Kev2go

honestly dont get too obessed with exact service dates, becuase there isnt always a time in history where 2 adversaries are evenly matched. What you also need to consider is that evne with how the F5E is currently represented most of its campaigns and missions are in fact centered around training in the Nevada NTTR anyways. Its like saying whats the point of the Mig23MLA when it came into operational use at time when USA already had the F14A for a few years with the F15A entering operational use around the same year? you can easily just sick it against oponents from a similar technological footing or era for balance IE against a F4E or F4J phantom, if they were in game. What you dont realizie is that the F5N is literally an F5E under different nomenclature that the navy assigned it, just not the "vanilla" type of F5E that USAF operated. F5N's are buyback of retired Swiss F5E's that happened to have a few extra avionics, like digital radios, and an INS to the current F5E. Although actual USAF F5E's had neither CM suite nor RWR, hence why if a remodel happens there aught to be a split for 2 variations like the P51D25 and D30 for ww2 aspect of dcs. SO just because they navy didnt buy them until early 2000's doesnt mean they didn't exist in such configuration at an earlier date with swiss air force.

yea in many instances AMPCD in F/A18C's seems to have white font color as opposed to green given one can find references of green font, this perhaps would mean that font colour can be changed based on preference?

an F22 would be less advanced than a Hornet in terms of A/G , but still vastly superior in terms of A/A capacity. Not even just for the stealth aspect, but remember that F22's do have AESA radars. ED have yet to attempt to make an AESA radar, and going for an F22 seems too big a leap. A less risky move to first gain expereincen in simulating an AESA radar? it would make more sense to create a gen 4.5 aircraft, that is equuiped with such an radar before also trying to deal with stealth mechanics ( or low observable RCS). For that it owuld have been more logical to make a smaller baby step with a Lot 30 super Hornet ( or earlier models from lot 26 that were eventually retrofitted with them) I honestly don't see an F22 or even AESA equipped super hornet happening any time soon, although id be happy to be proven wrong. :smilewink:

The statement clearly used the word "aircraft". Whatever the module will be it wont be a simulation of a ground vehicle.

you know what else could have all of the above bolded categories ? attack helo like the Ah64D longbow. :smilewink: SOmething that would certainly be anticipated and be a blockbuster hit for rotary winged part of aviation to be sure.

key word is also 'eagerly awaited" i would think anything ww2 is still not quite mainstream or anticipated as the sort of "blockbuster":hits we have seen so far ( IEteen series fighters) keywords to take into consideration are "Complex" and "milestone", so it it isnt likely to be another mulirole gen 4 fighter, ( not even redforce) as that would be something in the same category, thus no longer a milestone.

Easier said then done in actual reality. Can try to do the same with the whiskey cobra mind you which is more suitable for a contested environment than the a mod apache due to agm122 and aim9,s, countermeasure system derived from the hornet and if a 2000s mod a mws.

If there is going to be a blueforce helo I'd want at least 1 modern attack helo for the 21st century, before going back to cold war. The single engined cobra aught to be a throwback to the cold war. Not the apache. Ah64a was only in the cold war for a few years anyways. The ah64a didn't see its first combat action until the gulf war. The single engine cobras are more fitting for the cold war depending on model but even the ah1f is barely cold war like the f14b. Just as one can lump AH1W cobra in that same basket, although that remains relevant due to prolonged use well into the 2000's due to time it took for the USMC to find an appropriate successor ( which really is yet another more beefier cobra). Perhaps that model would be the best compromise as it still retained an analog setup until present day where it is almost nearly phased out.

Its a totally different airframe i get it. Apache has better flight performance, and better protection against small arms dont get me wrong, but avionics wise, both are extremely analog. ID rate the navigation suite better too if going for a late 90s- early 200s mod ( EGI system), but late life AH1F's arent too shabby with navigation as they also got an off the shalf GPS system installed into cockpit. henceforth i would say AH64D would stand out alot more vs AH1F than Ah64A vs AH1F. weapons wise, as i mentioned the A model apache is superior because Hellfires > TOWS, at least in range, and the 30mm autocannon certainly better against armor than 20mm gatling gun TBH though if i had to choose i absolutely would take a usmc Ah1W over AH64A purely because it has better variety of weapons (both TOW and Hellfire options) as well as Aim9L or M capability for air defence or AGM122 Sidearm for protection against radar based anti air units. A 2003 era AH1W already had Missile warning system integrated something that apaches didnt get until 2012 with the Ah64D block 3 which is basically a early mod Ah64E with older nomenclature which changed to E designation a mere 1 year later.

i would be far less interested in an AH64A if the AH1F is also made. Or vice versa for a cobra if Ah64A came out first. THe main difference will be bigger calibre gun, and laser guided missiles over wire guided TOW's. I think an Ah64D would stand out more in contrast to an Ah1F as opposed to An AH64A vs AH1F, since the D will be the rotary analog of a gen 4 jet in terms of avionics ( glass cockpit) and the fact it would fit in 21 century - present day GWOT scenarios more amd the AH1F is oldschool enough for cold war itch.

*correction* people aren't burned out on blockbuster jets, they are just burnt out on playing blockbuster jets in a never ending EA cycle.

F/A18E block 1? ;) Ok jk i know that probably wouldn't be nearly as big of anticipated release given not only its a multi-role fighter but a host of similarities to the Legacy Hornet. That being said, it would be the quickest way for ED to churn out another module in faster time for a quick buck if you could just copy paste nearly all the coding aspects needed for avionics like the radar or software aspects for the MFD pages, and weapons employment procedures. If going for two seat F/A18F that would be more work ( but still same displays as front seat within block 1) because of dual cockpit but would offer a 2 seat experience for a modern multi role navy jet, one that could still be fully operated without a human backseater, and not requiring development of an AI for singleplay.

F4 phantom? vocal minority? Bahhh. This is one of the most prolific aircraft series of the 3rd generation for the western side of aviation. It would be like saying Mig21bis or Mig23MLA is not relevant for redforce and only for vocal minority. Yea thier not gen 21st century gen 4 jets, but some of these older era jets are still anticipated. Although i agree, to an extent somone thats anticipated is still subjective depending on what a person wants, and for the time period. At one point the F/A18C was the most highly anticipated module, then until a year ago It was the Viper and Tomcat. So at the end we will just have to wait and see.

The Hornet we have though didn't use an older radar than the APG73. The Lot 20 was a final produced in 1998, and on top of that we have plenty of post Y2K post production upgrades. The first APG73's were delivered as early as 1994 . At worst itl be APG73 Phase 1, but even that is unlikely as the very last delivery of the APG73 phase 2 was in 2006, and our hornet is circa 2005. Really IF ED doesn't have enough data il imagine they will just have a worse approximation of SAR technology in the sense of the exact image quality presented in screen. Otherwise I dont see why they wouldn't do an EXP 3 A/G option that SAR allows, as such radar modes certainly are documented ( see beamscanners APG73 thread) Judging by wip of ED radar tech for the hornet many years ago ( and seeing it already implemented in some form for JF17 Real Beam mapping) its already looking to more authentic representation of A/G mapping capabilities than anything else id seen in other sims.

Not that your wrong with the limitations of using older A/G radar for attempting to aqure and pinking individual tanks, but i just wanted to point out its a good thing we have the AN/APG73 phase 2 in the Hornet and not the AN/APG65 ;) . Phase 2 of which introduced SAR technology for further refined radar map resolution and a extra level of magnification of sorts ( EXP 3) Its said to be comparable quality to that of the F15E. Overall the radar in Hornet is better than that of the F16C viper because the USAF never updated AN/APG68 past V5, wheras the closest technological neer peer radar for a viper to the Hornet would have been the AN/APG68 V9, which apparently only export users upgraded too.

That other sim honestly doesn't do AG radar justice. Its one area where it felt short.

Dcs is flight sim. Not everyone has combined arms or wants to be a strategic ground commander. The lot of us are here to fly. There are other games for that. We all know that most wars are not won with airpower alone, but it really depends on the conflict type and war aims tbh. There are plenty of examples in history where there were just limited independant air campaigns and no ground forces invasions. There is a certain line that has to be balanced between realism and fun. Even the most unforgiving of infantry based simulators, dont punish players remotely the way you suggest for dcs because pure realism isnt fun, but dull. Dcs is still a virtual hobby and not real life. I dont lnow of anyone that wants to wait a day to be able to fly online again just because thier virtual pilot avatar died. Similarly why it simply makes sense to reset a lost scenario as no one is going to fly really time for 12+ hours or wait real time for reinforcements that take days or even weeks. Or if a war is outright lost there is surrender , a cessation of hostilities, there is nothing to fight with. It really seems like you just want to have an excessive amou nt of control, and I'll tolerant of any mistakes. We are not professional pilots, but hobbyist, and we learn from mistakes. Mistakes that we can afford to make because we dont die in a computer generated world. You just have to accept that you cant have the sort of control you want unless you have a private server and are part of a like minded squadron, which seems is what you really want. As someone else suggested just have your own custom server with a password, and presto you won't have undisciplined plebeians messing up your vision.

It just wouldn't work for a simulator like DCS. I doubt barely anyone will seriously want to play this. You forget this is already a niche community in the genre of gaming. As others have pointed out this just isn't fair to the user if it was enforced globally across online DCS spectrum, as opposed to being a custom server idea for an individual server. AT the end of the day simulator or no simulator, its still a game, and punishing players by locking them out from being able to play it online is just too overly extreme, and entirely unfair. Id also throw in The line for extra hardcore options should be drawn at resources. IE limiting munitions availability ( which can already be done) and limiting amount of "spawns" for aircraft ( but not pilot lives) , to simulate a capped limit of aircraft within squadrons(s) that are deployed to a theater of operations. loose to many aircraft you loose and scenario is reset. Or otherwise if the objectives are met with higher losses than a win ensues anyways, because objectives matter, not necessarily attrition rate. All in all i don't think anything of the above is feasible until dynamic campaign becomes a thing, were such aspects such as strategic objectives and logistics supply are going to matter for a declared victory or defeat.

ED is alot more open and has improved in the communication now than in the past. ED has lots of old projects that were either delayed at some point or restarted. Recall the super early F/A18 3d cockpit model? The one of of an earlier production lot from the 90s before they decided to do a 21st century lot 20? OR perhaps the old F16c cockpit photos of a pre CCIP modernized block 50? Regardless whatever the community speculates, as someone had mentioned earlier in this thread, somewhere in an interview wags said that the Apache is more of a matter of when then IF, that its something theyd like to do at some point. If you haven't noticed ED just have a lot on thier plate right now. Finishing off F/A18 and F16C from EA, SuperCarrier, ka50 remodel, polishing off P47D30 for eventual release, early WIP Mi24, after that plans for AH1F. Not to mention possibly getting back on track on the F4E phantom development that was halted in favor devoting resources of the F16, never minding other non module stuff such consistently improving the game engine and making other maps etc.

yea better magnification. IRRC it gets get 3 FOV modes as opposed to two on Lightening 2 AT, and from what i read the laser designation goes further out. Resolution wise i think they are around the same. Although if ED had extended the timeline just 3 years ( or just 1 year from the viper) further from 2005-2008, that would have meant the more modern Litening 2 G4 for the Hornet which in turn has improved resolution from its predecessor:1024 x1024 and thus also better than the ATFLIR

If an aircraft is in service no where does it say you cant simulate it. For the most part what matters is how much non classified information is available to a accurately simulate the aircrafts functionality, without resorting to too much guestimation. And also to an extent if a private company will grant you a liscense ( or if your willing to pay for it) to use thier intellectual property. That's why for example most first person shooters use fake names and make some design changes in 3d model for a gun as opposed to having an exact replica of it. They just dont want to give$$$$ to ( insert famous name brand arms co). Similar story for when developing aircraft. Depending on companies IP is, even non simulator aviation games need to give a company $$$ for liscense to not get sued. In any case That's probably why we don,t have modules of f35,s or f22,s for eg, at best only dated versions of gen 4 fighters. ( remember despite feeling modern due to being 21st century representations ed are nontheless simulating gen 4 aircraft based on capabilties from over a decade ago. ( virtually all aircraft are pre 2010) So said documentation are older publications and or revisions, relative to what's in circulation now. Ed has said as much that they only rely on documentation that is legally and possible to publically access ( non classified material) . And that is almost certainly the case for anything that isnt,t a govt contract but purely for commercial gains. Even for actuall govt contracts i highly doubt that they would being supplied classified information, as that would require a govt issued security clearance and I'm not seeing that happening with a private company located in Russia, and risk having such information intercepted or seized by foreign intelligence services.

Despite such a romantic notion, There comes a point where if there is considerate enough disproprotion in technology, it becomes such a force multiplier in capacity that it outdoes skill or bravery of a lower tech opponent. And that's been demonstrated multiple times in history, what a technological edge offers.

So why the community pressure ed into forcing litening 2 on such a station instead of waiting for the atflir which so is to be mounted on cheek station 4, by the usn and usmc? It was always a matter of when rather than if for a tgp option for station 4 considering the atflir was always going to be a thing. Are people so impatient to a tgp on cheek asap? We should be happy that we have a tgp to begin with, and even then I am much more anticipating tgp functionality such as working with HUD and jhmcs and auto lasing.

2008 Russo georgian war, modern era Persian gulf and Nevada, the upcoming present day Syria map. In turn present day Mariana islands does have planned pertinent chinese assets. Yes there are enough assets that still fit into 21st century time frame, and are coherent for those scenarios as this seems to be the greatest focus. I'm sure at some point there will be dcs korea or something but remember that dcs ww2 disnt happen overnight. P51 and german d9 and 109 were without a ww2 era map or assets for quite some time.

Ah64d imo wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. At least not an block 1 and perhaps not an early life block 2 circa 2003-2005. In fact I d say apaches protective suite is actually somewhat inferior to modernized ah1w,s of comparable time frame as they dont even have a missile warning system, and only a singular counter measure dispenser ( cant Carr both chaff and flare at the same time) It's really not anything much more than a rotary analogy of say gen 4 fixed wing glass cockpit jet like the f18. TBH it's the ah64d block 3, ( which later evolves into ah64e) is where you really begin to get some really neat stuff like controlling drones plus automated protective suite with MWS, but that is 2012 - present, including further improvements since then.