WinterH

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.

I've meant Redeye and SA-7 themselves with older manpads, as we don't have them in DCS right now. I do think they should be added into DCS, and if they were in there would be more of an argument for including Lipa. As for Lipa vs SA-9, yeah I'm curious as well, perhaps it would work against it. Did Ataka enter service in 80s? I always thought its main intented launch platform was Mi-28, which was in development in 80s, but its real service entry had to be many, many years later. I think of it as developed in 80s, entered service in 90s. I may be wrong though.

I think youtube can and do put ads on videos even if uploaders aren't monetizing them. So there may not be much to discuss here. Ads are annoying, but also a reality of our times

Guys as far as I know those early IR jammers were barely any effective against Redeye and Strela-2 (SA-7). None of which even exists in DCS. Any IR missile currently in DCS will go "yeah, right whatever" when you activate it, perhaps apart from R-3S/AIM-9B. It really isn't like we are going to be missing a lot with its omission, if at all. Perhaps they can add it later on if demand is high, and older MANPADS are added to sim (which they really should have long ago imo). But for now let's cut them some slack until the release. Same goes for the UPK-23 as we will have a GSh-30K on board. For any need of lighter dakka, GUV gunpods with 1x12.7mm YakB and 2x7.62mm GShG each remains an option. But I can see them adding UPK easily if it was used at least on foreign Mi-24Ps without any change of cockpit systems for it etc. 23x115 in DCS is barely effective against even the lighter armor in any case, tested recently myself, and even 12.7 penetrates things like BMP-1s more reliably. It would work better against infantry and light skin vehicles due to its decent HE payload but that's hardly anything that GSh-30K and rockets won't cover better anyway. Also since we will later on get Ataka missiles as well I don't think they are making a Soviet one, but rather a early Russian one.

I would also add Edge 540 mod by Virtual Air Racing Series if you are into crazy aerobatics/air racing experience. Finally there is an AH-6J flight model demo mod, which isn't as polished as some other high quality free mods like mentioned A-4, MB-339, and Edge 540, but is the only free helicopter experience so far. There's also one caveat about TF-51D, I wouldn't call it a fighter, because all its armament is stripped/disabled, so it is an unarmed Mustang. But it is full fidelity with clickable cockpit. While the Su-25T is fully combat capable, but doesn't have clickable cockpit. Some months ago I've made this thingie to help with people starting DCS on this very question: So if you want a longer answer about which one's good for what, which one has what features etc, feel free to watch It is slightly outdated though, Edge 540 wasn't released yet back then. Also a more advanced flight model is in development for A-4 as far as I know.

Is there any translation/summary available anywhere? I did watch it but, naturally didn't understand much of anything lol.

It's here, the way links work changed after forum engine update, so that would probably be why the link in first post here doesn't work.

LanceR, Bison, late J-7 variants, or an F-13. I'd get all of these. MiG-21 is one of the aircraft where you can't have enough versions modeled! Although, I can see LanceR and Bison being slightly on the difficult side to find needed information on, even though they are nearing end of their services. Or F-13 not selling enough to "where is the win button? what is this junk?" crowd. Well to be fair, even I wouldn't get F-13 full price. Magnitude have their hands full, with fixes/improvements for MiG-21, and development of F4U Corsair and F-8 Crusader. But I'd love Deka's next aircraft to be a late J-7. Or better yet, an earlier/late combo pack! A late J-7 is an interesting mix of old and new. It is lighter, more maneuverable, but has improved capabilities. The airframe, at least as a base, reverts back to oldie F-13 type one, but with changes. The canopy is even more bubble like, and windscreen is single piece, for overall much better visibility. Wing is enlarged, and is a cranked arrow type, and leading edge of root section is slatted, so it improves maneuverability. Nose cone is smaller than Bis, but houses a modern radar with look-down and air to ground capabilities.

Picking just one is simply not possible for me. The ones I'd like seeing are: - Bf-109E-4/b,E-7/b,F-4,G-2 - Fw-190G and/or F (which may or may not be coming from ED) - Bf-110, probably G series with a multitude of ground attack options - A6M2 and/or A6M5 - Ki-43 - Aichi D3A - SBD Dauntless - F6F, a mid or late war variant - Spitfire I & II - Hurricane (ideally both a Battle of Britain fighter, and later war attacker, but former is more important) - A B-25 or A-26, with rockets and guns for direct attack capability in addtion to level bombing - Ju-88A4 - Ju-87D-5 and G-2, although a B variant could be ok too if a Battle of Britain set was implemented. Still, I'd prefer later ones to serve as an Axis side ground attacker of sorts. - P-40, I'd prefer one of the Mediterranean veteran variants, but any mid war variant would be cool - If we get to Eastern front side of things, IL-2M, mid and late war variants of Yak-9, Yak-3 would be cool. Same goes for Pe-2. - Fw-190A-4 - Spitfire V Some other Japanese planes like Ki-84, Ki-61, Ki-100, and N1K2 would also be cool but I think neither documents nor an airworthy example survive for those Though I think there is at least a museum piece Ki-100. Aside from a few, you may have realized my wishes are mostly mid to early war variants. I'd say we have enough late war modules available, early-mid war fighters are usually matched closer and are lighter/nicer to throw around, so would be cool to get some of them available in DCS!

It is a lot easier the other way around, list of non-clickable cockpits: - Su-25T and Su-25 - MiG-29 (currently, all versions) - Su-27, Su-33, and J-11A - F-15C - A-10A (only the A is not clickable) All other flyable aircraft modules are clickable.

So does just about everyone who considers the generation classification to be a thing. IMO, aside from the emphasis on agility, other common things that define 4th gen goes like: - Improved cockpit instruments with HUDs etc - Focus on improved situational awareness: quick acquisition modes for dogfights, much better view out of canopy etc - TWR close to, or greater than 1

So.... here goes: This is the footage of me testing it. BTW, just to clarify, while I often lament the lacking of AI in DCS units, this is about only damage done by rounds to infantry for me at this stage. AI is another whole another story, but this can be fixed a lot easier in my opinion.

Just tested it. Will try to put it in a quick and short video, but to write a few takeaways: - It takes 5-6 rounds of 7.62x54R to put an insurgent infantry down at 1 km distance, tested from GShG on Mi-8 and PKT on BTR-80 - It takes freakin' 9 rounds of 7.62x51 to do the same at same distance. That difference doesn't seem right. Tested with M240 on Stryker and M1A2. - Personally I would expect a solid hit from either on a vital area to be enough, but keeping in mind that damage model on infantry inside a flight sim might need to be somewhat simplified, I'd be mostly ok if it's 1-3 max. Just to clarify, we are discussing effects of hits, not the ability to hit a pinpoint target at any given distance. So what I mean above are 5-6 hits and 9 hits with respective ammo types. Velocities of PKT, M240, and GShG should be within ballpark of eachother.

Wouldn't be the first... F-16 and AH-64 were teased with WIP cockpit pictures in 2008 I think. Apparently full fidelity Su-27 was in consideration at some point before getting a big 'ol "nope". F-4E, which still infuriates me is another example. Since 2013, the date I got into DCS, I think have heard AH-1 in dev, AH-1 not in dev cycle happen like 3-4 times. Seeing as an Apache is coming, I wouldn't expect to see Cobra from ED for a few years at least, and Kate's response about Cobra seem to say just that. But on the positive side, it may still be a consideration for a few years from now.

Looking at some bullet mass and velocity figures, and a ballistic energy calculator online, it looks like 7.62x51 at 1000 yards (somewhat less than a kilometer, but not a lot) is still more than 10 times higher than a 9mm out of an MP-5 barrel point blank... Now, my test might be inaccurate, but even if we assume my result is wrong by a factor of 10, it would still be as powerful as a point blank shot from an SMG with 9mm. As far as I know, maximum effective range figures are meant to show what is considered maximum distance where reasonably accurate aimed fire can be achieved, not necessarily the maximum distance where the projectile is still deadly. So yeah, I would think 2 rounds tops, maybe 3 against a super-human dude on a lucky day, would be more reasonable to expect at that range. Edit: and this should apply almost universally to 7.62 guns in DCS apart from AKs on infantry. 7.62 NATO and Russian 7.62x54R are fairly close ballistics wise, Russian round is a bit more powerful I think, but not hugely so. Even 12.7x108 from Mi-8's YaKB seem to take 2-3 hits to take and infantry down from those ranges last I tried. Will test again later if I can.

This, exactly this ^ I doubt it works that way TBH... may be it can be negotiated for a price, but I wouldn't count on it. Which would be damn ***** shame. If we don't get the F-4E that is relevant to a great bumber of airforces all over the world, with all te bells and whistles like leading edge slats, targeting pods, LGBs, TV guided bombs, Shrikes, Mavericks, and the actual gun, we may as well not get a Phantom as far as I'm concerned. Let's sacrifice the coolest and most fitting version, so that we can sightsee from a boat. Edit: anyway, this thread was about "secret module", which is revealed to be the Apache. And that's cool. Apache is a good module alright. Guess we're kinda derailing it with F-4 discussion, but oh well... it IS a thing worth the discussion! Perhaps on another thread...

I'll keep the colorful expletives and adjectives to myself then but... wow... they were doing literally the best variant to make, of an aircraft that would add a lot to sim, and probably also sell like hotcakes, and now it's "probably gonna be done by a 3rd part and variant is uncertain". Just wow.

Where did you get that? Was it said by someone from ED?

I always hoped to get Cobra first, as I felt like they may not be inclined to do it at all, or do it way down the line if Apache comes. But honestly, I'm fine with Apache regardless. Cool helicopter, and should give us a lot to do with it. An AH-1W or F would be a quite analogous playmate for Mi-24P but, AH-64D would be the perfect teammate with OH-58D anyway. More helos, the better, looks like we rotor-lovers have quite a few things to look forward to. Still hope we'll eventually get the Cobras too though.

Oh yeah, I forgot about Jaguar and Bucc. Would like them for sure. Also Super Etendard. Tornado would be cool too of course. And G91!