WinterH

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.

Does anyone know seeker characteristics for R-24T? Is it a similar seeker to R-60M's or is it based on something older/newer, or is it original? I wonder if it will be able to lock and launch at non rear aspect targets at longer ranges. Since big missile with IR seeker + IRST has always been a favorite combo for us when flying Flankers and Fulcrum, how capable was IRST on MiG-23MLA I wonder.

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.

At least an F-4E is essential, and I would prefer what I think was the mid 80s variant Belsimtek was about to develop before they were gobbled up by ED (which, in my opinion, was one of the worst things happened in DCS as far as I'm concerned, Belsimtek was making aircraft I like, and was doing them the way I like :P). It was an F-4E with the most advanced TGP available for it (though a massive, heavy, and draggy one), all the multirole goodness, Mavericks, self lased LGBs, TV guided bombs, anti radiation missiles, ARN-101 nav system. Though the immediate predecessor would work as well, as I think only things differed was the older INS nav system, and less capable but lighter pave spike TGP instead of more capable but holy-crap-massive pave tack. 70s-80s, possibly up to early 90s is where most DCS assets are, and we have many existing and upcoming modules in this period. Besides, it is where any sort of hope for possbility to have blufor-redfor counterparts realistically made. And I just like the blend of advanced and primitive provided by birds from this period. F-4E was not only the most multirole, it also was the variant that carried the flag of Phantom all over the world, and through the decades and conflicts. Germany, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Iran, for a period Australia too, all operated, and some still operates it. Saw conflicts many times over the Middle East, and we already have two Middle East maps that can host Turkish, Israeli, Egyptian, and Iranian Phantoms. And it has an actual gun for the love of goodness! Also a later F-4E had aerodynamics refinements that made it a better dogfighter, though very late naval ones got it as well. That said, I do understand people who are enthusiasts of naval aviation, and Phantom's beginings as a naval aircraft. And given that the variants are significantly different even in their cockpit setups/responsibilities/capabilities of pilot vs WSO/RIO, it would be a shame not to have both. I really think both F-4E and either F-4J or F-4S should be made, separately payware if need be. More advanced variants of naval Phantom adds things that make them also distinct like smokeless engines, and radars that actually have look down-shoot down ability, which F-4E radars never got aside from later nation specific upgrades that changed the radar.

On top of that, they have two upcoming modules, F4U, their first warbird, and F-8J. So even if they really plan a Su-17, it would be quite some ways off from now. There is this: But from the looks, at least so far, the intention is the make a good looking AI mod. EDIT: No, looks like SVKSniper wants to mae a cockpit too! There was also this: And this one actually aims at becoming a full on module, but the last update was about a year ago, and it was 3d modeling. As with many such module creation attempts, this does not inspire a lot of confidence yet sadly. A Su-17M3 or M4 would be very welcome indeed. My favorite time period in DCS, a decent full fidelity red striker, any red aircraft at all actually, and it's like an even faster Su-25, what's not to like? But it doesn't look like we are likely to see it anytime soon.

It can't. Later Mirage 2000-5 variants can carry MICA missiles under the hardpoints you speak of. Mirage 2000C however, carries 4 air to air missiles. Considering it is an early to mid 80s aircraft, it was more or less the standard for light to medium weight fighters to lug around 4-6 missiles, F-16, F-5, MiG-23, MiG-29, MiG-21, JA 37 etc all had 4-6 missiles, though Mirage is admittedly at the lower end with 4.

Well that was the exact reason they gave for killing it in favor of F-16... I believe it was Wags saying that they believe F-16 will sell significantly more, but it's been 2-3 years now I guess, so I may be slightly off on who said what, but the gist was that F-4,Mi-24,and AH-1 were put on ice, and F-16 was given priority in development. We are finally getting the Mi-24, so I would like to hope same will happen for F-4E, but recent communication from ED, as well continued efforts to quickly release modern popular aircraft like AH-64 seems to hint otherwise. Well, at least AH-64 is something I'd be interested in, but at this rate I'd expect ED to sooner make things like Super Hornet, full fidelity F-15C etc before we see more 60s-80s modules. But I can't see F-4 not selling great. It surely would sell pretty damn good. Yet, still, probably not as much as Meh-16 Boring Falcon everybody seems to love and bought despite the fiasco of a release it was . At least it led ED to taking releases more seriously though, so it wasn't a total loss even for anti-Meh-16 folks like myself I guess :P.

According to a much more recent quote from Kate Perederko, it appears to be as good as cancelled unfortunately. Simon Pearson, as far as I recall in the same interview you have quoted, said that century series are not in consideration at all too. It is clear ED has switched direction a few years ago to do all the most modern "crowd pleaser" that average customer will buy, and will sell more, unfortunately. Well at least we are finally getting the Hind sometime soonish...

I have a vague recollection that Patriot in DCS being PAC-2 but don't quote me on that. Some years ago I had made a little mission to play with friends that included us in Su-25Ts against a lot of SAMs and Rolands were able to engage and shootdown Kh-25MP and Kh-58 missiles pretty good. And in general, Avengers were often scary against aircraft even if they can't engage incoming ordnance. One thing, not sure but as far as I know, no SAM in DCS can engage bombs, but some can engage missiles. Some glide bombs like JSOW's I think are considered as "missiles" in code and some SAMs can hit them, but as far as I know JDAM and LGBs aren't engaged by any SAM in DCS. Also I recall reading recently on forums that right now in DCS, HARM is mostly undetectable by SAMs even though similar missiles can be detected and engaged by them. May or may not be a bug, who knows. May have even been fixed by now. If you want a blue side SAM that can engage incoming missiles in DCS, that would be the Roland right now. Not sure if I agree with assesment of blue SAMs in DCS being better than their red counterparts. TOR is pretty damn good, and better than its counterpart Roland in my experience. While both are scary, I'd say S-300 is scarier than Patriot in DCS. Strela-10 (SA-13) is worse than Chaparral but it is still a IR SAM with decent range, so a potential silent threat. BUK I'd say is better than Hawk. Tunguska can miss a lot against a defending fast jet, but still has advantage of not giving launch cue to RWRs. In case of MANPADS though, yes, Stinger is better than Igla. Don't have much experience with later additions like Rapier and HQ-7 though.