bies

Obviously not, i was just repleying for a guy stating Heatblur should make it.

Exactly, Cold War era Fulda Gap 1980s variant = penetrating enemy airspace at low altitude at night or bad weather, with terrain following radar still operable and mechanical map with INS, avoiding Soviet interceptors, evading SAMs and aiming iron bombs to the target inside AAA fire or trying to allign for very low altitude non-pop up attack with BL755 cluster munition dispensers over Soviet armor protected by Shilkas, then trying to lose the pursuers inside some dark valleys cooperating with navigator on a way back. Very much what you see in a Gulf War Tornado pilots memories and mission descriptions. Not 2000s era last Tornadoes with disabled radars, releasing very long range automatically guided cruise missile from 100-300nm from the target with zero risk, cruising at 30,000tf and RTB.

Heatblur has its plate full for the next 7-8 years. First to finish Tomcat, then F-4E Phantom, then F-4 Naval Phantom, then particulary complicated Eurofighter, then A-6 Intruder, then include every module takes significantly more time than originally expected. It would mean having Tornado after some 10 years.

Yes, Yes! YES! Tornado incoming! I'm excited for all recent announcements, but this one simply rocks. And it's the best variant possible being IDS from 1980s proper for Cold War scenarios Fulda Gap and Desert Storm and from the time when it was on the top of the foodchain in his domain! And the enviroment it was design to operate still existed. With mechanical moving map and half-analog avionics requiring skill and engaging to operate. I wish AviaStorm a fantstic premiere in DCS!

I have no problems hitting targets with Hydras so far, especially in Cooperative range measuring mode, it required some practice at the beginning. I agree with underwhelming splash damage though. Obviously Hellfire is more potent longer range weapon, but also very expensive, that's why Apache crews has been reprimanded for extensive Hellfire use including firing a missile to single infantrymen during Guld War 1991. In MP servers or more realistic - symmetrical SP scenario with capable (or human) enemy, when i manage to sneak up to i.e. enemy FARP, base or encampment and i have 10-20 seconds to do as much damage as possible before running away Hydras are clearly the best option. (In zero threat enviroment "anti-partisan" missions obviously sitting high and exposed in a hover, "raining hate with impunity" i can slowly gradually Hellfire everything in range, but this is boring kind of scenario for me anyway.)

Yes it does. This was a period B-52 was considered cutting edge technology and great engineering achievement, and it was able to do its main design job - to penetrate Soviet airspace and deliver nuclear weapon trying to avoid interception by fighters and early SAMs. Later, with technology progress, B-52 was relegated to less prestigeous roles.

Pecreption it is possible to make FC3 standard of modern stictly classified aircrafts is false. FC3 may have very simplified "generic" avionics, but fligh models, weapons are complex and high fidelity. Making i.e. F-15EX in FC3 standard would be totally pointless since it would have fictional FM made without access to any data, way less realistic than FC3 standard, and totally fictional and extremally simplified avionics considering FC3 limitations, basically like 1980s F-15C FC3. Just radar range x3, engine power +30%, mass +40% or so. Arbitrarly chosen sensors data without acces to any documentation. A little bit of this and a little more of that. How player would suppose to interact with fictional F/A-18E avionics (derived from current F?A-18C i suppose) in non-clickable cockpit with dozens of MFD buttons? By binding literally whole keyboard button in combination with Ctrl, Shift and Alt and how to remember this 1000 combinations? It wouldn't be FC3 standard, but Ace Combat 7 standard. Or amateur-made MOD standard. WT and AC7 are already there for such experience, no need doubling them, wasting resources and highly skilled and educated, experienced coders and flight engineers from ED.

We don't have modern Hornet, but year 2004-2007 standard. Some player made MOD - why not.

Hehe, all this Vietnam era modules coming. Let's some 3rd party have mercy and make a Vietnam map.

When it comes to infantry DCS could implement something like 2001 Operation Flashpoint infantry. Animations and graphics level would still look fantastic and very realistic from more than 50m away and CPU calculations for numerous infantry squads moving and fighting in a realistic way, embarking/disembarking helicopters and aircrafts, would be minimal, calculator level. Too big level of detail of single infantryman or too complex animations would make it unusable. On the other hand current level of animations is lacking severly. ED can't work on everything at once so we need to be patient. They may also wait for multi threading implementation since calculating them on another core would be the most optimal solution.

F-86, MiG-15 and A-1 Skyraider playground.

I would like an early B-52 from 1950s when it was still a dengerous aircraft, bare metal, considered high performance ingineering achievement. With defensive armament. To be attacked by MiG-15s, MiG-17s, MiG-19, S-75. And maybe escorted by F-100s at some part of the route in some scenarios. Penetrating Soviet territory from the Arctic routes over the North Pole. It would require world map to show its full potential.

I guess we will see in a next few years. It would be a shame if ED wouldn't be able to make MiG 9.12 after all, they've collected lots of data and they are in contact with many real life MiG-29 pilots.

Russian full fidelity aircrafts will not be possible due to law, but Soviet ones are coming; MiG-23MLA, Su-17M, already present Mi-24P, MiG-21bis, MiG-19S, Mi-8 etc. Now there is discussion if 1983 MiG-29 9.12 will be possible in the future or not. Developer suggests it may be not possible.

F-16A MLU cockpit. It looks just like our F-16C Block 50.

My assumption is more than 90% of DCS customers don't write on forum at all. They either just read or don't use it at all. No point starting artificial wars where DCS is a sandbox with room for different modules from different eras

Nobody is pushing anything, all this artificial war is only in your head. Modules are being decided by developers considering many different aspects, availability of information, sales, classification, license, amount of work, demand, current modules, personal preferences and many more. DCS is an enviroment, all different aircrafts can be put inside. Developers are doing what they want and what they can do.

Trend means objective future developement of DCS modules, not private opinion of someone. Trend is there are at least 13 Cold War modules in active developement Mirage F.1, F-4 Phantom, Su-17M, F-8J Crusader, A-7E Corsair, F-100 Super Sabre, IAI Kfir, MiG-17S, MiG-23MLA, MB-339, Fiat G.91, Bolkov 105, A-6 Intruder. Plus possibly some unannounced like Harrier FRS.1, EE lighting, MiG-29 9.12. And only 2 post-Cold War F-15E and Eurofighter.

Blocks 10 in Israeli service fought MiG-21 and MiG-23 over Bekaa Valley in 1982, MiG-29 wasn't even operational those times. Earliest MiG-29 9.12 being cancelled is a sad thing.

It looks fantastic, this is how all early F-16A looked like. Rudimentary radar scope in between legs, steam gauges on the right and RWR + weapon programer on the left.

But after OUC it would be yet another heavyweight AMRAAM truck, with lower kinematic performance and maneuverability than Block 10, not relevant without any real air combat, too modern for earlier scenarios which are the reason why most people calls F-16A at the first place. It would be more or less like our late F-16C, but worse. They didn't shoot down any MiGs like Block 10, they didn't fly over Syria or Sinai. For me the most important factor for F-16A is to depict its original lightweight flight performance and maneuverability of early pure blocks who fought real combat against MiGs.

No. F-16A ADF didn't have any TWS or AMRAAM integration, it was old variant with original APG-66 radar, just slighty modified to be able to guide Sparrow missiles for secondary duty National Air Guard units as budget bomber interceptor. It was heavier than F-16A Block 1, 5, 10 or even 15 and it didn't see any air combat. AMRAAM integration came far later with MLU, but F-16A MLU would be really bad choice - already overweight with all additional stuff, with poorer performance, not as nimble as early blocks, but similar in avionics and weapons to F-16C we already have. And useless in Cold War scenarios. It would be just as F-16 we already have but worse. Something like Block 10 would be useful in DCS, historically relevant fighting real air combat and achieving dozens of air kills against aircrafts which are in DCS over maps which are in DCS. Not some ADF heavy, poor performing, niche Air Guard bomber chaser variant or another late, heavy AMRAAM truck MLU.

Which map would have more trees: Kola Paninsula with Finland and Sweden being one of the most densly forrested areas in the world or moderately forrested Vietnam? Finland has 73% af area covered in forrests, Sweden 69% when Vietnam only 47%. Isn't this "Vietnam map = too many trees" some urban legend? Below there is Finland, how they are going to make a map with such ungodly amount of trees, look how dense this forrests are, one tree near the other, you can't even see the ground in between. This forrests have thousands of square kilometers. And 3rd party already officially announced they are making Kola Peninsula map.

Australia map is OK, guys write about prefering Cold War Fulda Gap, Vietnam or 1950 Korea, but some people forget about one basic thing bashing Australia map: It's not ED who is using its resurces to make Australia map, but Australian 3rd party which WANT to make this map, because they are from Australia and ED just allows them an access to DCS enviromet. I guess even if this map would sell mostly in Australia they are ok with that. Let them have fun. No matter if someone is going to buy this particular map or not - it doesn't hurt anyone.

What is interesting even our FC3 A-10A is not Cold War/Desert Storm version. Our FC3 A-10A is mid 1990s Low-Altitude Safety and Targeting Enhancement (LASTE) upgrade, which provided computerized weapon-aiming equipment, an autopilot, and a ground-collision warning system. That being said proper Cold War/Desert Storm A-10A with green camo would be great, quite simple to operate, friendly for the new players, not requiring remembering very long MFD computer procedures, even if you just want to fire unguided rockets. At the same time it would require to go close and personal to attack enemy targets using classic pilot skills and manual aiming gun, rockets, bombs. And in 1970s/1080s it was still capable to operate in high threat enviroment, not only anti-insurgency CAS. A-10A would be easy to learn, hard to master. A-10A during Desert Storm with European green camouflage.