WinterH

Except you can't. Marginal range, and no meaningful HE/frag content, meaning you need to get actual direct hits. Also not as much cover penetration. Also, we're talking DCS here, and you DO need to actually destroy the IFV. GSh-23 is barely an improvement as a turret gun over YakB. Yes, it does have decent HE/frag capability, but it too has marginal range, perhaps even worse than 12.7, and it's not good in armor penetration. It has low quite low muzzle velocity too, extra bad for engaging moving vehicles at anything but "banzaaaiiiii" range. But yeah, ok, it is still a lot better for engaging infantry with than YakB. It would be cool to get a turreted Mi-24 added at some point, but frankly, Mi-24P is very much fine, and actually the best to have in DCS if we'll get a single version, which is going to be the case at least for foreseeable future. I don't even know why we're still beating this extra-dead horse :) I usually do gunnery practice flights wit helicopters in DCS against infantry and vehicles. Using every thing available. According to my experiences in those missions, I know I prefer a good GSh-30K armed Hind in DCS. Sure yes, I too would love to also get a YakB or GSh-23 turreted Hind (though the latter is only common in more modern versions in Russian or exported services). But some of you guys are making it seem like turret guns on Hind were much better than they actually were, and fixed 30mm is way worse than it actually is. High speed passes with short bursts on low fire rate setting should prove pretty effective against vehicle targets using thhe GSh-30K. Against area targets like massed infantry etc, high rate of fire setting and short burst, or a longer burst with low firing rate should prove to be pretty useful I would think. Anyway, we'll see when the Hind arrives :) Also, perhaps we'll get door gunners too, so there may still be an AI gunner option with 12.7 or 7.62 there.

My situation is similar, but I will buy modules a - As far as I'm interested in the aircraft b - I believe it is well done already (no early access support from me) I am fine with not being able to master everything in an aircraft because of not having enough time. I'll learn each of them bit by bit, as I get to spend time with them.

Sigh... yeah, uuhhhmm, but right after DCS:Tie/ln ok?

Actually C-101 got it's flight model at least a year ago, and now flies decently, not an SFM anymore. Quite maneuverable, but even CC version is kinda underpowered. I'd suggest you to check it out if you have time. That aside though, SFM is the only thing really holding the A-4 back. I would love it if it could get an EFM eventually!

Especially with upcoming Navi 2 graphics cards from AMD, it is probably the worst time to tie down DCS to a brand specific API, at least without seeing how does new AMD cards turn out to be. Moreover, it is generally a bad idea to use brand specific apis even without that consideration. FWIW, I'm already an NVidia user, and regardless my opinion is as above.

Hatay Airport, in Syria, are we sure of that? :P

I've long embraced the fact that DCS isn't about coherent theaters or historical periods/conflicts, but is the best in doing individual aircraft and their characteristics. Thus, I prefer to get aircraft variants that I'm interested in, rather than the one that fits period that never gets well fleshed out anyway. From where I stand, an Emil and Friedrich would be lovely to experience, and G-6 is the ugly duckling stepchild of the 109 family, and the one that compared worst with it's contemporaries (or even older ones at some characteristics). So, I honestly don't care for a G-6 in the least. But looking forward to a Battle of Britain in DCS at somepoint, yes, with both its sides. Looking at the rumor mill, both G-6 and Battle of Britain seem to be in plans anyway, but G-6 seems to be the much nearer term one.

- Keep the current business model - Augment it with an optional subscription program with benefits such as providing ED miles points as long as the subscription is active, providing early access to subscribers or "temporary sneak-peek builds". This can also be tiered, 5 or 10 $ gets a certain amount of miles, 15$ or more gets more miles and perhaps also said early access. Alternatively it can be so that cheapo subscription gets one "preview build" and more expensive one gets unlimited preview builds. Though this would be more compicated to implement. An obligatory subscription model is out of question. It would be revoking access to what we all have paid for, and the fallout from community would be of epic, never seen before proportions. Making a DCS 3.0 and allowing that update only as a payware would have a similar effect, and moreover, that update would have to be revolutionary in features and stability, otherwise pitchforks and torches would see a critical mass again. IF there will a new business model, I think what I suggest above is the workable solution that benefits everyone. Current system, and everything bought with it, would remain as is. An optional subscription would let those who want to support ED a bit more so that hopefully core can be focused on heavier and pushing "low hanging fruit eaaaaarrrllyyyyyyy access" modules as early as possible wouldn't be as necessary anymore for cashflow. That's a big IF of course. We don't know if ED wants, or needs to consider a new business model. I personally do feel like it is the case, and this the one solution that would work for all parties. But that's a "feel like". In the end, ED decides how they conduct business, and it is them who has relevant data/analytics to make decisions. All I can say is, I really, really want things to in a state we can at least call "not in total shambles". Things seemed to be heading the right direction for a while, but now we're getting patch on patch withh each breaking one thing or other :/ ED IS getting many new customers lately, wich means more buyers for existing and new modules. But I doubt that will remain healthy in the long run. That's me anyway. ED made one change recently: no more presales, and modules will be %20 off as long as they are in early access. This is a positive change, and a nice gesture, but I think it is a bandaid, and not really a solution.

As a life long 109 lover, G-6 is the only one I don't care for in the least, and wouldn't buy. Give me an Emil, or F-4, or even G-2. Rumor has it, Battle of Britain is something that might be in the cards for future, so I'm looking forward to some early Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Emil(s). I'm also glad we got the K-4, penultimate wartime 109, and done well in a sim for the first time :). Finally, this discussion is really a dead horse that's been beaten multiple times over the years :P

OP, unfortunately that doesn't hold much water, if at all. In practice, "stable" is often about as buggy, sometimes gets patched very late and thus stays with those bugs, and people who buy a newly released product are often have to go and get open beta anyway, because it's never certain when will it get to "stable". A most recent (though perhaps also extreme) example would be JF-17: one of the most stable releases of a module in DCS, but it stayed exclusive to open beta for more than half a year. Due to these kinds of reason, most popular multiplayer servers stick to open beta as well, further cementing open beta being the de-facto "normal branch". Yeah, people aren't whining, they are voicing fairly justified frustration. In this particular case, even ED representatives admitted as much multiple times, at least for this particular patch. If you don't like seeing that, you may consider not reading the forums, instead of "whining" as you put it.

I swear people aren't even reading :)

An optional subscription program with benefits (like ED miles accrue every month, perhaps earlier access etc) is, at this point, necessary. People love rejecting the idea immediately without consideration. Understandibly so, and they are right that a obligatory subscription model is a very bad idea at this point for both us, the end users, and ED. But, keeping current business model, BUT also offering an optional subscription program for who like to participate would benefit both sides qiute nicely in my opinion. While I am one of the more ardent critics of ED, I would happily throw a tenner each month to help make working on the core more, and new producs less to be a more viable thing. Regardless of a new pay model or not however, the mammoth in the room is that "stable" isn't, and de-facto stable "open-beta" is at a place a lot less desirable than what it should be. It is a dilemma, and there is no right choice currently. It's more "you pick your own poison" kind of deal. JF-17, even though it was one of the most stable releases, took more than half a year between being released to open beta and being available on stable branch. That is just one example, if an extreme one. Also we all know that stable is almost never really bug free, and sometimes even new problems introduced on one beta can creep into next stable. Lately, new features and fixes can take incredibly long to come from open beta down to stable. Mostly because open beta seem to break one thing or another on most updates, and needs a hotfix or fix on next update. On the other hand, "it's open beta stop complainin, play stable instead" got old long ago, and doesn't hold much water at all. Due to reasons above, open beta is de-facto release branch of the product... modules offered for sale are first on open beta, and stay available only there for extended periods of time. This makes people who are excited and want to experience what they have paid for switch to open beta. Similarly, most of the multiplayer servers, more so the popular ones, are on open beta, due to all these reasons. And while it may not be the majority, a very good portion of the community is there online. It's not like people are using open beta as stable and complain for it's own sake, at this point, open beta, in practice, has become the default branch. Heck, "at this point" makes it sound like a new development, but no, it has been so for quite some time now. I don't really know what can a solution to this be. But clearly, one needs to be thought about. As it is, this is bad for us consumers, it is bad for 3rd party devs who has to juggle changes and things break in their modules outside of their control, and it is bad for ED who needs to fight the situation of two steps forwards and one step back, while having to face (frankly justified) riots of the community. DCS is the sim I always dreamed of for decades. When it works right, I enjoy immensely experiencing the really well done aircraft here, more or less without equal in industry. Thing is, when it works right is becoming more and more of an elusive, imaginary state of existence for DCS. Perhaps it is a time for stepping on the brakes, and steady the track the car is driving on for a bit.

Contarily, I am very happy with the intention fo doing multiple, different variants, and not all of them being the latest. I also like, as long as it takes, they are trying not to move to the next thing without being satisfied ith their current product. Although, it does feel like C-101 by now is at a pretty good place, but I don't fly it often enough to know whether it's really the case.

Wow, that IS beautiful alright!

I must be the only one who hates git with a burning passion, and would take SVN or TFS over it anyday of the week :P Anyway the issue here isn't caused and won't be solved by any source control platform I would think :)

I do think Fw-190D9 was also ED's own thing before DCS WWII project, and released before it going belly up. I seem to recall so at least. As far I know though, all of the DCS WWII modules have been worked on by ED's lead FM developer Yo-Yo. So I hold them to same level of quality when it comes to flight modeling.

The only F-4 that matters is the F-4E, hence no votey-votey here :P Edit: and even if I'd vote, it wouldn't be max 2 choices. The ones I'd like least are Hunter and J-8, but I'd enjoy if someone would release them regardless. I would personally prefer a J-7 quite heavily over the J-8 though.

From what we know: - Outside of ED, Magnitude 3 is working on a Corsair - ED will still probably do the Me 262 at some point - Nick Grey said that Hellcat will happen at some point - Nick Grey has apparently also said that Battle of Britain aircraft (early Spitfires and Hurricane, Bf-109E) will be done at some point too, hopefully. - Same goes for the Bf-109G-6 it seems, which, as a life long 109 lover, happens to be the only variant that I don't care for in the least :P but I get it, most produced and all :P I think depending on how Corsair goes, we can expect Magnitude 3 to do more as well, perhaps like a Wildcat or Zero, they are at least making an AI model of Zero as far as we know. That's think, all the potentially upcoming WW2 aircraft we know of right now. If OctpusG decides to stick around, and make a second module, we may see another warbird from them perhaps, I certainly did like their I-16 :).

People who get depressed from critics need either to fix some things about themselves, or should learn to look elsewhere if they don't like what they see. Sometimes, heck many times, criticism is ridiculous alright. But at least as many times it is quite well deserved, and coming from people who does actually love and care about the sim. Culture of counter-critics is at least as annoying as culture of critics. At least. Criticism is at least actually aimed at hopefully making things better. Last few years, community getting quite fed up with certain things and being vocal about them, actually did bring about numerous positive changes. Often when things get really ugly in community and heated back and forths start is when Order of the White-Knights mount a lance charge at valid criticism, and both sides lose their cool in process.

Edge 540: a sleek and pretty racer with spirit! Lots of thanks to the team that developed this for us to enjoy!

Could be your shareders, did you guys try to delete whatever's in your fxo and metashaders under your dcs user folder?

These two are such a great match up, so similar, yet so different. Though, I must say, if you though F-86 was difficult, MiG will probably not be what you are looking for. Very broadly: -F-86 has quite a bit better instantenous turn potential, rolls a lot better, dives really well, and has a higher top speed. 6 high fire rate and flat shooting .50 cals, all around the nose, couple with a decent gun sight makes it decently capable at hitting things, but as it stands, they are among the weaker and more frustrating guns in DCS due to damage model being what it is. Visibility out of cockpit is excellent, magnificent, lovely! Her controls are lovely, only when you get close to Mach 1 will you feel roll controls getting real wonky. -MiG-15 has lots of thrust for its weight. Its acceleration is much better, and climb rate is also much better. Also thanks to having lots of power, if fight drags down to a slow speed turnnig contest, MiG can sustain turns better than the Saber. However, her controls are a lot more clunky overall, and requires a good effort from pilot to extract these strengths. Moreover, as your speed gets closer to Mach 1, aircraft's controls will become very sluggish. Also, she's more capricious, as AoA increases, she'll complain and fight you a lot more than the Saber. Guns are a lot different too. 2 x 23mm and 1 x 37mm cannons have less velocity and less fire rate compared to F-86, and gunsight isn't nearly as sophisticated, but when you hit, unlike the Saber's guns, these will obliterate the target. Finally, there's the canopy. From a cursory look from outside, it looks like a similar bubble canopy. This erroneous feeling gets dissipated immediately inside the cockpit. Seems like russians took all the efforts to make visibility as bad as it can be, with very thick framing, as well as a full length strut at the top blocking vision in imporant directions. Then there's air to ground potential: Saber has quite a few options: I love HVAR rockets, because while they do decent damage if you can hit, and Saber can carry up to 16 of them. She also has a sight that can provide some semblance of a (finicky) ccip. Two decent-ish sized bombs can be carried, and saber even has an auto bomb release mode, though I wouldn't say it's good enough for a small point target like a tank. Guns themselves won't do anything against a proper tank, even an older one. But against lighter armor and soft targets, Saber's guns are excellent for strafing. MiG on the other had, can only carry two tiny bombs, 100 kg at most, and you drop them using the force! Not impressive in the least there, but the guns, especially the 37mm is very potent, especially against lighter targets. Probably it's more reliable than even rockets against those. Finally, F-86 can carry a copule of old sidewinders FWIW (not much if you ask me). Normally I tend to be a MiG person, but between these two I must I say enjoy the Saber more. However, MiG is lovely too.

I concur with Enduro, Ercoupe, and BuzzU. The two titles have different stengths. Yes, the IL-2 offers a much more complete WWII experience, and has strong advantages in areas like damage modeling. But when it comes to modeling the aircraft themselves, the flight, the systems etc, I personally find it to be not up to what DCS offers. Personally, I am more interested in what DCS is offering, and I appreciate it might be the other way around for other people. I'd also like to add that I have and enjoy both, for what they are, it's just DCS is ahead for me. Usually, when I fly something there, I tend to feel like "man I can't wait for the DCS version of that to come" to be honest.

People are giving way too much credit to this website. A lot of information there looks outdated, some seems to be listed as in dev or planned with only the slightest hints, and the site doesn't list some new third parties like Flying Iron who are doing A-7. Also lists Belsimtek, which is not a thing anymore, and list AH-1W under their section, which was turned into AH-1F long ago, and still somewhat long ago seem to have gotten postponed. There are many more inaccurate information listed there.

I'd call M-4 to be the pretend realism in this case, as it'd be fairly pointless in DCS. May be as additional feature waaaaaaay down the line after all things ironed out.