cailean_556

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.

Kola map the day after my birthday. Quite a pleasant gift indeed. I see nothing but good things coming from Orbx and this will be good for DCS as a whole. An odd choice, the lineup for FC 2024... The Sabre and the MiG-15 I get - 'rivals' of the Korean War and all. The F-5E is an interesting choice. I know it's not a simple as just taking away or adding bits and pieces when making an FC version of an FF module, but it seems a bit backwards in going forwards going from FF to FC... Personally, what I think would probably have made the FC'24 more competitive (against its FF module counterparts) is different variants of these aircraft instead of 'porting' an FF module to FC. I don't see how, especially considering these particular aircraft, people would want to buy the FC version over the only slightly more complicated FF versions. === F-86F - F-86A Sabre The major 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 plane 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. Additionaly, 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. === To me, as someone who owns FC3 and the modules above now getting FC equivalents, I know and understand that myself, and others in my position, are not the target audience for these. However, I also don't see how or why anyone wishing to move on from the FC version of these planes would want to 'upgrade' to their FF module equivalents as they currently stand. In fact, I see the opposite happening. Generally, I see newcomers buying the easier-to-learn FC versions and, when they feel confident, they'll (rightly) switch to more capable/complex FF modules (F-16, F/A-18 etc). I see the FF versions of these modules 'falling out of favour' as time progresses. Unless, particularly in the case of the F-5E, there are plans to upgrade/update the FF module to include extra options and simulate more modern aircraft variants (such as by adding IFR probes, modern avionics suites and newer/more advanced weapons) that encourage buying the FF modules, even if you have the FC version. But newcomers to DCS and existing members (especially 'collectors' like myself) alike could have been swayed to purchase something just different enough from what's already on offer (such as the examples provided above) so that everyone might have wanted to buy these products - this could have been a more profitable approach. Just my thoughts.

I actually experienced something interesting at Kerman - high winds basically stopped the aircraft from taxiing off the runway. Because Kerman is higher in altitude than Bandar Abbas, I didn't notice any issue until I sat down and thought about the weather (wind in particular). It also appears to work on a plane by plane basis, so the aircrafts weight might come into play there too (i.e. after lowering the wind a bit, Mirage F1s could taxi but F-5s couldn't then I lowered the value a few knots more and F-5s could taxi). Seems anything over 20 knots at the altitude the airbase is at seems to make the AI not want to play. I can get by with only 3 "big" ramp spots at Bandar Abbas (though agree there could be, and would like, at least a couple more), but what I cannot for the life of me understand is how/why aircraft such as C-130s and larger aren't, or can't be, set to start from ramp (or land and park) at airbases where they clearly have the room to. C-130s, Il-76/78, E-3, KC-135 - aircraft like this take off and land at Bandar Abbas in reality every day. The IRIAF even operates at least one 707 - which is the airframe the E-3 and KC-135 are based on. If you're trying to do historically based/inspired missions/campaigns in the Persian Gulf, or making something completely fictional using the area as a stand in, anything larger than an An-26 has to come from Shiraz or Kerman if it's flying from the Iranian side of the map, or set to take off from runway. Which is fine, unless you want it to taxi for whatever reason (dialogue, visual cues, set/activate triggers, that sort of thing).

The AI not using the taxi/landing lights is still a thing... The Police light casts light now, so that's a win. Also, is the AI Mirage F1CE cockpit meant to light up intense purple/magenta colour on take off?

*Checks calendar* I know there's a whole lot of other, more complicated, things going in with DCS right now...but C-130s in vicinity of Bandar Abbas still teleport to Ras Al Khaimah when you set them to start from the ramp - with the intention of having them start at Bandar Abbas... I don't know how far away the C-130J is from seeing the light of day in DCS, but this has been a thing (from my end) since November 2019. Is amending the map a ridiculously complex task (such as 'unpacking' the entire map, tweaking some values then 'repacking' the map) for something I *without inside knowledge* would consider 'small' or is it a more simple matter of tweaking a couple lines of code in a lua/dll/ini file somewhere? I would have considered this a 'quick win', but without understanding how the process works I'm just sitting here wondering if this is really by design, or an oversight that keeps getting overlooked because more important things are always popping up. Thanks in advance.

Thank for you clearing up the Sidewinder carriage/load placement... So am I correct in understanding that the Spanish F-104s likely only ever carried 2 Sidewinders operationally, so we'll have what is essentially a faster F-5 (not that there is anything wrong with that at all - I meant more in terms of weapon carriage before RTB)? I just read an article on Featherduster (I wasn't aware of the program myself) and those are some interesting and encouraging numbers.