Evoman

It seems like you have not done any research before posting. Here is a good site that shows all the aircraft projects in development and planing. It is not up to date but it will give you a good idea of what is in the pipeline and will point you to the developer for a further research update. https://dr.squirrelboy12.com/DCSDevelopers/

The P-38 in one of those warbirds that are just as iconic as the P-47. So it is just a matter of free time for it to get done. But it might be while before they get some other projects in the pipeline pushed out.

This is precisely why DCS needs to add a better free aircraft that is more ideal at training new pilots. Something like the T-34 Mentor is what the Navy used for a long time to train new pilots. Then the T-2 Buckeye was the intermediate step up which has been replaced by the T-45. But as I had mentioned before in a different threat the T-2 would probably be the most ideal and realistic to get added for free since it is an older and simpler aircraft. Plus by it having a tail hook it would better prepare new pilots to land on aircraft carriers. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=265902

When I ran DCS off a 7200 RPM HDD it ran good overall but it still had a few hiccups once in a while just flying in the middle of nowhere. Then when I flew near enemy targets that had heavy defenses it really bogged my system down. Now the hiccups are gone and my system does not get so over whelmed trying to process everything. So I recommend moving DCS to an SSD.

A similar thread was started before but it was more to be able to walk out to your aircraft and do walk-around inspection then finally climbing into the cockpit for a more realistic and immersive experience. This feature would be awesome on the Super Carrier where you can go from the biffing room to your jet.

I am actually now curious as to what are your current system specs? The only similar experience I have had before was remedied by moving DCS from a Hard drive to an M.2 drive.

This has pretty much been my sentiment for a while. Most people will only be able to juggle a few airplanes at a time depending on their complexity. Therefore I no longer buy newer airframes unless I really want it. My last purchase was the Super Carrier and the F/A-18. The SC was a worth while investment as it will always be of use for Naval operations. But I have barley flown the Hornet because I am still trying to master the Tomcat. But I still fly the Viggen because its still fairly simple to remember to operate. Heck even though I have not flown the F-86 in a long time I still feel confident enough to hop in and figure things out again. But I would certainly be interested in buying some future maps or some other different types of aircraft that we currently don't have that are simple to operate like a C-2 Greyhound.

From what I have gathered FC3 might be at the end of further improvements with MAC taking its place in the near future.

If you were to look at their Facebook page which I had included a link to you would had seen that there are several recent updates about the status of the Pucaras development.

With RAZBAM currently working on the Pucara there is a high probability of Argentina getting added by the time its released. https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/

This is pretty much my same sentiment. I have no interest in any subscription model because I play games and sims off and on so it would be a waste of money for me in the long run. :thumbup:

I can certainly agree to those types of improvements that will make DCS better overall. Of which many of them are already currently being improved upon. It is just taking more time than what many here would like. There are things that are just going to take time to do. Like most things in life come at just the right time when the right elements come together the same thing could be said of game development.

Keep it as is! Face palm emoji here. Listen to this interview to have a better understanding of why things are the way they are. Pay in particular attention to what is said after 16:50.

Keep it as is! Face palm emoji here. Listen to this interview to have a better understanding of why things are the way they are. Pay in particular attention to what is said after 16:50.

It looks nice but as is there is already a long list of other aircraft people want badly. How ever if you can find a different 3rd party that is talented enough to develop it to DCS standards and obtain a license for it then it could be in DCS in 2 years.

I totally agree that an E-2B Hawkeye with a simulated radar but with a full fidelity flight model would still be very popular until they can get an accurate radar done. But I rather they do the C-2 Grayhound first because it could be fully simulated and open the door to cargo transport missions in DCS. And since the C-2 shares the same engines and wings with the E-2 a good amount of the work will already be done when they go to start development on the E-2.

You are forgetting about the Mig-15 and Mig-19. And that is not even including the Mig-23 Flogger that is currently in development by Razbam.

You hit on the nail! I get frustrated with all the new comers that don't do their research and assume DCS can be compared to just another AAA game. And let me not even get into the ones that can not understand why certain aircraft are not in DCS yet. To me the cost of each module is worth every penny because I understand the work that goes into developing an aircraft at this level of fidelity. To me $80 is very affordable compared to the price of an RC airplane which can run $240 for a 70mm EDF jet to $560 for twin 80mm EDF F-14. And thats not even including the batteries that can cost up to $100. And on top of that RC airplanes can only be flown at certain areas and in good weather. Oh and then there is always the risk of crashing and the airplane being a total loss. With DCS you can fly any time and without any risks. Its the cheapest flying experience around.

Your description of the types of aids you would like to have took me way back to my first flight sim experience as a kid which was ironically also with a Tomcat in the Top Gun game for the original Nintendo! It was the most difficult game I have ever played and finished because of my pure determination to be a great pilot some day. lol The most difficult things to do in the game were also refueling and landing. But they did provide some aids to know what to do. Even now when ever I do refueling and landings I still recall some of those early on experiences and frustrations I had. But that just gives me more determination. Check out the video clip below of how it was to refuel and land in the Nintendo's Top Gun.

With ED stating that they will no long be developing simplified modules for DCS, I think fully clickable modules are the only way to go nowadays.

ED had already stated a while ago that they will no longer be making FC3 level modules for DCS. We will just have to wait to see what MAC (Modern Air Combat) game/sim that ED is currently will offer.

That was very informative and well said. I will also like to add that I have also seen several other people questioning as to why HB decided to do the older A model instead of the more advanced D model. And I have had to explain that the A model was more widely used than even the B model. There were only 37 F-14D ever built new, plus 18 more that were F-14A conversions.

Its not that easy to just add any airplane to DCS even if Eagle Dynamics wants it bad enough. Before any aircraft can even be considered to be added to DCS they need a License and access to the full data that usually comes with being granted a License. In the Case of Russian aircraft it is further made more difficult by strict licensing controls by the Russian government. Plus ED is prohibited to develop a Russian module because its a Russian Company. See this podcast at 10:00 forward for more details. https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/

You left out the most important and main reason: Strict licensing controls by the Russian government. Plus ED is prohibited to develop a Russian module because its a Russian Company. See this podcast at 10:00 forward for more details. https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/

There are only two maps on my list. I can make do with the upcoming Syria map for most middle east scenarios. Vietnam Korea