WinterH

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.

Yeah that one I've always been suspicious of but never seen it conclusively debunked. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say "therefore it must be correct", like said, it seemed iffy to me too. But I almost never used it with ground lock since the beginning. To me guiding wherever the plane points method always been the better choice. But even then, I think it is probably too accurate in DCS, that's the part that I mean with "correctish". I am not sure those old radar beams would still be sharp/coherent at those distances. But that's just a gut feeling on my part, rather than knowledge. That said, the method of "point the plane to point the missile" is how it worked indeed as far as I know. And I personally prefer even that guidance method over the "let's fly a missile while flying a plane, in separate directions" method Do you have sources for Kh-23 or Kh-23M being guided similarly to later Kh-25? I'd be rather happy if that's really possible in MiG-23 TBH!

I think does mostly work correctish on MiG-21 apart from it not really belonging on the Bis variant at all. If 23 works like that indeed, I'd be happy to see that. But I think it really worked more akin to Bullpup and RB 05A: pilot basically steered the missile. Which is a method I never could come to enjoy

I would think S-5s, probably S-8s too, and 250kg dumb/cluster bombs. I hear it will also get Kh-23 manually guided missile. Edit: I wouldn't expect anything other than being a novelty from Kh-23 though. Same deal as Rb 05A on the Viggen, I find this guidance even less practical than "guide it with the whole plane" kinda deal as in MiG-21 + Kh-66, at least so in DCS. Also some aircraft needed a guidance pod for this missile I think, but I also recall some MiG-23 versions having it integrated in a small fairing on one of the wing gloves. Don't know which one will be the case with MLA we are getting.

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.

This isn't entirely a meaningful comparison, because if we have to compare apples to apples, the helicopter that came about a couple of decades later will be better in just about anything, suprise surprise :). But Mi-24 is just too iconic. It was the "Soviet gunship", a symbol of Cold War. Also if you're inclined towards historical or current plausible scenarios, it has been operating for decades now, and the variant we are getting is pretty decently capable of representing entirety of that period more or less. One clear difference is, Mi-24 has an RWR, even if an older generation one. Ka-50 has a LWR instead to warn of lasers ranging you, and Blackshark 3 update will have a MAWS to warn you of missile launches, but still no RWR. So in a way they will complement each other in a mixed flight. That aside, if we compare them, Mi-24 may *theoretically* bring about a little more boom per sortie if the target area demands less in the way of precision long range missile hits and more in the way of as many rockets as possible. But that is very case dependent, and even then probably won't hold much water because Ka-50's semi flexible and highl accurate gun and 12 missiles will end up yielding more kills more often. Mi-24's advantage is more in "flavor" so to say. It is a helicopter in the classical sense, as opposed to a coaxial rotor one without tail rotor like the Ka-50 is. It also has a lot less in the way of automated/assisted flight characteristics. The cockpit, navigation and targeting systems, are all much more analogue and old school, which many people enjoy more in DCS, myself included. Finally, it kinda-sorta has some transport capability as well, unlike the Kamov. Tactically speaking, one thing Mi-24 will suit slightly better will be tossing a huge load of rockets from a decent distance, turn back, and have some missiles ready still, or only toss half your rockets, and have some ready to do that again if need be. This can suit better to a scenario where you can't hang around searching for targets and guiding missiles from from for long, and the target is an area target with mostly soft targets. Ka-50 can still do that of course, and in most cases better at that, but it will either have to get half the rockets, or leave its missiles at home. But that is really pushing it. Most of us want Hind because it is Hind, for nothing else

Looking forward to it, but also looking forward to maybe a dev update on it when possible :))

Yeah that's completely backwards. F-4E is way more capable in its strike options, and F-4J/F-4S are just too limited. Besides I'd like my onboard gun thank you very much. Advantages of J and S are look down capable radar, which by the time of introduction F-4 was already second fiddle at best for air to air compared to F-15 and F-14, and carrier aviation, which not everybody cares about. For these they give up F-4E's advantages of being by far the most widespread variant operated all over the world, in hot conflict zones and actual or hypotethical wars, as well as Mavericks, early targeting pods, LGBs and TV guided bombs, and the actual "original old school multirol experience". You can put navy skins or if you try hard enough probably land on carrier, or not, don't really care A naval F-4 would never represent F-4E in any way, and F-4E is where the worldwide service and strike capabilities were at. While as many F-4s as possible would be very cool, I really don't expect any developer to do more than two, if that. I do admit, to do the F-4 justice, you need at least two or three very different versions made. But I don't see us getting like 5-6 variants from different periods. And while they are cool, the British versions are just too niche for most developers to consider in my opinion. Unfortunately that is old news. ED gobbled up Belsimtek after that, and most of the former Belsimtek projects were put on ice. Mi-24 came back, F-4E, at least so far didn't. Last we heard of F-4 in DCS was, ED's COO Katia saying something like "F-4 will eventually be made, probably by a 3rd party, variant not clear yet" sometime around end of last year or beginning of this one.

You're in the wrong game /thread

Because that's exactly what it is, at least as far as public info goes. Check back in a year or two I guess, and enjoy what's available meanwhile

To be fair, I've never seen a photo where the opposite hardpoint wasn't empty either. Wonder what's the weight it adds up to. Perhaps close to maximum with 8 missiles and 3 rocket pods?

Late 70s or 80s F-4E. It is absolute heresy anything else is even discussed. No F-4 is better than F-4 but not later block F-4E edit: well, J or S would be cool too. BUT ONLY in addition to E, and AFTER it

It is probably the historic filter you seem to have set on, the clock looking button/icon on the bottom bar.

I'd be inclined to agree. It can sort of represent the tank plinkers of first Gulf War too in a pinch. Did they get much in the way upgrades between 80s and then? Though, I wouldn't say no to earlier F-111 either.