Chrono

Additional theatres are one of the easiest ways for sim companies to recoup their additional development costs, so I really think we'll see them. The initial sim is the toughest, followed by the work and research to add jets. Theatres are the easiest and quickest "bang for your buck".

The reason the Falcon mods don't change much is because it's pretty much done. I'm sure it could use a bit more realistic damage model, graphics and bug squashing in the campaign, but when you've got OpenFalcon developers talking about the finer points of INS drift, I'd say that sim is "done". I agree about 2-seat in the F-15E, but there's plenty of other 2 seat jets that haven't been given their due.

Nope, I just know what they should NOT do. :)

Since DCS is aiming to release 2 additional flyables in short order after the KA-50, and since they've stated that they're designing the core to allow additional jets, I wanted to do an alternative to the "What do we all want" thread. What do we NOT want? Personally - F-16 or F/A-18 Why? Been done to death. Especially the F-16. We don't need another Falcon sim. F-15E Why? Been done before and very similar to the F-16. J-32 What's a J-32? I don't know, and neither do a lot of other people. Even if it might be "easy", don't give us an F-8D, A-7P, J-22SNP or some other alphabet soup from the 1960's or 70's that the US National Guard or a former Russian satellite still happens to be flying. Besides, Jet Thunder is working on some retro carrier ops with the A-7 and a...Mirage III, I believe. What say the rest of you?

Eh, it sounds like most of their work is bug-squashing and polishing, so I say, do it right. DI's Hind was 1996 and Longbow 2 was 1997. What's another 6 months? Another year?

I thought most of the A-10C upgrades basically made a slower flying F-16, minus the A-A capability. I'm with Sundowner.pl; 90% of the info ought to be available. But perhaps the A-10A gets us high fidelity A-10 ops "right away", since a lot of that is done in LO:MAC?