WinterH

As far as I can remember, whenever it was done, it was with a radar on attack planes back then. But to be fair, Mi-24P we are getting is an 80s aircraft with some 90s stuff to come after early access apparently. I think ranging lasers became a thing on attack helicopters in latter parts of 70s to early 80s? Apparently they did experiment with putting ranging lasers on Mi-24 on very limited numbers at some point, but it was never carried into mainstream variants until the latest versions in current use. On Mi-24's with Raduga sight, range was estimated using hash marks and target's apparent size. Kind of similar to how you use marks on PSO scopes on SVD and such I suppose.

Yeah, not being official doesn't mean much at this point, either positively or negatively. There are examples like Gazelle and MiG-19 which started out as user mods and eventually released as modules. There are also mods like A-4E and MB-339 which are challenging paid module level, and the Macchi is becoming one as well. But yes, there are also many that have simply failed. Looking at the website don't know if they have what it takes to make it a reality, but I'd welcome it happily if they can. The more the merrier. Especially those that want to make Red or at least Euro birds, and more so the oldie birds. I'd love to see them succeed.

It has the Raduga optical sight for guiding the Shturms or Atakas. As far as I know, it is a stabilized optical system based on an old submarine periscope, but turned upside down. As far as I recall, it has two FOV settings along the lines of 5x-7x magnification, but might be wrong on that one. No automatic rangefinding, target tracking, or low light capabilities though. However, the direction gunner's sight is pointed is also marked on pilot's gunsight as an aid for the pilot in aiming ungiuded stuff.

No Edit: as a mod, sure of course, why not. But not as a product.

From what I've read, only the latest batches of Iraqi F-1EQ actually had ATLIS, probably much later upgrades on French and Moroccan ones had some TGP too, but pre-2000s it seems only some of the Iraqi birds had it. In any case, it doesn't seem Spanish Mirage F-1s ever had targeting pods, sadly.

People like to put forth Ka-50 and Su-25T when they want to argue for unicorns in DCS. I may not necessarily be entirely averse to some of those unicorns myself, but wouldn't argue for them either. However, Ka-50 and Su-25T weren't mere prototypes, well... or at least they were operational prototypes. At least more than a handful were built, they had combat capabilities incorporated, and we're used in operational testing over Chechenia, in actual combat sorties. RAH-66's systems weren't even clearly defined yet as far as I know. In many cases aircraft can't be made for DCS because required info may not be accessible. In case of RAH-66, that information does not even exist, probably.

CP-741 bombing computer, but right now yes, it is used from the LABS position of weapons dial. Apparently later on it will work from CPTR position as it should. LABS isn't implemented yet as far as I know, but it is the older and less precise system by far, and was mainly intented for putting tactical nukes on roughly the correct postcode :P. So far, from what I have tested, CP-741 is very helpful indeed! Made A-4 really standout from F-5 for strikes IMO

Since latest versions with EFM, yes, there is a bombing computer.

I think we already have the updated cockpit since last year, but the external model isn't updated yet. I do find it good enough, but not everyone's like that, and eye candy is what sells for great majority of customers, even for simulations. So I can understand that to a degree. Black shark 3 was supposed also add self defense systems and fila missiles but that fell by the wayside thanks to a recent change in Russian laws about gathering information on Russian military hardware.

Been following Fragger's efforts for many years now. Over half a decade in fact. BO-105 itself is a very interesting little helo too. And this model of "one entity doing the 3D work, other programming" is something I wanted to be reality in DCS for many years. As it can mean more things can be feasible for us end users to get. So I am eager to support this endeavor and see how it goes.

One important advantage will be apparent though: Sturm is about 50 percent faster than HOT, and Mi-24 will need to expose itself for a considerably shorter time guiding a missile compared to Gazelle. Also don't write rockets off quickly folks. Russian rockets in DCS are more useful than people sometimes give them credit for. You can toss them to saturate an area about 4ish kms away, and that puts it a safe distance away from lots of ground based threats. S-8 OFP2 really makes a mess of infantry and light vehicles. And we'll have S-13 and S-24 too, though these latter two won't have CCIP I think. Yes, blast/frag in DCS is, what it is. But unlike Hydras, I often do get decent results with S-8, S-13, and S-24. They are more accurate and more destructive at least in DCS. Since where gunner's optical sight is looking, is also marked on pilot's gunsight, with decent cooperation between two, I do think that Hind's rockets can be surprisingly useful even at decent distances.

I think shturms, at least the later ones should have more than 4kms of range, and they are relatively fast missiles, it should outrange most ground targets that aren't actual air defense units, and then even some of the air defenses. At worst, I'd say it will be similar to Gazelle M with missiles, perhaps a bit better thanks to faster missiles. The "hind can not hover" thing is way overstated, and in most conditions we'll end up using it in DCS, it should hover enough to do peek-a-boo thing with missiles if you feel like. Rockets, like many say, should prove to be a decent option too. Edit: I personally see myself sending a whole load of rockets downrange from a fairly decent distance at high speed and then get out of the way as my most used attack method in Mi-24, but we shall see when it comes.

F-5E does, I think C-101CC too optionally can, as well as the A-4E mod. These are the ones I can remember. RB 24J on Viggen is also roughly AIM-9J equivalent as far as I know.

AIM-9L,M,X, and P5 are all aspect. R-60M is mostly all aspect. R-73 is all aspect. R550 Magic II is too. PL-5 on JF-17 also. R-27T&ET as well, as far as I know. The rest of player flyable IR missile's are all rear aspect. That said, AI sometimes can and do get front aspect shots with some of them just fine.

So your answer is essentially foot stomping And it still doesn't compare remotely to what a MiG-21-93 is, even less the 21-97, so the irony is pretty interesting It is the exact question to ask in response to what you have said exactly in your quote, and it stands Yeah, that 21-97 is pretty prolific indeed :)). Eh, that I can agree yes. A retort of questionable relevance at best, but I will answer regardless: Yes and no. Because in the Tomcat's case, the engines do change the way it flies rather significantly with their slow response, and penchant for compressor stalls and failures at some flight envelopes. However, I was expecting the Heatblur to make it a mid 80s bird, so was/am taken aback somewhat to see that it still has the LANTIRN pod for example. But as far as I know they are adding more/older A variants too. MF vs Bis though... it is more or less Bis with a bit weaker engine, and a bit worse radar. But the engine behavior and flight characteristics resulting from that isn't day/night like the TF-30 equipped Tomcat vs F110 equipped one. Greatest difference relevant to development of a commercial DCS product: Tomcat A vs B is addition to an existing module, if someone makes an MF,it will most certainly be a separate module, so it should preferrably bring something different enough from existing modules so that it will sell. I don't see how it is similar at all. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one: If you want to have purely historically/geopolitically relevant rivals, yeah hard to find any. But since I am fine with roughly near performance, I can put them up with and against any 80s-90s-2000s thingie we have. Our definitions of valid rivals do not agree, and that is just fine. => Answered above already Because they already exist in the sim: I'm fine with modern variants being "somewhat capable but definitely underdogs" against likes of 4th gen planes. Their upgrades are designed to be around with them, fight them if necessary even if the expectation is not necessarily coming up on top often. And any ground targets/threats they can face are already in sim too, so they would already do just fine in strike roles.

The early generation Su-30s, which an unupdated MKK would be I think, may not prove especially great with precision attack capabilities as far as I know. Expecting it to go toe to toe with Eurofighter is a stretch too I'd say. Its systems and missiles may even fare a bit worse than JF-17, as the latter is pretty much a 2010s aircraft even if a cheap one. It would be full fidelity Russian fighter that would be leaps and bounds better than any other existing Russian fighters in DCS that is for sure. But current and upcoming top tier bluefor stuff will still be somewhat ahead of it regardless. Both in AA and AG I'd think. That's another reason why I'd personally be more excited for 70s-80s stuff instead. But don't get me wrong, if possible to do realistically, a Su-30 full fidelity, even an earlier one, is definitely exciting even for me, who tend to prefer oldie stuff. Let us hear what will Deka end up telling us when they decide I guess :).

Ka-50 did see plenty of operational testing though, and quite a few airframes were produced, it doesn't compare really. And what opponents exist for any pre-Bis MiG-21 in DCS? I can only think of upcoming F-8J and EE Lightning, and perhaps the eventual mythical Mirage III from Raz, though as far as I know the Lightning would still be somewhat what if. And even you have said that what-if situations can be appealing. I have no intention of using Bison or LanceR in any potential or (non-existant) historical scenario in their own colors anyway, as they'd make great what-ifs IMO :). DCS as a tool to reenact historical conflicts has been, and remains, a distant dream, giving up on it was probably the most liberating thing I've done for enjoying the sim for myself :P. What I personally care about is: a- aircraft/variant being interesting, b- having some performance wise and/OR historically relevant targets/opponents for it within the sim. For MiG-21, anything before Bis is going to be a quite limited aircraft in many ways, and will have no performance equivalent in sim for foreseeable future apart from the MF. But the MF itself would basically be a slightly less capable Bis, wouldn't add a lot in way of interesting differences. F-13 would be cool I agree, as it is different enough, and would be cool to test out its famed nimbleness due to being lighter, and its looks/clearer canopy etc. It would be a novelty module for the most part however, because of not having much in the way of period appropriate opponents with at least somewhat similar capabilities to itself. PFM etc: same limitations, without the cool factor of F-13 to redeem them. So going with this line of thinking, for me personally, the most desirable Fishbed familty variants in DCS, in order, goes something like: - Late J-7 - Bison, or LanceR variants - F-13, just a little behind the two above Anything else, I may or may not end up getting in a sale at some point, probably to play around with for a little and end up retiring it to a virtual hangar that never open its virtual doors again, unless it is a super-crazy high quality module. See that's the thing, there is almost nothing in sim, whether AI or fyable, that old fishbeds would be a real threat against. And very little is coming in future too. Do we have F-104s that MiGs can relatively easily overpower? F-105s to hunt? The A-4 mod is the only currently existing thing that would more or less fit for older Fishbed variants as a playmate. Even against upcoming things like EE Lightning, F-8J, and Mirage III MiG-21F and PF generation would be on the backfoot by some margin. And the MF etc generation is too similar to Bis anyway. They would have barely any more content to play around with than MiG-19 currently has, if that... Despite that, I too would like to get an F-13 at some point, for its coolness and novelty alone, and honestly, not for much else beyond that.

Mirage 2000D does, N too probably, maybe even later interceptor/multirole versions, but not the C.

A rather strange thing to say, as 21-93 was basically a tech demonstrator, while Bison is its realized form as far as I know. LanceRs are pretty real too. I'd love either one of them myself. What I'd like most is a late J-7 to be honest. Not overly interested in earlier 21 variants, though an F-13 might be interesting still.

You will get a launch tone from the RWR in case of a radar guided missile tracking you. But that's not a MWS that detects a missile launch plume, it is RWR recognizing a STT radar track on you, either from an active radar missile's own radar, or from radar of an aircraft that is guiding a semi active radar guided missile on you. As far as I know currently only MWS equipped modules in DCS are A-10C (and A-10C II), JF-17, and Mirage 2000C. And in Mirage's case the system actually never went operational on C version IRL as far as I know, but is rather used on D. Not sure the situation with JF-17 if it's also a "let's include it anyway" kinda deal or not, because it seems the JF-17 we have in DCS is bit of a mixed plane between block 1 and block 2.

Not really. In DCS, only JF-17 and Mirage 2000C have it among the ones you have listed.

My personal order of preferrance is: 1 - Late J-7 2 - Su-30MKK if possible to make realistically 3 - Followed closely by Q-5, although this depends on what kind of Q-5 is possible, if China ever had a version with at least some guided missile/TGP capability to give red side a semi decent striker. If not, Q-5 would fall down a place in the list. 4 - J-8II comes last, somewhat distant last too. But would honestly be happy with any of 4 in DCS.

I had the same, pressing the key for switching between BARO/RADAR altimeter made CCIP line appear for me. Rightmost button just under the HUD glass.

I can see myself buying a RBT just fine. But having both would be great indeed. But supersonic CCRP from orbit with a whole bunch of FAB-500s with RBT has its own weird charm too :D. If this can indeed become a module, I would LOVE them to expand it, payware if need be, with PD and BM too, so we'd have one of each flavor of foxbat: recon bomber, interceptor, SEAD. Flight characteristics wise they shouldn't differ too crazily, they'd share a decent number of systems too, so the additional work would be most heavy on the art side, with coding of variant specific systems following. At least coding the radar in PD's case should be quite a job though.

DCS: Vietnam is.. uuhh... a little bit of a pipe dream. It would be cool but there are hurdles... Map needs to be HUGE beyond anything in DCS so far. Apart from size though, detail might also be a big problem, Vietnam was a war mostly fought in dense jungles and even sprawling cities. Also there is very, very little era appropriate content. The F-4 that was coming, was way beyond Vietnam, and it frankly fits better with what is in DCS right now. When we get an F-4, it will probably (and hopefully) be a mid-70s or even 80s bird. Besides, it is so long of a conflict, aircraft later in the war were almost a generational leap ahead of those fought the most of it earlier, so what version to make even for Vietnam scenario etc. Then, the aircraft immediately after were also a lot more advanced and capable in many ways, mainly in things like RWRs, look down capability, missiles that actually work etc. The only really Vietnam fit aircraft in development is F-8J from Leatherneck. UH-1H is close enough too. MiG-19P is the wrong version, but arguably close enough as well. A-7E may perhaps be Vietnam version but probably it will be post war too. From here on, nothing we have in sim, or have coming in future is appropriate for Vietnam War. F-5E, MiG-21Bis, A-6E will most likely be TRAM at least. Well, there is A-4E too of course, but being a community mod its public multiplayer and payware campaign relevance will probably be less than ideal. I'd prefer more 75-80s, or up to early 90s stuff as we have a decent bit in sim from that period, so they can be more coherent with/against each other. For older jets, from 60s to 75, I'd actually prefer jets that were relevant to wars in Middle East, as we have relatively feasible existing maps for those. In my opinion, if we get a Vietnam appropriate F-4 in DCS, it should be the second F-4 version in it, not the only one. A later F-4E can fill in a lot of spots both as blufor or redfor, and can work for 70s-80s-and at a stretch even early 90s scenarios. And even in purely fictional scenarios should mix in nicely with likes of Viggen (even if somewhat upgraded), F-5E, MiG-21Bis, MiG-23MLA, A-7E, A-6E etc, time period and relative performance wise. Still though... I am happy for DCS not going the "stick with a scenario" approach. I want odd, unsung aircraft done to DCS quality... stuff like Viggen, Draken, EE Lightning, Super Tucano etc would be impossible if DCS would do like sims of past and stick to a scenario or two. Don't get me wrong, I share the point of view that we should have a lot more modules that fit together, and I like how Razbam seem to be intending to handle Falklands map and fitting modules. I just wouldn't want it to be "exclusively things that fit to this, this, and this wars" kinda of deal, because I find fiddling with aircraft we never had in sims before to be a lot more interesting and enjoyable than roleplaying history.