cailean_556

I'm not panicking at the apparent "lack" of screenshots, or updates in general. I would find it very "out-of-character" for an experienced DCS 3rd Party developer, such as Heatblur, to declare a project will release in 2022, if it wasn't in a state where such a release was considered very possible. Granted there are "under the hood" things us mere peasants don't get to see that could alter their schedule, however for Heatblur to make the call of "it'll be out in 2022" during the first official post regarding the F-4 module means that they're pretty confident it'll be out this year. 31 December, 2022 is still a 2022 release. Once 1 Jan 2023 rolls around and I'm still not sitting in a Phantom cockpit, and I've not heard or seen anything about a delay, I'll start making noise. Until then just remain low-key excited, don't let expectations get the better of you and don't get demoralised when you don't see or hear any news about a wanted module (this last one is my kryptonite - South Atlantic, Mirage F1 and MB-339 news, when!?). From memory, we (or at least I) saw very little "progress updates" of the F-14 before its release. So I would imagine the F-4 would be handled in much the same way. EDIT: While trawling another forum thread:

I had attempted to utilise JF-17s as AI for a SEAD/DEAD training mission I made - they would come in and (I thought) they would fire their LD-10s in Passive mode toward an SA-11 SR (Snow Drift) - which is set to be permanently active until destroyed, once activated. I figured the AI would use Active or Passive mode to engage the radar, as I had set its task to do so. No matter what I tried (ROE, Override attack, moving the waypoint closer to the target, disable RTB on Bingo Fuel) the JF-17 refused to engage - despite other AI aircraft (with HARMs and Shrikes) being able to work as intended. I surmised it was due to the LD-10 being more of a "Self-Protection" ARM than an offensive ARM, so I switched it out for an F-16C with HTS/HARM, which I knew worked (which it did). I then changed a pair of F/A-18s carrying LGBs (in the same mission) into JF-17s carrying C-701 (CCD version) that were intended to destroy a disabled HAWK site (TR destroyed, site unable to fire). The F/A-18s that did this task prior had no issues. The JF-17s, however, simply overflew the target in a Race-Track (they are not set to orbit, they are set to 'Bombing' the units at the target points) and never released ordnance. I changed the C-701 (CCD) to C-701 (IR). Same thing happened. I changed their loadout to GBU-12s and tested again. This time they released the GBU-12 however it did not appear to track and missed the target by a significant margin (the AI JF-17 was also carrying a TGP, which I assumed it would use). I even changed out the JF-17 AIs for Mirage 2000Cs armed with dumb bombs - they were able to destroy the targets accurately, despite dropping their unguided bombs from 20,000 ft. There is no wind or other threat that would affect the aircraft or its weapon systems - the JF-17 AI does not seem to understand how to employ or use its 'smart' weapons. I don't know how long it has been like this, as I've not really used JF-17s as AI attackers in missions before.

Update on this: Instead of copying the trigger, I simply made new ones from scratch. I was able to copy and overwrite text from other trigger Actions with no issue - I did not try deleting entire paragraphs. I also, quite embarrasingly, realised during a QA session that I had set the launchers of the HAWK sites to Rapier launchers. I don't think that would cause the issue, as the trigger last night was based on an SA-2 site, but it has been rectified. I have not yet had a CTD or other issue. Once I've done a bit of QA, I will attempt to replicate what I was doing last night to see if I can force the CTD again and provide an update. EDIT: After doing about 40 mins of QA, I copied the 'Kish SA-2 Disabled' trigger, moved it to the bottom of the list and then deleted the second paragraph. Unsure whether it's because I elected to manually add, as opposed to copy, the trigger, if DCS was just having a bad day or whether or not it's my computer (which is very new, but not outside the realms of possibility) but I wasn't able to replicate the crash.

Things like this is why I have trust issues when people say things like "Do your own research"... Just who is right, and who is wrong? The one? Or the many? Multiple sources quote a particular number, however one source (a source I consider - and not just because I'm Australian - to be a typically reliable, in fact I'm surprised this site didn't show up during my original search for info) has information that is contrary to that. By the same token, I would also consider the Federation of American Scientists (fas.org) to be also typically reliable - so who's right? When multiple sources say one thing, and another says something completely different? I'm sure ED has the smoking gun on the matter - I just want to know if the system in DCS is accurate. If this is accurate, the only thing remaining (that is triggering my obsessive-compulsive tendencies about this) is the fact that the tracking/fire control radar has a supremely longer range than the search radar it is supposed to be paired with... If that is indeed the case, it's like we need a longer-range search radar to pair with the SA-5: like the P-14 'Tall King' or the P-35 "Bar Lock' search radars (which look very similar to the airfield radar installations on the Caucasus map) for the SA-5 - so it can be cued onto target more reliably.

If you follow the links for the SA-5 system itself within the GlobalSecurity.org link for the radar (S-200 SA-5 GAMMON (globalsecurity.org)) it discusses minimum engagement range, as does S-200 SA-5 GAMMON - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces (fas.org). However it could also be dependent on the variant. That being said, this site (SA-5 Gammon S-200 Angara ground to air missile system data | Russia Russian missile system vehicle UK | Russia Russian army military equipment vehicles UK (armyrecognition.com)) contradicts the other two and quotes a minimum range of 7km but doesn't quote sources for that information. 60km does sound like a stupidly long distance, and it'd be hard to get confused between 7 and 60. Perhaps the min range for the missile is correct after all and globalsecurity.org and fas.org are wrong. However the Square Pair, on the other hand, there's definitely something up with that.

Hey BN, Apologies mate - I figured (incorrectly) you already had them. Please find below the four logs from each time I attempted to do the same action - the third and fourth attempts were "For SCIENCE! (TM)". Hope this helps. dcs.log-20220316-104924.zip dcs.log-20220316-121257.zip dcs.log-20220316-122408.zip dcs.log-20220316-122834.zip

Working on a SEAD training mission on the Persian Gulf map. Iranian HAWK, SA-2, SA-11 and SA-5 sites (HAWKs on Abu Musa, Sirri and Tunb Islands, SA-2 at Kish International and IVO Havadarya, SA-11 at Lar and IVO Havadarya (co-located with the SA-2 in the same area) and an SA-5 in Bandar Abbas, near the airport). One HAWK site (Abu Musa) is active at mission start, the rest are set to activate as the site before it is destroyed (either by the player or by an AI DEAD package (which is yet to be added to the mission) OR by the player using a Comms Menu action once a certain unit of that particular group is destroyed (such as the Abu Musa HAWK site's TR - which prevents the site from firing). I also added pairs of F-5E, MiG-21bis, F-4E, MiG-29A and F-14A (the HB one) (uncontrolled) that can be activated by using the Comms menu. After placing the units in the desired configurations in the desired areas, I set about adding triggers. After creating the desired trigger, I would copy it and then modify the Conditions and Actions, and content of those Actions as required. Getting towards the end of the triggers pertaining to the Iranian SAMs, I copy a particular trigger (Kish SA-2 Disabled) as I've done with literally every other trigger. I move it to the bottom of the trigger list, rename it (I call it Bandar SA-2 Disabled), modify the Conditions (Unit Dead - Ground-3-2) and then attempt to modify the 'Message to All' action, by highlighting and deleting the second paragraph of that particular message/action. As soon as I press 'Backspace', DCS generates the crash log window and, after allowing it to do its thing, DCS CTDs. I've managed to save the mission template it at a point where you should be able to simply copy the mentioned trigger. I have not (yet) attempt to copy another trigger, however I have been able to modify current triggers contents without causing a CTD. PG_Iran SEAD_Training.miz

I'm not sure if it has always been this way and I've just never noticed until now, or whether this is new, however I've noticed the 'Square Pair' target acquisition radar for the SA-5 may have an incorrect max detection range. In the Mission Editor, it has a range of ~215 nautical miles, which equates to about 398km. According to 5N62V - Radartutorial, SA-5 (Gammon) / S-200 (militaryfactory.com) and S-200 SA-5 GAMMON (globalsecurity.org) (and Wikipedia) the Square Pair (depending on version) has a range of between 270 and 300km. Currently, it has a detection range that exceeds that of the P-35 Barlock radars (~320-392km, depending on version). Is this intentional, based on non-public data, or is this an error regarding the unit in DCS itself? Either way, just making a note of it. EDIT: Upon further investigation, I've also noticed (using the same sources) that the SA-5 missile (due to the booster burn-time, etc.) has a minimum range of 60km, whereas in DCS the min range ring indicates ~7km.

The A-4 is a mod so that can't be used as a comparison - they're not held to the same level of 'realism'. Things can be, are and may be added for 'gameplay' over 'simulation'. That being said it may also be that the A-4E, at some point in its service life, was modified to allow for NVG use so they've added the feature. That's speculation on my part. It may be technically possible to use NVGs in the later (DMAS) F-4E - possibly - however a quick Google search shows there is material suggesting night operations in the F-4E over Vietnam were possible using 'Pave Tack', which was an early EO/FLIR targeting pod that was larger and less capable than the LITENING pod. Pave Spike was a 'day only' pod. You have to understand that, at the time this jet was in its prime, personnel-mounted night vision systems were still very much in their infancy, though vehicle and weapon-mounted systems were maturing. I haven't read anything that doesn't specifically state that NVGs weren't used by F-4E pilots, however it doesn't specifically say they were used either - not until much, much later. There is an article that refers to an F-4 lost while the crew were conducting night flying under NVG conditions in 2005, however that may be well outside the timeframe of the versions of the F-4E we're getting which, as I understand, are an early Vietnam-era jet and a -1980s variant with the DMAS added. I'd go with 'No, we won't be able to use NVGs in the F-4E'. That way if it comes out and we can use NVGs, everyone's happy. If we can't, it's nothing we didn't already expect.

RAAF F-4E, used as an interim fighter-bomber until the delivery of the F-111. Despite being well loved by their crews and talk of retaining the F-4 was at least entertained, they were returned to the US.

I've been taking a break from DCS (not entirely willingly) and I can't wait to get back into the 'Cat and have Jester designate and call out targets for laser guided munitions! I've no doubt the UI will take some getting used to, seeing as I've not been in the Tomcat (A or B) for quite some time but there's one thing I've noticed that's been bugging me... Where's the official VF-1 'Wolfpack' livery!? I bought the VF-1 shirt (was part of the pre-order)and when the B shipped, there was no VF-1. I got told something along the lines of 'It's planned but VF-1 only flew the older A model', which is fine. But now we have the A model and nil by VF-1 livery - even after this massive update (which added a few more liveries, or at least I hadn't them noticed before). Is the VF-1 livery still planned as an official livery for the F-14? Yes, I know I can get it from the user forum in the mean-time and liveries are low priority but I would still like to see the squadron whose shirt I bought at pre-order have an official livery for the plane in DCS.

The differences between the Su-7 and Su-22 would be significant enough to warrant their own modules, I would think. I don't think it would be as simple as say changing the engine type (which is a gross over-simplification of the process, I know) in an F-4. The Su-7 lacked both functionality and capability the Su-22 had, beyond the VG wings. Obviously very different flight models too, as a result. To be fair, I think even the F-4 package would probably be easier if the F-4E, F-4K and F-4J/S were developed as separate modules due to the number of not just external but also internal differences. But I also think that to most people (that don't truly appreciate the aircraft), they just see a gun, or a different tail and go "Is that all that's changed? Why are there so many F-4 modules when they're all the same plane?" But...until someone goes "Oh, we're developing this", any F-4 is simply a pipe dream. If we could get a Thud in DCS, it opens the door to the F-111 too (which I'm surprised I missed the first time around). I don't believe they were ever historically used in the regions DCS has currently, but that won't stop people from finding ways to use them, same as the F-105.

I agree. With both. There may be some communications delays, however computer systems can bridge those gaps (and clearly do). From my own personal knowledge, a lightweight, man-portable short-range search radar of US origin was tied in with a system that cued a European SHORAD missile system, doing so more or less automatically - despite the three systems very clearly not being developed to operate together and yet were made to do so. I can't comment on the effectiveness in war-time, but it worked during testing and on exercise. Likewise, any search radar could be used as an EWR/GCI radar. This could be a setting in the 'Set Options' menu of the asset in question.

I'd love an F-4K (anything to fill the very underwhelming RAF roster in DCS), a Buccaneer would be equally welcome. I'm not as eager for a Tornado but it would also be a welcome addition - but a GR/IDS Tornado needs to come with an ADV (AI or module). I believe we'll see GR.3 Harrier at some point, I know RAZBAM has eyes on it after the Sea Harrier (and everything else they have lined up) so it might be a while. Same with a Lightning. I'm actually surprised we haven't seen a serious attempt at a Hunter or a Jaguar yet (mods don't count). There's a Lynx asset (unsure if just AI or intent on module) being developed by RAZBAM for the South Atlantic - or at least that's where the model was shown. I think ED is improving/updating its Sea King AI model. Would definitely welcome the Nimrod or a different Herc variant so it's not just a C-130H painted in different colours (yet also missing liveries for other non-NATO users - like the UAE, Australia, Oman...). I also would love to see a Gloster Meteor come to DCS at some point.

The only reason I didn't include the Su-7 is because of the later Cold War advantages of the Su-22 and it being used by more countries. But the Su-7 would also be right at home in DCS: Syria. The F-105 would be better suited to a Vietnam map as they didn't really see 'traditional' Cold War action. Plus, to add insult to injury, they were replaced by F-4s. But going on an Iron Hand mission in Thud over the jungles of South East Asia would be pretty cool. I hope CubanAce can deliver the goods too. It's not the most potent, or capable, but it is definitely something uniquely Soviet and (with the eventual arrival of the Sea Harrier) will be well placed for several "Cold War gone hot" scenarios - but we'd need a suitable map for that too.

Either as an ED project, or a 3rd party project, these are the things I think/wish would be great additions for DCS. Ultimately, without a dedicated timeframe to work with (with aircraft ranging from WW2 to as late as 2010ish), it's hard to say 'this or that would be great in DCS'. If DCS stuck to just the Cold War, there are plenty of both western and Soviet aircraft which would be great additions to DCS however the the timeframe being so wide, and the emerging aircraft becoming continuously more modern, less modern aircraft provide more of a novelty than a serious capability to most and the lack of "modern AA missiles" would probably see it being shunned and shouted down by those that think PvP is the sole and only function of DCS. =AIR= BAE Hawk 100 and 200 series - AI or a FF module pack. To replace the lost Hawk T.1 module by that company that shall not be named, a FF module pack consisting of a 2-seat trainer and 1-seat light attack/fighter could be developed to fulfil the role of modern western trainer aircraft (directly competing with the C-101) while also providing region-specific (especially in the Persian Gulf) like-aircraft. A-4G and/or K Skyhawk - Either as an AI and then a FF module, or as a FF module. The A-4G was utilised by the RAN for use aboard the carrier HMAS Melbourne. It was unique in that it did not possess the "avionics hump" and was fitted with the capability to carry 4 AIM-9s instead of 2 - to increase its air defence capability. The A-4K is significant in that the aircraft is now operated by a private company (Draken International) although these were formerly used by the RNZAF. It has the capabilities of the previous iterations but has the expanded capabilities to carry and utilise AIM-9L, AGM-65 Mavericks and the GBU series of weapons (though not able to self-lase as far as I am aware). The A-4K provides the most "modern" type still in active service (with a civilian company) while the G (of which the RNZAF bought from the RAN and upgraded to K standard) provides the 'classic' look of a Vietnam-era A-4 while also providing a unique advantage via 4 AIM-9s (I am currently unsure whether those upgraded to K standard retained 4 AIM-9s or whether the K models could also carry 4 AIM-9s as part of their upgrade under 'Project KAHU'). Failing that, ED 'adopting' the A-4E-C module and incorporating it as a free FF module included with DCS, alongside the unarmed TF-51, would also work. This would enable the development team (if they should wish to continue working on it as a form of ED subsidiary as ED may not have the time, manning and resources to work on this among other projects) access to the SDK that would greatly benefit the entire community with the fully supported addition of the A-4 into DCS. It would also provide a 'taste' of what a FF jet module looks and feels like as well as enable a taste of carrier operations (especially once the Forrestal-class carrier is released). This would also mean those who already enjoy the mod wouldn't have to 'buy something they got for free', or rely on an older version of DCS to keep flying it (such as the Hawk issue). A-4s were also in use with Australia, New Zealand, Kuwait, Israel, the US, Singapore, Argentina and Brazil (nations already in DCS, except NZ and Singapore) with Argentina and Brazil still operating their fleets in reduced capacities. F-4E/J/K/S Phantom II - Either as an AI and then a FF module package, or as a FF module package (similar to Heatblur's F-14A/B). The F-4 needs little introduction or explanation. The E was the most widely exported version of the F-4 with a number of users and sub-types being developed over time, such as the F-4EJ and EJ Kai of Japan, the F-4/F-4F ICE of Greece and Germany (which had the AN/APG-65 radar - early Hornet radar - and gave it AMRAAM capability), and the F-4 2020 Terminator of Turkey which introduced a suite of air to ground ordnance changes and upgrades (such as the AGM-88 and TGP capabilities) while curiously not providing for AMRAAM capability. While the Vietnam-era USAF F-4E lacks these things, as the type is no longer in service (save Iran), an F-4E variant instead of USAF F-4E would also be acceptable - especially if it included use of more modern weapons systems in DCS. In my opinion, the Greek F-4 ICE provides the "best all-round" variant as it enables AMRAAM capability and precision AG capability, however I believe the Turkish variant offers the largest array of AG ordnance including AGM-88, enable SEAD/DEAD missions without requiring the dedicated "Wild Weasel" F-4G platform but doesn't specify being able to fire AMRAAMs. The F-4J is the "improved" version of the Vietnam-era USN/USMC F-4, fitted with a host of improvements including new engines and radar, ground attack enhancements, new ejection seats and, oddly, the removal of the IRST (the bulge under the nose). It is carrier capable, operating off of Forrestal-class carriers (being introduced for free to all DCS users at some point) using bridles from the catapult - like the A-4 - and would serve as a 'good compromise' for a Vietnam-era aircraft that was also used in more modern/recent times. The F-4K (FG.1) was the RN and RAFs version and it is unique in that it is fitted with Spey engines, and a nose gear extension (oleo) similar in function to the F-5s nosewheel, as the F-4 flying off of the RN carriers required a higher AOA on take off (which I believe was related the weight of the Phantoms). Other differences included a distinctive 'squared' tail fin (which housed the RWR) and the compatability with the UK Skyflash missile (developed from the AIM-7) and the SUU-30 gunpod. The RAF took delivery of the RNs F-4 fleet when the type was retired from service after the carrier, the HMS Ark Royal, was selected for decommissioning. The type saw extensive service in the RAF as an air defence fighter, intercepting Russian Tu-95s very regularly, as well as enjoying deployments to the Falklands after the Falklands War to ensure UK sovereignty. UK Phantoms retained the 'probe and drogue' refuelling system of the non-F-4E variants. The F-4S was a further improvement over the F-4J with the addition of smokeless engines and leading edge slats that improve manoeuvrability, it would be the 'ultimate Cold War F-4' operated by the USN and USMC while retaining the capabilities of the F-4J but having a slightly slower top speed while having improved agility in the air over the F-4J. P-3 Orion - More as an AI than a FF module, however a FF module would prove interesting in that it is both a turbo-prop, it has more than 2 engines and is nor your typical high performance fighter. Utilised by several nations in DCS, including the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Iran. This aircraft would not look out of place in DCS, especially in the Persian Gulf, as it is used for maritime patrol and ISR duties. Boeing 707 - More as an AI than a FF module, the 707 would be both a civilian airliner and used as a tanker aircraft (separate model) - especially by countries such as Australia (prior to the A330 MRTT) and Iran among others. The basis of the 707 is already in DCS - the E-3. Remove the radar and the associated antennas on the aircraft and a high quality 707 model is already on hand. Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 - Mainly intended as an AI. The 737 provides the base for aircraft such as the P-8 and particularly the E-7 'Wedgetail' (in RAAF service) if they were to enter DCS at some point in the future, however the purpose of the 737 and A320 in this instance is to provide AI civilian air traffic as they are arguably the most common airliner types in the world - both as a piece of immersion, to provide false/incorrect atrgets or as the centre piece for missions requiring interception. Su-22M4 Fitter H - Either as an improved AI model and then a FF module, or as a FF module. The laws surrounding acquisition of Russian equipment could be circumvented by acquiring data from countries such as Poland or the Czech Republic where, while the aircraft is still in service (in Poland), it is slowly being phased out in favour of NATO-compliant, "western" equipment. The Czechs retired theirs in the early 2000s. 'REDFOR', or just Russian/Soviet-era air forces in general in DCS lack any form of 'traditional' FF attack aircraft, save the L-39 and MiG-21. This aircraft would fit in DCS: Syria as the Syrians operate the type (unsure if it is the M4 specifically) as well as providing a stand-in for Russian versions of the type in the Caucasus. Yak-38 Forger - Either an an AI or a FF module. A Yak-38 DCS module has been expressed as an objective by CubanAce however, in the interim, even an AI Forger (and corresponding carrier, see further below) would provide some earlier-period NATO/Soviet air and naval interactions, in addition to intersting 'what if' scenarios. Expanded UAVs - Especially in the more modern arena, the incursion of UAVs into airspace is just as much a threat as an aircraft and there have been numerous instances in recent times of UAVs being shot down, particularly UAVs/RPASs/drones of US and Iranian origin. The addition of more UAV types (from the US, Europe, China and Iran) enables mission makers to get more creative and provides more ISR/JTAC assets as well as targets for air, ground and sea assets. Personal Ultimate Wish: DCS: Su-30 - Even the solely-for-export Su-30SME with reduced top speed, take off weight and service ceiling - all likely on account of having less powerful engines. Though information is limited, it's also likely the aircraft has a less capable radar. The SME is derived from the Russian Air Force Su-30SM, itself derived from the Su-30MKI developed for India. Though this very much fits in the "modern" category (and would be the most modern in terms of year developed, ~2016), the addition of the Su-30SME into DCS would probably end up being EDs 'flagship' module. To my knowledge, the Su-30SME (specifically - unless it was reclassified based on the buyer) has no operators however it could be used as a stand-in for Su-30 users (including Russia) in DCS. It would also provide a greater degree of flexibility in terms of weapons and systems - as it could be modelled to its fullest extent as it is not being modelled to simulate an aircraft operated by one specific country but an aircraft offered for export to any country that wants it. It would ideally have an AI assistant (like Petrovich) that can fulfil a pilot or operator role, support multi-crew, and be able to utilise (interestingly and uniquely) non-Russian equipment and munitions such as the Thales Damocles targeting and surveillance pod (proven by Malaysia and since adopted by Russia) to deliver precision/laser guided ordnance. =GROUND= Rebel Faction - Essentially a copy of the Insurgent faction that would enable REDFOR and BLUFOR to have/support their own 'insurgent/rebel' faction while attacking the other. This is very obviously useful in DCS: Syria but can also be utilised in DCS: Persian Gulf, or in any map given a decent story/narrative. Armed Technicals - A utility vehicle (such as a Toyota Hilux or Landcruiser) featuring variants fitted with a heavy MG (DShK), a recoilless rifle, a ZU-23 emplacement and a rocket pod/MRLS added to both the Insurgent and (if added) Rebel faction. Expanded SHORAD Systems - Skyguard/shield system (to enable NATO/western AAA instead of using ZU-23 emplacements), French Crotale SAM, Mistral, Pantsir, RBS-70. =SEA= UK, French, early Soviet/Russian, Indian, Brazilian, Argentine, Australian carriers - Centaur-class, Majestic-class (RAN), Clemenceau-class and Kiev-class (aircraft carrying cruiser). These carriers, while they don't yet have aircraft to operate from them in the core DCS currently, save maybe helicopters, adds unique aircraft options. The F-8 Crusader, the A-4 (if it were to become a module, though not the exact variant), the Etendard AI (maybe module), the Sea Harrier and the F-4 (from the western side) and the Yak-38 Forger (for Russian/Soviet bloc - CubanAce remaining hopeful he can develop the module) can and have operated from these carrier types. It would also add interesting scenarios for mission makers, given the maps and modules both out for DCS and in development. Expanded naval assets - UK, French, German, Italian, Spanish (and improved Russian models) ships - the DCS oceanic environment is very much a Russia v US affair, though some recent additions have been made (La Combattante). UK naval assets are coming as part of the South Atlantic map though those will only be for buyers of the map, but any Cold War period ships by any country, especially those contained within the regions the DCS maps are limited to, would be of great benefit.

My hope for the next Heatblur module is the F-4... Why? Although "Next Generation" could also indicate a new 4th Gen aircraft, such as potentially a Saab Gripen (given their Viggen module) or even the Draken (in which case "Next Generation", considering the aircraft already in DCS, makes less sense), I believe "Next Generation" in this instance refers to the technology, scope and ambition required of their next module. Considering the initial "Cold War" influence on aircraft developed for DCS, I fear the continual push for the addition of bleeding edge (with the last 2-3 decades) aircraft will adversely affect development of period-relevant aircraft (IMHO) as users demand more and more complex/capable (read: long range fire and forget guided weapons capability) aircraft. Heatblur already have set a precedence toward multi-variant modules with their F-14. This could, at least in theory, be applied to the A-6 (flyable KA-6, perhaps? Or potentially an EA-6 to evolve DCS World's EW capabilities - though unlikely) as well as the F-4. The F-4 is too iconic to just do *one* variant. You *need* one of the gunless variants for carrier operations (an F-4N/S) - which could, coincidentally, operate off of Forrestal-class carriers. However the F-4E is just as, if not more so, iconic and utilised by multiple air forces around the world - and satisfies land-based aviation. A doubtful, but completely welcome addition would be an F-4K and/or F-4M. The reason I consistently focus on the addition of the F-4K/M (Phantom FG.1/FGR.2) is that despite being one of, if not the most, famous air forces *in the world*, the RAF (and by extension the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm) is woefully under-represented in DCS with almost no Cold-War era (or even jet-powered) airframes (AI or otherwise) either being developed (aside from True Grit's Eurofighter Typhoon which will be focused on the German variant initially, and the English Electric Lightning in development by RAZBAM, both of which are still a long way off), released or active in DCS. It would also (with a suitable RN carrier - aka the HMS Ark Royal) tie in very well with the South Atlantic map being developed by RAZBAM. (Caveat: I am not from the UK so I have no particularly loyalty to the British Armed Forces - so this is not a "My armed forces is better than yours" argument, just an - I feel accurate - observation). While the EE Lightning (from a "rival" 3rd Party) is a step in the right direction, given the similarities between airframes (while there are obvious differences), if Heatblur were to invest time and energy into an F-4 module, it would take less time and energy to develop an F-4K/M module based on the development of the "American" modules. Where it would likely fall down is the UK MODs almost-Kremlin-levels of secrecy and unwillingness to declassify, or cooperate in providing, the required military information regarding the UK-specific F-4s and their weapons (mainly the Sky Flash MR SARH AAM). Heatblur also have experience with two-seat aircraft and AI assistance (again, F-14) however the Jester AI could also, at least theoretically, be adapted to other Heatblur multi-crew modules (such as the A-6 and a potential F-4 module - both of which *require* a backseater, AI or otherwise). Seeing as Jester is their technology, and they've already invested the time and effort into developing an AI "backseater", they could quite easily have cornered the market on AI assistants - which currently is clear as RAZBAM have indicated they are not, and will not, develop an AI WSO for the F-15E Strike Eagle module (which then also leaves the IA-58 Pucara in question as it is also a two-seater). Unless ED's Petrovich can be adapted to be a "plug and play" backseater for any two-seat aircraft module (including the C-101 and L-39, as examples), Heatblur may have a literal ace up their sleeve when it comes to 2 (or even more) seater aircraft. Even if my above rambling is merely a link-chart of crazy, I look forward to Heatblur's future. I'm looking forward to my VF-1 Wolfpack livery to match my T-Shirt from when F-14 first released... And facing off against (or perhaps being) an Iranian Tomcat over Bandar Abbas...

In addition to everything else you're doing to improve the base sim, I'd like to request that the JTACs/FACs gain the ability to target static objects/structures placed by the user in the ME. This includes static buildings, ammo/fuel depots and static vehicles, e.g. a line of parked Tu-95s or B-52s. Example Mission: User aircraft is assigned to support a SOF HVT neutralisation mission by dropping a GBU-12 on a specific (placed) building within a town. The SOF team, in radio contact with the aircraft above, designate the target with laser, allowing a non-self designation capable aircraft (such as F-5) or an aircraft not carrying a TGP (for whatever reason) to still deploy GBU-12s (or other laser guided ordnance) on target. End Mission. Currently, the above is not possible. You can order the FAC to assign groups, and units within groups, but not static objects. If the had an extensive 'attack' menu like aircraft do for the CAS mission, it would allow them to target statics. The only way around this currently is to either self-lase an object which might be hard to find in a town (not an option for GBU capable aircraft like F-5s) or to place a ground unit extremely close to the static object and hope an indirect hit on the static destroys the target. In reality, these sorts of missions are probably best handled by Predator/Reaper (or equivalent) and likely self-lased however within DCS, some aircraft are able to carry laser guided ordnance but are unable to self-lase, precluding them from being able to conduct certain missions or strike certain targets, especially in single-player campaigns or missions. Thank you for reading.

This is something I could get behind. If a pilot successfully ejects and lands in water, the model changes to that of a pilot in a life raft. For the purpose of the sim, the life raft/pilot object could be sling loadable (or a winch system will need to be developed/added - but sling loading as an interim measure would be great). A SAR chopper has to hover over the raft, sling load/winch it up and then they can fly back to base. As for pilot penalties, it would have to be an optional setting, but perhaps they do indeed sit there in external view waiting to a SAR bird to come get them and they can only respawn once their pilot/life raft makes it back to the base. This could be really effective in a Dynamic Campaign (dynamic SAR) whereby if a pilot is forced to eject, an AI (or human) SAR mission is generated. For AI pilots that are saved, that's another plane that can be flown. For every pilot not saved, AI planes take longer to become available or some such. For the player, if they don't get saved (or they die), campaign over. If they do get saved, they can continue within the same campaign. Not overly sure about sharks though... Could be interesting.

Simply put, for our variant of the F-5, Wikipedia is wrong. Later versions of the F-5, upgraded with modern avionics and systems, can indeed carry 4 AIM-9s, or 4 AIM-120s or 4 AGM-65s or variations of. However the variant of F-5 that Belsimtek have simulated, the F-5E-3, has none of those modern systems. It's an aggressor aircraft, in USAF service, and as such it didn't require any expensive modern avionics or weapons - it's there to provide a real time aggressor aircraft for pilots to fly against in training - so the USAF didn't upgrade them. Your argument would have made much more sense if you said "I wish for a new, modern, variant of the F-5" because something like the F-5EM (which can do all those things) then comes to the table. But as is mentioned above by Silver Dragon, that requires a whole new licence, a new development cycle...you'll be waiting a while even if the stars did align and all of this happened. Despite the weapons and radar overmatch, the F-5 in DCS can be a handful for modern jets, if flown right. Having modern AIM-9Ms, or AIM-120Cs, is nice but that's not what makes a great pilot. This is coming from someone is who is not a great pilot, or even a good pilot, I'm just an okay pilot (simulated). If you're having trouble in the F-5 against larger, more powerful modern aircraft, either train with the F-5 in the BFM area more or maybe switch to a different aircraft?

I've discovered a potential AI pathing issue in vicinity of Mashiz (south of Kerman). Rough cords: 30-4-10 N, 56-44-33 E. AI placed offroad, with waypoints set to get them on the road (set to On Road - which locks the point to the road). Second waypoint placed short distance south of Waypoint 1, however AI pathing indicates the vehicles going north (opposite direction than intended), doing a significantly large loop. Intent: To get the vehicles moving south towards Mashiz as part of an offensive action as part of a campaign. Outcome: Vehicle pathing indicates the AI will head north before looping back on available roads (a significant journey) and approaching Waypoint 2 from the south. Attached: 'Quick Mission' miz file (original miz file part of an intended paid campaign - pathing issue reproduced in hastily made test mission), JPEG (Pathing1) showing close detail, (Pathing2) showing whole AI pathing. VEH_PATH_ISSUE_TEST.miz

I'd like to see (eventually) an F-4 variant series. Start off with the F-4E (arguably the most numerous version) but then add the carrier-capable (mainly US) F-4J/N and then add the UK F-4K Phantom FG.1/FGR.2 (preferably both but either/or is still welcome, also with a RN carrier though the UK F-4s could land/take off from US carriers). This does a number of things: 1. It adds at least 1 variant almost everyone is familiar with or has a loyalty to, as well as opens up a number of historical scenarios. 2. It aids in fleshing out the air forces of quite a few nations represented in DCS (including the woefully under-represented RAF) 3. It allows for non-US carrier operations in Marianas as well as RAZBAMs upcoming Falklands (in the case of the F-4K) - which allows for interesting 'What If' scenarios. EDIT: An AI WSO is a necessity.

The earlier Tranche of aircraft (Tranche is similar to 'Block') used a mechanical pulse-doppler radar - Captor or Captive or some such. Fancy acronym for something. Too lazy to google it right now. So a Tranche 1 aircraft is likely the only version we'd ever get to see in DCS if Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain or the UK were courteous enough to provide technical data. I believe Tranche 1 aircraft are being, or have been, phased out of service either by being replaced by newer Tranche 3/4 aircraft or by being upgraded to Tranche 2 or better. I'm not even sure what weapons systems the older Tranche aircraft used - Skyflash? AIM-120? I know they use ASRAAM and IRIS-T now, but did they use AIM-9 beforehand? I'd like to see the UK air roster fleshed out a bit more (and the French, while we're at it), so anything the RAF uses would be more than welcome - even if it just AI to begin with - however I think it'd be much more likely we'll see an RAF/RN Phantom or a Tornado ADV in DCS before we ever see a Typhoon.

I put forward the request that Australia, in DCS, be given the Oliver Hazzard Perry-class (OHP) guided missile frigate (FFG) as a naval asset. The Royal Australian Navy operated 6 Adelaide-class FFGs which were, for all intents and purposes, externally identical to the OHP-class (save the distinctive 'Red Rat' painted on the sides of the forward superstructure - Red Rat being an affectionate term for the red Kangaroo motif painted on most Australian vehicles as well as being part of the RAAF roundel). While the Adelaide-class was eventually upgraded to feature a 21-cell VLMS mounted forward of the SM-2 missile rail, they were virtually identical in external layout to the Oliver Hazzard Perry-class FFGs. Considering Australia has been given the MQ-9 Reaper asset, a capability which Australia is yet to receive though it has been announced, and that other nations which have operated far fewer OHPs have them assigned (Bahrain, in particular) there is a precedence - of note is that two of the RANs FFGs are allegedly being sold to Chile, which could then also be added to Chile within DCS. They could be referred to as Adelaide-class FFGs whilst using the OHP model or could simply be added as OHPs. This is a 'quick win' as it requires only a few lines of code to achieve the desired outcome (unless an Australia-specific livery for the ship is desired, which requires a livery to be created). Another, more complicated, request is that a MEKO 200 frigate model be created and added to DCS. The MEKO 200 and its variants serve, or have served, with 7 nations worldwide - 6 of which are represented in DCS (Australia - as the ANZAC-class, Turkey, Greece, South Africa, Portugal and Algeria use, or have used, the MEKO 200 in one variant or another. New Zealand also uses ANZAC-class however New Zealand is not yet represented as a faction in DCS). With the pending addition of the Marianas Islands map (which has significantly more ocean than the Caucasus or Persian Gulf) more naval assets for some, if not most or all, nations represented within DCS would be beneficial as several nations with large blue-water navies are not adequately represented - such as the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Brazil.

Hey Netsk, yeah I know the problem isn't with the runway - the comment about runway length was basically to highlight the capabilities of aircraft. An airport that has a runway of (x) length should be coded to allow for larger aircraft - especially international airports and major airbases. I've noticed that, for larger aircraft, they will land at airfields that don't support their parking and despawn off the runway. At least BIGNEWY has said they'll look at tweaking it - that's all we can ask.