bies

They mentioned early AN/ASG-14T1 radar and late J79-GE-19 engine.

It was even more complicated: originally Kelly Johnson designed F-104 as air superiority fighter to defeat MiGs in air combat. He personally contacted Korean war US fighter pilots to know what was, in practice, the most important factors in air combat. Their conclusion was more or less: speed, acceleration, climb rate, zoom climb, ceiling, gun. Thus he created a fighter which overperformed every existing aircraft in this parameters, armed with newly designed powerfull Vulcan gun. But USAF testing it was more inclined to use it as interceptor due to its fantastic performance. Still, their USAF pilots in units were trained for air combat to outfly enemy fighters, using it as the most powerfull BnZ fighter ever.

Later "beefed up version of the A" was the best performer among all - it has lightweight lowest drag "A" airframe and more powerfull engine. They were built for pure air superiority. This one would be great.

What variant of F-104 this is going to be? Or maybe it's too early to ask? I think some early USAF hot rod F-104A/C with pure performance from 1960s and Vietnam War would be neat. Maybe most popular multirole F-104G as well. Considering quality, flight model, engine model and overall realism and attention to detail of your C-101 and Mirage F.1 and the number of variants you've included i'm confident Starfighter will be top notch as well. Legendary Cold War american fighter, great choice and potential bestseller.

I enjoy both, both are very well made. I would say main difference is C-101 has NATO instruments logic when L-39 has Soviet/Warsaw Pact one, since both were used as trainers in two respective blocks.

Great idea. Snow as well.

Amateur made, totally unrealistic, fictional MODs, made by a single guy in a few days, by changing some random values, without any data, any SME input, with completely fictional avionics, weapons, sensors, flight models, performance - are fun to fly once or twice. But they are absolutely not any answer to "Redford question". Flying some Su-57 "patriotic" MOD Mach3 at 80,000ft (without semi-ramjet engines and with duralumin skin...) and turning 360° all day without losing any energy or without any laws of physics like some flying sorcerer becames cheap after 1-2 flights and it is not compatible with rest of DCS in any shape or form. It's nice MODs work and me or you can make Mach 4 NGAD superfighter in a few days, changing some random numbers in F-15 file and adding some free 3d model, but it doesn't mean it should be integrated into DCS. Full fidelity MiG-17, Su-22, MiG-23, maybe MiG-29 some day, are answer to "redfor question", not some arcade 100% fictional amateur made completely unrealistic Su-something MOD.

What can I say, A-1 looks awesome. Navy warthog of the early cold war. One of these aircrafts which looks just so-so, but in practice they are hell lot of fun. Low level ground attacks with guns, rockets, bombs, dodging AAA. CSAR missions and landings/takeoffs under fire. Early carrier operations with close to no aids.

When MiG-21 was used by North Vietnamise as hit-and-run interceptor operating from ambushes, in most cases doesn't even have gun which was lamented by Vietnamise pilots - the transsonic MiG-17 was perfectly suited for classic close air combat.

Wasting development time only to code whole new dumbed down enviroment, less realistic, more simplified, more fictional and made up. If i would be a developer coding such dumbed down version of my work would be the worst part of my job. Instead of many anticipated MORE realistic and LESS dumbed down features like SAM enviroment, radar simulation, IRST simulation, more realistic weather interaction, more realistic naval behaviour and systems simulation, more realsitic ground vehicle weapon simulation and armor, more realsitic damage simulation etc.

Game mode in a simulator would be a waste of development time.

Exactly. Thet's why i said 1980s Patriot / S300 CAN be modeled in reasonably realistic way if someone would like to use some manhours - not thet they already are. All the systems ar currently very simplified. When more modern systems can't me modeled anywhere near their real capabiliies which are 100% classified, regardless of manhours spent on them.

It enters service in 2023 - we don't have any other modules from such modern timeframe.

That would be nice. It was Huey's high point.

It would be awesome. Persian Gulf map should be 1991 Gulf War actual warzone map, with Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. Atmospheric, historical, relevant, perfect for Dynamic Campaign and many real missions to recreate. Not modern day, peaceful time, Hormuz strait like in civlian simulator.

"T" would be a poor choice, just a few prototypes built, poor kinematic performance, poor maneuverability, unfinished, lacking documentation and SME to cooperate thus reduced realism/fidelity, not accepted by the military, zero history, zero relevance. But classic serial Su-25 as full fidelity would be great, i have to admit. In pair with Mi-24 over Afganistan map as 1980s Soviet CAS. It was one of the most widely used combat jet during last 40 years. Maybe it could be possible. But for now even Su-17M is not officially confirmed. Only time will tell.

Yes, but only a bit. It was a bit uncomfortable IRL as well.

The way the periscope sight in Cold War variant Gazelle L has been made, works fantastic in both VR and flat screen. It just shows magnified image the whole time, depending on your head angle, you can simply lean forward to see a more refined picture, it works more or less like a periscope does in real life. It adds a lot of immersion and overall comfort. The Mi-24 should definitely receive such implementation of the periscope sight. Instead of current "separate image", detached from the whole cockpit. cheers

The way periscope sight in Cold War variant Gazelle L has been made works fantastic in VR. It just shows magnified image, you can simply lean forward to see more refined picture, it works more or less like periscope does in real life. Great job Polychop, it adds a lot. Mi-24 can only dream about such implementation of periscope sight.

It's a mistake to write just F-15, not F-15E in this case. As there is a big difference in performance and role between F-15A/C, top air superiority fighter through 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and strike airfraft derivative F-15E. F-15E is dedicated ground pounder, it doesn't have flight performance of lightweight fighter variants F-15A/C, but it has the range and specialized avionics and low flying navigation to do the job. No point flexing F-14A/B against F-15E. If Razbam makes F-15A or C in the future there will be far more sense to compare it to our F-14.

Ka-25 would be great, just like SH-60, operating from small rocking flight decks of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, but that would require ASW to be modeled in DCS to be have any real purpose.

For me obviously full fidelity is way better than low fidelity simplified FC3 standard in every possible regard. It's even easier to learn without the need to bind and remember some 40-50 abstract functions, but having interactive cockpit. The only reason i fly FC3 sometimes is FC3 modeled the sexiest late Cold War jets, with the sweet spot 1980s/1990s F-15C, MiG-29A, Su-27S, A-10A, Su-25 semi analog-semi digital era, when air combat and ground attack were close and personal for the last time during 1991 Desert Storm. Obvoiusly i would greatly prefer full fidelity versions. I hope we will see them in the future.

Block 25 and 32 were not only significantly heavier than non-MLU Block 15, but the worse part of increased weight was the new heavier APG-68 radar and new avionics blocks were placed in the nose. Both F-16A pilots and pilots flying against it in BFM called F-16C "lead nose Vipers", with APG-68 F-16 became nose heavy, significanly reducing its meneuverability. But even non-MLU Block 15 was already significantly less maneuverable than earlier "small tail" F-16A Block 1, 5, 10 with original leading edge flaps and tail authority, significanly reduced later on and F-16A Block 15 already lost its maneuvering edge over other fighters. Further degrading it with C variant with new avionics and heavier APG-68 radar. Gaining more and more weight with the same small wing to generate lift.

F-15A from mid 1970s - great. Cold War superfighter with semi analog/semi digital taste and the most maneuverable F-15 at low speeds. F-15A achieved some half of ~100 F-15 kills. F-16A MLU - bad, it was 1990s F-16A upgraded to Block 50 standard, just worse Block 50. But original early analog, super nimble, lightweight F-16A Block 1, 5, 10 with small tail, like the one shooting down some 40 Syrian MiGs in dogfights over Bekaa Valley would be great. F-16C Block 40 - good. Strike aircraft from late Cold War/Desert Storm with LANTIRN suite and WARHUD. F-16C Block 32 - bad. It was poorer performance derivative of Block 30 which had the best acceleration among F-16 family. Block 30 from late Cold War/Desert Storm, before it gained additional weight later on, would be good. Soviet (pre Russian) MiG-29 9.12 and Su-27S would be great if possible some day. Pure variants with best kinematic performance, avionics declassified and possible to model in DCS. Russian (post Soviet) MiG-29 SMT - bad, poor kinematic performance and reduced maneuverability, classified avionics and weapon. Russian (post Soviet) Su-27SM - 100% totally classified with close to zero data, it would have to be completely unrealistic made up fiction, having nothing in common with real jet, way less realistic than FC3.