WinterH

Honestly, this is not really much of an argument in my opinion. At best case scenario, dude wearing body armor vs the ones that are not should be separate entities on mission editor. And chest plates often don't have full coverage I think, most of the body would still be exposed, and armor piercing .30 cal rounds still can be a threat. The test I did was against insurgent with AKM, I'd wager to say those dudes aren't usually in much of body armor... and for the great majority of the periods represented in DCS, pretty much no one wore body protection. Tested the 7.62x51 NATO rounds too BTW, it was even more ridiculous at 6-9 hits per soldier... ouch. At first Bignewy said he will forward it to devs, but his follow up was pretty sad and discouraging, basically said this is apparently intented behaviour otherwise there wouldn't be firefights between infantry. Yeah... infantry that miss each other from point blank, IF they actually fire :), let alone at meaningful ranges :). This is a sore thumb in DCS' damage modeling, one of many. But I've admitted "it is what it is", probably will be fixed at some point down the line. Edit: btw, body armor is still not much of a thing in most armies of the world, especially conscription based ones, not to mention insurgent/terrorist/guerilla etc sort of militant units.

Some Sovremenny or Udaloys could be nice to have as well when it comes to the naval side of things. Right now the smallest anti-ship missile capable surface unit for Russia that isn't a fast attack craft is Slava class cruisers Moskva. But I'll admit they aren't necessarily essential to have.

At least the way they are implemented in Mi-8, you need to choose either the 12.7 or 7.62s before you fire, you can't shoot all of them at the same time. which makes sense after all, trajectories would be fairly different, and recoil would be ludicrous I guess. But yeah, the pod comes with 1 4 barreled 12.7mm YakB mounted centrally, and to its either side two GShG 4 barrel 7.62x54mm gatlings a well. A lot of dakka, yes, but they are "just" bullets in the end, and work against soft targets, with 12.7 being able to do a little against light armor too. Problem is, you need to get direct hits even against infantry. And from what I've tested a few months ago, infantry in DCS will merrily take between 4-6 7.62x54R before calling it the day. So in a helicopter that is equipped with GSh-30-2K, gunpods won't open up anything new tactically, and would be only for fun and novelty (not that there's anything wrong with that!)

I'll be the odd one out and say SCUD is more than a good enough placeholder instead of sinking resources into Iskander. Not saying this because I don't want to see it, would be cool, but rather because evidently doing AI assets to ED's own set level of visual quality takes a good amount of time, effort, and thus money. Resources that can be used on other ground assets instead, like more early to mid cold war assets from both sides of the fence, or alternatively more modern air defense assets or AI aircraft to go with all the late 2000s and even 2010s stuff we are getting (even though I personaly don't care for them). Or indeed, simpler but arguably more impactful things like technicals armed with various weapons and/or ATGM/machine gun emplacements. As far as I can remember, not really the Iskander, but there was a Tochka AI unit under work many years ago, like more than half a decade ago, but looks like it is shelved, sadly. However, I do very much agree on ground based anti ship missile launchers. I think we only have relatively ancient Silkworm batteries right now, and that one is courtesy of Deka's Chinese Assets. This is a clearly lacking type of asset in DCS right now, even though majority of the maps feature large swathes of shore areas and sea, and the upcoming Marianas even more so. I'd say one relatively modern ground to ship missile system for blue and red each would be welcome, and silkworm can sort of keep representing older anti ship defenses.

As far as I know, GSh-30-2K is not a revolver cannon. It has two barrels with one chamber each, recoil from one charges the other, but breeches themselves are pretty well sealed I think. From a cursory look online, comparing muzzle velocities and lengths of GSh-30-2K seems to support this because they have almost the same length and muzzle velocity, and 2A42 isn't a revolver cannon either. As far as I know no current Russian autocannon use revolver cannon design.

You are not supposed to go frigate hunting in any attack helicopter, let alone a relatively vintage one like Mi-24P. In a fast fixed wing plane, you either use dedicated anti ship weapons with long standoff ranges, or you have some slight chance of dancing through the gauntlet of incoming ordnance, and put some of your ordnance on them, maybe. A helicopter is not particularly likely go in undetected, nor is it likely to dodge incoming spam of air defense coming from the ship. With that out of the way, for the particularly suicidally driven helicopter pilots who may want to have a go regardless, I'd say probably spam S-24s or S-13s, and turn away immediately, which will probably make any Warhammer 40000 Ork warboss proud to see (well apart from turning away part, but that'll probably end up with getting hit in the back anyway). I'd forget about guided missiles, yes, they have some more range, but the frigate will have a whole lot longer reach than those regardless, and they will need a long time to reach that range, throughout which you'll have to keep guiding it, remaining a juicy target. But the bottom line is: you don't go looking out for a fight with big fighty ships in your attack helicopter, and if you somehow end up in one, you are not too likely to make much happen.

It's nothing but a placeholder because you need to enter a date there. It may or may not happen, but personally I expect there's a little bit more to wait yet.

Not disagreeing, but then L-39 is in, so... We don't know if everything will be fully arcade, they may be going for something with arcade game modes, but realistic flight characteristics and simplified systems etc. I personally would loved if this was also a singleplayer friendly mid-level sim, as I'm less and less able to put in the time to DCS to properly git gud and enjoy full fidelity aircraft I love. But online shooty-shooty fest isn't something I am personally looking for. We'll see what it is when it comes.

I have seen this myself, but seemed inconsistent: sometimes camera immediately bugged out when missile impacts, instead of doing the usual zoomed out view showing the explosion and its effects on target. Other times it works as expected.

From the top of my head, stuff confirmed so far: (already at early access): - Shturm ATGM, up to 8 - S-5 (32 per pod), S-8 (20), S-13 (5), S-24 (single per pylon) - Free fall bombs (possibly also cluster bombs) of 100-250-500 kg varieties. - GUV-8700 gunpods in two varieties: first with a single 30mm automatic grenade launcher, the other has 2x 4 barrel 7.62 and 1x 4 barrel 12.7mm gatlings per pod. (later post release): - Ataka, essentially improved Shturms with larger warhead and longer range - R-60M air to air missiles - Kord machine gunner in cargo cabin. Edit: forgot about KMGU cluster munition dispensers, which I think will be available already initially.

Is it out of the realm of possibility for a helicopter, or a Hind more specifically, to survive a MANPADS hit or proximity detonation (though I think most especially older MANPADS tend to have impact fuses only?) No, I do think it might be possible sometimes, but those would be more exception than rule. Yes, there are cases of them surviving RPG hits etc, but those weapons tend to be a lot more punctual, and focus their blast linearly forwards to go through armor, or if a blast/frag warhead instead they tend to be more for hurting personnel and soft materiel. Anti air missiles tends to have warheads designed to cut through squishy but important bits on aircraft, as they can only be so though, and any helicopter inevitably have many of those like rotor blades, tail boom, tail rotor etc. Tail boom sliced through with a steel rod? Main rotor blade slightly bent by one? I don't fancy chances of the helicopter in that case. My take is, it should be thougher than, say, a Huey, against light threats like rifle caliber or heavy machine gun rounds, and to some degree lower end of autocannon rounds. But I really don't think regularly tanking even the lightest of missiles or 30mm hits is a realistic expectation even if it was called "a flying tank". Those names are often just lore and legend, and at least somewhat exaggerated after all. I can totally see something like an A-10 or Su-25 merrily limping back home after a MANPADS hit yeah, but I can't see that being a commonplace occurrence for a helicopter.

There's an old IRL video of showing one firing at high rate of fire, and the nose gets shuffled all around the place :). We'll need to stick to low rate of fire for the usual aimed point target shooting. I'd guess high fire rate will come up when going high speed, popping up and putting lots of rounds on an area and turning back kinda deal. Looking forward to experiment with it. It was the same with Ka-50 too anyway, low fire rate for point targets, and high for area saturation or quick snapshots. Only, this time high fire rate is A LOT higher 600 rpm vs 2400ish I think.

No, there's an additional helicopter either planned or under work from Razbam in addition to the Bo-105. I remember in a recent podcast interview, prowler (Razbam's CEO) said that they'll make S-61 Seaking but don't know if it's that mystery helo. But it probably is Apparently Razbam wants to make more helicopters as time goes too.

Instead of MiG-19, Chinese Shenyang J-6 was more common as far as I know. I believe Razbam intents to add MiG-19S as well, without gunnery radar and the ability to carry missiles, but with an additional 30mm gun and I think also slightly nicer handling maybe. MiG-19S would fit fairly decently. Current 19P is probably not quite the right variant, but could probably take part. MiG-17F should fit I think, and there *may* be one in development right now. It's from a new group who wants to become an official 3rd party with a MiG-17F, but ED seems to be lukewarm at best so far on their efforts. But they may prove themselves. As for the Fishbed variants, I think most numerous was the MiG-21F-13 and to lesser degree MiG-21PF and PFM. Late in war, small numbers of MiG-21MF was also introduced unless I am mistaken. MiG-21Bis we have out accelerate and out climb the hell out of any of these, especially at low to medium altitudes. It also has a considerably better radar. Other advantages it has like weapons and countermeasures can be disabled in mission design, but inherent performance difference and avionics upgrades it has can't. On the other side of the fence, UH-1H we have has access to a few small post-war capabilities I think but overall it would fit ok. Short hull Hueys were more associated with Veitnam war, but H did operate in it too, even if later. F-5E we have is pretty much post Vietnam with a much better radar, countermeasures, all the possible aerodynamic updates etc. To be fair, most F-5 action on Vietnam was F-5A variants, by South Vietnamese, and in ground attack roles. Magnitude 3/Leatherneck's upcoming F-8J is pretty much the only true Vietnam era bird that is in development, but it seems to be quite some time off from any sort of release, seeing as F4U Corsair is still not near the horizon of a release. Well, there is also the lovely freeware mod that is already about paid module quality, the A-4E, that one fits as well. But being a mod, it wouldn't be a thing for payware or bundled campaigns, public multiplayer servers etc. There's also the A-7E and an A-6 (most likely at least E, and probably at least a TRAM), these will most likely be post 'Nam as well, but what exact variant will they be is not clear yet, and even if they prove to be post Vietnam, perhaps they can fit the part of their (late) Vietnam era counterparts with some restrictions of loadouts and maybe some options. Razbam at some point also teased an OV-10 Bronco as a side project of one of their devs (might have even been Ron himself), but who knows if it will happen, if so when, and if a Vietnam appropriate version or not. Reasons like these make me firmly prefer any upcoming aircraft to be post Vietnam variants, as they will at least fit a later 70s and 80s setting which has a lot more fitting assets in DCS, and frankly, even immediately post Vietnam versions of aircraft had more interesting stuff to play with. Don't get me wrong, I would love Vietnam experience in DCS too, but I'd prefer first post Vietnam stuff to finish fleshing out. Like getting a later F-4E first, getting later A-7 or A-6 first etc. Getting things like F-100 and F-105 would be great, but these don't seem to be in ED's immediate plans going by an interview last year.

I remember that originally MiG-21Bis was supposed to be part of it too, and maybe also C-101? They would make a pair with L-39 and F-5 nicely. But it looks like they're not in the plans anymore? Since online play seems to be the main thing in MAC, perhaps they may be thinking of some "progression", more plainly known as grind, and start with trainers/light combat aircraft first. Yeah... uuhhh... NO lol. So far over the years we've had contradictory info regarding MAC, at some point it seemed to be basically FC4 and would go into DCS, then it seemed to be a new standalone title, then back into DCS, right now it seems it will be standalone title with focus on online PvP and more quick action than a lot more involved process of learning a single DCS aircraft.

Razbam did show multiple times some WIP images of a Bronco a few years ago. I remember them saying that it was a side project of one of their devs. I suppose there's still a chance of them completing it. I'd personally find OV-10 really cool in DCS.

Yes, I also remember reading the same. It might make more sense in that scenario perhaps, at least from the perspective of being able to acquire a lock at somewhat meaningful distances.

That's an awfully specific type of target, which is I'd wager to say rare :). And I'd rather take 40 S-8s for that anyway

Let's face something: polls on this forum about "I want this, let's see you all agree!" never amount to anything. And yes, loaded options often lead people not voting either way, but in the end that doesn't change much: these polls are little more than an echo chamber with small audiences, and I strongly doubt they mean much of anything for devs and their plans.

I personally doubt that they'll go under innermost pylons. Close to engines/fuselage, have poor field of view for the seekers as the fuselage will obstruct one side completely etc. So I'd think they are probably available for the same stations as Shturm and Ataka. Besides, I think we shouldn't overestimate their potential as guided air to ground options. We'll see when it's implemented of course, but I doubt the seeker will pickup a ground vehicle against the background as easily as it can against a fast aircraft on a clear and cold sky. Finally, R-60 is a missile that doesn't have the most fearsome warhead ever. A single hit isn't always a guaranteed kill even on a fighter. So it may not do too much on anything with more than paper thin armor. I am certainly looking forward to them, but not in addition to ATGMs to kill more ground units with. More as in their stead against other helicopters, but that's just me

Depends entirely on the version. F-4E: yes, a lot of countries flew it, and a few even flies it still. Any naval F-4: would not represent that in the least, and won't have as good multirole capabilities, and would be a huge damn shame if it'll be the only variant. To sum up the possibilities and the what info we had before and recently: - "Next gen" bit only means next generation of Heatblur quality experience, and has nothing to do with modernity of the aircraft. Confirmed by Heatblur somewhere, don't have the link now. - Years ago, after Tomcat's release, they've said that the next module will use many of the tech they've built for Tomcat. This led people to think about multicrew, swing wing, a quirky and advanced radar's modelling etc. Though, an A-6 would still fit some of that. - Heatblur keeps saying "as part of a larger roadmap", so the module probably fits some theme or theater. In light of these (for me personally, very unfortunately) a naval F-4 looks fairly likely. Don't think there's another Naval aircraft Heatblur would do to fill out that Cold War USN theme they seem to be going for likely. It would also fit the idea of using the tech developed for tomcat: multicrew, old quirky radar, carrier ops. Though, Tomcat, and for all likelyhood the upcoming A-6 are more 80s-90s USN, and F-4 was largely a story of the past/relic in a few squadrons in USN by then. If, USN theme is not the thing, and tech developed for Tomcat is still the cue to look for, F-111 could be a candidate. Throwing a curve ball, I think Heatblur had some connections in Poland too? So a swing wing in operation over there, the Su-22 could be a possibility, even if extremely low. Su-24 theoretically as well, as it fits swing wing, and complex old-school avionics buts, but even less likely. I would love to say Draken, but that doesn't look likely to be, at least not the first new Heatblur module. Things like Gripen, Super Hornet, EW aircraft etc: yeah, these ain't happening folks. Not right now at least. So my semi educated guess is F-4, even though I really, really, reeeaally don't want it to be, unless it's either F-4E, or include both Naval ones as well as the E. Now, a Pacific WW2 bird could be a possibility as well perhaps, but I personally find this not to be too likely.

Yeah, E, or no Phantom. Can't believe this is even a discussion still

Usually tests of captured aircraft presents some challenges like aicraft being in a rather rundown condition etc. But not always the case, and they are still better than no info at all. Still though, in my personal opinion they fall a bit short of being "primary source", just imo though.

Existing and accessible airframes has never been a hard requirement as far as I can tell. The first requirement for module development was/is access to first hand documentation. Flight/maintenance manuals, test results etc as far as I know. If, for some reason, these aren't available, but flying airframes are, then it's been considered as the second best thing. As far as I know, the only warbird currently done without lots of existing original documentation is P-47, and many CFD efforts, as well as knowledge from existing airframes/pilots were used. In case of Japanese aircraft, I think there are a few surviving flyable Zeros and Oscars, and a ground display Ki-100. So they may be feasible for what we come to expect from DCS, without going to the "unicorn infested la la land of many guesstimations". But, primary documentation and SME info always came before access to an airframe in module dev as far as I know. If the same amount of CFD effort is put in along with data from flying examples/aid of SMEs who flew them, I do think a Zero is probably feasible eventually. But that's just me musing.

Or, it can be AI assets like Chinese carrier Liaoning which I think they were working on already.