bies

It would be totally unrealistic working completely different than the real counterpart. Pure fantasy. Everything of importance for real combat is strictly classified and publically available information is totally guesed estimates or straight up disinformation purposely published by producers. 1980s/1990s Patriot or S-300 we have in DCS are extremely simplified right now, but at least they can be modeled in reasonably realistic way given ED have some free resources or together with the new Integrated Air Defense module being in development.

I've seen many guys are using various gamepads like xbox for Apache gunner grips. I have some ~20$ cheap gamepad but its analog ministicks are awful. What particular controller you think would be good (with good quality analog ministicks, modifier, plug-and-play and not unnecessarily pricy)? cheers

Apache is 2007 variant. Kiowa Warrior from mid 2000s to cooperate with our 2007 Apache (second of three variants Polychop has made) may not have APKWS integration as well. Looking forward to this helicopter, i keep my fingers crossed Polychop can finish it quickly after temporary delay caused by personal problems of their employees.

NATO post cold war variant of MiG-29? Like Polish, Bulgarian or Czech MiG-29 9.12? The only upgrades were NATO IFF and NATO secure radios, some received imperial gauges scale as well. They were not used in combat. And they were definitely not on par with 2006 F-16 or F/A-18.

He is clip hooked to the handrail. As long as pilot won't do something totally crazy like a loop or barrel roll he's ok.

Full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 is already planned. Su-25A could be next.

I'm so glad you have chosen to make 3 different variants from different timeline instead of only 2017 one. Could you please elaborate some most important difference between the three?

Su-25T is an information serie of 8 aircrafts with project cancelled in year 2000. Su-25 is a real serially produced aircraft, one of backbones of both Soviet and Russian tactical aviation, took part in many real life conflicts like Soviet-Afgan war, Iraq-Iran war, Gulf war, Abkhazia war, both Chechen wars, Ethiopia-Eritrea war, Darfur war, Russia-Georgia war, Russia-Ukraine war, Syrian war and some other smaller conflicts. That's the biggest difference between the two.

Hint: some guys don't understand programmers are specialised professionals. You can't simply take experienced coders working on modules for many years, tell them to work on game engine and expect they will work nearly as efficiently as coders working on engine for many years. This, for a long time, would mean stop work on modules and nearly no additional progress on engine. They would need considerable time to adapt and some will never be efficient because they are tallented working on totally different concepts. BTW. For me - game engine developement like multithreading, Vulcan, VR headsets native support, hand control and overall enviroment developement like dynamic campaign, assets from different eras - are more inportant than another module. But i'm looking at this in a realistic way. What is more ED needs modules to earn money and continue their work.

Supersonic boom and multi barrel gun as well.

Overall nice concept but this aircraft has never been finished. There were two flying prototypes, but before they managed to develop them Soviet Uniion collapsed and project has been cancelled due to lack of founds as they couldn't finish developement of it's radar which was the most important part of the system.

+1

I would say 1970s/1980s. 2000s Russian i.e. MiG-29SMT or 2000s Su-35 are totally impossible. MiG-15bis early 1950s, MiG-17 early 1950s, MiG-19P mid 1950s, MiG-21bis early 1970, MiG-23MLA late 1970s, MiG-29A early 1980s, Su-17M early 1980s, Mi-8 1980s, Mi-24P early 1980s, (Low fidelity Su-25A, MiG-29 9.12/9.13, Su-27S etc. - early to mid 1980s.) But this is even more Cold War gone hot in Germany.

MiG-21 F-13 with its bubble canopy with only one frame with better visibility than later models and unique supersonic ejection system looks awesome! It was the lightest and most maneuverable variant as well. Plus it has an internal gun.

Definitely +1 but i'm sure he's going to report far more. They are just working on Petrovich voiceovers.

It's going to increase survivability by sygnificant margin.

Remember it's not Heatblur who is making Eurofighter - it's a TrueGrit German company owned by real life Eurofighter pilot Gero Finke. HB is just to help them with some technicals as DCS experienced 3rd party. So many guys are forgetting completely who is making EF since HB cooperation... Both Heatblur and ED stated they would never be able to make Eurofighter in DCS and that is ONLY due to TrueGrit with real life EF pilot with Luftwaffe and aircraft manufacturer connections. In short - without some French 3rd party with real life Rafale pilots there is not a slightest chance for Rafale module resembling the real plane at all. And even then it could be impossible since French Air Force is apparently way more serious when it comes to their military sercets.

It would be great to seat in such aircraft in VR. Plus it would offer very attractive missions, maneuvering to manually aim the weapon, tons of ordinance and atmospheric historically relevant campaigns in Korea and Vietnam. And carrier operations on top of that.

Consider IPD distance aka World Scale is to be set globally, not for each module separately. It changes the whole world scale. You would have tiny Bonsai trees around, tiny buildings etc. when flying i.e. Huey and some massive overgrown trees and huge houses when flying i.e. Hind. It's module designer's job to set one unified scale in each module.

It all depends what type of "dogfighting" you are asking. Honourable gun fight for fun - here EF will be better than anything we have in DCS, period. Sustained turn and energy retention is decisive and EF has hands down the best STR and T/W in DCS. Way better T/W than 404-GE-402 engines Hornet or even GE-129 Viper. In tactical more realistic scenario there is no "neutral merge", with helmet sights and very high off bore missiles both would easily shoot each other in face and probably would die before the merge. Helmet sights and very high off bore missiles give comparative advantage to the Hornet since it would merge at ~300kts and flip 180 degrees at some 50 deg AoA in 3sec and fire a few AIM-9X using helmet without any lag straight to Eurofighter limited to 26-28 deg AoA (just like F-16). If somehow all the missiles would miss Hornet would be done though. But with AMRAAMs, helmet sights, very high off bore missiles and datalinks it's hard to imagine a "dogfight" with two aircrafts maneuvering to the enemy tail to fire the missile like during Vietnam or even Desert Storm. Look at PG Blue Flag server with F/A-18 vs F-16.

Exactly this, even the most modern heavy SAM in DCS, like 1980s Patriot or S-300, work in a simpler way than 1960s Vietnam-era systems but with longer range missiles. It's simple to overpower the whole S-300 with a single aircraft. Waiting for IADS.

There is no data to model "modern" systems, like S-300PMU, Patriot PAC3 etc. They would be totally fictional working completely different than real life counterparts. All important parameters, way of operating, procedures, sensor capabilitoes, ECCM, guidance logic and algorithms, interception envelopes are strictly classified and extremally complicated. 1980s systems like the first Partiot intercepting SCUDs during Desert Storm or 1980s basic S-300 could be modeled with resonable approximation and i expect with IADS module they will be reworked to include more in depth modeling of systems, missiles, sensors, but more modern systems would be total fiction.

The very first basic R-77 variant developement completed in 1994. There was no AIM-120 or R-77 operational in 1980s. There was a short informational pre-production serie of AIM-120A in 1987 in USAF but still not ready to use. Just saying.

I think he mean F-4 or G-2 were the best in relation to their opponents of the time. Even if i.e. G-14 was more capable than G-2, it was already surpassed by its opposition. It's like what's the pick of i.e. MiG-21 career: very capable 1960' MiG-21F-13 with great visibility, maneuverability, performance on par with the best fighters of the world. Or 2000' MiG-21 Bison, third grade aircraft, worse in every regard than anything it could meet in the air, a death trap for the pilot in case of any symmetrical conflict.

When it comes to performance it depends solely on level of detail. Strike Fighters had Vietnam map with CPU/GPU requirements of a pocket calculator, because it had level of detail lower than in DCS.