WinterH

23mm HE rounds do very, very little to anything with armor in DCS for some time now. Is this realistic or not, I can't realiably tell, maybe the HE rounds go off instantly before they have a chance to go through the armor, or maybe they aren't hard enough and shatter upon impact, or maybe their penetration is somewhat under modeled after all. GSh-23L isn't particularly high velocity though, and JF-17's gun only has HE rounds available, and I think we don't have an option to choose any other ammo belt options. Speaking for BMP-1, if you hit it from side with an oblique angle, JF-17s HE rounds will destroy it just fine for example, but if your rounds land with a shallow angle, they won't do any damage, something I've tested a few years ago: In my experience even .50 cal guns tend to more reliably do damage to light armor.

Oh yes, on that I agree. Depends. If the variants are indeed different enough to warrant another module as opposed to "included within a single module", and if they are variants I'm interested in, I'll have no problem doing that. Variants is something DCS was sorely missing up to a few years ago. Now it is somewhat changing, but we most definitely can still use more variants of some birds, as they represent whole another experience between their variants, also for those of us who are either into historical or performance wise feasible match-ups, variants can mean a lot. Every variant I've listed above would be enough of a different experience than the ones we have to add a lot to DCS.

Of course, any poster can speak for themselves, and I will do so too here. A non-comprehensive list of existing aircraft's variants I'd pay for instead of an F-104: - More Bf-109s (aside from G6) - More MiG-21s (aside from PFM) - More F1s like AZ, CT, and EQ5 (though, I will admit, EDA itself isn't interesting to me) - More Fw-190s like F or G variants - JA37, I'd prefer a Cold War one, but would be somewhat ok with a JA37D too (a Cold War one is much more likely to get documents for anyway) - More Spitfires - Though we will get some from Razbam eventually, probably, I wouldn't mind more Mirage III and V variants - We don't have any yet, but I'd love getting both AH-1W and AH-1F, both should be 80s-90s variants of, and I'd even buy both separately if made so - More F-5s, either newer or older than the one we have

You sure that you represent that? Also PFM = the variant I couldn't care less about, MF: Not meaningfully different enough from Bis in either direction of being better or older to make it interesting. F-13 I'd love to, do want, been saying that many times through even this thread. LanceR and Bison are indeed nice to have and not needed, and frankly, imo same goes about most of the older variants too. Do I want Bis to be brought up to a better standard? Yes, but I am not expecting it at this point anymore, so chose to enjoy it as much as I can in its current state long ago... Also, since you seem to love period perfect match-ups, we already have the classic enemy for the Phantom we're getting: we'll get two relatively later F-4Es, and Bis is the counterpart to that, as will the eventualy MiG-23MLA from Razbam will be. It's not like we're getting Vietnam era Phantoms, so PFM isn't really that much of a necessity. You insist that there's only one right way of module choice for DCS, and yeah that's just your opinion, your own truth for just you. In that light, your ketchup/sausage analogy holds about as much water as the rest of your posts in the thread, which isn't much.

Well no you didn't: I've already said in my first post: in DCS, anything may or may not meet anything else, according to mission maker's desires. Besides, great majority of us who are interested in these sorts of birds know it pretty well they won't nearly have the flight performance of aircraft designed later than their original builds, and... we don't give a damn about it, at all.

Yes, like LanceR carrying R-73 and R-27 right? :))

MiG-21-93 demonstrator was displayed with a R-27, but, afaik, when it was fully developed in Bison for India R-27 wasn't used, hence why I've said "no body adopted a MiG-21 upgrade operationally with R-27" For the final time, existence of a direct air-to-air match is NOT a necessity for a module's development. It is better to have the proper versions first, as in the case with the MiG-21Bis we already have, or the Mirage F1CE and EE. Now that we have them, there's little legitimate reasons to think something like a LanceR, Bison, or F1M has no place in the sim. I'll leave it at that, as this is clearly fruitless and dragging on.

A couple of Japanese birds would be nice to have now that we are going to have two USA Pacific birds. But what I want the most of early to mid war birds. I'd love Spitfire I/II, Hurricane, and Bf-109E-4 or maybe E-7. Latter would also be a nice playmate with the I-16 we have. I'd also love F or up to G-2/G-4ish 109s. G-6 I personally have zero interest in. I'd also love some more twin engine multipurpose or attack-bombers like our Mosquito. Bf-110s, B-25s, A-26, Pe-2 etc. And maybe a dive bomber or two like a Stuka, Val, SBD etc.

There'll be some Phytons/derivatives in DCS in foreseeable future. Upcoming J-8II "PP" from Deka will let us use the PL-8, and eventual Kfir C7 from Aviron should have a Phyton-3 I believe.

It isn't postponed to be fair. Already during the first reveal HB said it's in the distant future, and that there would be modules between then and Intruder's eventual release. Their public Trello roadmap, revealed a little later, clearly shown A-6 as the 3rd new module in line. It just always was meant to be later as a module. However, the fact that we still don't have the AI bird is somewhat odd to say the least.

I'm not %100 sure, but I think they are Kurnass 2000s rather than F-4Es. Kurnass was a large upgrade like German ICE, Greek Peace Ikarus, Japanese EJ-Kai, and Turkish Terminator 2020, latter of which was in fact based somewhat on Kurnass and was mainly done by IAI of Israel, and it also could use AGM-142 Popeye.

Option, should remain. /Thead

I mean yeah, makes sense, I'll have to admit that an F-15C in full fidelity is interesting for someone whose interests is primarily in 2000s+ BVR. I still don't think it'll be anytime soon, or even before the Eurofighter, but I guess I get the drive for it, unlike an early F/A-18E some folks seems to crave for I personally would still prefer to see resources theoretically to be diverted to quickly release a FF F-15C used in something else, like a MiG-29 (which is also something I don't get too excited for, but at least it's a nice addition to Cold War, and a red bird, something we can use more of), or a Cold War Cobra (though I know helo teams tend to be separate from jet devs). I still think Strike Eagle will at least be a decent enough rough placeholder for it, but yeah I'll admit that's mostly because it isn't something in my area of interest. Your arguments for full systems modeling do make perfect sense, and are things I share myself in aircraft/roles I care about. So I see that there is indeed a legitimate case for a full fidelity version of fighter Eagle. I still don't quite agree it should be urgent compared to many other things, considering it will be possible to at least semi-represent, but I do get why it matters as a potential module

Well the Eurofighter is going to be a thing soon(tm) anyway isn't it? Yes it'll be able to carry bombs if need be, but it is a primarily air superiority focused design, with appropriate systems and performance to go with it. And I'm fairly sure it'll have both AMRAAMs and Meteors. I personally find a full fidelity F-15C somewhat redundant (feel the same about the rumored/hinted MiG-29A too), but that's just me admittedly. To me it seems like the only interesting thing about those birds are their flight characteristics, which are already replicated in their FC3 incarnations. But that's me who isn't too interested in air to air, especially the BVR combat, so I suppose I have to admit some personal bias in that. Still though, to me, relatively small drag penalty Strike Eagle will have over an Eagle is pretty well compensated for with additional thrust, and an even better radar when it comes to BVR after all wouldn't they? However, a Cold War F-15, I might find that somewhat more interesting, and it would make that upcoming MiG-29A potentially somewhat more interesting too, being a closer and period correct match for each other. Yeah, the better variants of the Russian aircraft (especially those that were operational in any considerable number) were export variants serving various other nations back in 2000s, and in most of the 2010s. I would like to argue if we ever get a modern Flanker or Fulcrum, it may be one of those, but truth be told, those countries aren't necessarily known for being cooperative about sharing military info either afaik. Funnily, even those aircraft may not quite fit your definition of proper opponents, as most of those countries were in close relationships with west, and had exercises with USAF or USN aircraft using their Flankers.

Sir, what are you even on about? LanceR can't use neither of those missiles. To be fair, there are two LanceRs afaik, one more air to air oriented, and it can carry Phyton and Sidewinder missiles in addition to its former arsenal iirc. And the other is mainly enhanced as a fighter bomber with Litening TGP and LGBs. Indian MiG-21Bison can use R-73 and R-77, and not R-27. As far as I know, no MiG-21 upgrade was operationally adopted with R-27s by anyone. And its main opponent was supposed to be J-7s, Q-5s, and occasional more advanced fighter like F-16, knowing it'd need numerical superiority against those. And who's opponent? Who cares? A perfectly matching opponent isn't end-all for most of us. We're happy to be on the mostly suffering end vs superior birds if we do air to air vs them, or we're more into air to ground anyway. Except Kermit's been suggesting that still. Yes, he's primarily interested in those, clearly, and I'm responding that others among us don't care whether it's performance vs newer things is up to scratch or not. A LanceR or any similarly upgraded aircraft has no business in Enigma server anyway. And people flying it in other servers would know what they're getting into. Thankfully, the answer to "what modules to make for DCS world" isn't exclusively "whatever fits to this or that public air-quake" server right?

DCS: A-6 Intruder is planned by Heatblur Simulations as a future module. However, it is a bit far ahead in the future sadly, as they have a lot of work to do on releasing/finishing a few other modules first. Personally, I'm really looking forward to the Intruder when it eventually graces our virtual skies

I know the differences between AJS and AJ, that isn't my point though. It is an example against 303_Kermit's suggestion that only things that are valid modules in DCS are those with existing period and performance wise similar opponents. Well, in that case AJS misses the period part of the deal by far doesn't it

AFATIK, this is a bit of an overstatement. F-15E isn't quite like an F-14, F-4, Tornado, or MiG-31, where both seats are essential and do very different things simultaneously. With F-15E, second seat is there to alleviate load, but both seats have access to almost every feature the other has, including flying the aircraft, and using pretty much any onboard sensor/weapon. If you want, you should be able to use Strike Eagle quite easily from just front seat.

The ones I'd love most is a late J-7 (or well, more likely an F-7), and some sort of Q-5/A-5. I wouldn't mind JL-8 or L-15 either, but these are probably too new. I'd love JH-7 or a Flanker derivative, and would be somewhat interested in a J-10 too, but these I think won't be feasible anytime soon. My top wishes remain the late J-7 and Q-5 anyway Also, I wouldn't mind some helicopter either.

AGM-130 is going to be Strike Eagle's standoff missile, with a similar "man in the loop" guidance like the SLAM-ER, however, latter being a lot more modern a weapon, has longer range. But AGM-130 is going to be a lot longer ranged than a Maverick. Its unpowered old brother, GBU-15, can also glide a fair distance more than Paveway IIs, but maybe not more than Paveway IIIs. Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I think later updated Strike Eagles also had the ability to employ JSOWs. Strike Eagle's current long range stand-off part trick is SDBs, of which it can carry about half a million but don't know if we'll have them in the module at any point. Overall, Hornet has more variety in air to ground weapons with things like Harpoons, HARM, and for those of us who care about those (myself included) rockets. However, Strike Eagle can, unlike Hornet, happily loiter up high, or haul-ass down low for a long time/distance with an insane amount of JDAMs and LGBs, has a better night capability, a lot more powerful air to ground SAR capability where you can use the radar more or less like a TGP, through cloud cover and all, and can still carry at least 4 AMRAAMs at the same time just in case. IMO, they both offer different pros-cons and sim experiences. Also, PGMs aren't the only thing these birds are designed to use. When I get Strike Eagle, I know I'll do A LOT of toss bombing for example, where it'll be more interesting than Hornet due to its insane payload, and even more insane acceleration/speed to throw them sticks away High altitude CCRP through clouds thanks to its crazy radar will also be a semi unique thing for Strike Eagle. Theoretically yes, other radars may also be able to pull it off sometimes, but their resolution isn't anything like Strike Eagle's APG-70.

To be honest, I'd prefer a JA37C if we ever get one. Yeah, it doesn't sling AMRAAMs, but... so what? It'd fit in a lot better with existing and upcoming 70s to early 80s "3rd gen" fighters like F-5E, MiG-21Bis, MiG-23MLA, Mirage F1, F-4E, etc. It may not share as much with Gripen. Although I think it still used still classified datalink with GCI, it may be implemented in a simplified way, or, as in case of many existing modules with similar systems, completely omitted. We'd still get "funky delta canard with lots of power, but don't mind pulling some AoA now!" Allegedly AJ Viggen has a theoretically better peak turn performance, for a very short while. However, Jakt Viggen has a more powerful engine that also doesn't start coughing up compressor stalls at highish AoA left and right. Besides... who wouldn't want that Oerlikon KCA with "automatic gun targeting" feature of Jakt Viggens? That thing uses the monstrous 30x173mm rounds like GAU-8 after all! But I don't know if HB (or any other dev) would undertake such a project now. HB has their work cut out for foreseeable future too: between finishing F-14 and Viggen, releasing and developing F-4E, Eurofighter Typhoon, later Navy F-4s, and A-6. And while I'd really love a JA 37, I'd honestly much prefer HB to give us a Draken first. I really want a Draken in DCS. Just look at the thing, oozes character, and was pulling Cobras before Flanker was a thing! It'd also go well with MiG-21, F-5E, MiG-19, F-8J, etc.

I'm not Dragon1-1 obviously, and afaik we're not in the same country. But I guess I can provide an example. I'm in Turkey, and the exchange rates here have been progressively more horrible every year for the last 3-4ish years. I've started DCS on standalone, and that's the platform I still use. But, I have started buying on Steam since late 2015ish when exchange rate issues started. Be it ED Store, or the Steam, I pay with the same credit card. Difference is, I pay in local currency over Steam, and in USD over here in ED Shop. Banks willl usually have a more exorbinant exchange rate, and since the expense is listed in USD for the card, if the value of $ goes up against TRY when I pay the card debt, I can end up eating even more of a mark-up. Also, Steam tends to have modules slightly cheaper. When my finances are better, I try to buy from ED shop anyway, especially if it's an aircraft/dev I want to support. But when the times are tough, it is either Steam or no-buy. And I'm a turbo-aircraft nerd who loves anything, and tries to buy all the aircraft modules. Many folks here will just not buy modules here unless it is something they really want, or is a popular aircraft etc. Case in point, my local DCS buddies from when I started haven't gotten any new modules in over half a decade, only one of them got some new stuff recently, and that in a Steam sale. I expect it is a similar case in other countries where the economic situation is similar, I've been hearing similar stuff from Brasilian players for example. Price difference in Steam vs ED store isn't normally huge, but being able to pay in own currency is kinda important. Why do I post this now? Well, to provide some context for why Steam matters in some areas in ways most can't think of. Without Steam, devs would more or less lose some big markets where purchasing power and local currencies aren't in a great place, people in these markets are already giving up on more things to enjoy a module when they buy one. Right now a full price DCS module costs a quarter of my rent here Now, I'm not saying ED or Razbam, or anyone should do this or that. I was mildly miffed at Razbam's choice, but it is their business, and I suppose I'll have to admit that this thing has been in development for a long long time. Just posting this to provide another perspective about why in some countries Steam is an important shop for DCS community. Still, both not taking part in miles program and not offering preorder in Steam doesn't look nice at all. But that's besides the point, and like I've said, it's their business in the end. And I'll have to admit, 3rd parties selling something on Steam are subject to royalties of both Steam and ED afaik, so I can understand the hit feeling somewhat large on a high development cost module.

I'm not super-knowledgeable on the Eagle, but always though max rounds for F-15C was 1000 rounds, but normally about 800 was carried. Could be relevant to F-15A instead perhaps, or could be entirely wrong. F-15E carrying 500 tops does make some sense to be honest. It has lots of extra weight, and the second seat as well as avionics would take some space too. It isn't expected to use its gun for strafing too much, as it's mostly intented to either use standoff weapons or do one-pass-haul-ass attacks with conventional bombs, nor is it expected to be a dogfighter unless things go awry somewhere.

This. Also, me personally, I couldn't care any less about maps. I'm here to experience cool aircraft created to the best possible level. We've had enough sims over the history of flight simulations that focused on one or more conflicts and provided only birds that are relevant to those. While it has its merits, and far be it from me to argue it being of no value while there are people who clearly crave for more of it, I personally am not into more of that. If anything, it'd be damn shame from my perspective if we only got aircraft from certain conflicts, at the expense of many cool aircraft we could experience. Mission editor is my playground, and for some others I know it is the public servers. I doubt neither my, nor their sides of DCS demographics mind a great aircraft not ticking the box of being in this or that war, on this or that map.

Which, just as I wrote above, doesn't mean jack<profanity> Edit: oh and good luck with any of the above modern Russian birds. We all know they aren't happening anytime soon. And MiG-35 I doubt will ever be anything more than a few prototypes trying to be marketed in vain. I'd love a good Su-30, but unless something massively changes, it ain't happening anytime soon.