bies

I've seen HB announcement of FB: https://fb.watch/j9LAbYkvXl/ PS. The worst are low quality comments like: "why do you waste time working on modules already released in EA - throw all people to make next module F-4 or A-6"

Zulu is way more modern and way more classified than AH-64D, only in 2011 first unit achieved initial readines. It will never be in DCS. In the interview Zulu pilot didn't even want to talk about most systems. All others like "G" from Vietnam war or "W" from Fulda Gap would be possible in DCS.

This is basically a debt, you don't earn in hope you will earn more later on. As much as i would love to see an F-117 in DCS it was highly specialised aircraft - relatively poor choice to attract casual beginner who would want to rather try many things and make many mistakes. The only attractive feature for the average Joe would be unusual apperance and Gulf War legend. In case of F-117 you are eiter skilled/knowledgable to perform the mission or you are useless, it would be appreciated by more experiences customers though. I think FlyingIron simulations is the closest to model F-117 as they invested money to obtain the data and started to model it for XPlane.

All considerations, pros and cons, aside - ED, using some 2-3 years to license, research, obtain data, code, consult, debug full fidelity FREE module - might end up bankrupt and DCS project ended. I doubt ED has some huge financial margin to be allowed to work without payment - workhours needed to make full fidelity module/research/license etc. is comparable to making whole other genre full PC game for free. DCS full fidelity module is not WT-like copy-paste, change few parameters in Excel, new 3d model and low quality cockpit. Complexity is enormous. Regardless of whether it would be profitable in a long term or not, even if ED would like to make something like that for free. It may financially kill them and whole DCS project. And this would be a damn shame, a truly dark day. And then what?

Even more - ED stated they would never be able to model Eurofighter if not 3rd party company owned by real life Eurofighter Luftwaffe pilot Gero Finke, named TrueGrit. Let alone EF entered active service in 2006.

Add Iraqi MiG-21, Mi-24, Gazelle, later Su-17, MiG-23, NATO Tornado IDS, A-6E, A-7E, Mirage 2000 took part as well covering U-2s

They can't make 2006 era F-22. Even our 2007 era F-16C doesn't have some classified systems modeled. 2023 would be totally unrealistic fantasy, castrated from half of its real life capabilities, completely made up fiction. They did the very last standard they were able to model in reasonably realistic way.

Superhornet was typical product of its time - USSR collapsed, there was no threat to US air dominance anywhere in the world anymore, thus no money to develop modern new design. Expensive specialised aircrafts like F-14 or A-6 had to be phased out without replacement. Navy wanted to replace A-6 and F-14 with advanced strike A-12 Avenger or fighter NATF-22, but no opponent, no threat - no money. F/A-18 has been replaced by relatively cheap, low rsk, easy to maintain F/A-18E, without stealth, without high kinematic performance, without any radical design changes. USAF barely defended their F-22 program being forced to drastically cut the number of ordered airframes from 700 to 190. Cheap and easy to maintain, integrated with modern guided A/G munitions F/A-18E was perfect for low threat enviroment war on terror period. Not quite adequate for symmetrical air to air competition against China.

ED already stated choosing modules they judge many necessary factors, community intrest in particular aircraft, potential sales, access to declassified data, subject matters experts willing to cooperate, manhours needed to code it in realistic way, cost of the license and willingness of manufacturer to cooperate etc. They read this forum and they have really good idea which aircrafts people would like to see, but all other factors above have to be met. I.e. they've managed to negotiate and buy pack of licences from Boeing for highly anticipated, possible to model, with SMEs, well selling and declassified Hornet, Strike Eagle, Apache and Chinook so they are making them, giving F-15E to Razbam.

All earlier AH-64 simulations like Longbow 2, Team Apache, Enemy Engaged etc. were extremely simplified in every possible aspect, we wouldn't even call them simulations today, but arcade shooters, from flight model and flight control, through avionics, weapons up to 2-crew interaction, not even close to the current state of DCS Apache. Let alone finished with FCR, interferometer, Longbow datalink etc. To be honest it's incredible something so complex was even possible to be made in commercial non-military simulation. ED is doing fantastic job here, they have to have significant amount of experienced coders to be able to work on F/A-18C, F-16C, Mi-24P, AH-64D at the same time and still working on DCS engine.

Interview with F-16 pilot, here comparing early F-16A and later F-16 variants maneuverability, but the whole interview is very interesting, F-16 developement and changes, flying MiG-21 Fishbed and MiG-23 Flogger BFM against NATO fighters etc.:

What we have is FC3 is original Soviet Union 1980s Su-27S, VVS variant, with additional capability to carry 1990s post-Soviet introduced R-27ER/ET. Before first post Cold War modernisation called Su-27SM. Contract for Su-27SM modernisation has been signed in 2006 and the first squadron became operational in 2010. Contrary to our Soviet era variant Su-27SM had MFDs, new radar, ability to use guided air-to-ground ordnance, including Kh-29 and Kh-31 missiles, and laser-guided bombs, as well as the R-77 air-to-air missile. Contrary to our 1980s variant Su-27SM used Pastel RWR instead of 1980s Beryoza we have and wingtip Khibiny ECM instead of 1980s Sorbtsiya we have. Yes, FC3 modules are simplified and doesn't model many RL limitations of Su-27S and MiG-29 9.12.

Cold War 1980s MiG-29 and Su-27 IRST was usefull only in high altitude, good weather, interception. According to fighter pilot Lt.Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton with 510 hours in F-5, 900 hours in F-15, 2030 hours F-16 and 500 hours in MiG-29 - MiG-29 IRST was useless in tactical air to air combat, on the other hand he praised ZSh-5 / Shchel-3UM helmet sight. He fought the biggest amount of simulated air combat engagement flying MiG-29 against all NATO fighters between 1996 and 1998 during evaluation program in many different tactical scenarios using both WarPac and NATO tactics. There are two great interviews with him, when he is talking about very interesting details, one written, one video. There is also great interwiew with Russian Su-27 and Su-35 pilot in Russian part of the DCS forum - Russian language is required. According to him 1980s Su-27S/P would be badly beaten by NATO fighters in tactical air combat as pilot's situational awareness was far worse in dynamic situation, it was good for predictable interceptions. cheers

Comparing number of F-14 alone to number of whole USSR fighter fleet is like comparing 300 Su-27 in 1990 to 2,893 USAF fighters alone (without US Navy fighters) in 1990. BTW: You did include ONLY ONE SMALLER of two Soviet air forces - VVS. Soviet Union had also huge air defence fighter and rocket forces PVO with additional interceptors, better founded than tactical aviation you mentioned, but contrary to VVS, PVO pilots were trained to perform ground guided straight line interceptions, not trained to perform air combat: PVO had in 1990 additional: 500 Sukhoi Su-15 850 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 350 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 210 Sukhoi Su-27 (yes, Su-27 was in biggest part produced for Air Defence in Su-27P variant, not for tactical aviation) 360 Mikoyan MiG-31 Which gave USSR combined fleet of 3,545 fighters (1,275 fighters in VVS. And 2,315 interceptors in PVO) roughly 2/3 trained to perform interceptions in PVO and 1/3 to perform air combat in VVS for combine numbers: 50 MiG-21 500 Sukhoi Su-15 1445 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 350 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 300 Sukhoi Su-27 900 Mikoyan MiG-31 Overall USSR operated roughly 11,500 combat aircrafts in late Cold War plus roughly 2,500 in satellite states in Europe for combined 14,000 combat aircrafts in Warsaw Pact, compared to 12,000 combat aircrafts in NATO (Excluding Naval Aviation) (Additionally Warsaw Pact had 1253 Naval aviation combat aircrafts when NATO 4890 Naval aviation combat aircrafts) - not included it the chart below. For comparison today's Russia has 912 fighters and roughly 3,500 main battle tanks - 16 times less tanks than 1980s USSR which operated 54,300 deployed tanks in active units, and additional 15,000 in depot reserve.

Still way more Chinese than Su-30. J-8II PP is Chinese airframe with foreign avionics, when Su-30 is foreign Russian airframe with foreign Russian avionics.

There will never be any realistic simulator covering strictly classified modern military equipment due to obvious reasons. And there is nothing wrong about it. When it comes to experience of realistic battlefield of the past (~1944-2006) Dynamic Campaign and air defence overhaul hopefully improve the situation significantly.

Both are different, southern region with so called Fulda Gap consist of mountain corridors and passes and big elevation amplitudes, northern region is basically flat North German Plain.

It was working only in F-15A with PW-100 engines, PW-220 incorporated a digital electronic engine control (DEEC). F-15A and F-15C manual for both PW-100 and PW-220 with performance in different conditions and configurations, including PW-100 VMAX switch, is available publicly on Aviation Archives page.

In both SP and MP equally. In MP flying against human piloted 1985 Su-27S, in SP flying against AI piloted 1985 Su-27S. trevoC and Exorcet argument are valid as well since IRL most Russian aircrafts in mid 2000s were barely modernized 1980s Soviet built ones. Russian "modern" 2000s aircraft will not be possible in th future due to Rssian law. Soviet era 1980s MiG-29 9.12 - ED stated they are not allowed to make it, but maybe some 3rd party could. Still we are talking about Cold War era 1980s Soviet MiG-29. That's why i think F-15A/C should include Cold War variants and probably also 2000s for collection as well. It would be simply more fun to fight RED force in F-15 last time they were competitive and posed a danger or challenge for USAF. Shooting down hopelessly outdated Su-27 and MiG-29 becomes chap and boring fast, maybe Dynamic Campaign would make "seal clubbing" more fun overall. IRL US pure air campaign in 2000s against Russia would be nearly as one sided as Gulf War - Raptors, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s having big numerical advantage, cutting edge technology, maintenance, training, support - against barely modernized Su-27s and MiG-29s firing R-27R/ER, massively underfounded, with barely any flight hours pilot training, extremely lacking maintenance, logistics, guided weapon, organisation, support etc. PS: Su-35 entered service in 2014 and in very small numbers. A decade later than our F-16C, F/A-18C, AH-64D etc. So yes, surely 2000s F-15C wouldn't meet them since Su-35 didn't exist back then. For comparison F-22 entered service 2006.

We have F-16C, F/A-18C, F-15E from mid 2000s, but no opposition. F-16C, F-15E and F/A-18C suffer less since then can forget about A-A and just perform A-G. Contrary, 2000s F-15C, pure A-A platform, without any 2000s opposition in the air, wouldn't have anything to do. At most fight 1985 Su-27S. Or completely fictional and stupid to be honest USAF vs. US Navy scenarios. At the same time Cold War F-15 fighter variant from mid 1970s F-15A or mid 1980s F-15C MSIP II would have plenty of period correct opposition and real air wars to recreate, Bekaa Valley battle, Desert Storm etc.

I agree. I was always wondering why "Persian Gulf" in DCS means peaceful 2018 Hormuz Strait with artificial palm tree islands - and not either Gulf War 1991 full scale war zone over Kuwait/South Iraq. Or full scale war zone 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war over Iraqi-Iranian border. Or at least 1980s "Tankers war" in Hormuz Strait. Especially we have in DCS nearly all modules for all this 3 conflicts, for both sides, flayable. But no, instead modern day peaceful Burj Khalifa and palm tree islands Hormuz Strait which would fit civilian flight sim well, not really combat simulator. PS: our F-15E RAZBAM is making is going to be 2003-2015 variants. Unfortunately no F-15E from Gulf War with original engines, pre AMRAAM, at least not now, but they announced both engine types so maybe in the future.

Agree, during 1970s/1980s F-15 was in its prime and nearly all of 104 F-15 air kills achieved in 1975-1991 Cold War era with Sparrows/Sidewinders/Gun, before AMRAAM. In 2000s F-15 modernisation has been neglected as USAF pushed all the money to save F-22 program. F-15 became cheap old substitute of the Raptor when Congress didn't allow to replace all 700 Eagles with Raptors in mid 2000s, but only 190 high tech F-22. Still neither F-22 nor F-15 was needed, when USSR collapsed there was no air threat anymore in the world and both fighters didn't have opportunities to fight and shoot down enemy aircrafts. BTW: MSIP came online early on, still during Cold War, since 1985 MSIP was becoming standard in USAF squadrons in Europe - exactly when first Su-27P/S started to appear in Soviet squadrons in 1985. That's why all F-15C in Gulf War 1991 were MSIP standard (electronic display for weapon control, NCTR, internal ECM, some new radar functions etc.) I think 2 variants would be ideal, 1975 F-15A, with all 1970s DCS F-5E, MiG-21bis, Mirage F.1, F-14A, F-4E etc. And 1985 F-15C MSIP for late Cold War/Gulf War, with Su-27S, MiG-29A, F-14B, Su-25A, Su-17M, Mi-24 etc. It was used in 1990s as well with AMRAAM. The more variants the better, since 1979 it was just adding electronic devices to F-15C airframe so it wouldn't be time consuming.

This one would be fun, even take off and landing would be a challenge. It had tandem cockpit arrangement like a fighter and it looked awesome.

Yes and "Improvised" is just a buzzword for totally unrealistic, fictional and made up, working completely different than real counterpart. What's more late MiG-29 like SMT are overweight, underpowered, poor performance dogs, literally the only interesting thing would be their avionics - strictly classified, which would be, by far, the least realistic and most made up part of the module. Far cry from powerful, nimble original lightweight MiG-29 9.12 with great kinematic performance at the pick of MiG-29 era.