WinterH

I think pilotmi8 commented on this recently, essentially saying no. His reasoning was that UH-1N is almost entirely another helicopter than UH-1H module development wise, and yet it does not add much of anything to experience, so for that much of effort it would be a better idea to do something else like UH-60 etc. I do agree to be honest. Honestly, I would prefer a late army Cobra to go with upcoming Mi-24P as they would be of roughly same vintage and mostly similar capabilities. Belsimtek had exactly that planned: AH-1F, maybe they will be back on it after AH-64D eventually. It would also have more in common with a single engine Huey, so perhaps some bits of UH-1H module can be reused in development. Though, I certainly wouldn't say no to an AH-1W of same vintage either! I am not averse more utility helicopters. On the contrary, the more helos, the merrier! But I think if we get one, it will be something that will feel more unique to potential buyers.

Vietnam is DCS is a no-go right now. If we get an F-4E, and it is a Vietnam variant, it would be more or less a huge waste. 80's one is the one to go, because it fits Cold War scenarios, can be still sort of workable underdog in post-Cold War, and to some degree can work for older scenarios with restricted loadout, as the radar is still the same, though its agility and navigation systems will be better than old variants. Similarly, the most any naval Phantom can provide over this would be possible with a late naval F-4S, because they got a new radar with look-down capabilities. We have a good bit of 80s stuff both as ai and flyable modules. There are quite a few upcoming ones that would fit too. Vietnam map is not coming, and we have almost zero Vietnam era aircraft with Vietnam era capabilities. F-5E we have is more advanced by a fair bit than F-5Es served there, which were a footnote in that conflict anyway. MiG-21Bis was not available for Vietnamese air forces, and what they had instead had a lot less capable engine and radar. Only things that barely fit are MiG-19 if you squint hard enough, and UH-1H if you restrict its loadouts. Upcoming F-8 will fit too, but it will be a void... When it comes to Phantom in DCS, 80s versions are really the ones that make sense.

While normally I would agree with Huey suggestions, the question is specifically for getting ready to use Mi-24, and in that context it really should be Mi-8, no contest. Flight characteristics will be closer, so will be some of the cockpit instruments/systems. It can also carry some of the same weapons like GUV-8700 gunpods, which admittedly Hind won't often need, and S-8 rockets, which Hind should often use. It will also have a similar stabilizer autopilot as the Mi-8.

IRL, low caliber HE/Frag rockets shouln't do particularly well against proper tanks. Well, they would of course be able to damage sights etc, and degrade fighting capability, but their chance of going through the armor and "destroy" the vehicle would be slim, so HEAT warheads may provide more of a chance, at least if they hit weaker parts of armor on older tanks. But they require direct hits. It's worth noting that, damaging tracks, sights etc to cause mission kills is not a thing in DCS, at least not yet. Quite honestly, I am not entirely sure how it is at this point, been a long time since I tried to engage tanks with rockets in DCS. I will actually test this, got me curious. In days of yore though, S-8OFP2 (HE/frag) was a lot more reliable than S-8KOM (HEAT) against tanks. I still habitually load only OFPs on Russian aircraft when I take S-8s, but frankly in most missions I make, it is against AAA, lighter vehicles, infantry etc. One thing is sure though. Against anything that isn't a proper tank, HE/frag rockets are more reliable than HEAT ones. Because a salvo of them will do decent bit of damage even if you can't score direct hits. Blast/Frag damage is somewhat muted in DCS, but it still exists. HEAT rockets need direct hits to do anything, and depending on where you hit the tank, they may still fail to penetrate. Lately it feels like armor/penetrator interaction in DCS got more serious than earlier. So, testing the waters with both HE and HEAT rockets again might be a good idea to find what's best nowadays. Edit: welp, just tested. Put an M1A2 and a Leo2 on the map, and tested: Mi-8 full of S-8OFP2, Mi-8 full of S-8KOM, and UH-1 with HE. Now granted, these are really the big boys, Abrams and Leopard 2. But the results are: Huey's HE rockets and Mi-8's HE rockets don't do crap, often even with direct hits :). S-8KOM, the HEAT rocket, can kill the Abrams with 5-6 direct hits. But scoring that many hits took all my 120 rockets lol. I have approached and attacked them from their 3 o'clock. So, yeah, armor is a thing now, and HE rockets splashing tanks to death is a thing of past apparently :).

I, for one, am getting pretty sick of most of the recent modules being 4th gen, or even 4+, and want a return to 70s-80s-early 90s modules a lot. I also believe that period is the most sensible to make, for it is where there can be possibility of a proper blue vs red set up with some parity. DCS is a valuable flight simulator that allows me to fight with 60s-90s jets, uniquely. The trend started with F-4E getting canned for an 2000s F-16C continues. Some of us wish it wasn't quite so. Oh well, I suppose it is a lot less one sided than I made it sound like here. We are still getting things like Hind, Mirage F-1, F-8, A-7 etc. And to be fair, in case of a proper red jet, I honestly would love a good 4 or 4++ jet, so I too would love Su-30MKK. I guess I just wanted to voice that despite many "give the most modern plz" voices, there are still some of us that would very much like more Cold War birds. But yeah, Su-30MKK is something I would look forward to honestly. At least it is not yet another F-something airborne computer carrier.

Uh? A nice red attacker with decent payload, and probably decent flight characteristics given its MiG-19 pedigree. Why not? It is more interesting than J-8 in my opinion, which would be just another fighter, and not even a particularly interesting one at that. There's no dedicated attacker from that side of the fence right now after all.

Uhhh... we are talking about preparing for Hind right? Only thing I'd say Gazelle fits the bill is, using Viviane to guide missiles with will somewhat apply to using Raduga-F for same purpose on the Hind. But for flying, and general systems similarity, Mi-8 would be the one to look at.

Up to APCs, IFVs, self propelled artillery etc, yeah, Mi-8 can be a quite decent gunship. But you specifically say tanks, and in that case answer is no. Take rocket pods with 19 rockets each for your Huey, and try it against tanks. Mi-8 will have slightly more capable rockets, and 3 times as many of them, and then some. But that still shouldn't prove to be especially effective against tanks which require direct hits in weaker areas. You may kill 1 or 2 if you are really accurate, but I wouldn't say it is something do depend on. If your target is going to be killing tanks, you are better off taking Ka-50, SA-342M, or upcoming helicopter modules like Mi-24P, OH-58D, and eventually AH-64D. Now, if we take a step back, and think of a more realistic application of Mi-8 as a gunship, namely against soft skinned vehicles, infantry, and up to lightly armored ones, well go to town in this case. Huey is great in that it can have 4 high fire rate gatling guns that can be trained on targets without turning the helicopter, but they are only 7.62mm ones. Mi-8 can carry a boatload of rockets to saturate an area nicely. She too has some machine gunner positions, even if arguably less impressive than Huey, and finally she has two good gunpods: UPK-23 is good against soft targets with HE rounds, but can still take out light armor. GUV-8700 pods give you one 12.7mm YakB and two 7.62mm GShG gatling guns each, though you can only fire one caliber at a time. This one has ample ammo, and 12.7mm is actually slightly better at penetrating light armor than 23mm. 7.62s are only good for infantry and trucks etc of course, but it's still a lot of dakka.

To break the mold a bit, I'd actually prefer Q-5 or J-8. But if it proves to be possible indeed, I'd love a Su-30MKK too anyway. I still actually want a late J-7 the most, but it doesn't seem to be among the options, maybe as the next-next In any case though, thank you Deka for JF-17 and still planning on giving us high quality red-jets!

If you keep low enough you can do it even in open terrain in DCS, if there is terrain cover available, even better. You can see videos of people on YouTube who absolutely murderize huge SAM sites with Ka-50 in DCS, you can bet that Longbow should do it at least as well.

There a few huge A-4 upgrades. The most extensive were, as far as I can tell, A-4AR Fighting Hawk for Argentina, A-4KU KAHU for New Zealand, and A-4SU for Singapore. At least according to wiki, less than a handful of New Zealandian ones are still in service with Brazilian Navy, and barely a little more of A-4ARs are active with Argentinian Air Force. They had Mavericks as common among them, and each got HUDs, MFDs, jammers, RWRs etc. Each had different kinds of updates though. I think A-4AR and A-4KU had early F-16's radar, but A-4SU got a simpler radar than those.

A WW II bomber, may be. But post war bombers in DCS will probably not happen, latest interviews from ED seemed to say so as well if I recall correctly. Now if we go lighter bombers/heavier attackers, like A-6, F-111, Su-24, Su-17, Buccaneer, I'm all on board!

I do know it is by far the most produced variant, and that it was by far more common than Kurfüst, and would be a better match for Sptifire IX for example. My opinion is already formed knowing these, doesn't change a thing for me personally. Do note, I specifically say G-6. I'd love a G-2, even though there is nothing matching its time frame/performance right now. I'd be ok with even G-6/AS, G-10, or G-14 to a lesser degree. G-6 is a certain no buy for me. It is the only variant I don't have in that other WW2 sim too. Now my reason is specific, and I'm willing to get older versions. But I think average module buyers will also probably be not overly inclined towards it, as it would be a worse Kurfüst that doesn't add much, so not sure if any potential developer will see it as having any potential for return of investment.

My take on what I'd like from DCS in terms of WW II: I'm mostly fine with late war birds the way it is, would love to get Fw-190F and G models too though. What I'd really like to see Battle of Britain birds: Emils, Hurricanes, Spitfire I&IIs. 109G-6 though? Honestly, it is the ugly ducking and sluggish mule of the 109 family. I'm a lifelong 109 lover, I'd probably buy just about any 109 variant except that thing. That said, I'd enjoy mid war aircraft a lot too.

Isn't Gepard based on Leopard I chassis? Sidearm is based on early Sidewinder variants as far as I know, and those had fairly weak warheads compared to later ones. Their warhead is geared more for fragmentation against light targets, like originally planes, and in this case soft skin vehicles/their radar sets. For that Gepard, I'd say switch to a Maverick or LGB

I think many of you are overstating that weird concept of "fitting into DCS environment". UH-1 and Mi-8 have been in DCS for a lot longer, and have been thriving in right hands and right kinds of missions. They have weaker gunnery firepower, and when it comes to rockets, they may have some bite, but have a lot less in the way of sighting systems and flight stability for delivering them with. When it comes to missiles, yeah, Shturms are going to be shorter ranged and slower than Vikhrs. But they are still decently fast, has ok range. Atakas when they come, should be oly slightly behind Vikhr. We have the SA-342M Gazelle with 4 missiles that are way slower and with considerably shorter range than Shturms, and in right hands and right scenarios it can work fine. Mi-24 has better capabilities than these, as well as more survivability, and speed. Also unlike what many people seem to think, I believe that it is not like we won't be able to hover behind a hill and shoot missiles at all. Now, some ground objects that can shoot back are indeed worse than others. BMP-2 is often a death cannon, Gepard is very dangerous, and 25mm equipped vehicles can be scary too. But even up to Shilkas, I can do ok strafing or rockets runs in even UH-1, Mi-8, and sometimes Gazelle L. And I wouldn't even call myself a mediocre DCS helo pilot, pretty sure I'm slightly below even that. Damage model issues of DCS is well established reality, which I voiced myself many time throughout years. But rockets and cannons with HE shells do kill infantry just fine in my experience. Vehilces are harder, but they CAN be defeated.

That's my card, and I am enjoying my experience so far, however, I am not using DCS in VR, and people's experience with it in DCS seems to run the gamut: I've heard people enjoying DCS VR with ancient AMD 580 GPU, and those epxeriencing issues with 2080s... so who knows? (certainly not me lol) Worst case though, I think it should work in VR with graphics settings turned down low.

Ah, you're right, I was wrong, checked what's said by ED so far on the module and S-5 is mentioned a few times indeed. Cool, I'll still lug them around every now and then for novelty, they may be like mosquitos in power, but there would be 128 of them on board

Shturm missiles look ok, but not amazing, so perhaps they will see a refresh, perhaps not. But Atakas, when they arrive later, will be new I think, because right now even AI Mi-28s fire Shturms instead of them. At least it was last I checked them. As for the UB-32, the ones from MiG-21 do look rather good in my opinion, but the thing is, I don't think it will be among the weapons used by our Mi-24P. S-5 rockets were retired from helicopters by Russia quite a while ago as far as I know. That is why we don't have them on Mi-8MTV2 either, and latest we hear of developmet team seems like rockets we will have access to will be S-8, S-13, and S-24. Don't think it will be a huge deal to be honest. While 128 rockets on tap sounds cool, my experience with S-5s in DCS tells me they aren't really all that better than a decent 30mm gun :P. Choice between S-8, S-13, and S-24 gives ample options for various levels of "lots of dakka" and "big boom" Looks a few of the weapon capabilities like Ataka and R-60 will be added later after early access release. So I think we will most likely get majority of early access weapons being what already exist in sim at first.

I think service entry for R-60M was 1982, I would think it would be more exception than norm for a Soviet MiG-29 to go into a mission with them instead of R-73 or R-60M. But it could be more of a thing for export operators early on perhaps.

Great stuff, thanks!

Heatblur said something to the effect of "we want to add these as AI objects to enhance/support experience of Viggen&F-14 modules, but we would possibly like to make them into modules in future if possible". Probably not even nearly verbatim of what was said, but that's the gist of it as I remember. And you are right, it's been years and they are not ready even as AI objects yet. One thing I know is that, I would personally LOVE them both as modules :P. Visually, F-5E has the "pointy nose", and F-5E-3 has the "shark nose" which apparently enhances flight characteristics in some way. RWR and radars should be different too, and maybe auto maneuvering flaps were E-3 exclusive too not sure. But from an AI model perspective, I'd say probably only difference is the nose :))

Hmm yeah something like that may happen even if in dev. I don't know of course, but think that F/A-18C and F-5E were cases where in progress model may have been added as an AI, while the more upgraded one as development continued became the module eventually. Though I seem to recall F-5E model update and F-5E-3 release were almost simultaneous, F-18 one was, as far as I recall a few years before the module. I would personally feel "yeah great more hints that F-4E isn't happening" if we get an AI update only.

With all due respect Silver, your denial is hilarious especially when the post immediate follow yours, from an actual ED staff says that "most of the former Belsimtek team is still with us here in ED". They were acquired by ED, BST's plans/pipelines stopped, Hind was pushed years ahead, Cobra and Phantom were effectively put on ice, in favor of working on ED's own plans i.e. finishing the Hornet and making the Viper. There is no indication that BST plan and work a schedule of modules for themselves anymore independtly from ED. So yeah, they were, and are gobbled up from what I can see :). That at least sped up production of ED's plans, and probably allowed them to move resources to other needed changes as well, which are all good. But that doesn't change the fact that they are now ED, and BST is not really a thing anymore. Su-34 never really had a chance to become module, so it is just a case of a bad looking AI object replaced with a newer, nicer one. Maybe they have thought that it fits a current time frame on Syria map etc. Phantom may still have a chance of eventually becoming a thing, even if from a 3rd party. So an expensive new 3d model right now may prove a wasted effort a few years in.

With many people having low capacity SSDs, and game installations (even just DCS installation by itself) getting monstrous in size, I think that idea is not only a good one, but more or less an essential one.