bies

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.

Russian ones will not we possible in the future due to Russian law. But many Soviet Union ones are in DCS right now like MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Czechoslovakia L-39 and more Soviet modules are in development like Su-17M, MiG-23MLA, La-7, possibly MiG-29 9.12, possibly MiG-17. In helicopter department there is parity right now with 3 eastern Mi-8, Ka-50 and Mi-24 and 3 western Gazelle, AH-64 and Huey.

Just good to remember they are talking about using AIM-9X Block II produced since 2013, with lock-on after launch and datalink. In DCS we have Block I produced since 2003 without this new capabilities, this is proper for our DCS 2004-2007 timeframe F/A-18C, F-16C.

What you propose is contradictory - it's impossible to code realistic flight model or systems of classified aircraft with no data. It's not DCS or MAC or other sim which has realistic FM or systems, it's developer who can code it in realistic way if he has data, SME cooperation, aircraft producer license etc. Or unrealistic, made up, fictional if data are classified and not available, SME won't say anything, produced won't sell license. Tools are already in DCS. You won't make realistic i.e. Raptor regardless of simulator environment available.

FC3 is simplified - not straight up unrealistic, fictional or made up. FC3 is just low fidelity standard the best ED could do in year ~2003. You can't take classified aircraft without data and make it in FC3 standard, becuase it will be pure fiction, working completely different than real counterpart, contrary to rest of FC3. What is more "modern" means glass cocckpit, it's impossible to make FC3 glass cockpit aircraft without making whole avionics ridiculous. What you propose is amateur made MOD and we have some for DCS, Raptors, Rafales, Sukhois, everything.

Russian aircrafts won't be possible due to their law, but Soviet ones are being developed like Su-17M, MiG-23MLA, possibly MiG-17 and many are already in DCS like Mi-24P, Mi-8, MiG-21bis, MiG-19P, MiG-15bis. L-39 was used as combat trainer in Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet Union in huge numbers. ED was trying to make early 1980s MiG-29 9.12 but it became impossible. PVO Strany interceptors were more classified than others, some MOD group tried to obtain data necessary to make 1970s MiG-25PD, but they've concluded it's impossible right now even after all this years. When it comes to Soviet aviation MiG-25P/PD/RB, Su-25A, Ka-26 are on my wishlist as well. Maybe some day. There is Caucassus map and Kola Peninsula is being developed.

They know that very well.

Divided Germany Fulda Gap map, between Frankfurt, Kassel and Erfurt.

It would be great for sure, if well made, but it is incomparably more time and resurce consuming than most people think since it would require total enviroment overhaul to be worth. 1) It would require far more complex infantry AI, animations, wehicles AI, artillery, mines etc. 2) It would require overhaul of ground physics, tanks don't swim like ships, cross country terrain changes tanks capabilities to a big degree. 3) It would require far more detailed terrain mesh and overall level of detail which could be impossible without dramatic preformance decrease or special far smaller and more detailed map specially made for tanks. Investing big amount of time, money, resources to make realistic tank module with fire control system, interior for at lest 3 crew members, crew AI, transmission, gearbox, engine, suspension, periscopes and optical devices, armor penetration models and armor models - making all of that without the whole tanks enviroment overhaul would be kind of wasted effort. DCS engine has been created as aircraft simulation so absolutely necessery compromises has been made accordingly - not to make it unplayable maps have ground mesh, ground units AI, infantry, terrain modeling etc. very much simplified. It would be fantastic, an ultimate experience to have ArmA3 level of detail and DCS scale and realism at the same time, but it is probably impossible with todays technology. Driving high fidelity very well modeled expensive tank module on table-flat terrain without hull down position, with asphalt grip everywhere, empty and low detail, against wastly simplified AI infantry, other ground vehicles and many other simplifications may not be the best experience. Time will tell, if someone would like to make it i support the idea if technically possible.

Both cockpit view and low altitude rockets and gun fire in hover. Note their control in low altitude maneuver, maintaining perfect hover, tight finger four formation, not afraid of any rotor collision, great pilots skill and very stabe helicopter quickly compensating for gun recoil, very stable in direction as well for rocket firing.

Dedicated anit-air I'm not going to argue, but non AAA i agree completely. Definitely both - ability to locate air targets by non dedicated AAA, without radar, often without optics, inside a noisy tank or IFV, at first pass when it was impossible to even hear aircraft coming, - and accuracy of non-dedicated anti aircraft fire, like small FoV BMP main canon sight, hand operated tank MG on turret roof etc., with no proper optics, inadequate turret traverse speed, are order of magnitude grater than in real life. Adjusting non-dedicated AAA accuracy can be simple. Adjusting perception, ability to instantly detect air threats at all directions, may be more tricky.

I think it should be a compromise: Real life historical liveries should be downloaded with the module - when fictional ones should be optional, selectable in module options, man could skip them if he wants to i.e. save space.

Nobody except for narrow circles in the military know their details, how avionics works, exact performance, weapon systems etc. They could be made only in totally unrealistic way with made up fictional systems working in completely different way than real counterparts. So not in DCS.

It was used exclusively by Soviet PVO Strany which was extremally secretive, classifying basically anything possible. That's why it may be impossible to obtain data for Tu-128 or MiG-25 even though they were phased out decades ago due to political reasons.

When it comes to assets: why DCS needs extremally high detail high quality 3d model AI assets? Wouldn't be better to make 100 medium quality i.e. tanks, AAA guns, artillery pieces etc. than 10 extremally high quality? How close do i need to fly with i.e. Apache or Hing (let alone Hornet or Tomcat) to Leopard 2 to see ANY difference between medium and high quality model? Or Elephant SPG from Mosquito. 20 meters? 30? In practice it never happens. Sacrificing never visible AI assets quality we would fill DCS with all timeframes assets fast.

2 versions of the map is a good idea but i suppose making i.e. 1950 Korea and 2005 Korea would be more different than two Mariana islands. I would obviously like 1950s Korean map for MiG-15, F-86, A-1 etc. - but what conflicts took place after the war? In 1950-1953 there was massive all out war directly involving North Korea, South Korea, USA, China, in smaller degree USSR, UK, Canada, Turkey, Australia, France and some 10 other countries, it was limited world war with some 5 million soldiers involved, 1 million military and 2-3 million of civilian casualties. When both sides performed some 800 000 sorties and lost around 4000 aircrafts. After 1953, until today, there were just small border skirmishes - not any air campaigns or any open war. Always less than 1% of the scale of 1950s war. That's why i think if we take i.e. Korean map 1950s should have absolute priority. And you're right AI assets are crucial. In case of Korea big part of them would be straight WW2 ones though.

True it was short and undecisive, i'm not pushing this idea very much, especially compared to full blown Korea, Vietnam, Six Day War, Lebanon War, Iraq-Iran war etc. - still even 1962 Cuba has seen more significant 2 weeks air campaign than Burj Khalifa and atrificial islands of 2020 Dubai which has seen 0 air combat and which can support only fictional air campaign scenarios. Technically this architecture is too modern even for our F/A-18C, F-16C, AH-64D from ~2006. Let alone 1980s when this place saw significant combat for the last time. Theoretically man can fly 1950s MiG-19, F-100, A-1. Or 1970 F-4, F-5E, MiG-21 (hell even 1940s Spitfire) over modern day Beirut or Damascus illuminated blocks and modern skyscrapers, but it is only so-so experience obviously. And Syria is not that well developed so it is still not the worst case scenarion, you can i.e. purposely avoid cites etc. But why there are WW2 Channel or Normandy map or WW2 Mariana map intentionally derived from 2020 Marianas map? Because flying over roughly proper timeframe map is far better, more atmospheric and realistic experience. Could man fly 1950 MiG-15bis, A-1 Skyraider or F-86F Sabre over i.e. modern day Korean map? Theoretically yes, dogfighting Sabres in between Haeundae Udong Hyundai I’Park skyscrapers, trying to lose chasing MiG-15s flying below illuminated Saetgang Bridge, or trying to pick up downed pilot in A-1, waiting below futuristic rainbow Busan Cinema Center, landing on six-line expressway nearby, but it would be one time funny thing at best and poor experience with 0 realism or atmosphere at worst. Or something in between like meme time travel Tomcats vs Zeroes form The Final Countdown.

A bit different angle: The sheer fact you always magically know if your missile actually hit an enemy aircraft beyond visual range ruins big part of the tactics and makes engagement shallow. The same with i.e. SAM radar. Where is the space for ambiguity, RWR, radar and other sensors interpretation, damage assessment reconnaissance aircrafts etc.?

DCS accommodates every timeframe. Currently there are some 15 additional Cold War era modules in developement F-4E Phantom II, MiG-23MLA, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, OH-58 Kiowa, Bolkov 105, Sea Harrier, MiG-29A?, Su-17, Fiat G.91, MiG-17, F-8 Crusader, F-100 Super Sabre, A-1 Skyraider, Tornado IDS and 3 post Cold War F-15E, EF and Kiowa Warrior. What is needed is at least one proper Cold War map, with history of some real all out air campaign, like 1950 Korea, 1962 Cuba, 1960s Vietnam, 1970s Sinai, 1980s Syria, 1991 Kuwait etc. For now we have some 18 Cold War modules + 15 in developement and 0 (zero) maps for them. Let's see what future brings. i.e. Cuban Missile Crisis

BTW. One more thing about Tu-128 being specialised interceptor: big amount of people pay the money for unarmed civilian modules without any weapon system, interesting takeoff and landing characteristics of manual flight control high performance jet or military procedures and navigation, avionics, radar. Dedicated all weather interceptor would be lot more interesting than civilian airliner, in my humble opinion. Many guys enjoy having transport planes coming DCS etc. Having nearly all DCS modules i have to admit enjoyment often comes from modules i would least expect it.

It would be great and atmospheric even as AI asset, hunting for NATO A-6 Intruders, A-7 Corsairs, Tornado IDS north of Kola Peninsula, also at night or bad weather. But its most common enemies were US strategic bombers of 1960s/1970s like B-52, B-58 Hustler, FB-111 and recon planes. Tu-128 simply looks good and unique.

Good to remember though big majority of Su-27 fleet served in Soviet PVO Strany (Air Defense Forces) and their pilots didn't train any ground attacks, PVO didn't even use or store bombs. Only small part of Su-27 fleet served in Frontal Aviation and train A/G elements at all. With MiG-29 it was the other way around, thy served in Frontal Aviation and their pilots trained A/G elements.

For me - no point. Fore some, maybe accuracy. Would i like for full fidelity Soviet Su-27S or MiG-29 9.12 to be able to carry dumb bombs? Probably yes, for accuracy as technically they had this capability (which was disabled for PVO Strany Su-27P after the fall of USSR due to international disarmament agreement). Would i use this capability often or even train to use it? Probably no, maybe never. Another thing may be different timeframe - if we would have ONLY post Cold War F-15C AMRAAM truck - no point, Strike Eagle would do A/G whole lot better in any case with everything. But if we would have Cold War F-15A or C as well, who knows, maybe sometimes it could have some use. But even then it would be 99% pure air to air anyway.

Few months passed and guys still argue how capable F-15 was in A/G? Every F-15 including A and C had rudimentary A/G capabilities due to USAF requirements, it was able to drop dumb bombs in CCIP, which was quite modern in 1970s, comparable to some specialised A/G platforms. Most squadrons never used this capabilities, never trained to use them, only in desperation USAF would use expensive specialised A/A platform for risky low altitude visual bombing. Still fighters capable of only basic A/G like Su-27S, F-15A/C, MiG-29 9.12 would be more than welcome in DCS by big part of community. According to ED F/A-18 and F-16 had priority being truly multirole. Realistically speaking the best chance for F-15A/C seems to be RAZBAM after F-15E completion.