WinterH

F-5E is, what F-5E is. And this whole "DCS environment" thing is, whatever player puts into mission editor, or whatever server they join. This is a sandbox, it has no set environment in my opinion. It is a match for things like MiG-21Bis and MiG-19P I'd say, perhaps up to Viggen. One should not expect it to do wonders against 4th gen throughbred fighters anyway. Also, it can mix it up against things like L-39, C-101, Korean War era birds. Also the MB-339, and A-4E mods. Think of these as bush-war, conflict between less fortunate countries etc kind of deal. That said, I wouldn't say no to a refreshed addition to the module with more air to air wired pylons, and perhaps also mavericks. Just like the A-10C & A-10C II situation.

In late 2020, when announcing the module, Aerges said that they are hoping to release the first variant in about half a year, if all goes well. So even if all goes well we should be about a quarter off from initial release. And that is fine, this is one of the things I am looking forward to most in DCS right now, probably sharing first place with Mi-24, or just barely in the second place. But let developers take their time until they are comfotable with what they will give us. C-101 is in a really good place now, so I have faith in Aviodev/Aerges.

What I would personally prefer is: Heatblur doing A-6E and then Draken as fylable modules, and ED continuing the F-4E that Belsimtek started (though probably 3d work would mostly be throwaway at this point with how much DCS has changed since), and adding a J or S after E as a paid extention. If Heatblur does Phantom indeed, while I'd be sad to see potential Draken module becoming off the table then, at least I'd know the Phantoms are in hands of a good dev. When it comes F-4, my first choices of devs I'd like to see it from would be ED or Heatblur to be honest. Wouldn't say no to Leatherneck either but, so far they seem to prefer sticking to single variants, and are somewhat averse to idea of multiple variants of an aircraft, at least that was my feeling from listening to a few of their interviews over the years. While my personal wanted variant is F-4E Block 53 and above, any single versions would be far from doing the Phantom and Phans its due justice.

Essentially, this. Making B and C to please most people idea is way, way off the mark. With F-4, there is just no way of making most people happy without at least two very different variants, and at the very least a later E model is essential as it is the best represantative of F-4's service all over the world. And for the naval one, J and/or S are the ones that make the most sense.

That's right, a lot of F-4Es (also known as actual, real F-4s) are/were grey indeed. As opposed to whiteish naval/marine thingies

Zero is more iconic, and overall the better fighter by a considerable margin in my opinion. But I always had a thing for Ki-43. It is like you take Zero, and crank up all its advantages AND disadvantages. Insanely light and maneuverable, insanely fragile as well. Isn't particularly fast, but still climbs like crazy. Not much in the way of firepower. And it is just weirdly pretty. As a future potential DCS module, I'd prefer Zero, it just makes more sense, but would LOVE to play around with a Ki-43 in DCS too if it becomes a thing at any point. I'm amazed that Japanese pilots were able to shoot down Lightnings, and even P-47 with it, even though rather rarely as far as I know. Of course, with Japanese WW II fighters, there is the issue of availability of information and/or accessible airframes. Original documentation is said to be destroyed for most of them, and little or no airframes survive for most types. If we'd like a performance-wise comparable Japanese opponent to existing P-47, P-51, and upcoming F4U1-d, Ki84, Ki-61, Ki-100, or N1K2-J would be better fits than any A6M Zero or Ki-43 Hayabusa. Or arguably even a J2M Raiden. But as far as I know, there isn't much data left for most of them, and frankly, they aren't as iconic as the Zero.

I don't see anything strange with using A-4 as a dogfighter. It was after all used as an agile subsonic agressor for many years in pilot training. A lightly loaded scooter shot be interesting to put up against some other planes. Don't know if I'd go as far as Eagle. Not that I've even done it yet, I'm using it for ground pounding, but will eventually entertain it in some light air to air as well :).

Haven't tested this yet, and frankly since I tend to shoot Kentucky Windage Aiming Compensator system, I'd hardly notice it in most guns :). Some guns try to keep trajectory as similar as possibly with having AP and HE rounds at similar or even identical velocities, but don't know if it is so in either KA-50 or Mi-24P. I seem to recall trajectories of HE and AP rounds do differ in DCS: A-10C though, so probably it is done with most modules.

Yes, it does. I have been testing it a lot these days, here's the playlist if anyone's interested to check it out But as an example, Hornet has only HE loaded and no other option, and can't even scratch BMP-1s even, .50 cals don't deal a lot of damage, but can penetrate light APCs more reliably than some 20 and 23mm shells etc. Also, Heatblur and Leatherneck's rounds for same guns perform considerably better than ED's ones from what I can see.

I would expect that we'd get at least a mix of HE + APBC probably. As for the discarding sabot rounds, I'm not entirely sure if they are compatible with GSh-30 series. While 2A42 and GSh-30 both use 30x165, I've read in a few places that their shells are not really interchangible. And I have only seen sabot rounds mentioned for 2A42. I might be wrong, and would be happy to get access to high penetration rounds too in that case.

Hmmm ok then. But if you have overwritten 1.4 folder with EFM beta, yeah it probably could have caused odd stuff, as far as I know instuctions were to delete aircraft/A-4E-C folder and then put the new A-4E-C folder there.

Radios do work now as far as I know also the sound you mention, if it's kind of a thud, is leading edge slats deploying and retracting, newly added with EFM.

I want to say "both an 80s TRAM+WCSI and 90s SWIP please", but Heatblur is probably a little burnt out from the whole multi decade multi variant thing with Tomcat's development? Hopefully not, because getting both would be really cool, and systems/cockpit wise the difference doesn't seem to be huge.

I am not brand new in DCS, been using it for a little over 7 years (holy crap the time goes by...), but I have also worked in software long enough. There are ways to make that work in DCS, and we are coming rapidly to a point where multiple variants are very desirable. Devs can choose two variants that will share some components for example, and would need tweaking instead of building from scratch when it comes to other things like flight models. Then, offer additional variant to owners of original variant 50%+ discount, but sell it full price to who didn't own any other versions etc. This way additional revenue can be made for relatively little effort/time compared to another aircraft from scratch. The reason some people including myself are semi-insisting for more than one F-4 variants is that, you simply can't please with one when it comes to F-4. Your idea for example, Vietnam is where F-4 made its name, is true enough. But I personally don't care an iota about a Vietnam F-4 unless it is in addition to an 80s or at least late 70s one. Similarly, if we get an F-4, but it isn't F-4E Block 53 or 58, but it is a naval F-4, again, we may as well not get one as far as I am concerned. And others feel exactly the opposite way I'm sure... some want Vietnam birds, others want later birds to represent a strike fighter and its worldwide service. Some want an air force bird with internal gun, smart munitions, targeting pods, others want naval aviation phantoms and their look down capable radars. Phantom is a bird that offer many, many flavors in its different versions, but is also secretly rather divisive in that one period/variant will not do anything for fans of the other. We'll either get latest-greatest of production variants, which happens to be the variant I like anyway, but that will not please a lot of others, or we will get a naval variant that will be alien to great majority of F-4 operators and conflicts they took part in. And that one will not please a lot of others as well. Spanish studio Aerges is coming with Mirage F1 and they are planning to do 4 variants in a single module, without even additional payments. Granted, they are not as different among one another as F-4E vs F-4S or any early F-4 vs any late F-4. Well the final variant they wil do, F1M is still considerably different anyway. We also have had modules with two versions that feature different cockpits, systems, even engines: L-39C & ZA, C-101EB & CC, F-14B & A-135GR early & A-135GR late & A-95GR etc. We have also had cases of owners of one module getting a discount for other, or get discounted bundles of two etc. I do think, and hope, that the situation is ripe for multiple versions of F-4, at least 2 I'd hope.

Yes, been possible nice a while thanks to "invisible farp" feature: Long in short, you need to put an invisible farp to where you want the aircraft to rearm/refuel/repair. Caveat is that, unless you make a small lua change, only helicopters and Harrier can directly spawn there, other aircraft will be able to use it after landing there.

Yeah I was thinking of engaging aircraft rather than incoming missiles so used Sborka as an example of external data source. I have seen lonely Tunguskas fire without lock/launch warning, but search warning was tripped in those cases, but that was some years ago now.

Does it work like this in DCS though? I mean, if we put a Sborka in same group with Tunguska for example, will it engage without emitting once Sborka detects a target for it? Sounds plausible, but I've never tried it on mission editor.

TERNAV navigation database, Mjölnir standoff submunition dispensers, Rb 74s (AIM-9L equivalents), RB15F antiship missiles are what I can remember but this thread has the more exact answer: With some restriction of loadout, and disabling TERNAV it is very close to an 80s AJ 37.

Depends on what are expecting to see in the mission. I have tested SAPHEI against infantry and light-ish APCs, and it seemed to perform appreciably worse than HE or AP against their respective intended target, but at the same time you are not shooting 4 useless and 1 useful round depending on target type. Personally, while I haven't heavily tested it yet, if I would be facing mostly infantry and trucks, I would take 4 HE + 1 AP mix. SAPHEI shell's blast radius seems really smaller than HE as far as I can see. Still though, if expected threats/targets are varied between soft skinned and light armor, SAPHEI is the only option even if it takes more careful aiming then HE against soft targets and AP agaist harder ones. If however, you know that you are going against mostly soft stuff, pure HE definitely beats other options.

Yeah the difference is, you don't actually need to resort to gunpods this time around... As much as I love Russian aircraft, at that poit it' would not DCS for me anymore. Besides, like Northstar said above, even with FC3 you need to have some information about the way sensors/systems work, as well as, with the current level the bar is set even for FC modules, proper flight characteristics data.

MiG-21Bis: engaging with all its quirks and flight characteristics, can do surprisingly ok as a ground attacker too. F-5E: Also very nice, and a good blue counterpart to MiG-21, though I personally find the MiG more engaging Viggen: Very unique and cool, but takes some getting used to what we have is a 1996 upgrade, but it isn't too far from an 80s bird either F-14: Flight characteristics are just very engaging, difficult to get the most out of, but can be a great performer if you can the best out of it. Module comes with different variants. If you are into helicopters, both UH-1H and Mi-8MTV2 are excellent modules Mirage 2000C, this is a late 80s update as far as I know. It has a lot of fans, but I prefer others listed above myself. It is the most agile and easiest to fly though, and in many ways will be the most familiar one compared to what you may be used to from FC3 birds. The period you are interested in offers some of the best DCS modules in my opinion, so it is hard to go wrong with any option.

I think GSh-30K is slightly different than original GSh-30-2 in that it features a selectable fire rate between 300 rpm and 3000ish. Since a Mi-24 is not a Su-25, high fire rate setting will probably be a rarity to use, perhaps in short bursts from high speed attacks, on area targets. There is a video of a Mi-24P firing the gun at high fire rate in a very short burst, and it is visibly jarred around. In 300 rpm setting though, it should be fairly accurate, but even then still with short bursts probably... we'll see

30 should be just fine against IFVs and APCs, and in very marginal cases may even at least hurt tanks. I wouldn't rely too much on the latter though, unless we go the full propa' orky waaaaghh route with appropriate life expectancy after the attack 30 should do fine against great majority of light armor. At least as fine as such things can do in DCS. Superhinds do actually serve with a few customers actually I think, one being Azerbaijan. But in very small numbers, and frankly it really is a very much fringe part of Hind history/family. All those stuff bolted on it has apparently rather upset its flight characteristics too, but it got some nice systems/weapons. (ok looked it up a bit, various marks of superhind is apparently in service with a few militaries in decent numbers apparently, but still very much a fringe thing, like a MiG-21Bison, F-5S, F-4E 2020 Terminator etc).

I wouldn't consider it bad, but honestly, I wouldn't consider it good either. Depends on purpose. Every bit of info I could find online tells me that 23x115 is relatively bad when it comes to armor penetration, and it seems like there never was a specialized round with high velocity high density penetrator to rectify that. On the other hand, rounds have pretty decent amount of HE content in them, GSh-23 is a fairly high fire rate, decently accurate, and very lightweight gun, but with quite low muzzle velocity. It is just obvious this was designed as a lightweight air to air fighter gun, and is quite alright in that kind of use. It is also quite good for strafing soft targets thanks to high fire rate and good HE payload in rounds. But low veloicty = relatively short range, parabolic trajectory, longer shell flight time, and finally comparatively bad armor penetration. So depending on what you want to with it, it is either a fairly decent, or pretty bad gun. I just wouldn't put any faith in it against any of the thougher IFV armor out there, and certainly not in a more than minimal threat environment. On the flipside, it can be really good for strafing an area full of infantry/artillery pieces/trucks etc, as long as there isn't a MANPADS or even AAA defending it. As a helicopter turret gun, my opinion on it remains that... it just isn't particularly great for the task, but then, neither is YakB. You also need to remember that a classic Mi-24 has no fancy aiming for the gun turret: it just looks at whereever the periscope is pointed by the gunner, but without any ranging... No helmet tracking either. It is not like Ka-50 or AH-64's gun at all. It is probably a lot different in Mi-35M, but a Mi-24V or VP won't have any kind of target tracking, rangefinding, or helmet coupling available for the gun turret, and the gun itself is a lot more limited in its capabilities compared to most other turret guns on other attack helicopters. Moreover, the range of YakB or GSh-23L may be further limited in a Mi-24 due to lack of any rangefinding/auto gun laying, coupled with sight field of view if you try to shoot at a distant target in high magnification, elevating the sight enough may perhaps put the target out of its field of view etc. As for the DCS armor penetration, it is iffy especially in some units like Stryker for example, but honestly, it seems to have improved a lot more in last year or so compared to what I remember from it. What I'm trying to say is, in the very specific case of Mi-24, having a fixed gun instead of available turret options is not that great a loss as one may think at first glance. Don't get me wrong, I still think it would be cool if we get a V or 35M down the line, I'd love it in fact! But P makes more sense than many people are willing to give it credit for.

It is not more dakka though. It is A LOT LESS dakka in fact 23x115 out of a GSh-23L is not remotely comparable to 30x165 out of GSh-30K. I mean yes, turreted vs fixed, yes, that is a factor, and I would love seeing a turreted Hind eventually, but really, the movable guns put on Mi-24 were never impressive weapons, especially in the context of DCS where ground units can be deadly and though. Also if we get a turreted Mi-24, I don't think it would be a VP, as that was very much a rare, fringe sort of variant. V would be more historically relevant, iconic, and cool in my opinion. I remember reading pilotmi8 (project leader for Mi-24 development as far as I know) saying that if they consider an additional Mi-24 variant it wouldn't be VP, but something later like Mi-35M but with recent news on Blackshark 3 going the dodo's way I am not sure if that will be too likely. Though, if it does happen it too shall have the 23mm like the VP. Also, right now in DCS YakB is a bit better in armor penetration than GSh-23, which may well be realistic actually. They are both bad against even light armor, but 12.7 works a little better, while the 23 is better against soft targets due to HE shells. I've tested 23mm guns on some relatively light APCs/IFVs recently: It takes some effort... later on I've tested both NATO .50 can and Russian YakB 12.7x108 in the scenario and they penetrate and deal damage a lot more consistently.