firmek

+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.

I'm with you but for many it may not be so obvious and require actually breaking a kind of a mental barrier of using a trainer in a sim to find out by yourself that trainers do have a valid place in DCS, are fun to fly and can be used to practice and improve your skills. On the other hand, would another trainer be critical for DCS, especially to some extend a niche one like the Galeb? What DCS is a in a desperate need of is an Eastern bloc, gen 3 to 4+ jets.

Foxbat

Yeap, try to place a static plane inside a hangar ;)

Another hint as to which plane I'm thinking it might be ;)

If my guess is correct, it's going to be a hudge supprise ;) PS: Can I get a free copy if I'm right ;)

Some credit from it should probably go to McDonnell Douglas :)

It's not enough and changing the renderer would be a small part of it. Building or actually migrating to a version that works for both systems would require a tremendous effort and even if taken the maintenance would just sky rocket. Not even mentioning the issues with support to all input devices and peripherials. Absolutely not worth it!

Just wow. Those pictures look purely amezing. Would love to see some screens from a higher perspective though ;) I'm starting to think that the new old Caucasus will be the best map in DCS :)

The modules for which view settings are handled by the last atached server.lua file are: A-10A A-10C F-15C Hawk Ka-50 MiG-29A MiG-29G MiG-29S P-51D TF-51D Su-25 Su-25T Su-27 Su-33 Mi-8MT UH-1H C-101EB M-2000C MiG-21Bis MiG-15bis F-86F Sabre SpitfireLFMkIX Bf-109K-4 FW-190D9 AJS37 L-39C L-39ZA F-5E AV-8B Regarding the view folder and viewsettings.lua, the easiest way to get them is to save a custom view. It has to be done only once, just for any of view and in result DCS will create this file for all owned modules.