WinterH

Did you perhaps check "Late activation" on the editor?

As far as I recall it was more along the lines of MiG-29A perhaps being under consideration for future. But the surprise module itself is said not to be a red-side aircraft a few times.

Basically this, and has been from the start. Anyone who is getting super-stuck on "brainmelting" lingo is setting themselves up for disappointment in my opinion. It is probably something cool for many, and not for others. You don't tease something by saying "it is something maybe cool for some and maybe not for others" though. Anyway, the year is almost (thankfully if I may say so) up, so IF they will still reveal it this year, not long to go now. I think it may prove to be MV-22 Osprey to troll us all, and honestly that one would be brainmelting whether everybody likes or not :)) Or maybe Apache, but not entirely sure of that, they did tease it after all, but then said it's hoped for later if I recall correctly. High tech Russian aircraft, or indeed surprise module being any Russian aircraft was denied multiple times before as far as I recall. I personally hope it's not another later tech aircraft, many other things can be brainmelting just fine, but that's just me. And seeing as they sell better, it'll probably be something that'll please crowds, but we'll see.

I think this is a good candidate for new 3rd part IndiaFoxtrotEcho, which include members of Frecce Tricolori Virtuali who created the great MB 339 freeware, and are now making it into a full on paid module. I do remember they did start working on a G91 some months ago too. I'm also among the people who are super bored of the current crop of advanced multirole fighters from late 90s-2000s-and even beyond. This thing is right up my alley!

Ataka is available as both radio command or laser guided SACLOS as far as I know. In radio command guise, it is mostly compatible with the same guidance that was used for Shturm. The chartacteristic "carrot" on the Mi-28's nose is for the guidance antenna for Atakas, again as far as I know. The latest variant omitted it, probably because they've mostly switched to laser guidance. Anyway, there really isn't much to read into sighting and guidance system in Mi-24 :). An optical sight (a periscope to be precise) that is stabilized, but has no automatic tracking or built in rangefinding capability guides the missile to whereever it is looking at, through radio waves.

Welcome aboard! Looking forward to MB 339 becoming even more awesome in future.

I am probably one of the greatest flight model and system realism snobs, and I use auto start. Used to not, but that was in a period when I did not have one full time and one part time job, as well as personal projects, other hobbies, and almost every aircraft module. It doesn't defeat the purpose indeed. The purpose of having aircraft with as realistic flight models, systems, and where applicable also weapons as possible remains very much intact.

First off, I don't think F-14A and B are VERY similar, but that's just a tangent, so quickly back to topic: Mi-24P and V are quite similar as far as I know. Perhaps ED will later think about including it as well, we'll see. Mi-35 was just the export model for a while, but nowadays it also means the latest variant Russian military operates, and it is very, very different compared to Mi-24P. Shturm and Ataka are more similar than different, but I think Hind used Shturm as the primary armament for quite a while from 80s to 90s, probably also some of 2000s. I think they could be guided by more or less the same system. Looks like we'll have both available in our DCS Hind. Though if you've meant that the Hind was designed for Shturm but ended up having to use old Fleyta missiles for a long time than yes, that was the case. I think those were used by variants before V and P however. They were very slow and short ranged missiles. Also not sure but I think those variants also only carried these ATGMs on wingtip stations for a maximum of 4, where the later ones can also use the middle stations for missiles for up to 8 missiles. Current Mi-35M is more or less a completely different helo: has a modern FLIR turret as its main sighting system, can't raise landing gear anymore, has Mi-28's main and tail rotors, can use 8 pack Ataka launchers BUT, I think only on one side, so I'm not sure if 16 Atakas are possible on them either. There's also the Mi-24VP, which apparently was also the basis for some of the exports, with a 23mm GSh-23L in the chin turret instead of P's fixed 30mm or V's 12.7 turret. That was apparently a very rare variant though, and don't know if it really was very similar or somewhat different from V and P. Mi-24P thread here in EN and also on RU parts of the forum is very informative BTW, I read the RU one wit Google translate and it's doing a pretty good job, but some of the users from Russian part are also providing great info in the English thread. As for the bombs, not sure but I seem to recall that either V or P has a bombsight, but not both, one of the differences between them. I'll personally stick to rockets and missiles for the most part :P From what I recall reading the threads, ordnance options we will have seem to be: - Rockets: S-5s in 32 piece pods, S-8 in 20 piece pods, S-13 in 5 packs and possibly also S-24 in singles. Looks like the pilot's gunsight will provide a targeting pipper for S-5 and S-8, but the others need to be shot manually with a fixed sight. - ATGMS: Shturm and Ataka, pretty fast missiles, and have decent ranges, more so with Ataka. Though there is no automatic target tracking, operator points the sight, and the missile goes there. - R-60: Some Mi-24Ps stationed in East Germany were modified with this capability to patrol against slow and low general aviation planes violating airspace. Looks like ED is considering to include this capability in DCS version too. Bombs were mentioned too I think, but I'm not entirely sure. Also other assorted armament like GUV gunpods (as in Mi-8) were also mentioned I think. Man I'm really looking forward to this thing :))

Probably the servers you are looking for are hosting Open Beta, and hence aren't visible on Stable, that would be my guess. I don't think DCS has, or ever had region related server listing.

Everytime someone from ED speaks about MAC, whether it's a DCS add-on or a standalone seems to be getting flipped around :P Personally, I'd rather hope it'll be a separate entitiy. But I guess we'll eventually find out one of these days.

If we had more the current ones actually finished, then yes, like hell yes! Though, it is becoming a thing with older, complete modules, with Ka-50 and A-10C both getting a different, more upgraded block in near future. I'd love seeing more MiG-21 versions, if we get F-4, you just can't have enough versions of that one, and I'd love more Bf-109 and Spitfire variants.

I really, really, REEAAALLY want the original late-ish 80s upgraded F-4E they were doing. As long as that is in, the more variants, the merrier!

There should be flare dispensers yes, I think they were available even on older variants.

What needs to happen is: - Allow more aircraft to start from ground like Harrier and helicopters can. - Allow ATC, refueling/rearming, perhaps also repairing to be possible from areas that aren't bases or FARPs. This way we can have lots of properly functioning little runways and/or roadbases.

As someone who would love to get many, many more red aircraft, this would be such a shame to see... low fidelity renditions of aircraft that can only have questionable accuracy.

Been that way since at least 2013 when I started with DCS.

Yeah agree about 5 million percent. But let's be honest, more modern, more low hanging fruit from a marketing perspective. If a 2000s + aircraft is, let's throw about 15-20 percent more effort than an 80s-90s one, but a whole lot more people will jump on them because modern, including those who weren't in DCS before, I suppose it is understandable to go for them instead. But honestly, I'd much prefer if there would be much, much more 60s to 90s modules coming up instead.

I'd rather like Dauntless instead. Or Avenger.

This particular explanation falls way short. Had the F-18 or F-16 sold to... well did it? No? /argument Artificial restrictions? You got it backwards, what you suggest is artificial inclusions. Potential != realistic, and yes, it does hurt the idea of DCS being as real as it gets. Test fired once also does not qualify. Was it even a guided launch? A seperation test? Even if a guided launch, were there reasons made actual integration unfeasible? I'll reiterate: Was it operational on a decent number of airframes? Yes? Ok it's nice to have. No? Leave it That's all there's to it, anything more is people trying to shoehorn make-believe gamey capabilities.

You can play games on laptops, but like others have said, they'll heat up, slow down, and the hardware will slowly wear down with use due to that heat. If you are ok with these then yeah, you can fly DCS on a decent laptop, and yes, laptops can be connected to external screens including TVs. VR will probably be a no-go, but it doesn't look like you want to do that anyway. The system you have posted looks OK for the most part except the RAM. 8GB of RAM is just not enough for DCS anymore.

- RTFM - Be a newbie without patience to RTFM, still start with one of the least noob friendly modules, suffer the consequences :) DCS is DCS. It is as accessible as you are willing to put learning effort into it, and I am among those who think it shouldn't necessarily be more so.

Was it operational on a decent number of airframes? Yes? Ok it's nice to have. No? Leave it /thread

I'd say 2020 image is considerably better. But, time of day and lightining conditions seem not to be exactly equal do they? I used to like 1.5 lighting and rendering better than 2.5 untill 2.5.6 came, which, I believe, is really, really great looking.

This is not the solution, and either wouldn't help, or any positive effect would be rather negligible. If anything, like Flagrum said it may double the problems.

Gunner operates the Raduga-F sight (which is more or less a downsized submarine periscope, turned upside down :)), and guides Shturm missiles with it. I'm not sure but I think they also operate countermeasures, and, according to some internet lore, can "designate" a target point, so that it would appear on pilot's gunsight glass (take the last two with a pinch of salt, I'd love the latter to be true, but don't know if it really is). As for the photo, I remember wondering the same thing years ago :). Apparently, it is just a flight telemetry thing that was mounted by... American Mi-24s for when they fly to simulate OPFOR :) Some Mi-24s had R-60s operationally, and it seems like we will get them, but apparently iglas or strelas weren't used on Hinds.