bies

Well, to be honest this sounds like a really great and really interesting idea. There are three levels of scenario realism 1) Unrealistic: soup of aircrafts and assets from different timeframes, unrealistic coalitions, fighting on different timeframe map in scenario impossible to happen. Like US Navy vs USAF in 2020 Map Strait of Hormuz... 2) Realistic: real life war with real life aircrafts and assets used historically on proper map - recreation of history. Like 1960s Vietnam war, 1950s Korean War, 1980s Iraq-Iran War, 1990s Desert Storm etc. 3) Plausible: coherent aircrafts and assets from one particular timeframe fighting in some plausible war/coalition on proper map. Like Cold War gone hot in Europe or, proposed by you, Apache in 2008 Georgian war. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually US Army sending 2008 Medium Combat Aviation Brigade with Apache Longbow battalion and Kiowa Warrior squadron in 2008 to help Georgia to fight off Russian invasion is quite plausible, like most other DCS campaigns we have i.e. Ka-50 campaigns in Georgia. And it sounds fun as hell! Really it's the best idea of Longbow Apache campaign i've heard so far. Symmetrical opponent with tanks, SAM, AAA, aviation instead of some helpless insurgencies on the desert? check, NATO vs. Soviets vibes? check, proper war map, with complicated land relief favourable for helicopter operations? check, proper war 2008 timeframe coherent with our Apache variant? check, plausible scenario which could happen IRL with slightly different political calculation? check

Genesis - Firth of Fifth guitar solo from 1973 Selling England by the Pound Genesis - Firth Of Fifth guitar solo.mp3

PD was more than that:

I guess MiG-21bis nuclear bomb isn't as strong as IRL.

I agree with all of that except for the Hind - it's a Cold War 1980s fully analog Soviet helicopter with manual challenging, skill requiring flight control, manually aimed gun, unguided rockets and dumb BOMBS, strict crew coordination, PAPER map with some doppler cursor inside the cockpit, analog instruments and gunsights plus Cold War vibes and i have a blast flying it! It's like helicopter MiG-21bis.

Damn, good to know, you know DCS became a mainstream when you see the terms like that So my answer is: nothing in DCS has been "nerfed" because it's a simulator, every time effectiveness of some system has been increased or reduced it's because the developers managed to obtain or process more data and change the system to work closer to the real counterpart. As simple as that.

Ehh, i would say it's 180° opposite to what i like - i like challenging pilotage part and relatively simple avionics and systems. Like an F-14, MiG-21 or Hind - easy to learn but hard to master. Maybe Kiowa as well?

What means "nerfed"?

Hornet has complicated aerodynamics with many blended elements and curvatures so it looks great at some angles and only so so at some others. The same is true for the most 4th gen fighters. BTW legacy Hornet looks way better and way more proportional than Superbug which is disproportional with some elements enlarged greatly and other remained unchanged, with tiny engine section and huge intakes etc.

Carrier operations on the deck of WW2 Essex Class CV-38 - USS Shangri-La in year 1962, somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea. (Make sure you selected 1080P since video has great quality for 1962, year of Cuban missile crisis, way before Vietnam.)

Ka-50's one pilot concept in well protected cockpit with limited visibility, lack of thermal sight with dedicated gunner and nearly fixed canon make it particularly vulnerable to late detected threats, like MANPADs. Design is always a compromise.

Note Mover was flying F-16C Block 30 which had different analog flight control system with slightly bigger savety margins but with ability to exceed the limits to the bigger extend. Plus Block 30 had higher T/W and lower wing loading at the same time than our Block 50. Let's some RL Viper pilots verify.

I woul love to see some early, lightweight, more maneuverable F-16 variant like early F-16A. But F-16 never used Sparrow except for a handful of National Air Guard specially modified F-16A ADF in limited number, but they were used only to intercept Soviet bombers over the North. With F-16 radar Sparrow was only useful to attack big, heavy, sluggish bombers at high altitude, it wouldn't be useful to fight tactical fighters in complicated situation. That's why they didn't even station in Europe. Sidewinder/Gun only F-16A was simply better to combat Soviet tactical fighters like they have shown during 1982 Bekaa Valley clash you described. Only F-15 was firing Sparrows during 1982 war.

This. Mi-24V have seen a lot of real life combat serving in many countries. I woul like to have this model over any "close to prototype" one.

After Longbow Apache - for sure something not as modern as Longbow, Longbow is going to be a flying computer - very challenging to learn all the systems and procedure and requiring regular training to stay proficient. Next it could be I.e. Cold War AH-1 Cobra - a whole lot easier to learn and probably equally fun to use.

They will return. EF is just a spinoff, they did not choose it or have the data to make it, they are just assisting DCS-inexperienced TrueGrit company with EF pilot on board.

It doesn't matter it's out of inventory TODAY, because DCS doesn't simulate today's battlefield, but historical one. DCS Apache is going to simulate 2000s period, some 15 years ago, when Copperhead was still in use. It was i.e. used in combat during 2003 Iraq Freedom. Just saying.

Where you were wrong? You have written Hellfire missile is reaching the target at max range in 1 second (!) so the target is going to travel only 17 meters from the launch of the missile to the impact... It's not about any imperial system measure or anything, it's the lack of the most basic understanding or at least some common sense, and i don't want to sound rude. Without calculating anything the common sense should tell you crossing ~8km in 1 second at ~ground level is utterly impossible, it would require some extreme hypersonic flight ~Mach=24, close to Earth's escape velocity, in the most dense atmosphere. Let alone missile needs to accelerate and engine burn time is limited so the overall average speed on max distance is way smaller than missile's max speed.

It would be beneficial for both ED and customers to implement Supercarrier features to the Forrestal. Basic Forrestal is free for everyone, just like i.e. basic Stennis. Purchasing Supercarrier customer would receive feature upgrade for two carrier classes instead of one.

Note this are TODAY'S news and DCS has only historical aircrafts, not today's standard aircrafts. Even Hornet or Viper or Apache we have are ~15 years old historical variants and 15 years ago nothing interesting in Taiwan straight was happening. There are no F-35, F-22, AH-64E, F-15EX, B-2 Spirit etc in DCS so what would be the point of today's map not coherent with DCS aircrafts?

Why updating Wikipedia? Wikipedia is correct. AJ-37 (strike variant, not the one this topic is about) was introduced in 1971. Fighter variant JA-37 (which is the one in the title of this topic) has been delivered to the military in 1979. I don't see the mistake in Wikipedia.

The topic is about JA-37 (fighter variant), not slightly earlier AJ-37 (strike variant).

Falkland map, according to Razbam, is going to have two versions; original 1980s and "modern day". Original 1980s Falkland is going to be ok for A-6, A-7, F-14A Cold War naval aviation modules. (And it's going to be the very first Cold War map in DCS)

I understand your comment, but it has to be the other way around: All modules must be scaled properly by ED or 3rd party developers to have real size at one set "IPD/world scale". Common user absolutely shouldn't be forced to fiddle with IPD to, more or less, scale each and every module separately. After buying few modules it would be a big mess. Remember changing "IPD/world scale" you are changing not only the size of the cockpit, but the whole world around you as well, you would see i.e. some absolutely massive trees in one module or tiny toy soldiers running around in some other. Proper unified scaling must be obligatory for each developer.

Radar guided Hellfires didn't see much use because of the nature of the enemy. Radar Hellfires + FCR + Longbow link give great advantage in symmetrical combat against capable enemy in high threat enviroment, but not in war on terror. Soviet Union collapsed, Desert Storm ended, Cold War ended - by 1991 era of conventional WARS was over. Why using radar guided Hellfire missile if you need to kill a group of few helpless bad guys? Milimeter radar has definitely impressive resolution but probably not quite enough to reliably detect and hit a single guy - laser Hellfire does the job just well. Maybe you want to hit the specific window in a building? Still laser Hellfire can do the job very precisily, radar variant obviously not. Or maybe you want to hit specific car bad guys are driving, are you going to trust radar guided fire-and-forget missile with it's radar gates? And if you hit another car with family? Still laser variant is way better for the job as you have full aim control. And helpless non-symmetrical enemy is not going to detect your laser beam to fire laser-jamming smoke grenades or fire back with radar guided Shilkas or SAMs... Delta Apache with Longbow system and FCR + radar Hellfires design started when USSR still existed and it was meant to go all out war against hordes of Soviet armor in very high threat enviroment, radar guided AAA, SAM, interceptors - not to kill some terror guy, but in the meantime Soviets collapsed, threat ceased to exist and Apache Longbow has been used in "war on terror" - that's the only reason it didn't use radar Hellfires (maybe except for the first days of 2003 Iraq invasion when they still had some tanks like Raptor9 mentioned).