cailean_556

I've said this to both NineLine and BIGNEWY on occasion where we've spoken - DCS needs to rein in its timeline. Preferrably 1946-2000. Just having a date range like that does 3 things: 1. This date encompasses the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, all major post-WW2 conflicts (minus the GWoT and ISIS) and allows for some of the more advanced weapons and systems (like the R-77 and AIM-120s) 2. It gives developers a robust timeframe to select aircraft to simulate - none of which upset the apple cart *that* much... 3. It manages the expectations of players as to what aircraft could be in DCS, and what can't. This whole ED/RAZBAM thing is extremely disappointing - from both sides. That has cost us, the customer, among many other things: a MiG-23. Not a Flanker, but still a very iconic Soviet-era fighter/interceptor. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has comparable info and could make a MiG-23 module for DCS but we had one right on our doorstep, but business and personalities got in the way - and the customer lost. With India (finally) retiring their MiG-21UPG (Bison), and their MiG-27MLs having been retired long before that, maybe somewhere down the line, we'll see a UPG and an Indian-based MiG-27 in future - before the documentation gets officially 'archived'. If the Fitter is coming to DCS, REDFORs frontline attack aircraft capability is going to increase substantially. A MiG-27 would only bolster that. Now...back to the Flanker... The 'Russian security laws' argument is a curly one. It sort of stops at the MiG-29A, and in how ED have discussed what their sources and resources are for developing the F-35... The MiG-29A exists so, clearly, there's a way and means to produce Russian-based modules. I suppose, for Russian aircraft, it comes down to what, and how old it is. And, of course, money. If there is any company that has enough 'acquired knowledge' to develop even a reasonably accurate full-fidelity Flanker, it's ED. They literally built their business on the back of the Flanker series. The sensitivity of high-end Flankers and their capabilities are understandable from Russia's point of view, which is why I believe they (the Russian government) wouldn't blink at a late 80s Su-27S, and will be equally as uncaring at the prospect of a 20-year-old export Flanker variant that, after modernisation upgrades in recent years, probably doesn't exist anymore in reality (i.e. the Su-30MKK were either replaced by MK2 or J-11BS - or were upgraded beyond the original standard to the point what they were and what they are now is chalk and cheese in comparison - speculation on my part, I haven't done the research to verify that). I am very familiar with the Codename Flanker mod, and a few members of their team. Believe me - if I had the money to burn, they'd be funded in full. I didn't win the $8 million lottery last night, so I just have to keep on trying... But once I do - I'd be happy to part with $2M (the assumed cost of developing a module) to bring a Su-30MKI to DCS. As for improving global international relations...that's the easy part. All we need is either hyper-advanced aliens to reveal themselves and say they want nothing to do with us if we keep doing what we're doing, or a being calling itself 'God' needs to reveal itself and bring its followers into line. So, of the options available, what livery would you like to see on your Su-30MKK?

With the DCS: Top End Australia map and the RAAF assets they were developing for it, we almost had a 737 model that could have been modified (by ED or Check Six) to replicate a civilian airliner... With them folding before anything was even developed, sadly that window has closed. For Air Policing/Interception missions, civilian air traffic in areas where it should be, is a must. I try to add things like this for immersion in my missions using the Yak-40 and An-26 mostly. Even if they just stripped the E-3 of its radar and defensive system fittings, that's a 707... Ironically, a 707 is also used as a tanker by some countries... A 737 and/or an A320 model aren't that hard to come by, or even making one themselves wouldn't be *that* hard, considering. Doesn't need a highly detailed interior, doesn't need to be fitted and ready for flyable module quality - just needs to pass an exterior look as you pull up next to it after an intercept, or if it's squawking 7500. Even if you couldn't actually control when or where they appeared outside of allowing them to do so and where they'd take off from/land at - still more immersive than...KC-135s in civilian airliner liveries...

Not that I have come across needing it in any of my missions yet, this would be very handy to have as an ME capability.

Thank you for raising that. Unsure if you realise, but you very conveniently left out the first sentence of my post which addressed literally this. When I say balance (technically I said imbalance), I mean in terms of options - both aircraft and capability, not equality. US weapons and systems still retain a qualitative edge in most areas of performance. Thank you for adding the modules I had forgotten about (particularly the Mirage F-1M and F-104). I've seen no official mention of the Su-17. I remember seeing something about a picture where the silhouette was a Fitter, but I've seen nothing since that suggested a Su-17 was happening. If it does, great, that's a pretty powerful AG aircraft for REDFOR to work with and I welcome it. I would also discount the "MiG-21bis 2.0", I know very little about the scope of it other than it's something Mag3 said they'd do after the Corsair - but unless they're going to add LanceR or Bison capabilities, I see it as more of a remaster (ala F-5E) not a 'new' module. Even with your list, for every 'REDFOR' plane, there's still practically 3 'BLUFOR'. I also discounted anything not "jet age" - the WW2 planes are of little use in that context. I will also acknowledge @Kang in agreeing that 'REDFOR/BLUFOR' are very much in the eye of the mission maker. When I say REDFOR I don't necessarily mean "bad guys": I perhaps wrongly assumed REDFOR/BLUFOR is universally understood. I suppose I could just as easily say NATO/Warsaw Pact or NATO/CIS in a post-Soviet setting... I admit the Flanker is, despite me growing up very much in a 'Western culture' country, hands down my favourite aircaft. And the two-seaters? Whether it's the Su-27UB, Su-30, J-11BS or J-16, something about the profile and the aesthetics commands my attention. I don't know what it is, but they just speak to me in a language I didn't even know I knew. However, I will very much deny it being a "I want/would like 'x' aircraft' in DCS". I do want a Flanker in DCS, absolutely, but not simply because I want it for me. The Flanker is an iconic, recognisable aircraft with a reputation of being formidable - for DCS not to have a full-fidelity Flanker module before an F-35A 5th Gen is...regardless of reason...disappointing. If it were up to me, I'd want a Su-30MKI... Capable of carrying Russian, Israeli and Indian munitions, a hybrid mix of Western and Eastern technologies, 3D thrust-vectoring, very powerful radar and true all-weather day/night capability. Can also be used as a stand-in for the Su-30SM/SM2/MKA/MKM. The ultimate Flanker... THAT is my 'wish'. That, however, is unlikely. Not zero by any means (I had our chances of a Typhoon and an F-35 - and a Rafale - as 'zero'), but low... I will caveat that by saying there is an exceptional mod that adds the Su-30SM/MKI/MKA and MKM by Codename Flanker however, being a mod, it's not official and when there are updates...mods break... But even if that mod was to become an official module (and I'd buy it so fast the bank would have whiplash - if it were up to me, it would be an official module), I still feel the Su-30MKK has a place in the DCS ecosystem - it's different enough (no canards, no thrust vectoring, less capable strike capabilities - compared to the MKI, different radar) to still stand out and capable enough to still give those who fly against it a reason to be concerned. The desire for the Flanker for DCS is about options and multirole capability in a PvP setting, and a PvE/Single Player setting - particularly when it comes to the Su-30MKK (unless you have a suggestion of an equally capable modern multirole 'REDFOR'/Warsaw Pact/Eastern aircraft from around 2000-2015?). In terms of full-fidelity modern multirole aircraft modules, Red/Warsaw/CIS side have only the JF-17, while for the same timeframe (2000-2015) Blue/NATO have the F/A-18C, F-16C, F-15E, AV-8B NA and F-14B currently, as well as a full-fidelity F-15C, Typhoon, Rafale (eventually) and F-35 in future... In any Dynamic Campaign, or any post-2000s scenario, a player (or mission maker) opting to use Red/Warsaw/CIS full-fidelity aircraft is unable to operate in a multirole sense, with equivalent capabilities (except for the workhorse JF-17). No SEAD, no all-weather day/night, no precision strike, no ECM (except the MiG-21 - which isn't exactly modern in the post-2000s), no TGPs, no active-radar homing AAMs, no stand-off weapons. Even flying as BLUFOR/NATO against REDFOR/Warsaw/CIS - you're either flying against aircraft 30 years older than what you're flying, with equally older weapons systems, or you're flying against aircraft the same as yours to mimic that Peer vs Peer conflict (because there's no other real options) OR you're having to fly in/against AI (not as big an issue in PvE or Single Player) or modded aircraft. At the very, very least, I'd love to see the Lock On-era Su-30 AI model be updated - I think we can all agree on that, right?

When I talk of imbalance, I don't mean giving each side weapons with the same range or capabilities. I mean in terms of options. With the reveal (perhaps unintentional, but still) that a Rafale is coming to DCS, it appears that yet another BLUFOR aircraft is entering the DCS hangar. That's great news for DCS, especially for BLUFOR pilots, but leaves REDFOR feeling unloved (regardless of the many, legitimate reasons why). The BLUFOR line up looks like this (in no specific order): -F-100D Super Saber -Tornado IDS -F-15C (AIM-120 and AIM-9X capable) -F-35A (AIM-120 and AIM-9X capable, GBU-12/31/32) -Typhoon (Meteor, IRIS-T, AIM-120 and AIM-9L capable) -Rafale (meaning MICA capable, at a minimum) -C-130 (Release soon) -A-7E -A-6E -A-1H Skyraider -Kfir C2/C7 The REDFOR line up, as far as I am aware, currently looks like this -MiG-29A (Released in EA at time of writing) -Su-25A Grach (ED has hinted, but not committed to/announced officially) With the Dynamic Campaign coming to DCS in the near future (release still TBC), anyone wishing to play 'REDFOR' in a Dynamic Campaign is going to either be a) relying on more sophisticated AI-only aircraft (such as the Tu-22M3, Su-24MR, Su-34 and [graphically hideous] Su-30) for much of its high-performance SEAD, anti-ship and all-weather strike capabilities, b) being unable to undertake particular mission sets (such as SEAD and all-weather strike) with the full-fidelity modules they have or c) relying on Flaming Cliffs 3-level aircraft modules - particularly the Su-25T and Su-25 - to conduct any form of guided/precision strikes or SEAD themselves. REDFOR needs a Cold War-era Flanker. The most obvious and "quick win" Flanker for ED to produce as a full-fidelity module is the Su-27S Flanker-B. It is essentially to the FC3 Su-27, what the MiG-29A Fulcrum is to the FC3 MiG-29A: A full-fidelity module of the same aircraft, but with better presentation. The Su-27S was capable of unguided ground-attack - they were, by treaty, later 'upgraded' to Su-27P standard to remove their ground attack capability. If the MiG-29A Fulcrum was well-received, a full-fidelity Flanker is going to exceed that. REDFOR needs a modern Flanker. The Su-27S will scratch the Cold War itch however, when you place the MiG-29A and a hypothetical Su-27S into a more modern scenario - they show their age against post-2000s BLUFOR AMRAAM-capable (or equivalent) jets. The most capable/advanced full-fidelity 'REDFOR' jet currently is the JF-17 which doesn't even belong to a major 'Cold War' nation. To compete against BLUFOR in this manner, REDFOR needs a more modern Flanker. To this end, I propose the Su-30MKK. -It is an early 2000s-developed Flanker. -It is a non-canard (i.e. not MKI-derived) Flanker that doesn't have thrust-vectoring ("simplified" development). -Uses the N001VE Mech radar (an export version of the Su-27s radar, modified for China specifically - for use with R-77) -Despite being a Chinese-specific variant, it uses predominantly Russian weapons systems already in DCS. -It is a two-seat Flanker intended for both air dominance and ground/sea attack, a REDFOR option for a Strike Eagle. -Utilises R-73, R-27, R-77, Kh-29T, Kh-31, Kh-35 and Kh-59 in addition to Russian unguided and laser/TV-guided ordnance. -It is capable of in-flight refueling - a first for a full-fidelity Russian-designed REDFOR aircraft. -By having a second seat, it enables the development of an AI 'backseater' - which alone justifies a 'new module' and not a 'modernised' old one. -It is capable of using and firing the AA-12/R-77 - making it the first full-fidelity REDFOR aircraft capable of doing so. -The Su-30MKK is the base model for variants of the Flanker used by Vietnam, Uganda, Venezuela, Indonesia, China (obviously) and Russia. -Russia uses the Su-30M2 (which is a 'Russianised' Su-30MK2 - a more advanced variant of the Su-30MKK) in its air force as a lead-in trainer. Why I see the Su-30MKK as being more viable than the more advanced Su-30MKI (or an MKI-derviative) is because it's an older export aircraft, its systems are less capable than the Su-27SM, Su-35S, Su-30SM/SM2, Su-30MKI, Su-30MK2, J-11BS or J-16 - but it still provides options that aren't available to other REDFOR modules based on its intended role - air dominance and strike. It would draw massive interest due to having an AI-backseater (which ED is no stranger to, for helos - and ED could draw from Heatblur's experience in fixed-wing AI-backseaters to expedite development). The aircraft could be used (by players) as a stand-in for countries that use MKI-derived Flanker variants, including Russia. While, "pound for pound" it might not be the exact equal of post-2000s BLUFOR aircraft, it is certainly a dramatic step-up in terms of full-fidelity capability for REDFOR aircraft enthusiasts. Thank you for reading.

With a "Cold War Germany" map being "soft announced" (shown in videos, publicly acknowledged by Wags in his most recent QnA, but not 'officially announced') the F-105 definitely has one of its "homes" coming to DCS. Hopefully a dev will pick it up, in time.

Are those 20mm or 30mm sparrows, sir?

It's definitely down in the weeds - I agree. But ED has made tweaks "for the sake of entertainment value" on some modules, or has supported said tweaks, while also clutching the mantle of realism and dismissing customer (for the sake of entertainment value) requests on others. NineLine and BIGNEWY have said, probably until they're blue in the face (not throwing shade here fellas, just stating a fact) that the F-5E variant modelled in DCS (the F-5E-3) cannot have these highly requested additions because the aircraft never had those things in reality - or at least words to that effect. The MiG-21bis in DCS can carry older missiles that only worked with an older radar - which allows it to simulate very early Cold War MiG-21s - at least in terms of weapons. The MiG-21bis can also carry nukes in DCS (though they did to this in real life too, but DCS doesn't want nukes...but allowed them anyway...). The C-101 can carry the Sea Eagle missile in DCS. In reality, only trials were done in this aircraft - by ONE country. It was never adopted. But it was added "for fun". The F-16C can carry 4 AGM-88 HARMs. USAF jets (which we're reminded our F-16 is modelled after) never did so, outside of trials. This was added - and stated as such - due to high demand from the DCS community. The Mirage 2000C can carry the DDM - a system only ever used on the Mirage 2000D. But it was added because, in theory, it could be. The JF-17 (which is modelled after a Block I) can be fitted with an IFR probe, which Block Is never really had - that was a capability added to the Block II. Eventually, all JF-17s would have IFR probes (that was the intent in reality, unsure if they did this by equipping the Block Is or replacing them with Block IIs - or if they've even finished). So the decision was made to retroactively add the IFR probe, as an *option*. Which only reinforces my point re: the F-5E and an IFR probe. We can either go down with the sinking ship of realism, or loosen our grip to enable aircraft modules get interesting (or highly requested) capabilities that value add to the module, and to DCS. And I'm not just talking the F-5 here. There's plenty of scope (and demand) for things like AIM-120 capable F-4s. Upgraded Su-27s (like a Su-27SM - Deka did make the J-11A variant for the Flanker and ED adopted it) hell, even variant upgrades to the F-16 - like a Block 52 with CFTs (the Blackshark III and A-10C II Tank Killer do this exact thing). Realistically, the F-5E-3s used by the US could be fitted with an IFR probe, they just never needed or wanted to - but they were plumbed that way at the factory. Just in case. Realistically, at the time the F-5E-3 was flying, there were other F-5Es flying that had the capabilities listed in my original post that the -3 lacked (but could also realistically be fitted with, even now - there's a whole company devoted to this). From a gameplay perspective (Wags has, just recently, described DCS as a 'simulation game') an extra pair of IR AAMs, an IFR probe definitely adds to the entertainment factor without completely dominating PvP servers (not that I personally care about that aspect, but it's still a consideration) and still retaining the same AN/APQ-159 radar, the same engines, the same flight controls. It's the same plane. (EDIT: Wags also recently stated that this USAF F-5E-3 was actually meant to be a Swiss F-5E...which the US bought back for aggressor duties - which blurs the lines of this jet actually is even more). Even if they decided to add the Maverick capability, it's a display screen (that in reality can be unscrewed, unplugged and changed out) and an stores selector panel with an extra position (which can also be changed out/rewired by maintenance staff). Still the same jet under the hood. As someone who owns the legacy F-5E module who has not yet upgraded (because I don't see the point just now, I'm okay with the graphical representation of my current F-5E - I'm sure I'll upgrade eventually but it's way, way low on my DCS priority list), if they added these options then it's a compelling carrot to dangle in front of me that will force me to at least reconsider whether I commit to the Remaster, or remain intent on purchasing the MB-339 when I have the time and money to do so, or another jet. And it may just sway others who don't have the F-5E to buy it also. If ED choses not to (as they've repeatedly stuck to their guns on this in the past) then so be it. I still have an F-5E - the module that brought me to DCS in the first place. But TL;DR is this: Allowances, for the sake of fun, have been made in other modules. A module is coming out - in a year, supposedly - that will be chock full of allowances. And that's okay. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, or that it won't be fun to fly. Or that it won't 'feel real'. But why is the F-5E any different to any of the aircraft I've listed? Especially now.

The Swiss Air Force is strictly anti-air/air policing, I don't believe they have a proper ground attack capability at all now (the Hawker Hunters were their CAS aircraft, after they were retired they had nothing). Tigers were too expensive to outfit apparently, and the funding for AG weapons for the Hornets (one of the reasons they were acquired in the first place) was reallocated. I'm not sure if an AG capability will be re-adopted when they get their F-35s.

Introduction I know that 'in reality', the specific subject aircraft was very limited in what it could, and could not, carry. I know that in US service the F-5E was used mainly as an aggressor for DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) or similar roles. I know that the F-5E we have in DCS is the F-5E-3. If we're going to hoist the flag of realism real high, then the F-5E-3 we have in DCS shouldn't be used for actual (as far as DCS goes) combat. However, I will point this out: the remaster module is called the "F-5E Remaster" and the (now deprecated) original module is also called the "F-5E Tiger II". There's no mention of the "F-5E-3 Tiger II/F-5E-3 Remaster". With that in mind, hear me out. Improvements and capabilities have been added to modules before due to high demand, or because it suited, in the past. Point I'm making is the precedent of adding capabilities to aircraft that didn't have them previously is there. Looking at you, Ka-50 Blackshark III and A-10C II Tank Kiler. To be fair, I've seen more people asking for an extra pair of AIM-9s, AGM-65 Mavericks and an IFR probe on the F-5E for nearly a decade than I have for an upgraded Ka-50, or the F-35. But I'm not on the forums or Discord often. So considering 'high demand' was one of the reasons cited for the development of the F-35, it stands to reason 'high demand' here might be worth a bit more consideration. The F-5E represents a very broad range of aircraft that were tailored to meet the needs of their specific customer nations and/or were modified by their customer nations to suit their needs once delivered. They were 'modular by design' before being modular was a corporate buzzword, to cater for differing requirements (or incentives) among US allies. Local modifications, modifications fitted during the build based on customer specifications... Even today, some countries still use F-5s as lead-in fighter trainers - though admittedly far more advanced than the module we have in DCS. 4x AIM-9s Adding an extra pair of AIM-9s to the F-5E is probably the "easiest" addition to add for ED. And, like the F-16 carrying 4x AGM-88s, there's evidence that this was trialed though not widely adopted - due to the cost-benefit of adding extra drag to a light, underpowered airframe - something DCS pilots don't worry about all that much. The aircraft already knows how to fire AIM-9s. To facilitate the missiles (both in reality and in DCS), the outer pylons need to be fitted with a missile rail (likely a LAU-7 given the timeframe, although they could very well have been LAU-100/101s that were taken off the wingtips - outside my wheelhouse). I am assuming the pylons themselves probably needed to be modified/rewired - something that isn't required in DCS. In terms of PVI, the only extra thing the pilot needs to do is flip the outer pylon arming switches, in addition to the wingtip switches. I can't say for certain the sequence of firing but given I've read that the pylons were super draggy (not unlike the dual R-60 rails on the MiG-21) it would make sense if the missiles on the pylons were fired first (to reduce drag), then the wingtips. IFR Probe The IFR probe is another "easy" addition - and while even the -3 never had them fitted, the airframe was absolutely capable of having it fitted because that's how they were designed from the factory. It requires a model of the IFR probe to be made (a fairly "simple" asset to make, considering) and then requires the coding in the background to facilitate aerial refueling. The probe itself could be an optional extra in the Mission Editor/Arming menu. Tiger Century Aircraft (Tiger Century Aircraft) might be a great place to start for advice, they've assisted several countries with upgrading their F-5 fleets - Chile, Brazil, the Philippines, Taiwan. They even have some basic info on their (modern) system for quad AIM-9s (though I'm unsure if they were the original developer of the system - still handy to know) here: Products — Tiger Century Aircraft. I'm not demanding ED do the above (though I would honestly like it if they decided to...please?), but I'd be very surprised if any of the coders and artists working for ED, being used to churning out (relatively speaking) modules and assets month in and month out, couldn't achieve these "simple" additions in their sleep. In addition to the radios and INS that ED is considering adding, if they can get documentation (as per NineLine), the above additions expand the capability of the module in DCS, enable it to simulate the aircraft of multiple other countries (in and around the locales we have, or are getting) and also provide incentive to purchase the Remaster for those not seeing the benefit (other than enhanced graphical fidelity). AGM-65B Mavericks The addition of AGM-65 Mavericks was fielded as early as the early 80s. This is where the 'mighty' F-5E-3 falls down because the display used in the -3 lacks the ability to show TV signals - which kills the -3's ability to use Mavericks. HOWEVER... With a not-insignificant-effort on behalf of the 3D artists, and much like the nuclear weapon operation panel installation and removal of the main-gear doors that occurs when a nuclear bomb is fitted to the MiG-21, we could go from the 'normal' F-5E-3 cockpit: to this, if Mavericks are fitted to the aircraft (Taiwanese F-5E or F-5F with the AN/APQ-159-1 or -2 display, if it's an F): That particular display allows the F-5E to aim and fire Mavericks. The dimensions appear extremely similar between the -1 and -3 radar displays and the cockpits are practically identical, save the display and External Stores selector. Moroccan F-5Es were rocking IFR probes and AGM-65B Mavericks during the West Saharan War in the late 70s/early 80s... The External stores switch (which you may notice also has an extra position compared to the one in DCS currently) is turned right 1 place to 'AGM-65', the radar screen switches to display the Maverick seeker image, the missiles "warm up" (I think they actually cool down - don't they?) then displays the picture and the radar controls double as the controls for aiming and locking the Maverick... Ta-da! F-5E with Mavericks. So "simple", right? "Simple" because it's really anything but, but it's easier than making an entirely new F-5 module... Alternatively, the Maverick cockpit/capability could be an ME/Rearming menu option. While, realistically, such a modification to a F-5E-3 would take days, if not weeks, in DCS we don't have to worry about that aspect. Likewise, given the 'modular' nature of the F-5E in reality, if a country still using F-5Es today were to buy an F-5E-3 'back in the day', it is not outside the realms of plausibility that they could 'upgrade' that F-5E-3 to a standard that fit their needs relatively easily (TCA existing as a company is proof of that - but for more modern variants of the F-5, obviously). As far as I can tell, AGM-65s can be carried on either wing pylons - allowing up to 4x AGM-65s: a stupidly heavy and impractical load for a very small plane - but the F-16 can carry 4x AGM-88s in DCS so... They only seem to be the TV-guided AGM-65B versions (unsure about Laser or IR) - at least in the 80s. Conclusion What a proposal like the above has going for it over adding a late 90s/early 2000s F-5 with BVR and TGP and EW and all that jazz (which would rightly be a different module - namely an F-5EM, or an F-5E TIII, or F-5S) is that, despite the module subject being a -3, the additional capabilities were not outside the realms of F-5Es around the timeframe of this particular aircraft. 'F-5E Tiger II' is what it says 'on the box', after all. It's the same radar, the same engines, the same cockpit layout (except the Maverick specific items if using Mavericks) and the work required by ED is comparatively minor considering the work that went into module upgrades like the Ka-50 and A-10C. Is this, or some similar request, in high demand? There are many, many instances of this request dating back nearly 10 years. Would more people consider buying the F-5 if this were to become a reality? You tell me. Who'd buy the Remaster, or the module if they don't own the original, if it came with the option of quad AIM-9s, AGM-65Bs and IFR? Thanks for coming to my TED Talk...

Thanks for taking the time to reply NineLine, I know it must have been a slog to read. Glad to know - in terms of both the mod teams and older aircraft... So when will ED turn their attention to a Gloster Meteor and an Me-262?

@NineLine I've only just noticed you've moved this thread to 'Chit-Chat' (fair enough, it wasn't really F-35 specific anyway). I just wanted to clarify more clearly a couple points I guess I was trying to ask but doing a terrible job in doing so. I may have come across as combative or hostile, that's not the intent - I just genuinely want to understand. You stated elsewhere in another thread that if a third-party can demonstrate they can do the research and do the work (as the ED team have with the F-35 development) that ED would consider their offering. Does that mean that, for example, the Codename FLANKER team (I'm not affiliated with them at all, I just focus on the Su-30 because it's a personal favourite of mine and it ticks a lot of boxes that 'REDFOR' need to counter the increasingly capable BLUFOR module offerings) could approach you, with their mod, and essentially go "Hey, here's our Su-30 mod. We want to get this up to DCS module standard and we're using the same form of sources to inform development as you are for the F-35" and presto, Su-30 FF module in DCS? I know it's more complicated than that, but long and short of it? ED may not have lowered the standard of information it desires, but it has seemingly expanded what it considers reliable sources of information and will apparently defer to educated guesses where information isn't reliable based on gained understanding. If that same mentality is not now also afforded to other aircraft, isn't that a tad hypocritical? Previously, lack of documentation on implementation has been cited as a major reason (among others, such as certain national laws that prohibit ED from developing modern Russian aircraft) for a module not being a possibility. Yet that exact same lack of documentation/information is either already occurring, or will occur, regarding PVI workflow, capabilities and weapons/systems integration (not to mention stealth, EW and other characteristics) of the F-35 - and you have assured customers that the team will essentially make educated guesses using online sources, pilot interviews, airshow footage and computer software calculations for things they can't get info on. "The F-35 may not be 100% accurate, but it will be the most accurate representation of an F-35 in a commercial simulator" - or words to that effect. On the other end of the spectrum, for aircraft that don't have a lot of supporting documentation due to the age of the aircraft or the way the withdrawal from service of that aircraft was handled, does that mean that ED is going to be more lenient regarding sources for their development (aircraft such as the A-6M Zero, the Gloster Meteor or Messerschmidt Me-262, F-102/106, F-105, Vampire, Venom, EE Lightning, Mirage III, those sorts of planes)? High-fidelity mods, such as the A-4E and Su-30, might not have access to all the information - but they can certainly make as good, or an equal, approximation of their subject as ED can with their F-35. Imagine what they could accomplish if given the DCS SDK instead of just modding. I don't disagree that DCS needs to expand but there's a significant gap between mid-era Gen 4 and Gen 5, not to mention 'REDFOR' only has one aircraft that could be considered Gen 4, and it's a fart in the wind vs an F-35. If ED itself has its hands tied for whatever reason, surely it can guide/recruit others to do what it can't?

That's a fair assumption. However, there is a modding group that already have a fairly convincing approximation of a Su-30 that could possibly be made a third-party - assuming the rules for third-party modules are changed to allow for this kind of development.

If what you've just cited/written is even remotely true then yeah, I'd say the F-35 could go cold and hunt MiGs using passive sensors. Don't forget the F-35 uses data fusion, so if its datalinked I'm pretty sure (no sources, I just recall something about it - could be wrong) it doesn't even need to turn its own radar on to launch an AMRAAM. This is not unlike the MiG-29 and Su-27/33s ability to use their IRST to locate an engage targets without turning on their radar - only much, much more capable. It might be ridiculous if you're pitting an F-35 against Cold War-era aircraft, but that's pretty much the USAF vs most other non-modernised airforces in reality.

I can't answer your question, but what I will say is that if they don't at least utilise him as a resource, it would be a missed opportunity.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Doing a 5th Gen as the "first module to use this form of documentation" is a bit of an odd choice but I suppose it demonstrates what can be done. What I am saying though is: If you can do an F-35 based on airshows, pilot interviews and video footage then there's no reason why an F/A-18E/F, a Mitsubishi A-6M Zero or an F-16A ADV can't be done. Pandora's box might be opened, but I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. If we had the aircraft roster of War Thunder but in DCS (i.e. not 'competitive PvP only' on small/fictitious maps), I'd be okay with that. I think everyone would have at least one of their favourite aircraft in DCS then. There of course need to be ground rules around what can/can't be developed (no X-Wings, or TIE Fighters for example) but more diversity in aircraft and variants of aircraft isn't bad. Developing an F-35, but not allowing other aircraft to be simulated using the same or similar sources, is.

I'll get the important part out of the way first: Developing a 5th Gen aircraft using the less "traditionally cited" forms of documentation (i.e. public, open-source media) to develop a full-fidelity module can only be seen as a relaxation or "downgrade" of the documentation required (at least by ED) to develop a full-fidelity module for DCS. Does this mean that, seeing as ED is doing it with the F-35, other third-parties or even ED itself can now make modules that it has otherwise said that documentation does not exist/not complete enough to develop a module? For example, part of the reason a Su-30 module (yes, I'm aware there is a pretty-well-put-together mod available) or Su-27 module does not exist has previous been explained away as not having enough documentation to simulate the aircraft. Would ED allow other aircraft to be developed into modules for DCS, using the same form of sources cited as being used in the development of the F-35 module? There are many, MANY examples of Su-30s at airshows and technical demonstrations etc... And, given this, does this also yield some hope that other aircraft already in DCS can receive upgrades to their systems and/or weapons? A great first-use test-case would be the "new" F-5E module upgrade - you can't tell me there's "more documentation" available on the F-35 and its complete systems and weapons, than there is for putting an extra pair of AAMs, AGM-65s and an IFR probe on the F-5E...

It's okay, I think I'm having a stroke... (Not really, but I can't explain how my brain is not functioning right now...) Main cock DOWN and guarded is ON. LP pump switches to the LEFT is ON. I just seem to have forgotten that exact, very specific, detail overnight... It didn't even register watching Redkite's start up videos. I've just had a bit of a break the last couple hours and was trying it again. I've only been flying this plane, pretty much exclusively, for the last year... I need a good, long, refreshing holiday... Wow...

No, no switch assigned. I like to do all those manually. The only switches on that panel that have a HOTAS button assigned are the gear, flaps and throttle to idle - everything else is a manual click. This has literally started this morning. I flew a 1hr 20 minute mission yesterday and during start-up, I had to open/turn on the fuel pumps. It's only this morning that I've jumped in and noticed the pumps are on when they shouldn't be. Very odd. At a loss to explain it.

I do not have any mods installed. I have not noticed any updates to DCS overnight. I don't recall this being a thing literally yesterday when I flew a mission in the Mirage F1CE. The Main Cock and Fuel Pumps are already unguarded (main cock) and on when I start a mission. All I have to do to start the aircraft is turn on the battery, and depress the starter (once unguarded). This is not normal procedure, not according to the pre-start checklists or the start up videos - which I also went back and rewatched as I'm now second-guessing myself... As far as I remember, I've ALWAYS had to unguard and turn on these pumps myself (by pushing them to the RIGHT) as part of the start-up procedure. Or have I managed to tweak something unintentionally? (I have been looking at the model viewer to locate cockpit arguments - but the model viewer shows the main cock down and guarded, left and right fuel pumps are to the right and on...). A reload of the mission and a restart of DCS, and placing a new Mirage F1CE on an empty map has not fixed the issue - so now I'm second-guessing reality... Has this always been the case? The Mirage F1 manual shows the left console with fuel pump switches down (left) and guarded... What is going on here? What have I done? Am I losing my mind? And how do I fix it (the switches, not the losing my mind part)?

Apologies for taking so long, had dinner and then went down the fault diagnosis rabbit hole as some tech support pages also suggested the PSU could be an issue - or my GPU, or BIOS (which I'm fairly certain is okay)... Files requested provided below. I was looking at the wrong log file before (cef_log) however, while I can see a number of errors listed in the dcs.log file, none seem to apply to what was going on on-screen at the time of the crash (not that that means much in terms of cause). Unsure how the Dxdiag numbers the crashes (is 0 the latest, or is 9 the latest?) but crash 0 seems to show something to do with the GPU's processes. This caused me to open the newly-installed nVidia app (installed yesterday while updating drivers) and double-check my nVidia drivers. It seems that despite updating my nVidia drivers *literally yesterday* there was a driver update dated 6 days ago ready to download. Unsure what's going on there, but I've done the CMD.exe prompts - and now re-updated what I was under the impression was already updated - and I'm about to restart. I won't have time to test DCS again tonight, so I'll try again tomorrow and report back here if a crash happens again. Thanks. dcs.log DxDiag.txt

I should add that describing the crash in a Google search provides advice that also suggests issues with hard drive/file corruption - following the steps to diagnose those faults yields no obvious issues.

Good evening ED team, I've had a significant crash occur 4 times now over the last few months and I'm unable to replicate the conditions or even figure out what has happened as the logs don't save, or show, an event. Or at least anywhere I know to look doesn't seem to show or indicate a crash or even the events leading up to it. =ISSUE= DCS freezes/locks, the computer emits an extremely irritating tone through the speakers, I am unable to further interact with the computer (computer does not recognise mouse or keyboard input). If I leave it long enough, the computer restarts of its own accord however the noise is extremely annoying so the PC requires a hard restart. This occurrence does not seem to be driven by how long DCS has been running, as it has occurred once a few minutes after mission start while today, it has occurred ~50 minutes in (there were instances of compressing time to speed up the mission's progress). My PC drivers are up-to-date, including most recently the GPU (nVidia RTX-3080, updated yesterday). The computer doesn't seem to be running hot nor does there appear to be any hardware reason the crash occurs - that I am able to discern. These crashes seem to occur mostly when I am using the F2 menu to watch other aircraft in the mission (3 of the 4 occurrences have been in the F2 external view, once while in the cockpit), which suggests it could potentially be graphics-related however it could just be coincidence as there are a number of other things occurring at the same time (ordnance is being fired, AAA is firing, there is smoke, ground units are moving) so I cannot discount that something else is causing some kind of issue. The crash is impossible for me to replicate as I have gone days or weeks without coming across this crash (creating a campaign, I have been working on this particular mission since late September in sporadic sessions) however these crashes have, in recent memory, all occurred while working on this particular mission - however I have also had multiple, longer sessions where I have not encountered this crash at all in this same mission. I have refrained from reporting it earlier thinking it an isolated case however today has been my first dedicated DCS session since late October and I encountered this issue while watching the AI undertake their assigned tasks ~50 minutes into the mission - this time is the 'straw that broke the camel's back' so-to-speak. Are you able to provide guidance on what steps I can take to provide usable data for you to review - should I encounter this again?

I didn't say 'FC models require no work', nor do I believe that to be the case at all. I don't even think I said they require less work. Though I believe the words I used were to 'reducing' the level of work. The part about being aerodynamically and visually similar was more the first three, not the second three - the second three were off-the-top-of-my-head proposals for a follow on FC suite of aircraft. A suite of aircraft that would require 'ground up' development on a much more drastic scale than the first ones. Considering the span of time between FC3 and FC24, FCX (X being the next instalment, not its actual title) could be some time away. Time enough to develop three new FC-level modules?...not my department. ED did say, in the past, that their intent was to distance itself from FC-level aircraft (in part because of the level of effort required between FC and FF aircraft modules, as you mentioned). That stance has obviously now been softened- but with the intent of FC being to soften the learning curve, developing FC modules of already established FF modules is, like I said, a bit backwards in going forwards. Where I see ED being able to capitalise on FC modules in future is for aircraft that either don't have sufficient documentation to make a FF module or aircraft whose technical documentation is no longer available (so a level of approximation is necessary) but the aircraft is still a highly demanded addition to DCS. In short, FC modules could be 'placeholders' for FF modules down the track or stop-gap/learning modules for aircraft that, for one reason or another, can't come to DCS as a full fidelity module. In short, these modules could be a little less specific and a lot more general in their simulation (so the F-5 could simulate a broad range of F-5 variants, not just specifically an F-5E-3 - if that makes sense). The part I do comment on is that the bottom three aircraft have no/less MFDs - so the cockpits are primarily analogue gauges with 'simple' screens (HUDs or sights, radar). From a 'FC' development approach, that's less buttons (physical, as the aircraft won't have an interactive cockpit) to bind as the user does not have to navigate MFD submenus in order to operate the aircraft or its systems. These ones would also, though I might not have made it obvious, require models as they either have low-fi representative models, or no model, in DCS currently. The F-16A could probably capitalise on the F-16C development. Yes, they are different aircraft, with the A being lighter, faster, less complex overall (by comparison), but it does give a starting point from which to commence. And development on the A (say Block 5 for argument's sake) could lead to development of a Block 15, or a Sparrow-armed ADV, FF module in due time. The Mirage III and F-7MG are not directly related. In fact the Mirage III has more in common with the Mirage F1 than the Mirage 2000. A Mirage III would lend itself well to users progressing from an FC Mirage III to the Mirage F1 or Mirage 2000 - given they're all from the same manufacturer and have a level of commonality in design (mainly cockpit layout/logic and systems). It was not intended to mean 'just slap the Mirage 2000 flight model on it, all delta-wings are the same - she'll be right'. That may have not been clear. And, given the high demand for a Mirage III due to its use particularly in the South Atlantic and Syria/Sinai (namely by Israel) - a full-fidelity Mirage III module can capitalise on the FC module development in due course. The F-7MG was a pick specifically because of its double-delta wing (and its simplicity, being a primarily day-interceptor). Despite its lineage being traced back to MiG-21, it is not a MiG-21. Not in the same way you can compare a MiG-19 and a J-6. However, from a FM to FF progression approach, a user might feel more comfortable transitioning from an F-7MG to the MiG-21 or, potentially, the JF-17. I purposely didn't mention the Flankers and the MiG-29 on that one. I hope that makes more sense now...

I have already said part of this in the newsletter, but I wanted to add and expand on it here. The announcement of the FC2024 upgrade was both welcome and also something I felt was a little underwhelming. Of course I understand people like myself (those who have been involved with DCS and Full Fidelity modules since 2015 or earlier) are not the target audience of these new 'additions' to the FC family, I felt that adding FC-level modules of aircraft that are already FF modules was a bit backwards in going forward. I provided what I thought was a good compromise - very similar variants to the FF modules, but different enough in their own ways to still provide owners of the FC modules to 'progress' to the FF module, if they so chose. These same variants would also be just different enough that those who already have FC3, or the FF modules, incentive to purchase these FC modules also - making the investment much more profitable. I understand it's not as simple as tweaking a couple values in a spreadsheet and viola! new plane, but by providing players with somewhat less capable versions of aircraft that are already Full Fidelity modules it does not diminish either the already-FF modules, nor does it ignore or exclude the FC modules. By being similar (both aerodynamically, externally and internally) they could share flight models (though in some cases with less efficiency due to differing engines/control surfaces etc) - reducing the level of work required, while maximising the appeal, and these can be gradually refined as time permits to be more reflective of the real aircraft - as every other FC aircraft has done at some point. F-86F - F-86A Sabre The major offensive difference being that, unlike the F-86F, the F-86A can't carry missiles - which is perfect considering the MiG-15 is a 'guns only' fighter also. Having a 'less capable' variant of essentially the same place provides ease of learning (the intent of FC) with the logical progression to the 'more advanced' FF F-86F module that adds the complexity of early IR missiles. MiG-15bis - MiG-15PB While eventually the 'PB' was dropped when the modifications (plumbing for drop tanks on the wings) became standard, the MiG-15PB was powered by the slightly less performant RD-45, providing incentive to 'upgrade' to the FF MiG-15bis module for better performance characteristics. F-5E - F-5A Freedom Fighter - no radar or RWR (similar to the F-86 and MiG-15 in that respect), the addition of 'tip tanks', optional IFR probe. A good mix of 'something the others don't have' but also lacking some things the F-5E has, and with no ability to really operate in night-time conditions - so there's incentive to upgrade. Plus, if someone just wants to do aerobatics or practice formations and/or mimic Patrolle Suisse without the 'clicky pit hassle' - this could be that outlet. Additionally, with the optional IFR probe, one can practice probe-and-drogue IFR on a Western-style aircraft with simplified systems instead of the Su-33 (which also serves as the FC carrier operations option. I can see future FC-level aircraft as being a way to 'get around' the loss of, or inability to obtain, documentation for older aircraft that would be welcome in DCS but either do not yet have models representative in DCS, or have models in DCS but are not flyable. As well, by focusing on 'older' aircraft, this 'simplifies' the cockpit in that it does not require MFD pushbutton submenus thus requiring less buttons. For example, F-16A - Visually similar, though faster and more nimble on account of being lighter - restricted (depending on Block) to IR-only AAMs. The F-16A would be a highly attractive FC-level module to encourage customers (new and old) to purchase. The F-16A was in use with many countries in DCS, and in the regions depicted in the DCS terrains current and future. The F-16A would provide high capability ease-of-learning and would naturally push those who chose this as their first 'FC' module to progress to the more complex, more capable F-16C FF module. It could also, depending on whether or not documentation could be sourced, provide a solid foundation for an eventual FF-level F-16A module. Mirage III - Similar to the Mirage 2000C, and the Mirage F1, the Mirage III would also be a great addition to DCS as an FC-level module. Its standout quality, compared to the F-16A above, is that it would be able to utilise the radar-guided Matra R530. It would be limited in terms of ordnance carried but would otherwise be useful in various conflicts that are able to be simulated in DCS as well as being used by a number of countries included in DCS. F-7MG - A Chinese license-built variation of the MiG-21, the majority of the J-7/F-7 family were daytime interceptors that utilised only IR-guided AAMs. They differed externally from MiG-21s by having a 'double delta' wing. The F-7MG (export production J-7E) differs from the E in that it had a doppler radar (so it could work at night/in all-weather, at least on paper - still IR AAMs only), HUD and HOTAS. This variant can also carry a wide variation of IR AAMs - including Chinese PL-5/PL-8 missiles, French Magic IIs and US AIM-9s. It did, however, only have a single gun and that gun only had 60 or so rounds. Standard loadout was 2x IR AAMs and 2x drop tanks (outboard) as well as, optionally, a centre-line drop tank. In DCS the F-7MG is 'primitive' enough to not require multiple complex MFDs (making it an ideal candidate for an FC-level module) and different enough from the MiG-21bis to stand on its own. Users could progress from the F-7MG to the MiG-21bis FF module, or to aircraft such as the JF-17. A FF-level module could also be developed from this if desired. Thanks for reading, and I hope to see other aircraft come to future DCS FC upgrades - just preferably ones that everyone might want to buy, not just 'simplified' versions of modules we already have aimed at newcomers. If it can be helped.