Buren

I would immensely enjoy fiddling around in a C-130. For some reason, I can imagine Belsimtek doing it.

I really like your roadmap posts Silver_Dragon, although I wish there were citations/links to the posts where the given information came from within the main (first page) posts too. For example where is the post confirming (suggesting?) that Belsimtek is going to develop/is indeed developing the F-5E? Where do ED detail that they're planning a playable F-16? I don't mind if the posts are in russian side of the forums.

I had 'era' in my mind and more as a concept, not this looking at the year-of-production stuff which feels very superficial. "Modern" military aircraft in my little delusioned world means that the main driving principle behind aircraft development are guided munitions (=missiles), airborne electronics (=radar) and high speed. Korean War combat aircraft are basically WW2-era school of thought machines (=way of fighting is close range maneuvering combat with guns) only with jet engines and sometimes swept wings. Sure, early post-korean war machines were not really refined, their missiles were even worse (look at the dismal hit rate of missiles in vietnam) but they represent a paradigm shift and that what counts in my book. Sure, next year's model is going to be better than this or last year's model, but that was not my point.

Preferably anything post-Korean War.

Hints and speculation suggests that the other two airframes [besides the F-14] are the swedish Viggen and the F4U Corsair. The MiG-23 might be too similar to the '21 systems-wise and role, so the team might lean towards variety over a set theme [i.e. doing soviet-made warsaw pact aircraft]. The Su-17/22 is apparently not too popular, which is a shame. The MiG-25 is excessively mythicized IMHO. In practice it'd be too much restricted and not fun. I'd rather have a bomber (F-111, Su-24, A-6 etc.). The biggest problem I see with the Phantom... is what variant and block and timeframe to choose? Early Vietnam? Late Vietnam? Post-Vietnam? Navy? Marine Corps? Gun-nose Air Force? Without-Gun Air Force? AGM-65 capability? Wild Weasel? Modernized glass-cockpit Turkish/Greek/Japanese variant?

Thank you for the updates! Glad to see that the Mi-8 is not forgotten and development continues! :)

If I remember correctly, ED made an AC-130 (gunner-station only?) simulation strictly for the military. They didn't get permission to make a consumer product out of it, though.

Wonderful renders and nice infos about the systems development. Thank you for the update, team.

https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time

I'd also like to see some news regarding further Mi-8 development.

First, the "AG in mah Tomcat, or I won't buy it" stuff after the LNS announcement, now this... What is with this community, I can't even. The F-8 would be indispensable for the early (Rolling Thunder) Vietnam-era, ya know. Personally, I'd twist this around. I would not like to see aircraft which were prototypes or had only very small, basically pre-production series (i.e.: Ka-50, Su-25T). Or rather, I'd say, I'd like to see developer resources poured into aircraft, which were used/produced in big numbers and/or were fundamental in historical conflicts. You know, like the F-8 Crusader...

The F-14 Tomcat, the combat aircraft which probably had the most brutal BVR air-to-air capability yet, capable of engaging up to six targets simultaneously from 100+ nms, designed around it's Phoenix/AWG-9 combo to defend against massive cruise missile/bomber attacks, like the Warthog was designed around it's GAU-8 to effectively engage hordes of soviet armor... But wherez mah bumbz guise??? ... Voted third option, not critical for the '14, but if they have time/resources, then yeah, I don't mind, especially if it's such a deal breaker for many.

Iceland comes to mind...

Well, even though we have been hinted at the Tomcat for some time now, it still feels surreal. This gonna be good. Thanks, Leatherneck.

The other two are probably ww2 prop fighters. The LN facebook cover has a F4U Corsair cockpit hidden in the dark on the left side. (a late war Corsair would add to the Korean War planeset too) The Rising Sun suggests a japanese fighter. Most likely a mid-late war Zero?

The MiG-21 is the quintessential mainstay soviet Cold War era fighter. And finally something that's not a WW2/Korean or modern fourth generation aircraft... There's a demand for that kind of thing, just look at how many people play (and mod) the Strike Fighters series, which has a particular focus on the '60s and '70s. (well, probably not that much, but the community is (was?) very active) The -21's (as in, the aircraft) popularity can be measured from that the final LN product had it's genesis in a fan FC2 mod and that the team could expand to work on three other modules after release. (and notwithstanding the final unfortunate seperation, I can't imagine having a '60s/'70s cold war aircraft if it wasn't for the start-up of that one particular person... but nevermind, he has become a bête noire, although I still hope we'll eventually see that MiG-23 and Su-17/22 from the current team someday) On the other hand, the fact that there wasn't any "clickable" fast mover before it -- and since -- probably also contributed in no small way to it's success. But still, in my opinon, a Mirage III or F-5 could not have ensured this kind of achievement as a first project.

I'd expect it sometime after the conclusion of the current sale. In the past, announced modules were released after a short sale period.

Hehe, right. Maybe I should take a break. :lol: Well, some of you probably know what Cunningham's Law is. :D

I always knew this wasn't a Vietnam War variant. I never claimed that LN marketed it as one. I did not ask for a Vietnam War variant. This thread was started to convey my puzzlement over why do a lot of people believe that the currently available version is a Vietnam War variant, when it is not.

Truth. It is only my personal preference that I would really like to see a really fleshed out (post-WW2) era, not just a chip of many. But I realize that the latter has benefits in attracting more people (and developers by showing the engine supports many kinds of AC?) to the sim, even if it makes the whole concept a bit ... without substance in its infancy (I am not thinking of systems modelling here!). Let me underline though, that I really like what I see and hear in the previews, especially everything regarding the new engine and the Hormuz map. Fleshing out needs time, but there is perceptible progress. Hope there's going to be more AC/map developers with the engine maturing. I am all for ED/DCS being successful.

Please, Gentlemen, let me make myself clear that I have the highest respect towards Leatherneck Simulations for making an excellent module of a magnificent cold war aircraft, which served (and serves!) with great distinction in dozens of countries. I consider myself to be a great fan of the development team. Also I have absolutely no problem with the specific variant they chose to model, in fact it is my favourite one and the one which serves the simulation in it's current iteration the most. On the other hand, you are right that I am nit-picking about the apparent confusion on the forums regarding which variant served or not served in the historic Vietnam conflict. It was just a shout out. If the style left many with a way too pedantic impression, my deepest apologies.

I agree with your observations, but the fact that unrelated stuff are bundled in a "limited theater", as you put it, is the most striking for me. Hence my remark of the current state of the sim best described as a "theme park". Hopefully future developments will remedy this. Never mind, I thought there was more to simming than the memorization of the correct order of button pushing and joystick yanking. Have fun with your Air Quake then.

Still, I have a very bad taste in my mouth when I read, for example, in the Phantom who-wants-it poll thread something along the lines that "we got the mig-21 so we need the other vietnam war counterpart". And by miracle, if somebody would start to make a genuine vietnam war version, then would come the shout outs: "I wanna shoot mavericks", "where's my AGM-88?", "let's make a poll who wants the uberest, coolest, latest version", "how can I be competitive in MP, if I don't have the MLU german/greek variants with the AIM-120?". I have a problem with the people making inaccurate remarks, not with the developers of aircraft. Perhaps this is the greatest problem I see in DCS right now. Lack of coherence. It is a theme park filled with the latest variants of well known airframes, without regard of combat theater or timeframe. But that's another matter. People, who are actually well versed in the history of the aircraft they devote hundreds of hours to fly and study and don't make inaccurate remarks about them.

Excuse me Gentlemen, pure nit-picking here, but this has been bothering me, so... Why do people here say with seemingly so much self-assertiveness that we have one aircraft covered of the Vietnam war with the MiG-21bis? It is "bis" variant, people, not the F-13, PF/M or MF. The VPAF never had the former before '73, the end of (overt) American involvement. In fact, production of the bis didn't even start before '72. AFAIK Vietnam didn't get the bis before '79. It is like saying we have the german side covered of the Battle of Britain with the Bf-109 K-4. :( Same basic airframe, yes, but different capabilities and nuances and definitely not in the specified timeframe from a historical/grognard standpoint. Keep in mind, I am not asking/demanding new modules here, only the re-evaluation of an apparently collective approval of a false notion prominent on the forums here.

I asked because I have only seen the "top-down" gunsight on PVO aircraft. (Su-9, Su-15, MiG-25) Also, there's the emphasis on missile armament (no internal gun, outsized radar scope) - so a dedicated interceptor -- hence PVO -- variant came to my mind.