bies

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.

Wow, Super Sabre in DCS! Century serie has great potential.

Yes, i didn't say it's "clearly" 1980s. I just pointed out in 1991 it was already decomissioned so it would be at most 1980s. There was no mid 1990s A-7E in US Navy because in mid 1990s this bird was long gone. Desert Storm 1991 was his last mission. I would like earlier Vietram era variant as well later on.

I would say 1980s. US Navy decomissioned A-7E in year 1991 right after USSR collapsed and Gulf War ended.

I'm citing real life F-15 pilot opinion who flown both types extensively, not an amateur from the internet trying to interpret by himself some video without any telemetry - no offence, nothing personal. Nobody said 2-seat F-15 can't turn at all, it's just significantly worse at low speed/high AoA than 1-seater canopy. That's all. Nice airshow BTW, thx.

Block 10 would be even more fun, being even more maneuverable with original "small tail" optimised for maneuver air combat and not for hauling heavy bomb loads which was incorporated in Block 15 and all later variants. Israeli were using this early Block 10 super nimble F-16A extensively in real air combat scoring many air kills during the Cold War era. And Block 10 could be more historically relevant with more than 40 air kills in real wars when Block 15 didn't see much real combat, let alone achieving air kills. If we go with another variant let's make it as different from what we have now as possible.

I would like a fighter variant JA-37. But original Cold War one, with Skyflash missiles, stronger engine, internal extremely powerfull gun firing GAU-8 Avenger cardridge in times when gun was still usefull etc. Perfect for Red Storm Rising scenarios against the Soviets over Kola Peninsula map. Not modern AMRAAM truck, with classified avionics JA-35D Viggen.

Why is this wrong person? I'm quoting sentences - not people. I try to never be personal discussing on fora.

Opinion of reali life pilots is all 2-seat canopy F-15 are way worse at high AoA than 1-seater due to disturbed air behind 2-seat canopy.

Yes, that's true, but the difference was not as big as it seems. The most modern Gulf War aircrafts like F/A-18C, Apache, Tornado, MiG-29 etc. were 1980s Cold War variants. Not similar to 2000s we have in DCS. Gulf War Hornets didn't have Link16, JHMCS, AMRAAM, AIM-9X, JDAM, JSOW - they were expected to perform classic air combat and HUD/INS aided iron bombing and sometimes some rudimentary guided weapon attacks. Even the most advanced Cold War air superiority fighters F-15C MSIP II used by USAF during Desert Storm, having big advantages of all kind, technological, pilot training, AWACS coverage, EW, intelligence, recon, command and control etc. were still often forced to merge with Iraqi MiG-25s and MiG-29s and perform classic air combat. Not just release AMRAAMs form 20nm and go home like during Balkan war, some decade later. Apache didn't have Longbow datalink, interferometer, II Gen FLIR, FCR, digital avionics. Similar to classic analog A-10A, Tornado GR.1, F-16C Block etc. The airframes were similar but avionics and weapon were very different.

What kind of propaganda? If anything NATO always gave significant benefit of doubd to all kind of Soviet equipement, even the types which later porven to be really unsuccessfull. There is multitude of examples where NATO was overestimating Soviet weapon systems and not many, if any, where NATO underestimated them. I like Yak-38 not because of some "propaganda" of one side, but because it was distinct and unique and it had its role in Soviet naval aviation which suffered from insufficient sea/air component. But i know it was very much compromised all around due to its VTOL design. Many guys want even transport aircraft or non-armed helicopter, or acrobatic civilian aircraft. Yak-38 was armed, serially produced, challenging to fly.

During an interview he didn't say it was useless, it was useful for non complicated intercept i.e. straight flying bomber. AIM-120 required far less accurate tracking to hit the target or just painting it with TWS without tracking at all. In case of SAHR AIM-7 missile guidance precision depends directly on accurate single target tracking and practical range of the missile guiding on radar power and antenna size thus the power of radar signal reflected by the target.

If anything i've seen someone from ED stated some other F-16 variant is possible when current Block 50CCIP will be finished. I have not followed this topic, so I may not have the latest information.

I can understand the sentiment, but personally i'm the other way around - all FC3 modules are on my TOP full fidelity wishlist, Cold War Su-27S, F-15C, MiG-29A, Su-25A, A-10A - truth is FC3 simply took most of the sexiest airframes of 1970s/1980s. It would be a shame FC3 standard would remain for such important aircrafts. For me FC3 is totally different than DCS module, not even close to be any substitute. Yak-38 for Soviet Aviation, together with Kiev class carrier/cruiser would be great as well. I remember operating from this ship in Apache/Havoc older sim.