bies

F-104, the earlier/lighter the better. Like late 1950s USAF F-104A used in combatby Pakistan and Taiwan. Or multirole F-104C with refuel probe. Or 1967 F-104A reengined with J79-GE-19 with the most ridiculous performance. F-105 obviously. The eralier/faster the better.

Exactly. That's why, similar to weapon systems unified by ED, there should be a general ED set of basic rules to apply in this manner, obliging all 3rd parties. I.e. max tested G * some coeficient like 1.5 = breaking load. Just unified universally through all modules. Obviously it would need to be more nuanced, considering more variables, wing type and shape, non-symmetrical loads, additional data available for different situations etc. Because obviously all 3rd parties and ED are doing their best to approximate such situations, they may just use different methodology right now, which should be unified over the long term.

It sounds possible. Different treaties impacted many weapon systems parameters. With typical payload and the most unvavourable Lo - Lo flight profile Tornado IDS had combat radius of 490-520km. It looks like more than enough for most DCS maps, covering with virtual ring practically whole map. British GR1 would be great as well but IIRC Great Britain will not allow anything even remotely recent to be modeled in DCS.

Good hints. When it comes to additional fin fuel tank, if it was big or small is obviously relative term. Considering DCS maps size i think our Tornado will be able to perform strike mission deep inside enemy territory at low altitude and go all the way back without refueling, with just 2 drop tanks for longer missions and it will still have refueling probe. British GR1 were operating from British island, then to attack Soviet targets in Eastern Europe and go back. I guess that's why they ended up with a bit more internal fuel compared to German and Italian ones operating from the continent.

Instead of JP233 Germans use MW-1 dispenser which was arguably even more capable and more universal carrying many different types of submunitions for different purpose like anti-tank, anti-personel/non armored assets, parachute mines, anti-runway etc. and different combinations of those. German IDS were integrated with HARM since 1982, instead of ALARM.

Personally i doubt lower FPS of map like Marianas is a performance issue per se, it looks like it is conscious and deliberate decision of developer for this map to have exceptionally high visual fidelity at cost of some performance. So far i didn't see ED decreasing visual fidelity of Marianas map to increase its performance. Its always some compromise. Obviously if they would decrease level of detail, terrain mesh resolution, textures resolution etc. performance would skyrocket, but they have chosen not to do that for this particular map. There are some optimisation measures which can improve the situation a bit, but there is no magic techniqe which can give both fantastic visual fidelity and fantastic performance at the same time. This would require different way how PC interact with this map, like Vulkan API or multithreading they are working on.

Yes, but it doesn't work like that, developers are testing their map thousands of times, they are doing it practically every day through the years. It's not like thay are working for like 2 years, then going online and say: "we are fucked, 10fps". They are fine tuning level of details, texture resolution, terrain mesh, objects, they are very well aware what is current performance. It's all a compromise between visual fidelity and performance. You can make phenomenal quality desert or one tiny island with poor performance and poor quality BosWash megalopolis or Shanghai with high performance.

This are not even trees, Kola Peninsula will have far more trees than Vietnam yet developers are confident they can make it maintaining decent performance. Marianas is just overall exceptionally high detail map, similar to Channel map, the obvious tradeoff of extremally detailed map is drop of performance. Like a bike, parked inside a small home garden behind the house, inside some village, one of many, with every spoke in the wheel visible - you will probably never see it but ED modeled it because they decided they want to sacrifice some performance for extreme details. Obviously maps like Syria, Persian Gulf, South Atlantic, Kola Peninsula, Sinai Peninsula, Northern Australia or possible future Vietnam will not have such extreme details, that's why bigger they still have / will have have a decent performance.

Yes, Kormoran 1 is planned according to developer's Discord.

Our IDS will be proper for all scenarios from early-mid 1980s Cold War, 1991 Gulf War, when Italian IDS identical to German variant were depoyed attacking Iraqi targets, up to Allied Force. Up to 1992 the differences between German IDS and British IDS named GR1 was minor. British had additional Laser Range Finder & Marked Target Seeker (LRMTS) under the forward fuselage received by the end of 1986, which slightly increased drag and was used to guide Paveway II laser guided bombs, but the target has to be designated by higher flying subsonic Buccaner with AN/AVQ-23E Pave Spike pod and Tornado had to fly at least at 10,000ft so its use against symmetrical opponent over enemy territory wasn't considered practically possible, making both planes exposed easy targets for enemy air defense and interceptors. GR1 also had additional small fuel tank inside vertical stabiliser and a bit different pylons compared to German and Italian variant. German was using MW-1 bomb dispenser with 4 different loadouts when British used similar JP-233. German and Italian IDS had also installation to fire HARM missiles since 1982 with digital MIL STD 1553B, when British didn't have this ability. German IDS were using Cerberus II/III self protection pod (developed in strict secret in cooperation with Israel which caused a scandal in Germany later on) + Saab BOZ chaff/flare dispenser when British used Sky Shadow + BOZ with similar function. German Marineflieger IDS were additionally integrated with AS.34 Kormoran anti-ship missiles. Only after the Gulf War ended both German/Italian IDS and British GR1 started to be significantly different. But if IIRC British will not allow to model any British aircraft even remotely recent due to their policy.

Exactly, "modern day" Vietnam would be just as bad and incomprehensible as modern day Normandy, modern day Kursk or modern day El Alamein - totally wasted opportunity with zero atmosphere. Let alone it would be incomparably harder on CPU with far, far lower frame rates, population of Vietnam tripled(!) since 1960s, together with big urban areas, infrastructure etc.

Simply doing things, seeing the enemy, seeing our bombs explosions all around, dodging AAA, just feel the adrenaline rush, actually risking of being shoot down to be able to hit the target, being forced to fly inside enemy territory, maneuvering at very low altitude with aid of TFR which was still operable during Cold War and Gulf War era, counting on speed and low altitude maneuvering to avoid interceptors of the era which had limited capabilities without very advanced radars or long range missiles. GR4 would be takeoff, release Storm Shadows 300nm from the target at high altitude without any risk, land. And even if you would get intercepted somehow 300nm from the target 1 in 10 missions you would just receive missile warning when advanced doppler radar guide AMRAAM/ski and you are dead. I just have a feeling variant they are doing is going to rock.

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.