firmek

What??? They are also thinking about Kiowa. You really had confused everything, especially if you don't see a difference. Please don't spread the mess from other part of the forum.

+1. First of all, good luck guys :thumbup: Second, please bring the Kiowa to DCS. I'll buy it the first day of release :). There are many people in DCS that like to play a support role. For instance transports on BF. With Kiowa DCS would get a fast, player controlled, fire control platform. This would be a game changer for DCS. Not only this module would be great for those that are flying it but also for others. Just imagine playing hide and seek, lasing targets for A-10s, Harriers and Mirages :D. Not only community but ED should support you in bringing this baby to DCS :thumbup:

It's not a problem that anyone has to buy it. It's a problem of watering the concept. As the title states, DCS is a Combat sim. Any other, military module, even like a transport helicopter brings much more to the whole platform as such than just only a possibility to fly it. From a complete platform perspective CEII doesn't bring anything. When in a mood for a free flight or aerobatics, L-39, Spit, Mustang and many other from DCS are more than suited for that job but at the same time they can be added to any combat mission - not only for benefit of those that do fly them but also for others flying different planes in the same mission. And this happens when clearly the demand for combat modules is much higher than the capacity. The argument of test-bed is absolutely not convincing. Any (and I can't stress is enough - any!) complete project and further maintenance are just of a totally different magnitude than a prototype. Finally, other warbirds in DCS had been created without similar ideas. People come to a specific place because it offers what matches their specific expectations. For DCS it’s obviously because it's a combat sim and may feel frustrated as instead of the content they strive for they'll just get something for which they would be in totally different place to begin with. I'm not wishing M3 bad. Anyway, lets wait and see but anyone should be able to easily foresee that after the dust falls down this sub forum will once again become mostly quiet. And while on that topic, bye :noexpression: !

Quo Vadis DCS? Think from a wider perspective. The Digital Combat Simulator. Let’s think for the moment that the just recently announced plane was not the CEII but An-26. Nothing more but just an unarmed military transport aircraft. Not exactly a module that everyone would strive for. Let’s assume that only a small part of community buys it. Still, the mission designers can use it, build a missions where squad mates could fly transport and fighter as an escort. It could be used in Blue Flag to fly the supplies between bases or a combat decant. The opportunities are as many as the content creator’s imagination. Not only those who are interested in such module would benefit from havin it but the whole DCS platform as such. Isn’t that a great reason to support development even though the module is not directly on a personal main interest list? Until yesterday there really had been a reason for buying decision reaching much deeper and beyond of just “you don’t like it, don’t buy it”. Every module shouldn’t be seen just from a narrow perspective of a single airplane and people that are interested in flying it. The sum of all modules together in DCS is way much beyond every single module separately! How the CEII will contribute to growing the DCS platform as such? Will the mission designers send it for an AEAD (Amuse Enemy Air Defenses) sortie? For DCS as the combat simulator platform the CEII is just a dead end. The Sandbox The content can't be dropped just totally randomly. Everyone is aware about a burning issue of disproportion between the East and West bloc planes. How many years it took for DCS to have a solid foundation for a consistent WW2 era simulation – modules, AI units, WW2 map. Using the sandbox approach it'll take ages until DCS will become more than a great flight model and systems simulator. It’ll remain an in-depth simulator of a Formula 1 car, without possibility to race it against matching cars on a Formula 1 race track. Until now I really hopped that ED has a long term strategy for delivering a consistent air warfare experience. In example a Super Sabre in 1-2 years, F-105 in 2-4 building a foundations for a Vietnam era. CEII can rise a valid doubt about it. Digital Civilian Simulator Does anyone really believe that people flying 737 in other simulators are going to storm DCS due to a great flight model? DCS can attract enthusiasts of a small, GA planes and VFR. This is a niche in an already small niche. Unfortunately there is also another, deeper problem. It’s obvious to everyone how long it takes to create a module for DCS. The demand is clearly much beyond the capacity. In such situation, opening for a totally new market rather than focusing and increasing a consistent effort on the core business profile IMO is like opening an Pandora box. There are not so many 3’rd parties. CEII case had created a doubt if after completing a combat module 3’rd party won’t shift to a civ plane. In result the already long overall time between new modules are coming to DCS will further extend.

+1. Just to give some more insight. Prototyping is nothing unnatural in development. One of the obvious goals is to gain the experience. Completing development costs much more. On top of that what people forget that creating a software is only a portion, quite often a small one of total cost of ownership. You buy a puppy, you have to feed it. The software has to be maintained and that's costly.

I'm tired with the promises. You can try to justify about everything. It's time to deliver, starting with completing the MiG-21. I had been supporting DCS with buying most of the modules, on a first day of release. Some I flew just few times but still bought them to support the 3'rd parties ED and DCS as such. Including modules from 3'rd parties that re-focused and released a new module when the first one was still incomplete. I did really understood the niche business of the flight sim and difficulties that ED and 3'rd parties are facing. Enough is enough however and this doesn' thave anything to do with the hype train, or the fact that I could just pass and not by the civilian module. This situation showed me there is no vision, why should I invest in something which lacks a long term consistency. Unless there is a clear indication it's otherwise, from now on I'll approach it as any other title and buy only those modules that I'm actually going to spend time on.

The years with DCS got me used to, accept and grow understanding for a lot of things. Normally I would say something "political" like "to be honest...". This time they had really overdone it, I feel like I just got a big slap to my face :mad::mad::mad: An aerobatic plane, in a Combat simulator? For sure it could be expecteed it's going to be "controversial". Yeap, instead of keeping a low profile lets make a hudge hype train, steamroll the expectations and and finally troll everyone. You should really fire your marketting manager. This thread will serve as an outstanding exmaple of marketting fail. Great job heating the expectations and leaving pople pissed off. On top of that we learn that this plane is the reason for why the MiG-21 updates had been put on hold. Seriosly. As a MiG-21 owner I just got a clear message -we don't give a !#@ about our customers. Where the heck DCS is going. Someone from ED had to give an ok for that. Is there a pilot on board? Or the "sand box" approach had been taken to the extreme. Just throw in everything randomly having the long term DCS strategy to like this: And the rationalle of it being a test bed... In which way it's flight model will be different from the Corsair. RLY, so far the trainers had been used as an intorduction and while already being questionable to many they still matched the military aviation portfolio. Now we have an civilian bi-plane. What's next? RC planes, hot air ballon, zeppelin, kites, combined goat simulator? EDIT: All the similarities between aerobatic flight path and the pattern on the sign are absolutelly coincidental.

:lol:, from the bin folder in the DCS install directory

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3316545&postcount=294 ;) Though a good hint with the film. There was also a post that 1977 was the year in which MiG-25 establised the flight altitude record.

+1. All this hype to annouce a trainer would be just an overkill, especially that there is nothing special about it. I don't mind a trainers but I can see a little reason to get the Galeb as it lacks distinctive features. I would just pick L-39 anytime over it whenever being in mood for flying a trainer. Another trainer that would bring something new - like modern Yak-130 would be welcome though.

It still makes a night and day difference from a full fidelity module and I'm not talking about the fact that you can hit switches but the overall systems modeling.

Why I think a lot of hints are connected with MiG-25 1. "Sorry :(" thread, fasteners and a cowl Might be a smoke cover to look for an old, prop plane. Coincidentally there is a Aeroprakt A-22 Foxbat that I think match this criteria, 2. "Is it a bird? Is it a super bird?" Consider the question markes at the end. They may be playng a role, what would be your first thought when seeing a fox bat: Plus the citation from the "Sorry :(" thread "the normal maps for our new super duper pooper excretionator". That might be the relation to the mess that bats leave in the cave, and the fox bat is really a big one. 3. The box MiG-25 looks like build from the boxes. What I'm not sure about but it might have been one if not the first Russian build aircrafts designed with CAD aplications - thus the 3D box. 4. The airfield photo Mybe we're just over-investigating it. Might be a hit of an old recon photo and MiG-25 had a major use in that role. 5. 1970 MiG-25 was introduced into the service in 1970 6. Video Assuming it's an ZX Spectrum, one of the "simulator" titles had a MiG-25 on the cover. EDIT: I believe they would not make so much fuss without a good reason. It must be at least a plane that is expected by a lot of people. If this would be a trainer, it would be wise not to risk creating too high expectations.

Another one, showing MiG-25: As for Su-17/22, the connection to "is it abird?..":

Makes you appreciate current PC's ;) "Good" old times when loading a game required a screwdriver. But the spectrum or other old, tape "simulators" might be a good point to investigate. This one is from ZX Spectrum: EDIT: Su-17/22 was also introduced in 1970.

Well, the airbase image might be just a suggestion for a recon photo - a plane that had been known for it's recon version. I still keep fingers crossed for MiG-25 because of this as also previous hints and the fact that it was introduced into service in 1970.

A-4 Skyhawk seems to be the best guess for the moment. It matches the hints for "bird, supper bird" (hawk) and the connection with aerobatics as it has been used by Blue Angels. Just speculating but A-4 had been developed since some time as an independent project. Joining forces or taking over abandoned project may be another fact to consider the A-4. Additionally the A-4 does not seem to be extremely complex, making it a good project for for M3 which are probably not such a big team after the split. However, if that's the A-4, ED has to really thing about assets for it, including the era carrier. On the other hand if it is A-4 I'll start to have some real hopes for Vietnam period reflected in DCS. Just throw in F-105, Super Sabre and with F-5, MiG-21, MiG-19 there should be a great start for DCS journey into that period. PS 1: Great find Vatikus linking the hint from LN page with aerobatic box :thumbup: Sorry but forum does not allow me to rep you but if anyone else can kind request to do it ;) PS 2: It would be an ironical coincidence if it's A-4 as it's not exactly the most prettiest plane in the world while there was a lot of planes with "controversial" look posted in this thread.

Can you post a reference stating that the MiG's are not being/can't be done in DCS? Otherwise the latest communication on that topic that I can refer to is RAZBAM saying that they had been asked to stop working on MiG-23 while the specific reasons for this decission can't be reviled due to NDA. In other words, the discussion if the MiG-23 had been canceled completly or transfered to another team - be it 3'rd party or ED are only a speculations.

This one has a lot of rectangular shapes :D

Why I didn't think about it ealier. It's obvious, the 3'rd hint is not a hint but an early 3D model of: Now being more serious. Some other idea that came to my mind. Which Russian military aircraft was created with a help of Computer Aided Design?

Talking about a wild ride on an engine, that would be a Gee Bee, plus it looks totally bad ass ;)

Since the OP already decided on the purchasse I'll leave my comment for the others that might be reading this thread. Consider it a honest and constructive opinion. The module itself as already said many times above is great. There is no question about it. It's an early access, open alpha release so for sure there are bugs and a lot of things are missing but that's expected. There are however two things which are a room for improvement. 1. I missed a clear list of what is and what is not going to be included in the module on initial release. There were comments in the pocket guide but untill a list had been created by community on the forum the only way to get some picture was to go through the pocked guide. One could get an impression that creating a clear, single point communication on what is in and what is out from EA is being avoided by RAZBAM. I think it's not an unusuall request - such list is already available from some time for F/A-18 and that's long before we'll even get to know the EA release date. 2. Lack of manual. I wish RAZBAM had follow the quality of manuals up to standards of other DCS modules, even on the EA relase. Yes there is a pocket guide but to be fair, it's preety much a one-note extract which doesn't look too proffesional. Especailly that a complex module like Harrier would deserve a proper manual at start. Don't bang me with "it's an EA" hammer on this one. Just compare the EA manuals from last two EA modules - Viggen and Spit. There is a night and day between those and the M-2000 manual - not even mentioning the Harrier "pocket guide". What saves the situation to some extend is the NATOPS manual but it's circla 700 pages long and that's even without any weapon systems! Consider this point if you're a kind of a person that likes to study the plane rather than watching a few YT/quick guide tutorials.

Thank you for posting this without any warning. This should be marked PEGI 18 with the fear/horror content description: Untill now I thought that Saab 29 Tunnan is the ugliest plane ever made but placing the Saab next to XF-85 makes it look like it would be designed by Gruppo Bertone himself. I would even dare to say that FIAT multipla starts to look like a piece of art once you had seen this plane.

Kudos for that approach. A least in the upcomming years, the number of "BLUE" aircrafts and disproportion between flyable modules on the both sides will be only growing. The modules are what’s provided with the DCS platform as such. The community can't directly influence it thus I believe there are only two solutions for the situation. Mission creators can fight the modules disproportion, trying to figure out a way for a different scenarios of moving the flyable aircrafts between sides in an even manner. This is and will always be a lost fight. The only effect is a huge struggle to build the mission and satisfy the community with a poor outcome of an unrealistic scenario that we’ll always feel more or less out of place when played. We'll all end up flying high fidelity modules, simulated to the best possible extend in totally unrealistic environment with the IIF hell being among the most commonly met problems. The other option is accept the state of DCS modules, assign the planes based on their native countries and historical operational usage. The issue to manage in this case is player numbers on both sides but at least it shouldn't be impossible to address and is a much less severe problem than fighting the immersion.

Nice try, was worth a shoot :) As for the pictures, can't wait. Look amazing. Didn't expect such a hudge overall upgrade of visuals :thumbup:

M-346 or/and Yak-130 would be a great thing.