Raven (Elysian Angel)

This argument comes up again and again, and has been discussed to death already. "Competitive" doesn't matter one bit in a simulator: this is not Team Deathmatch where you'd need both teams to be balanced. ED - or any 3rd party for that matter - can't just pick and choose which aircraft they model. Sometimes an opportunity arises and then you can jump on it (or not). Sometimes you do a general survey of what is feasible and what not, and pick what's available. Sometimes you can look for information on your favourite aircraft, and see if there's enough available to model it properly. Perhaps the MiG-29 was an opportunity that simply presented itself. Or imagine this: a MiG-29 might be cheaper and a lot less draining on manpower to make than a Su-27. And as been stated before, this is a testbed to see how well modern (-ish) Russian fixed-wing will sell. Would you as a company go for the cheaper or more expensive option first? How much risk are you willing to take? It has been stated again and again that ED would L O V E to model a FF Su-27 (since it's going back to the roots for ED). Don't you think they would do so if they had the opportunity?

That scale seems off. Israel for example is a tiny country, much smaller than Belgium actually (about 2/3 the size).

This is probably the smartest approach

Jester (in the F-4) can also see through mountains. I'm pretty sure this is related to this exact issue, as HB tends to use DCS telemetry/parameters to model Jester (and then gets blamed if "he" does something dodgy). Just this week I was running from a pair of MiG-31s low in the Caucasus mountains flying at 200ft or lower with mountains all around me, while Jester was calling out contacts 40nm away...

Music to my ears! You and I both!

Because we already have a 30+ page thread on why the FF F-15C deserves a spot in DCS. We're just talking about completing its functionality - I for one don't plan on actually using it in DCS but I'd prefer the capability to be present.

As much as I like reading about work being done to improve suspension, I can't help but wonder where the rest of the information is... This feels more like a regular newsletter rather than a 'first newsletter of the year' as was being done in previous years

Especially the Lynx please. I'll never get over the feeling of how comfortable it is (IRL), after I had the chance to sit in one. Dimensionally and proportionally it almost seemed like it was tailor-made for me. A DCS FF Lynx would be an absolute dream! And yes to Sea King too so I can roleplay and make missions from the TV-series from the '90s!

Yes they can, and ED said they most likely will but they need to finish the legacy Hornet first.

This very much sums up the gist of why this module is so controversial for DCS, and eloquently at that. My first reaction when I saw that render in the trailer was: "why?".

*cough* Apache *cough* Mi-24 And UH-1, Mi-8, ...

Obviously it isn't, but I would want it to be included into the module for the very simple reason that the capability (and the wiring) was present. Besides, this is DCS so we are not constrained by RL considerations. I have never carried Zuni rockets on my DCS F-14 but I am happy the capability is there for those who choose to use it - as the RL bird was cleared and able to carry and use them.

Wags, I think it was you who put the tag on this thread... Thanks but that's not the point at all. I know the era you plan to model the F-15C after since I read the FAQ. My question was if there will be a proper way to model an early '90s bird, and how it differs from that era. To my understanding the cockpit stayed exactly the same (apparently RL pilots complained about that).

I loved the LOMAC F-15C campaign! The good thing is now that we will be able to edit in a FF Eagle into the FC3 campaign and fly it again

I use VR daily without issues in DCS, unless the movement of what I see doesn't correspond with the movement my head makes. If DCS freezes for example so there's a stationary image in my view that follows me around when I turn my head, my skin turns green indeed. Fairy nuff, and I'm happy for you that you can use it without problems.

It's also about basic functionality, such as the ability to give direct commands to Wingman 4, which is present in FC3 but not in full-fidelity modules.

Indeed, as they were quite important in that era. If I remember correctly, it was a Dutch AFB the F-15Cs who intercepted the pilot-less MiG-23 took off from, that eventually ended up crashing in Belgium.

I'm sure people are referring to the amount of depth the modules have. Few will refute the F-18 and F-16 being far less developed than the A-10C for example.

We all know politics vastly outweigh operational requirements (and frankly common sense too) when it comes to military procurements. Yes they can hire fewer map developers but they are also a company that needs to make money to survive. It's a very sad affair and it hurts ED in at least some capacity as well - including reputation.

There is 1 major difference here: those "sims" were built around that 1 aircraft and thus had to exist in an environment that made sense. At the moment at least, that is not the case for DCS. One can make an argument for this not even being the case for 4th gen, let alone 5th. Then again, NL alluded to the introduction of Fat Amy into DCS making a lot of other things possible, so I'll reserve full judgement until I see that realised. But we as customers have every right to be - extremely - sceptical and to not believe certain claims that are now made by ED. Yes I did have a lot of fun with say "F-22 Air Dominance Fighter" by DID and its successor "Total Air War" because they somehow managed to make a believable representation of low-observability (which for example EIDOS' "Joint Strike Fighter" failed miserably at) and they represented the cockpit and human-machine-interface reasonably well. But you can't exactly call taking out 12 Ethiopian Su-35s every single sortie even remotely realistic. DCS has set very different standards over the years, even though certain aspects of those '90s sims were well ahead of where DCS is even now. ED repeats ad nauseum that aircraft teams can't and won't work on maps, and while that is very understandable, those very aircraft teams can also be put to work on the Yak-52 I'd think and finally finish it...

I never heard a report about an F-14 carrying Zuni rockets into combat. Yet according to Heatblur it was able (and cleared) to do so, so I’m happy we at least have the ability to use them in DCS if we so desire.

Sure but that’s not the point, surely? If the aircraft as used in the USAF could do it, we should be able to in DCS. It simply increases the value of the module.

Yes, CCIP and CCRP with Mk80-series should be possible…