waypoints after a mission launches isn't from a "muh capabilities, only more capable is fun" kind of outlook at DCS. That is not what I enjoy, it is much closer to the contrary. However, going with the "3 types of player profiles" idea I've presented in my first post in this thread, if an aircraft has a navigation system that can have programmable waypoints, it is of great benefit to be able to set them inside the mission for the types 1 (singlplayer sandbox lover/mission maker) and 3 (multiplayer PvP and PvE lover). Since right now DCS does not have a dynamic mission/campaign system, we either need to create sandbox/playground type missions where different tasks can be spawned through triggers and/or lua scripts, or use lua script driven dynamic campain systems. Or even when doing the same mission multiple times, it can be an interesting approach to try different routes for different tactics etc. That's why I find it important to be able to give aircraft different flight plans after spawning into them. Of course, in case of aircraft that can't set waypoints from cockpit like MiG-29 seems to be, we should only be able to do so when we are down on the ground, and with aircraft "cold". It is just fine that it has only 3 waypoints, so long as I can actually make use of them

Ugh, that'd be... suboptimal if it was the case indeed, you're slowly pushing me back into "wish it was any other thing than MiG-29A, as it basically has everything interesting about it in FC3" though I think it has something in the cockpit that does look like an INS panel? Not saying that necessarily means anything but, well AFAIK Su-17M3 and M4 had something like that, while admittedly a prototype and later, Ka-50 too.

In my opinion, servers with post 2000 aircraft are doomed to remain exactly this way. Unless something super unexpected happens and a red bird from this century can be released that is. So far people from ED said that it'll be an 80s MiG as far as I know, and in an 80s setting it should be one of the best contenders. I believe DCS users can be classified within 3 main (and simplified) categories: - Those that love aircraft in general, and like to create scenarios in mission editor, complex or simple alike, and play them single player or multi with a small group - Those that lie aircraft, and well constructed campaigns/historical and/or fictional highly polished content - Those who like online PvP server experience and fly aircraft there, and are thus interested in potential match-ups and relevant tactics Now of course a user may belong either only one, or two, or even all of these. Personally I'm pretty firmly in category 1 myself. So while I try to always look at things from multiple angles, there may be some skewing towards that. The MiG, I believe, will work wonders for that first group. It is an interesting aircraft, but now with limitations from FC3 systems removed. At first I was ambivalent at best towards full fidelity early MiG-29. I was thinking the only interesting thing about it is the FM, and we already have that in FC3. But the more I think about it, the more I started to like it. I can now have a navigation system that I can program after loading into a mission and that alone is good. I also like the idea of more direct interaction with with more in depth modeled systems. For the second group, interaction with aircraft is also at least as important especially when individual systems and/or failures are important for a particular mission. There has been some fictional campaigns that were quite well regarded. For realistic what ifs in 80s, not sure if there'll be many campaign makers who will prefer to work on one, given the current strate of affairs in the world. But there may be creative ideas, or a typical Cold War gone hot campaign maybe. Finally for the 3rd group, it will depend on the server. There are now options like Enigma and a few 80s SARH only servers AFAIK even if I don't fly online myself. It'll do as well as FC3 does over there, but not any better probably. But for the usual free for all scenarios, clearly it'll be waaaaaay behind the curve as others said above. Overall I feel like it'll be a module that fits with all of the DCS user types to some degree.

As a steam&steel era ship nerd, I'll still say no, hit points should be quite enough (with caveats). Chasing perfection is often counterproductive for a good result, we need to remember DCS is foremost a flight sim, and a rather resource hungry one at that. Modeling compartments, calculating damage and buoyancy separately for each compartment/component of each ship in a busy mission, is overkill in my opinion. Now, I do agree some improvement is needed, hence the caveats. Maybe only track damage for semi-arbitrarily defined compartments (as opposed to perfectly blueprint fitting ones), and consider ship killed if x number of compartments are dead should be something for example. Also, definitely individual equipment above the deck should be destructible. Even if simplified by a "zone with hit points" rather than individual gun/sensor's detailed damage model, we'd need to be able to disable AA guns, sensors, fire directors (with hopefully expected effect on the accuracy) etc, as opposed to current "damage anywhere on the ship enough to maybe disable weapons" deal. But a detailed damage model for each ship and its sub modules considering physical/fire/flooding damages is both overkill for the purpose, and not called for in context of DCS in my opinion. Even fairly realistic naval warfare games do a lot of approximation and abstraction modeling the survivability of ships, and those are almost the only things they need to model, or at least one of the main things anyway. DCS will need to cope with (hopefully much improved) AI of many ground/naval/air units, complex flight and systems modeling of many user flown aircraft, and the high polished graphical representation of both those things and the world they occupy. A naval sin level damage modeling for ships is overkill and would compete with these I'd think. And self-repair, damage control etc is definitely overkill in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I do definitely agree that some improvement over the current state would be very welcome, and frankly somewhat necessary. Just not to the extreme you suggest twistking, not in my opinion anyway.

So we've seen both Essex class from Mag3, and a Yorktown (USS Enterprise) from ED. Wonder if Enterprise will be "supercarrier features, but ww2" or not. Not that it matters for me personally, neither have, nor interested in supercarrier myself, but be interesting to know for people who are. In any case though, the more the merrier. I would really hope there is a destroyer pairing for USN and IJN though. I really believe a Fletcher class DD is pretty much a no-brainer to include. Fits both Pacific and Atlantic fronts, and was also used by many nations for a good bit of Cold War, I believe some were still in USN service during Korea too. Besides, while Mogami is a beautiful and powerful ship that I'd be happy to see in sim, I feel like destroyers would be more fitting targets for our fighter-bomber modules overall.

This situation is the same regardless of using DCS with Steam or not. You should have a second dcs folder in saved games, in addition to program files in both cases, and you install mods on that one. You don't install mods under program files, if you do, you get that error

Make sure you have deleted the mod from program files and it's ONLY in saved games folder. Program files/mods is only for official payware that needs to get authorized. Freeware stuff can't be authorized hence getting this error when it's in the wrong folder.