bies

+1

Yes, definitely, this would be great since Apache D has very extensive controls to bind. Allowing to use Gamepad Analog Triggers to act as laser/trigger 2 detents would add a lot.

Why? There were many wars in Syria during the Cold War. And none in Caucasus. Advantage of Caucasus map is better FPS, that's it.

https://defence-industry.eu/british-army-new-ah-64e-apache-helos-tested-in-ukrainian-scenario/

In Dynamic Campaign it will surely be expanded and one of the main task of the fighters. Before DC it's more like guys say, you have specific missions and mission editor. I.e. in Enigma's Cold War server intercepting and escorting bombers already is a thing, for fighters like MiG-19, MiG-21, F-14 or Mirage F.1 intercepting bombers, attack and reconissance aircrafts was one of the main designed role. MiG-19P, first variant we received, is typical PVO interceptor with radar for night operations. Maybe some day we will see some pure interceptor like Soviet PVO Strany Su-9, Su-11, Su-15, Tu-128, Yak-28, MiG-25 or US Air Defense Command F-101, F-102, F-106. At least as AI assets. Some of them like Yak-28, F-101 Voodo or MiG-25 had multiple variants performing multiple roles of interceptors, reconissance aircrafts, bombers. Some campaigns like i.e. "Fear the Bones" for the F-14 Tomcat include such missions.

Well, bold statement indeed.

Gero Finke, True grit developer pilot from German Lufy, left EF many years before the first Meteor missile. BTW the first Meteor missile Integration with EF in Luftwaffe started in 2021. In short: nobody have insight into Meteor specification, data, performance, guidance logic and even if someone would know that he would never disclose that to public.

Mi-24 recently received working wipers, wiping off the rain, as a testbed. I expect other helicopters will receive them in the near future since Mi-24 implementations works correctly right now.

It would be great. There is an interview with pilot flying both F/A-18A and F/A-18C big motors. F/A-18A was more maneuverable and had even better nose authority and even smaller minimum speed with lighter airframe and the same wing. Having the same acceleration and climb with lighter airframe and smaller thrust giving virtually the same T/W as big motor Charlie. He said later on it was perfect for acrobatic team with more nimble lighter airframe than "C". The worst was early "C" with already bigger weight but still original engines.

It all depends on fuel state for Su-33. With full fuel load out it is underpowered. All aircrafts in ME you set, have 100% default fuel load, but Su-27 and Su-33 default fuel load is only 59%. It is because additional 40% of fuel had been classified as "internal additional fuel tank" as aircraft couldn't meet USSR performance requirements with more than 60% fuel, having severe restrictions in G-loads during maneuvers as well. It simply had extraordinarily big fuel fraction, a design feature/compromise.

Whole MP role selection should be revised. It should be graphical selection of the airfield on the map (with man don't being forced to remember where every single airfield is located at given map) - and then selection of specific available airframe on selected airfield. This would be whole lot more beginner-friendly. I personally know at least 2 guys who were discouraged seeing massive list of airfields which location in relation to the front they didn't remember/imagine and all airframes thrown to one super long list. Super long mouse scrolling through everything, without even knowing where is given airfield, scrolling through both sides, different airfields, different airframes etc. everything thrown in one single list. I guess ED already has this in their TO DO list, but they obviously have limited manpower and not everything can be a priority. Though this one seems like really easy task, not requiring any specialized knowledge of complex coding like graphic engine, aviation engineering etc. so it can be done by one of the less experienced guys.

Yes, but AWACS should be made in a more realistic way. AWACS should have real life limitations like antena rotation update, tracking precision, identification through parameters, range resolution with merges etc. Right now playing as GCI you have perfect awareness without limitations, you can see precise aircraft type, you can even see an enemy missiles and it's exact type, every object has perfect parameters to the single feet of altitude, to the single knot of speed, updated in real life, all the time, without merges. A bit more realistic AWACS/GCI with real limitations would be even more attractive to use.

CSAR would be particularly interesting I'm Dynamic Camping. Another attractive mission, quite easy to make. It looks like low-hanging fruit.

Overall WW1 air combat has great potential, but WW1 module would have purpose only if we would have WW1 map, WW1 asset pack and a few WW1 AI aircrafts before. Without all of that it would be even more out of context than I-16, with 0 WW1 enviroment. It would make DCS even thinner, spread over even wider timeframe. Flying a WW1 Albatros over 1990s Caucassus or WW2 Normandy against WW2 aircrafts, strafing WW2 tanks would be just stupid, without any atmosphere, absolutely hopeless and boring after 1-2 flights. It would be basically an aerobatic plane, not a fighter. (Another thing is RoF/FC devs stated there is only so much WW1 aircrafts hard data available, thus it wouldn't allow DCS devs to create more detailed modules than RoF/FC already has - nullifying DCS high fidelity advantage)

For me it was the opposite with Reverb G2, i just installed OpenXR and i didn't change anything, just plug and play. I didn't even have SteamVR. It works good both DCS and other sims. I used Pimax 5KX before, it was a bit more complicated to setup.

Already done, just check yourself. It has been implemented some 2 months ago as a "testbed".

Su-27S, MiG-29A, MiG-31, Tu-160, Tu-22M, Mi-24P, Su-17M, Su-24M and many others are all Soviet aircrafts. They are not that old. Some are actually still a bit too "modern" for Russia to be modeled. Like i.e. non-modernised original Soviet MiG-29 9.12 from 1983. Let alone original Su-27S or MiG-31.

Mi-24 received working wipers wiping the rain from the windshield. I guess other helicopters receiving them later on when Mi-24 implementation proving to be successful.

No. RAZBAM stated CFT will be permanently mounted. I'm perfectly fine with that. It's a strike aircraft and it always had CFT in combat. Making fictional Thunderbirds air show doesn't justifies coding additional FM. BTW: Maneuverability is far more about wing loading. Not T/W ratio. What is more if 2 have similar T/W but one has significantly higher wing loading it will need bigger AoA for the same G wasting its effective T/W through fighting bigger drag. Let alone additional drag of CFT.

You mean prioritizing over the Apache? Hornet and Strike Eagle are being work on by two totally different companies, Hornet is being made by ED, RAZBAM is making Strike Eagle. This is specific Boeing company license bought many years ago.

I would like full fidelity F-15C MSIP II 1980s/Desert Storm. 2000s one with datalink and JHMCS would be proper only for USAF vs USNAVY fictional scenarios as we will never have proper OPFOR from this era. When 1980s/Desert Storm MSIP II would have lots of proper timeframe correct OPFOR to fight with, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Su-25A, Su-17M, MiG-23MLA, MiG-21bis, and AI MiG-25PD, MiG-31B. And lots of real life air combat history, Cold War era / 1980s servers etc.

It depends what do you mean by Russian? The Soviet Union 1922-1991? Yes. Many Soviet aircrafts are in DCS already. MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Mi-8, Mi-24. And many more are coming being already developed MiG-17, MiG-23, Su-17. Or The Russian Federation 1991-2022? No. Russian aircrafts won't be allowed due to extremely prohibitive Russian law and i guess during the war they became even more paranoid - ED even had to cancel early 1980s Soviet era MiG-29 9.12. Probably they will never be any Russian 2000s fighter in DCS. Surely not modeled to have anything in common with the real aircraft.

The core of this problem is: ED and 3rd parties systems are not compatible/unified. It should work like that: some 3rd party or ED developed some particular system - all other developers and ED are free to use it. This would make everything more compatible and modules faster to develop. Plus less unexpected bugs after patch.

That's the problem - according to him you don't feel much since AH-1Z doesn't even have cyclic stick. If i understood him correctly, instead it has short electronic joystick, like F-16, placed on the right panel, which you use to tell the helicopter what you want to do and it is not even connected to the rotor. Its all 100% computer controlled. To be honest if i would have Cobra in DCS i would like some pure variant with classic helicopter collective and cyclic. It's a small nimble helicopter, it would be fun to fly. I'm afraid super modern Z variant would be like Apache D with different flavour and without radar. Does it even have any combat history?