FlankerKiller

Ka-50, A-10A, Ah-64A, and Su-24T. The poject was called Tank Killers. It would have been awesome. Hammer1-1 mentioned that he believes an F-15A would be well received. I agree, and the A model wouldn't have any licensing issues with Ubisoft. I really think the future of DCS is in the Cold War. It's untapped potential for sure. Wether that is through third parties, or ED directly I don't know.

Neat, so maybe even more verifiable than the Hornet we have. I agree that an early Super bug would make more sense for a two-seat close air support/strike aircraft. I guess the biggest question would be what people buy it. Like you said, our bird is better for air superiority. If the performance status publicly available, and if it's flight model and systems were verified by a third party, then I would probably buy it. Right now I'm a little put off by Ed's 4th gen. There are just too many differing opinions. But yeah if it could be done, and it could be verified that it was done properly, and it had an AI wizo to run the pod. Then yeah I'd buy it. But not if there's a bunch of b******* ass guess work. We've had enough of that.

Yeah, I don't know what happened there. Some kind of glitch when I tried to post the first time. So I reposted.

Which manual? What block? How much other data is available for it? Are EM diagrams public? FS2004 isn't even close to the same league of fidelity as DCS.

I couldn't agree more on the F-15A. And with all the cold war birds coming it would fit right in. Especially if we get that Mig-29A. I really do believe that if there were enough birds to support it, the late cold war would be insanely popular online. Fox 1 fights are fun, and <profanity> can get close quick. Plus the pure Kinematics. That and jets were more specialized, for the most part. That and there were more of them. And way way more is declassified. And we could actually model a Soviet Air Force. And it wasn't all West vs East ether. American jets fought French Jets Iraq. I believe Soviet jets fought Soviet jets in Africa. British Jets fought us Jets over Argentina. That and there was the whole proxy wars thing. Like we literally could have got a new map for every single proxy war from 1975 through 1991. God DCS Proxy Wars could have been amazing. I digress. I hope ED knows what they're doing because it seems like there was alot of missed opportunity. Also I hope you're right about the A-10A. I just don't see why they wouldn't have done it if they could have done it. Eagle Dynamics I would pay for a downgrade A-10A even faster then I would pay for an upgrade A-10C II.

I don't like that approach at all. I like to try my hand at aerobatics. also I sometime fancy myself a test pilot. Point is, it's not infrequently that I intentionally push the jet all the way up to its design limit. Also having it for the module would be unrealistic to a game breaking degree. It is true that while deployed the level of maintenance isn't really the same as in the states. It's more detailed than that, when you're surging a lot of missions you don't have time to fix every non-grounding write-up. This happens in the states too, but we usually have more airframes available so we work the time in. When deployed, and depending on where you're deployed to, and depending on how big the operation is, and depending on a million real world factors, we just don't have enough airframes usually to set them down to fix non-grounding issues. So if you were to take a campaign whether it be linear or dynamic. Especially the dynamic. And say you had 10 tail numbers. And those ten tails started at different structural and engine wear points. Then as you work your way through your campaign you are assigned one of those 10 airframes permission. And you had some kind of variable for ops tempo. Then the wear and tear could accumulate across the airframes. Structurel damage from say Over G should be permanent. because we don't have the resources to fix that in the field. Depending on how battle damage is fixed, it can affect the drag on the airframe. If patches and doublers are used then that will obviously add a little bit of drag. So say your tell number 001 get shot up on a mission, it might be slightly more draggy on the next mission. We already know battle damage affects the drag ratio in game so you could just say 1/10 of actual damage added to that part of the airframe. If you're running a high ops tempo, then as the campaign goes along you would probably start to see things like panel lights not working, or even non essential systems deactivated. The thing there isn't much nonessential on a fighter. On top of that most of the wear and tear you get isn't really noticable from the cockpit. On heavies you might have a radio not work, or the radio altimeter be out, or one of the AC packs be out, or some part of the mission equipment be down. But mostly you will see things like broken knobs, or torn seat cushions, back lights out, a flood light out, or the god damn mother fucking gasper fan not working. So little <profanity>. Another thing that could be done is use random system failures and increase the chances of a system malfunction with every instance of over G, or battle damage, or hard landing. This sounds like some really groundbreaking stuff. But I'm trying to limit myself to things that are already modeled in game. Heatblure moduled random levels of airframe wear with the Cat. ED modeled engine wear. Battle damage exist in game. Random system failures exist in game. Now let me be clear we won't really put a jet up that isn't safe, or doesn't have a critical system operating IRL. So it wouldn't be realistic to see jets with major systems failed in game. Or to have airframes that are so weak that the wings will snap under the normal G load. But some things could be done.

Please for the love of destruction simulate an AI JSTARs, and make sure it gets a good damage model. To the above comment. There is only so much guessing that we need in DCS. But I do believe that an older model E-2 would be popular. Some of us do like the flight sim aspect, and once on station you could let the AI/ auto pilot handle it while you ran a console. I doubt it would get boring once thing started heating up.

I mean it would be great, but only in a dynamic campaign system. Also two issues you are forgetting. One it doesn't matter how bad the ops guys break it, we will fix it before sending it back out. And two pilots don't fly the same aircraft over and over again. They are assigned whatever is available and on the schedule. So you would have to be breaking jets for awhile before you noticed. It would be cool for a dynamic campaign. But would be more Linked to the logistics situation breaking down then the jet getting worn out.

We don't even really have an F/A-18C yet. But yes, after seeing Jester run that TGP it would be cool in the Hornet. Maybe Heatblure and ED are opening the door to multiple versions of the same aircraft with the F-4. So maybe one day.

I too would love to see FF tanks, and a combined arms II. We would need much better ground combat AI though, and eventually a more detailed damage model for AI armor. But to be fair we actually need all of that for the Hind and the Apache.

Pleas. But I think there is some issues with Ubisoft and rights to the FC3 planes that prevent them from doing it. But damn I want to roll in on a column of T-62s with a full load of Mk-20s.

Hay Heatblure, thank you for pursuing realism even at the cost of gameplay for certain users. There has been a lot of talk around the forums, and on other platforms about just guessing, and even having "fake planes". Any compromise on realism harms DCS. I dare say it wouldn't take much of that kind of thing to destroy DCS. Online balance was never a core tenant of DCS. But a commitment to being as realistic as possible was. Obviously DCS isn't perfectly realistic, but is dose try to get as close as possible. Because of that as time goes on and the technology advances things sometimes change. It is what is. I'm certain that you will get the guidance issues smoothed out. But please keep the commitment to realism. Without that DCS isn't really DCS.

Yeah, let's just hope we see it before we all die of old age.

What do I want most from DCS. I want it to stay true to it's original goles. I want ED to continue to make the most realistic virtual aircraft possible, and the most realistic environment to fly them in. I want to see the core game improve. I want to see better AI in the air, on land, especially at sea. I want to see true dynamic weather, I want an ATC to tell me what approach I'm flying into the field. And I want to be marshalled onto the spot. I want a dynamic campaign with a robust logistics engine. I want targets that actually do something. I want to blow up a bridge and have it actually affect the other side supply lines. I want to fly in a dynamic War scenario where I have no idea what mission I'm going to fly when I boot up DCS. But my actions either degrade the opponent, or my failures degrade my side. And above all else I want ED to never ever give into the calls for balance, or to guess and make "fake planes". That's what I want from DCS. I have no Idea. In 2016 it really seemed that they were going to climb right up the technology tree until the modern jets. You know developing the vertual technology to simulate the actual technology, and selling a ton of bad ass modules as they went. But what's done is done. Maybe there is enough interest now.

Fulda Gap. Oh god yes!! Especially with the F-4, and Hind. Su-17/22. Maybe Mig-27, Mig-23MLA, a Mig-25. I'm sure I'm missing some of them. But the Soviet era ground pounders should be mostly doable. It's easy mony ED.

I don't know if I'd call the AV8B "new". Mig-19 is newer. We have the F-1, F-4, A-7, and at some point the A-6. Also the Mig-23 if Raz ever gets the F-15E out. If this Hind sold well then it'll open the market for Soviet aircraft. Also maybe in some universe we might in a century or two see Mag3's F-8. So I would say that the cold war era is far from dead. DCS had it's ultra modern phase, but it looks poisd to have a late cold war phase. Let's just hope all goes smoothly.

This whole thing is kinda a <profanity> post. Basically an extrime wish list the devoted into the cold war vs modern crowd fighting. Which is fucking stupid because they aren't mutually exclusive. You can to "air quake" in any era you want. Or have older aircraft in lager numbers. Or whatever. Knowing about an aircraft isn't a prerequisite to purchasing it for some people. I didn't even know the jf-17 existed until 3 weeks before it released. If I had to pick only one module, it would probably be the jf-17. I know f*** all about the Mirage F1. Although I've been learning a lot about its history lately. But I'm buying that thing the day it releases. There's been over a hundred years of combat aviation. And most people don't know what they don't know about what's out there historically. And it's not like you're only limited to one module. Yes eventually you will have to choose, but I think most people are open to trying new things. So I think there's still plenty of aircraft left for ED. There's whole maps and whole errors of combat flight that have not been moded yet. I really don't think the future of DCs is in Jeopardy at this moment.

Please for the love of aveation mean you are working on new navel AI. That and having the thing turn into the wind.

Definitely +1

I'm sorry but after watching the Mig-21 fiasco there is not on single way in hell that I would ever put money twords a Kickstarter ever. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. I totally get the desire for a Tornado. But can we just be happy that the Phantom is coming? The cold war is about to heat up.

Definitely agree. None of the Jets are specifically Iran or Iraqi jets but. We have the Mirage F-1 coming as well. Plus an Iran Iraq map would work for the Apache as well.

Definitely need this. And make it available for the Harrier as well.

Yeah, I'm noticing that too. Hopefully all is well.

Nothing in this has happened in a vacuum. As you said the community had been pushing for EA earlier and earlier in the development cycle. The warning that ED missed was that poor Razbam was getting crucified by the people that had bought the AV8B. So there were signs that the community was not going to receive the module well. My beef with it is a bit different. One thay shouldn't have announced it when they did. Maybe at the end of 2020. Finish the Hornet and then drop the bomb. But what's done is done. With the lessons of the F-14 and JF-17, and the successful launch of the Mi-24 Eagle Dynamics would have to be utter fools to launch it before it is ready. It has a lot in common with the Viper. In that both aircraft have a huge fandom. People truly love the these aircraft, and they know enough to spot glaring flaws. The people asking for earlier access will be the same people screaming about those same flaws or inaccuracies. So wait. 14 months from announcement to EA is screaming fast for DCS. You only get one chance to make a first impression. And the Apache needs to make an entrance on launch. So ED is absolutely doing the right thing by delaying it until it's ready. Wether it takes a month or six months the important thing is that it is ready, and dose what it's advertised to do in EA. Anyone the preordered should have known that the launch date was subject to change.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the Viper release, kinda. I'm not going to go full rant because I am well and truly pissed about the whole 4th gen ED situation. But the Viper fit the trend ED was in for early access standers. The Hornet wasn't exactly in a good state when released ether. Like it was basically unplayable. There wasn't an uproar because no one playing DCS knew what to expect. And honestly ED was trying to figure out what the proper level of completeness for early access was. The Viper wasn't that much worse off then the Hornet to be honest. The lack of damage model being the biggest glaring WTF. Point is they were both rough. Now yes at that time the community was starting to get a little fed up with early access. It's like nobody really knew where the limit was, and the Viper found it. Then along comes the F-14, and JF-17 back to back fully armed, and features present on release. And the community loved it. Now as a Hornet guy the bing pissed about the Viper started the moment it was announced. ED said they would be developed in tandem and it wouldn't cause any delays. Well we see how that played out. The Viper being is a <profanity> state at release just rubbed salt in the wound. So yes ED dose have things to apologize for. No at least I am not over it. The Viper shouldn't have even been announced until the Hornet was nearly complete and about to come out of early access. It's a mistake I hope ED never makes again. There was no way I was going to pre-order the Mi-24. But thankfully ED learned and it was actually a decent early access launch. Early last year I predicted the Mi-24 would go smoothly, and the AH-64 would be a train wreck on par with the Viper. I'm glad to see some indication that I might be wrong. I actually preordered the AH-64 once I saw that it was delayed in order to fix some small issues with the FM. I too hope the AH-64 launch goes smoothly, and it sales like hotcakes.