bies

It would be great. I remember an old "MiG Alley" sim, flying F-80, F-84, F-86, MiG-15 etc., figting for air superiority in stratosphere and attacking ground targets fighting over brown Korean peninsula map was awesome.

Play Sonalyst's "Dangerous Waters" a few days. You will have same basic understanding of submarine and naval warfare and what needs to be implemented to make it worth the effort.

First thing - i reply assuming this thread is not a cheap provocation but legitimate lack of knowledge. Maybe i assume wrong. So, do you know what speed meteor has flying from outer space to enter Earth's atmosphere? Around 50000kmh (fifty thousand) kilometers per hour. You would have similar chances trying to intercept it using your bare hands. Namely zero chance. If you are legitimately interested in this topic there is a "Quora" thread with in depth technical details to show why it would be impossible and what would be the most important limitations of our newest cutting edge systems in this regard. In short - you would need a full size space rocket (with nuclear warhead, conventional warhead would barely scratch meteor big enough to cross Earth's atmosphere) launched in advance, trying to intercept the meteor thousands of kilometers outside the Earth's atmosphere. Even this would have slim chances and requiring extreme precision in prediction of meteor's trajectory.

1991 Desert Storm map would be a border of Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Iran. I was sure it will be the first desert map in DCS. I was wrong.

Exactly that. What Eiffel tower has to do with Apache in this trailer? Nothing. And it doesn't have to. Two very different eras.

@upyr1and @Northstar98have good arguments for 1980s Phantom to saturate 1980s late Cold War era in DCS. On the other hand there is one counterargument i can't find solution: in 1980s F-4 Phantom was already badly outdated, nearly completely replaced by F-14 and F-15 in combat units, in A/A department it would be a "whipping boy" or at least a poor cousin of an F-14 and F-15. It wouldn't be a glory but the fight to just survive and F-4 Phantom was once the most powerful fighter in the world in mid-late 1960s. So maybe early 1970s, (just like MiG-21bis, F-5E, Mirage F.1C, F-8J) has its place being able to show it's potential in air combat. Maybe changes to model both are not too big. (Cold War servers already noticed proper 1980s aircrafts like F-14B, MiG-29A, F-15C, Su-27S are too powerful compared to 1970s F-5E, MiG-21bis and future Mirage F.1, F-8J and often dividing them. During the Cold War one decade was like three decades now.)

I think it's the opposite: in Afghanistan, we are talking about US/NATO engagement, there was not really any "war" (as most people understand a war). No tanks fighting each other, no naval combat, no air combat, no any threat to the coalition air force - AKA flying training missions. Just a small sporadic light infantry vs partisans indecisive skirmishes, practically impossible to recreate in aircraft simulator like DCS. Contrary, in Iraq there were two all out wars, Iraq-Iran war in 1980s and Desert Storm 1991. Both with thousands of tanks, AFV, artillery, hundreds of thousands of military personnel engaged, aircrafts and helicopters destroying thousands of vehicles, naval combat, air combat and dogfighting with air kills, air defense combat, losses for both sides - something attractive and possible to recreate in DCS. Especially we have nearly all assets for both sides and for both Iraq-Iran war and Desert Storm (except for F-4 Phantom, but today's trailer suggests it may be developed) F-5E, F-14A, Huey, Gazelle, MiG-21, MiG-23 WIP, MiG-29A, Su-25A, Mirage F.1 WIP, Mi-8, Mi-24, F-15C, A-10A, A-6E WIP, A-7E WIP etc. This short A-10 pilot interview tells everything

Great aircraft. I've heard an interview with the Thud pilot, he said early variants - before they started to add additional draggy elements (dog ears) to the airframe - were exceptionally fast at low altitude. He stated he saw Mach 1,5 before recovering from the shallow bomb dive.

You suggested HB chose A-6 and EF instead of F-111. So i thought you didn't know about the two unannounced modules to be released BEFORE the Intruder and possibly EF. I'm the last person to be a dick and argue about semantics.

They didn't "went" with the Eurofighter. Eurofighter is being made by TruGrit, Heatblur just help them with some techical aspects and they merged for this project. But TrueGrit is the one providing the data and SME.

Su-27 with 59% fuel ("design weight") had significanly lower luel fraction than F-15C. Su-27 has fuel fraction of the F-15C when Su-27 has 88% fuel, but this is significantly above "design weight", especially if having additionally 8 AAM like the F-15C, and this makes Su-27 even more G limited than shown above. Just saying.

F-15C had great T/W ratio, but original 1980s Soviet MiG-29A (9-12) had even slightly better T/W (comparable to F-15A with VMAX switch) at cost of smaller fuel fraction. Later MiG-29 variants obviously had lower and lower T/W due to gradual mass increase. Another thing is uninstalled thrust doesnt equal real thrust at certain conditions, speed, altitude, air intake operation etc. There is an article USAF pilot Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton, one of the most experienced aggressor pilots ever, having flown the F-15, F-5, F-16 and the MiG-29, compares directly F-15C and MiG-29 9-12 right after the fall of the USSR, flying both next to each other and testing acceleration and climb. MiG-29A was slightly better, but again, similar fuel fraction (F-15C without full fuel) could equalize that to some extend. Plus F-15 engines were tuned to higher speeds. Both F-15 and first MiG-29 were nearly uncompromised A-A hotrods with fantastic performance.

IRL Su-27 G limits are way more complicated than that. According to manual Su-27 is limited to 8G at subsonic speed, limited to 6,5G at transsonic (Mach 0,85-1,25) speed, limited to 7G at supersonic speed. All of that is for so called "design weight" of 21,400 kg which means only 60% of fuel and only four AA missiles - quite lightweight and restricted configuration. With more than 60% fuel / more weapon Su-27 is even more G limited. That's why all Su-27 fuel above 60% is called "internal external fuel tank" - it was an artificial way to make the Soviet Air Force to accept the aircraft and its G limits acceptable for them only at less than 60% fuel + 4 AA missiles. (And that's the reason every fighter in DCS has default fuel set at 100%, but Su-27 default fuel is set automatically at 59% and if you want to take more fuel you have to change it manually)

There is an interview with Ukrainian pilots regularly flying MiG-29s against Su-27s since 1980s. According to the interview MiG-29 9-12 had better sustained turn rate than Su-27S and more G available in its envelope, but pilot has to be physically strong to make use of that. MiG-29 9-12 had higher thrust to weight than Su-27S which make its advantage more pronounced at higher altitudes. (Obviously later MiG-29 variants grew in weight, decreased thrust to weight, increased wing loading etc.)

RCS, just like missile parameters, has to be set and control directly by ED themselfes for unification, because right now its implemented in very rudimentary and arbitrary way. Right now if three different 3rd parties would make identical i.e. "F-16A Block 1" each of them would have different RCS value. Not even a malice - just every 3rd party would estimate and measure it in a different way, because there is no one standarized way. BTW: According to real life F-22 pilot interview F-16 is notoriously hard to detect from the front even by advanced F-22 radar due to its blended shape and very small frontal section.

A-10C is more of an anti-insurgency low cost precision munition carrier because air defense and interceptors advances made using it as a "tank killer" against symmetrical enemy basically a suicide. A-10A was used like it was designed, as tank killer, because at its times (1970s-1980s) it was still possible to use it this way and its pilots were trained to do so flying at extremally low altitude terrain masking and attacking enemy armor formations from close distance still having acceptable chance to survive. Like they did few years later during Desert Storm. Another advantage of full fidelity A-10A would be the fact even fully realistic analog A-10A would be incomparably easier to learn and use than A-10C, which would be beneficial attracting the new customers from outside the DCS community. For me A-10A vs A-10C is manually aiming gun, rockets and bombs when dodging AAA, avoiding SAMs vs. programing self-guided smart munitions. That's why i still fly low fidelity FC3 A-10A - because it's naturally enjoyable, emphasising the most attractive and engaging parts like pilotage, maneuvering, manual aiming etc. I would love to see a full fidelity A-10A and Su-25A.

Heatblur makes different variants, AudioDev/Aerges makes different variants, Razbam makes different variants, Polychop makes different variants, even one of ED stuff stated in the interview ED is considering making "everything F-4" variants. Just saying

MiGs advantage would be the R-73 missile, it can launch up to 45° off bore when AIM-9M up to 22-23° off bore. Tomcat would have another pair of eyes. Maneuverability is close enough F-14 being prefered at slow speeds and one circle wnen MiG-29 at higher speeds and two crcle. It can go either way. And MiG has to win fast due to it's fuel fraction. I hope soon we will have both as full fidelity in DCS.

It may not have another module since Apache is not even in early access yet. Maybe, big maybe - full fidelity MiG-29A or Black Shark 3. I think other features like new weather effects Vulkan API/Multithreading, FLIR, Dynamic Campaign can be presented, which are even more importent than one new module. Who knows after all. ED needs modules to stay afloat financially, they have to balance things.

If i understand correctly something like that is being work on by ED for the DCS dynamic campaign. Both attacking and protecting logistics is going to be great.

All this video argument can potentially be flawed since experienced pilot like C.W Lemoine would feel the Gs and AoA during turn and he would know exactly what to do to keep the aircraft at corner speeed. Here i've seen them flying ~200 kts and still pulling all the way, being surprised the aircraft is losing speed at 3.5G - well, even the best turning aircrafts like lightweight F-16A or Eurofighter or Raptor would lose the whole speed flying 200kts turning all the way. If he would feel the Gs and AoA like he did IRL he would know very well how hard to pull to maintain the speed and run around the circle at 9G. That's why ED is posting tables, NASA wind tunnels and DCS comparision which are very close. I MAY BE WRONG, but for me it's all about trained experienced RL pilot not feeling the aircraft physically, habits from RL flying. But overall it's good for the DCS when RL pilots try the sim and judge it, we can only benefit. (Plus all real life F-16 pilots giving their opinion on "F-16.net" about different F-16 variants in BFM agreed F-16C Block 50 is considerably weaker in BFM due to additional mass than F-16A with way lower wing loading, way smaller inertia and way better fuel consumption with similar T/W. Or even F-16C Block 30 with higher T/W and lower wing loading.)

I doubt it's true, I've seen official documentation, it's publicly available, F-15C was head and shoulders above F-15E performance wise. Especially maneuverability and speed. Remember F-15E even without CFT is considerably heavier airframe thus higher wing loading no matter what engines you use. And this degrade turning performance, especially at higher altitudes. F-15E is a strike aircraft, not a fighter. Remember as well more powerful engines to maintain the same T/W ratio of the heavier aircraft means higher fuel consumption so flying without additional CFT would be pointless except for the 10 minutes airshow.

Especially MiG-19P and MiG-23MLA.

ED is to make it with their own API, not a 3rd part developer.

As Ranco said this mass is for 1980s / Desert Storm AH-64A, not AH-64D Longbow Apache. In the interviews Apache pilots say AH-64D is considerably heavier, less maneuverable and has less excess power than AH-64A which they called"sport variant".