Lace

At risk of stating the obvious, I just hope they don't do something stupid like release a 'modern' version of the map! It absolutely has to be conflict relevant (unlike South Atlantic, Kola and Sinai).

Indeed, but it's close enough, and I didn't want to dampen what is unarguably welcome news with an 'if only they'd done x' caveat.

A blessing it is 'only' a 1989 variant IMHO. We have enough mid-00s options. Very glad they went GR1 rather than GR4 (or god forbid - the ADV).

Well, we are at least getting the Tornado now!

Yep, that'll do it for me.

Disabling downwind ILS is not uncommon IRL, so not really a bug.

Looks like this will be a thing on the F-15E. Any possibility it might be reconsidered for the Viper?

Orbx, who are doing the Kola Peninsula/Nordkapp map already have the whole UK ortho scenery, treescapes & POIs available for XP and P3D. I would think that would save a bit of development time. Not sure how big the potential market would be for this one, but I'd buy it! We've got the LN Mudhens incoming. We just need to add the Hawk, Jaguar, Buccaneer and Tornado!

Some interesting advice on this thread. A lot of people seem to be over thinking it. Don't worry about the speed - that is dependent on a/c weight. Fly the correct AoA and glideslope and you'll be fine. Keep the FPM on the piano keys. The landing bracket on the HUD, and the localiser should be where your focus is, (or runway centreline for a visual approach - note the FPM will not be aligned with the centre of the HUD if a crosswind is present). Keep the airbrakes 3/4 extended throughout the approach as this gives you better throttle control and they can be quickly retracted if you need to go around (not sure if this is standard ops, but works for me and is generally good practice as throttle response at low speeds can be slow). Flare at idle throttle just above the runway and pitch up slightly (move the FPM to halfway down the runway), allowing the aircraft to settle onto the main wheels (it might gently rock side-to-side as one wheel touches before the other). Maintain that pitch until <100kts and gradually lower the nose. Apply full back stick, full airbrakes, NWS on when you start to lose rudder authority, and gently brake for your runway exit.

I agree largely with the sentiment, however, how would a non-involved 3rd party be privy to information discussed between ED and another 3rd party if it were not publicly announced? One could invest a lot of time and effort on a project to present to ED only to find that someone else is already further ahead.

Skyraider! Awesome news and all but confirms a planned Vietnam map...

Indeed, but best climb 'angle' is 90deg straight up vertically, given enough power. The definition is best angle, not rate. In a lot of lower powered aircraft the figure can be similar (can't vertical climb in a C172!), but there is a reason for the two distinct terms.

Max climb angle (i.e ft per nm) is for terrain clearance, max climb rate (i.e ft per minute) is quickest to TOC.

That's the issue, DI is dependent on stores loaded. It is something which needs to be calculated for each flight, zero being a clean jet, up to very draggy TERs, pods, etc. Unfortunately DCS does not show it in the mission planner (yet!). Edit - the 350KIAS/0.8Mach mentioned in the original post is bang in the middle of the chart for a DI of 200, so probably a good ballpark for most 'normal' loadouts.

That's great, thanks.

Any plans for a 1950s/60s version of the map? All these new maps are great but I feel the older post-WWII modules are being left out in the cold.

So interpolate between... MIL Power ------------ Drag Index (DI) = 0: 450 KIAS until Mach 0.88 DI = 300: 300 KIAS until Mach 0.72 It would be nice if the loadout section in preflight/mission planner gave the DI.

Yeah, QFE not really that relevant when you have a RAD Alt. QNH more important for performance figures, deconfliction, etc.

I remember seeing somewhere that an 'ideal' climb profile in the Viper is 350kts until M0.8, then hold the mach number until TOC. My question is - is this correct, and what is the power setting (assume MIL, but haven't seen it stated)?

IIRC the Mossie and Apache were released pretty close to each other. Not much commonality so unlikely to steal sales from each other, and the hardcore DCS'ers like myself will just buy them both anyway. Likewise for simultaneous map/module releases I'd imagine, but I'm sure ED do their homework regarding release timings.

Kiowa has been very quite lately though. It might just be a 'hey, we haven't forgotten!'.

I hope one of the four is the Kiowa. Would love to see an F-111 or Tornado, but doubt I will this time. Afghanistan was teased in the '2022 and beyond' video, so given we are now in September, it would be nice to have that formally announced. We already know about the F-4 (both of them). Maybe Su-17/22?

Time to dust off the CH yoke and quadrant!

I would speculate that some of the more highly anticipated theatres have already been earmarked by ED (or other more established partners) and are perhaps currently in development. We already know about Afghanistan. Vietnam has been often hinted at. It wouldn't surprise me if there are others.

Would I buy it? Yes, if only for the experience of sitting in it in VR and practicing QRA scrambles. Would I fly it many combat missions? probably not. It would require multi crew and long endurance flights. The actual 'combat' element would be a very small % of that. As a pure bomber I'd much rather a Tornado GR1, F-111 or F-117, as I think the strategic element is absent from DCS and a tactical asset makes more sense.