asla36

Agreed, a full fidelity Su-25 would be more realistic to expect. It would also provide a more suitable module for most environments, since the Russian Navy doesn't really play as much of a role as the Air forces do in a potential conflict. They are mostly blocked off from the oceans by ice or NATO countries.

Ya' teasin' bastards!!! :D

GIMME! GIMME! GIMME!

I get the "developing one period out" thing. But the modern one is, with the exception of any opposition (FC3 aside), already quite developed out (when you include the things in development). So the only really new and interesting thing you can add is a new "checked box", something that provides a certain mechanic/capability that's unique and we don't already have. Jump-jets, older specialized SEAD aircraft, and Eastern designs come in to mind. When I buy a module, I look for something I can't already do with my existing ones. An exception can be made if one has similar capabilities, but is of the opposing coalition. The aforementioned "develop one period out" approach could, and would, work very nicely on a period of which we have comparably low numbers of aircraft of. The early-mid Cold War one for example. But that looks like it's getting better with the Mirage 3, MiG-19p, and F-4E (F-14 is in a hole new league and would contest nicely in the modern arena). But there still lies a gaping hole that was going to be filled by RAZBAM. But when looking at the modern period, there's trouble. The legal action doesn't work out nicely at all. Having a period that's very developed out on one side, but empty one the other, is not the most desirable of things. Especially when you look at multiplayer. It would also be nice to see a supporting cast of fitting maps and units. But these take a lot of resources, especially when you have to recreate a time period. For now we will just have to "make due" with what we already have.

*Cough* campaign *cough.* For me, I wouldn't make the F-16 a priority. I would prefer something that is not so close to a thing we already have/is in development. We are already getting the F/A-18C, which is very similar with it's systems and capabilities to the F-16Cs. Plus, we already have BMS doing that. I am not saying that i would be against making one, just that i would prefer other aircraft to be prioritized first. Aircraft that would "check a new box", for example the AH-1/64 (western attack helo, Gazelle is a light attack one), MiG-23 (Eastern fighter with BVR capabilities, full fidelity), Harrier (jump, gotta jump!). Luckily most of the aircraft on the list seem to be in development, or were at least. These are examples. Still, there's lot's more "box checking" be done. So in short, we are already going to get an F/A-18C. The "modern western fighter" box is checked. I would prefer a module like the Viggen, Harrier, or MiG-21bis. Something that would bring a completely new experience.

F-4E is already in development by Belsimtek. If we are gonna get the J, them it's also going to be by them.

All we're going to get out of this is a lot of warnings for spam and a lesson about classification. We'll find that just because you want something to become, doesn't mean it has or will do. Making modern aircraft is a very tedious and time-consuming process, there are systems upon systems waiting to be modeled with DCS accuracy. And this doesn't even touch the issue of getting sufficient data. Modern modules are only really possible with a military contract providing you with information. For example ED are only now starting to model the F/A-18C's systems, all the years have gone to doing research (new radar tech also), and that is only talking about a US plane... The Americans are unimaginably kind in publishing information, they are the only ones to do this with modern aircraft (and not with 5th gen, that's just impossible). Want a modern Russian module? Well we were going to get a Su-27 along with the F/A-18C, until ED got into legal trouble with the Russian government... So like probad said, this isn't at all how things get done.

Totally agree, they're absolutely useless for anything other than to get them to avoid. The only excuse can be made for the poor old Sabres, who don't have a RWR. I almost never use them, i only carry 2 in case there is a heat-jamming Su-25. They're also useful for a head-on, but only to get the enemy evading. Against anything that knows you're launching at them... I really don't see how this exploit is game-breaking. Of course it would be nice if it got fixed, but a jammable, chaffable, notchable AIM-9B really isn't that threatening. Especially because it is SAR-guided, meaning you can avoid it by launching and forcing the enemy to evade.

I almost exclusively use the radar for IFF, R3R's are just too unreliable against targets that actually know they are under attack. That is almost everything because i am not aware of any modern aircraft that doesn't have a RWR.

And we would need subs, preferably human controlled.

*sits back, grabs popcorn*

Dis gonna be gud! :)

Sweden was scaling back it's military and had a bunch of spare Gripens collecting dust not being used. So there was a proposal to "just get rid of them" by selling them for a tiny cost or even giving them away for free to nearby nations. At the time we didn't have an operating airbase, that was under construction. There were talks of getting them after it had finished, but it largely got forgotten about. Now we have NATO aircraft operating from our airbase. It's strange we have the funds to operate them, but currently we are spending them on radar stations, lots of radar stations. Maybe after the radar coverage and air-bases are satisfactory we will start looking for military aviation, I sure hope so. I guess it's better this way around, after all our country has been independent for only 26 years. Just sad seeing all the F-16s, F-18s, Eurofighters, and Hogs fly over knowing that they are not ours. Still better than seeing Russian fighters fly over, cuz that also happened some years ago. But now we have NATO interceptors in the Ämari AFB to keep them in their borders. :)

Su-27s, maybe... Though i would imagine that it would be difficult getting info on, but you would already have a head-start. MiG-29S or M, a vanilla MiG-29 or MiG-29A would be much more realistic to expect. I imagine that getting info would be a tiny bit easier than a Su-27, but still very difficult. The best hope for both would be to get info on the American Su-27 and MiG-29 fleets, the Americans tend to share. However I fear that ED has a bad taste in their mouths making Su-27s, legal action by the government doesn't feel nice. :( For now we can only hope, and hoping for a MiG-23, Su-15/22 would be more realistic. I imagine that these would be less sensitive topics for the Russian government, though the Su-15 may pose some issues with classification.

Talking about AI/player differences, y u AI can use chaff/flares separately on the MiG-21bis!?!?!? However both these are up to ED, if I haven't missed anything of course.

It seems to be a very common feature among Russian aircraft, with varying abilities of being overridden by the pilot. For example the Ka-50, Su-27 (if I remember correctly), MiG-29 (same as the Su) and so on have these types of systems as well. Western aircraft seem to be much more trusting on their pilots for safety.

You must be a time traveler... *insert back to the future reference here*

It sure would, ya' still have the Hunter? :D Our air force only has L-39s, and they aren't even allowed to carry weapons... I mean we were offered JA-39s for free!?!?!?:cry:

Nuff is in-nuff!!! I have had nuff of these moth-nuffin' release dates on this motha-nuffin' forum! 2 Weeks

There appears to be an option to be an option among MP servers to turn off the "special settings". This normally means more realism, for example having to align INS systems that require it. But the realistic option in this case has a checkbox checked. But on servers with the boxes automatically unchecked, with the intent of added realism, it goes back to the default unrealistic option. I don't know if this could cause unexpected issues, but could you please reverse this specific option? The rest are all fine, corresponding with the theme of other "special settings". I would greatly appreciate if you could do this small change. It would make playing on some MP servers just that tad bit more realistic. Thanks in advance for the reply!

I like the MiG-21bis. Sure, it has some issues... But as the only Eastern fighter I fly it has quickly become my main module for team RED. I love the technology of that time, mid Cold War, and enjoy aircraft from that period (Viggen, MiG-21bis, don't have the F-5 yet). It also provides an interesting challenge against modern things in multiplayer. So it has things to fix, but even in it's current state, it's an awesome module! With more accurate radar performance, hopefully, coming as the new ED radar tech is released. And the devs working on it, the future does look bright.

Great to hear!

Could that be a hint at something even more amazing coming in the future!?!?

Luckily that excuse will not last for long. If everything goes to plan, they'll get this fixed by Christmas.

I also seem to not be getting this issue.