WinterH

I have two sticks, one gamepad, and the mouse plugged. They're all fighting for the control of the sight

I prefer this strongly over the Jester myself.

Being able to put markings on the map would be pretty amazing not gonna lie! But I really appreciate it at least draws waypoints from the mission editor.

For me F-14 also never replays right, also the Edge 540 mod. Mi-24 plays right for me up to a certain degree, then decide to randomly take a nosedive. Mi-8 tends to do the same, but after playing right for a longer time usually.

My conclusion: learn judging range and manually shoot a huge salvo from maximum range, and hope for the best. CCIP is decently accurate, but only at ranges that aren't useful against anything that can fight back, so feels like more of a mop-up tool. Perhaps it is due to the nature of the system: just triangulating based on nose attitude and radar altimeter reading. So the ranges it can provide meaningful calculation is limited maybe? Until I get better with it, manual salvo from long range tends to get 1-4 kills with all 80 rockets for now. Terrible huh? Not really, because usually it does suppress by damaging threating units enough so that they can't fire back anymore! Then I move in with gun to mop-up. Even one or two rockets landing in general postcode seems to be enough to get MANPADS dudes (somehow, I feel like they die easier than regular infantry, but maybe wrong). If you get that Shilka, Avenger, or Strela below 50%, they won't be a threat anymore, and rockets does have the range to do so when used manually. Accuracy gets dicey of course, but it's not like they are meant to be a precision weapon anyway This way I can use rockets from 2-4ish kms, while the aiming computer only seems to work from 1km or less.

Hind's tactical utility just climbed up some nothces! Thanks

I think it's been ED's practice for a year or two now, their modules are %20 off as long as they are in early access status.

Transpose mode works if you have Petrovich UI up. But obviously this won't work in multicrew. And not ideal even in single player. But it's there

Flight model really feels good imo. For people looking for character, it oozes that. This is the first helo in DCS where I really have to be mindful of retreating blade stall all the time. Others overall couldn't get fast enough to worry about it most of the time, apart from the Ka-50, which still doesn't need to worry about it too much thanks to coaxial rotor design. It has both Mi-8 and UH-1 kinda feeling to it, but also lots of own character. It gets to 300 km/h before you know it. I am personally having problems remaining somewhat slow, or slowing down when I want to . VRS is also something to be mindful of like the Mi-8. When up to some speed and trimmed nicely, it can be very, very stable as a weapons platform.

Call me weird or whatever, but I want MiG-25PD or PDS + MiG-25RBT + MiG-25BM. (I think look down capability came in PDS after the PD btw, might be wrong, but recall it being that way from some relatively recent reading). Also Su-17M3 or M4, and I'd even be interested in the idea of Su-15. And MiG-27... and Su-24... and, yeah, why not MiG-31 too if possible... Then some Euro goodness like Draken, Jaguar, SEM, Mirage III... then some odd-ball coolness like Kfir and/or Cheetah, and obviously that F-4E Block 58 or at least 53 back in development... EE Lightning, that too, yes...

For me this is what I've been the most excited for in DCS in a long time. This helo is just so iconic, cool, and significant. And it's just the blend of simplicity and "sophistication" I enjoy. Being an ED/former Belsimtek product, I have faith in its realism/authenticity/quality. However, if you define "worth it" more along the lines of "how many kills can it get per sortie and in how high threat environment?" Then I will say that it will not do the things Ka-50 can for example. I personally think it's worth it, but, none of us have tried it yet, and we don't know if it will release in a "seriously ED, what the hell!?!" state like some modules did. However, it doesn't look like that will be the case. And ED said many times since they will do their utmost to avoid those sorts of releases.

Passive-aggressive Petrovich confirmed! Jokes aside, feature and option list for Petrovich AI looks quite good imo!

Watching the thread because I also have the same occasionally, and also with an FFB2

Yep seen it in the video. Back when I made that comment I only had the Mi-8's implementation of the pod to go by, so we can say my post aged poorly, thankfully though, because it's cool to get the option of "ALL DA DAKKA!" :))

Funnily, I tend to find shilka to be one of the most benign "threats" because it'll merrily miss you and open up at relatively short range. BMP-2 though... That thing is evil

The now ancient US infantry units already do that, always did. M4 guys crouch, M249 one go prone before shooting. Also some of the old insurgent models are always crouched, and old Russian paratrooper model crouches before shooting as far as I can recall.

Not to mention post JHMCS + AIM-9X, which I'd say more than negates HMS + R-73 advantage in an unrestricted environment.

Wouldn't read anything into it, also pretty sure there was a Su-34 too somewhere in the video. Edit: nevermind, rewatched and no Su-34 in the vid. But I'd still not read too much into it yet.

Nah, what I want is F-4E Block 53 or Block 58, and don't care an iota about F-15E, though I care even less than that about F-4J or S. Won't really bother replying to rest as it's basically you being stubborn. However, exhausted (despite being hilariously wrong ) and me are both an excellent indication that there is no way under heaven that an F-4 module that doesn't include both the E (also known as the actual F-4) and a naval variant will make people happy, not without making the other half fuming anyway. Again you ignore that the said mods are at least 90s stuff, and all of these countries used unmodified later block F-4E's for years, even decades, and even used them actively in actual conflicts. I am not looking for any frankenstein, I am looking for either F-4E Block 53 or 58, which would pretty decently depict international F-4E service, with a lot less give-or-take than you imply. Again, interesting to hear another completely backwards argument as J or S are not nearly as multirole capable as a later block F-4E is. All a later naval Phantom is, is a better interceptor than E but is already the second fiddle by that time, and almost only used by USN. Now I get it, it is your preferred version, even if I believe your reasons are objectively wrong, that doesn't mean anything: if it is what you want, it is what you want. But one thing is (and has always been) clear: a naval only Phantom won't do anything for people who want a good striker and historical Phantom, at the same time, F-4E only won't do anything for people who want to operate a carrier capable Phantom with arguable the better air to air potential either. Though I don't think we even have a proper bridle equipped carrier for a Naval Phantom, but that can be made as well. I guess a potential Phantom developer should either make both, or don't bother at all.

Literally the only advantage in J or S is the radar, otherwise, they are downgrades from the E. It is incredible that you can say "F-4E would be only good for *basically the whole world*" while the J or S would be only good for USN/USMC, and barely maybe UK. Then, if somehow we take "you have better choices with F-15, F-16, and soon F-16E" as a serious argument (which is very difficult TBH), then you literally have better choices in F/A-18C and F-14A/B :D. Besides F-4E has served/serving with USAF, Egypt, South Korea, Turkey, Iran, Japan, Israel, Greece, and probably more. BTW, Isreal did not only fly Kurnass, they had more or less unmodified F-4Es too before that. These pretty nicely fit to Syria, Caucasus, Persian Gulf, and to a degree upcoming Marianas map. All the different updates mean literally nothing. Nothing, nada, zilch. They have operated unmodified F-4E for years, even decades before those updates, and most of us want the F-4E more in an 80s-70s kinda scenario anyway. I wouldn't even buy any Naval F-4, unless they come with, or after as an addition to F-4E. F-4E has: - Pave Knife/Pave Spike/Pave Tack targeting pods depending on the block, hence self guided LGBs as well - TV guided drop and forget OR man in the loop GBUs - AGM-65 Mavericks - AGM-45 Shrikes - Yes, also the gun F-4J/S has in comparison as attack options: - Sound of crickets - Tumbleweeds rolling - Awkward silence after a joke that failed to land - Being able to play on a boat or something - You can try to play the fighter-boi with look-down radar, somewhat better than the E, to be looked down upon by literally anything else anyway, for which you give away all the worldwide service history and all the early oldschool multirole goodness. So honestly, why settle for J or S at all? Really, what's the point? If Phantom is made and doesn't include E, quite honestly, it may as well not be made at all, actually even better if not made at all as that would make it even less likely to get the E anytime soon, if at all. This is the only correct answer, but sadly may not be too likely for most developers. I definitely would like E + at least 1 naval variant in addition, it is the only way to do F-4 justice. But it is rare for us to get two very different versions of an airframe as modules in DCS.

This is one of the planes coming to DCS that I'm most interested in, but I wouldn't expect much on it for quite a while yet. Corsair isn't out of the door yet (which I'm also looking forward to), and we haven't heard too much about that one in a while either. So I'd think we'll probably get Corsair in at least a month, probably a few months, and then they'll get cracking on the F-8 more heavily.

Wasn't that in the Leatherneck days before the split? If so, I'd say it probably fell by the wayside, most likely anyway.

We have AJS37, not the JA37D, Heatblur did consider adding it as an FC3 level bonus, but in the end it did not happen. Rafale is very unlikely I'd say, but who knows. I'd personally find seeing a DCS:F-15A to be a cool idea, but last few years we are clearly seeing the trend is "make the most modern possible even if some fudging is involved, it'll sell the most". So if we eventually get a full fidelity air-to-air Eagle, it'll probably be an F-15C with more features than the FC3 one we have now. I for one see this as a very unnecessary addition. We are lacking a lot more things that could plug more gaps than making existing FC3 planes into full fidelity. Feeling similar about potentially upcoming MiG-29A as well.

Unlike the A-4E, MB-339, or Edge 540, you would need full SDK access to properly make an F-4 as far as I know. Especially for advanced air to ground stuff. Naval ones perhaps could be made. There is a naval F-4 mod project under work right now, but don't exactly know the fidelity they are aiming for. But yes, we have discussed this in other threads some months ago too if I recall correctly. Ideally, you would need to create at least one F-4E and one naval F-4 to do this bird justice in DCS.