Lithion

A-10s were designed to take punishment because they were designed to be in the thick of it. Big anti-armour loadout against big waves of armoured regiments. Soviets came up with an excellent layered air defense network for protecting their units. This is partly why the a-10 has been designed to absorb punishment. ANY jet thrives in a low threat environment. Though the A-10 especially so since it's built to be slow and sluggish. In a realistic all-out war, yes A-10s would be vulnerable with Tors and SPAAGs, but it's what they were designed for in a sense.

OT, but i noticed it because of the Nav system being so clear in the HUD

I've recently noticed this as well on the Viggen, with the jammer/dispenser being assymetric it'll induce some yaw

SpeedPalmTrees :prop:

What I really meant that it's been a hotspot, not an actual large scale war zone as per the examples you've given. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for any of those area's to get modelled into the game. I just hypothesized they chose NOT to model one of those area's because they could get flak for modelling politically difficult war zones. But that's the last I'll say from my point of view on it.. :D

Some may call that war profetering, a country may also be less forgiving in allowing such modelling if it's also dealing with an active civil war. ED wisely tries to stay out of politics (also for their ties with various government (sponsored) companies. It's been said in this thread dozens of times that the Straight of Hormuz has always been a hotspot (historically), with very relevant countries nearby who are in (indirect) conflicts at the moment. I think they've made a choice for a potential hotspot, which also allows us mission builders to model actual hotspots in the rural area's. Just my 2cts.:music_whistling:

The confidence in your team and the looks behind the curtain both gives me all the confidence in the world of Heatblur's ability to deliver. Have a merry christmas guys, 2018 is shaping out to be a good year!

Thanks for the update Wags, that's makes it a lot more understandable for me, I might've been hyping myself a bit too much for a 2.5 xmas :doh: Happy Holidays to you and other ED staff :)

Well that's thouroughly disappointing.. :noexpression:

Slight addendum: IRST is not only useful for stealthily using IR missiles (stating that you can fire&forget using IRST). You can lock and stalk someone with IRST, and then launch a Radar-guided missile. Your radar will automatically switch on and lock the target for STT(single target track). This way you can sneak up on someone and only launch your missile when in a better 'zone of no escape'. :thumbup:

Was just about the ask this question myself :D

AFAIK development on WW2 aircraft is continueing while the main teams work on the Hornet. The reluctance to release anything solid on the P-47 probably means they're still gathering the necessary documentation which prove instrumental on the release of the Jug. ED has repeatedly stated they won't start hyping planes which could very well prove impossible to realise without appropriate permissions/documentation.

That's my point really, the GEII would require special servers, but an unarmed military plane would just require an escort.

I feel like DCS needs full-fidelity unarmed planes like cargo and support planes, but non-military planes just feel out of place. With civ planes, people would need a separate, non-military server, as I can't imagine any Hornet or F-14 would be keen on defending a GE II, but would gladly lay down their virtual lives for escorting a C-130 flown by some guy(s). The result (imo) would be a more fractured MP with everyone trying to play their niche. Again, just my 2cts

IMO If they went the way ED did with the Yak-52: explain how this would benefit their company, and the design of future planes, I'd be a lot more understanding. Now I just feel disappointed in the overhyping this thread has seen/caused (the community to itself, to be fair). The people who normally wouldn't be interested in the GEII are ticked off, and some who would've considered it are now disappointed in the announcement. +1

Since i had nothing better to do: I can dicern 2 sets of parralel white lines in the thicker white line, indicatating II II or 4 for that matter. Can anyone speculate further on that in the combination with Super, Bird and the render photo we have been teased with? I'd almost say it would indicate a tricycle landing gear with dual rear wheels, on a runway, indicating a heavy bomber of sorts. Although that is very much speculative :music_whistling:

A super bird huh? I guess this is Supermarine Seagull confirmed ;)

The man gives you a hand and you take his arm :music_whistling: Cheers for the look behind the curtains Wags!

Bump, would want this as well, helps a lot with refueling training missions and the like.

The 2.5 merge has always been about merging 2.xx engine tech with Caucasus map, for a unified DCS, not about adding revolutionary new techniques. I'm sure once the big merge has been finished, they'll look into what they can improve when everything's on the same page. :)

Thank you for the excellent update letter ED, it's amazing to read up on the history of before I joined on this crazy train, and the progress which has been made since then. One area which the letter did not touch on was the level of communication to the community, which has also received numerous mini updates :smartass:. Keen to see where the ride will take us but I sure like the sound of the coming stops. :pilotfly:

I fully agree, this map can facilitate so many different scenarios, really excited!

+1 ED has really listened to posts like this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=193942 from the community. Thanks devs, this makes the wait very enjoyable!

Looks like we're getting it, courtesy of Wags: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13 Since Wags has included current and future planned weapons, this thread really has no further use. Could a mod kindly close this thread?

I respectfully disagree, I prefer to have as many options to me as theoretically possible. Just as how the entire Su-25t campaign is fictional, say we come up with a fictional F-14 campaign where the Iranians found a clever way to mass-produce AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. You could defend your airspace from afar as a kind of missile-armed AWACS with your giant radar, against Tu-16's and other primitive bombers. They would fire these Phoenix in pairs to counter their crude (mock Iranian) unreliability, and thus want to strap as many to the F-14s as possible. In mission building, you work with the tools you have, I say let us have as many as possible.