bies

There are 2 WWII maps (Normandy and Channel) for 9 WWII modules existing and developed (Spitfire IX, P-47, P-51, Bf-109K, FW-190A, FW-190D, I-16) + (Mosquito, F4U-1) There are 5 modern maps (Hormuz Strait, Syria, Nevada, Caucasus, Marianas) for 10 2005-2010 modules (F/A-18C, F-16C, A-10C, Ka-50, JF-17, AV-8B ) + (Kiowa Warrior, AH-64, EF, Strike Eagle) There are 0 (zero) Cold War maps for 32 Cold War from Korea to Desert Storm modules (MiG-15bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, MiG-21bis, F-5E, L-39, C-101, F-14A, Mi-24, Gazelle, Mi-8, Huey, Mirage F.1) + (F-4E Phantom II, Fiat G.91, MiG-23MLA, MiG-17, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, Bolkov 105, Sea Harrier, OH-58 Kiowa, MiG-29A, Su-17, F-8 Crusader, F-100 Super Sabre, A-1 Skyraider, Tornado IDS) + low fidelity A-10A, Su-25A, Su-27S, F-15C, MiG-29A About 2/3 of all DCS modules - released and during development - represent Cold War era and they have at this point 0 (zero) proper maps, this period is massively underrepresented. Maybe one of proper Cold War map like Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Fulda Gap, North Europe divided Germany etc. as the future map for DCS.

If your map will be similar to existing ones it will have to compete with them for attention and this will decrease popularity of your new map and sales - find a niche to make your map the only choice. There are 2 WWII maps (Normandy and Channel) for 9 WWII modules existing and developed (Spitfire IX, P-47, P-51, Bf-109K, FW-190A, FW-190D, I-16) + (Mosquito, F4U-1) There are 5 modern maps (Hormuz Strait, Syria, Nevada, Caucasus, Marianas) for 10 2005-2010 modules (F/A-18C, F-16C, A-10C, Ka-50, JF-17, AV-8B ) + (Kiowa, AH-64, EF, Strike Eagle) There are 0 (zero) Cold War maps for 28 Cold War [from Korea to Desert Storm] modules (MiG-15bis, F-86F, MiG-19P, MiG-21bis, F-5E, L-39, C-101, F-14A, Mi-24, Gazelle, Mi-8, Huey) + (Mirage F.1, Fiat G.91, MiG-23MLA, MiG-17, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, Bolkov 105, Sea Harrier, MiG-29A, Su-17, F-8 Crusader) + low fidelity A-10A, Su-25A, Su-27S, F-15C, MiG-29A Conclusions is obvious: about 2/3 of all DCS modules - released and during development - represent Cold War era and they have at this point 0 (zero) proper maps, this period is massively underrepresented when it comes to maps. If you make any of Korea, Vietnam, Fulda Gap, North Europe divided Germany etc. proper Cold War map - your map will be an obvious and practically the only possible choice for the most of DCS existing and developed modules.

US Navy wants this year to be the last to buy the Super Hornet. They want to invest the savings into naval variant of the NGAD project. US Navy predicts new Super Hornets Block III will not be a suitable platform by the end of their 30-year service life. https://insidedefense.com/insider/loiselle-navy-opposes-congress-adding-unrequested-super-hornets

Yes. JF-17 and Eurofighter are different than all other modules in DCS since there is absolutely impossible to verify if they are realistic or even close to realistic since there is practically zero detailed documentation publicly available. For all other modules there are literally hundreds or thousand of pages of declassified detailed documentation to verify, even 2005 Hornet, let alone Cold War aircrafts. When it comes to A/A weapon systems obviously everything post ~2000 is partially fictional because it has to be like that for obvious reasons.

Everything suggests the most common variant uses in Europe like AIM-120C-7 (or early D) since this is the missile used among the NATO since more a decade. B is probably phased out many years ago, C-5 may be still in depots, D may not be operational in Europe yet, even though production of D started in 2008? He gave an impression Meteor is a game changer compared to AMRAAM. But all of the details are strictly classified obviously, we will never know the details, they are way too modern.

I've heard an interview with Eurofighter or Gripen pilot on YT and he said Meteor has practical NEZ about 3x bigger than AMRAAM and that this is a really big deal. But any details are obviously classified.

IIRC some Eurofighter pilot said during the YT interview it's about this official 90kN but it can be increased by some 10% with some emergency power switch or something. But this is only an anecdotal knowledge and zero documentation or data. Or maybe this engine regime is classified?

Did he really? IIRC Gero always said they don't plan beyond Eurofighter because EF will take a lot of time and effort. The only one time I've heard he even considered anything beyond EF was Tornado, but this was some big maybe, or they woul like to. Nothing more. I've never heard absolutely anything about Rafale or anything from outside Germany. For Rafale they have probably zero first hand knowledge, zero detailed data, zero SME and zero legal permissions. Just my opinion, maybe someone else heard something else.

A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, Mirage F.1, MiG-23MLA, Su-17, F-8J, Fiat G.91, Bolkov 105.

I can add I've heard an interview with the veteran Apache pilot instructor, available on YT. He said different configuration/variants behave differently. AH-64A - the lightest, the fastest, the most maneuverable and with the best power to weight, called sport variant. AH-64D - heavier, less maneuverable and less performance due to increased mass, but more modern avionics. AH-64D with FCR - even heavier and less maneuverable/less excess power due to additional FCR mass + it's mounted on top of the mast which is apparently especially adverse place to add mass.

Many times older weapons are more fun to use because their employment requires skills, manual aiming, maneuvering to specific position, dodging enemy fire etc. And allow to see the destruction of the targets.

The Tomcat is very different than the Hornet. It has great kinematic performance, manual flight control and way less complicated avionics.

IIRC it had 4 different games to cover the timeframe; late 1960s Vietnam, Europe Fulda late 1960s/early 1970s, North Europe GIUK 1970s, Israeli-Arab wars 1960s/1970s. Every part had proper timeframe map and proper timeframe realistic aircraft set + ground assets. It had nice timeframe inspired GUI, music and atmosphere as well.

Agree with most points. One think i would add is "A" variants mentioned here means mostly 1980s and late 1970s at most. Like F-14A, F-15A, F-16A, F/A-18A, MiG-29A, Su-25A, A-10A, F-117A, first Su-27S etc. - classic 1980s menagerie. At the same time nearly all DCS assets, which are inherited from FC, represent exactly this 1980s/Desert Storm standard. All SAMs like Patriot, S-300, Shilka, Tunguska, Hawk, Kub, Buk, M163, all EW radars, most ships especially Soviet ones, nearly all AI aircraft etc. Nearly all of that is simply 1980s late Cold War/Desert Storm era technology in DCS. And i agree completely with you when it comes to maps. I.e. Persian Gulf - we don't have Kuwait/Iraq true Gulf War 1991 map to recreate the last real life big scale air land battle and air camping with hundreds of aircrafts engaged, thousands of tanks and AFV destroyed. Or all out high intensity Iran-Iraq 1980s war with big air and land battles. Instead we have some ~2020 Hormuz Strait map which practically didn't see any combat at this time. Only some fictional/hypothetical scenarios. Similar with Syria - we don't have Cold War Syria map to recreate real life all out wars and big symmetrical land and air combat campaigns like 1973 Yom Kippur war, 1982 Lebanon war etc. Instead we have ~ 2020 Syria map which saw only one, completely asymmetrical skirmish/civil war with minimal air action and zero air combat, typical one sided mud hut bombing against helpless partisans/terrorists.

ED stated they do not plan to make any low fidelity modules in the future except for MAC, a different game. But the idea of making full fidelity modules out of FC3 is great. FC3 used some of the sexiest airframes. ED already plan to make a full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 which is present in FC3. I think it would be a low hanging fruit. Let's take i.e. A-10A. External 3D model is ready, complex flight model is ready due to ff A-10C, cockpit would have require some modifications from A-10C to make an analog version but the whole general geometry is identical. All it's weapon types are ready. The thing to be done would be a simple, very rudimentary analog avionics and we would have full fidelity A-10A. Let's wait for the official MiG-29 9.12 announcement, this can be a role model of full fidelity module made out of FC3 aircraft.

Exactly. Analog 1970s A-10A modeled as full fidelity would be still incomparably easier to learn and to operate than digital A-10C from 2010. The true difference is A-10A was useful in high intensity conflict in 1970s-1980s against capable enemy - like Soviets in Europe. When A-10C in 2010 was possible to use only in low intensity conflict against handicapped enemy, so called mud hut bombing. They were very different, A-10A in 1970s/1980s was flying at the tree tops level, manually attacking targets at close range using dumb bombs, unguided rockets, short range Mavericks and internal gun, maneuvering at very low altitude dodging AAA fire. A-10C in 2010 was supposed to fly at moderate altitude in practically save environment, drop some self-guided GPS munitions from the distance, maybe fire a gun if the enemy was completely helpless. For me personally A-10A looks like more exciting and engaging to use, full fidelity would be fantastic, but ED had to make C because it was a military contractor demanding it.

So it's just like me: i don't want any artificial balance in DCS. The only balance i like is historically accurate proper timeframe. I don't care at all if i.e. 1980s MiG-29A is better in combat or worse that the same timeframe 1980s F-14A. But i kind if care if my 2007 F-16 would be fighting against 1980s Su-27 and attacking 1980s S-300 site covering a naval base with 1980s Soviet cruiser. Not because of balance but because of historical timeframe accuracy. It's like MiG-15 in WW2 (except for the fact MiG-15 in WW2 is only 10 years more modern than it's environment when 2007 F-16 is 20 years more modern). But it's all going to change since DCS is being saturated with more and more modules and 1980s/Desert Storm timeframe will have 2 symmetrical sides NATO and WARPAC modeled soon. And I don't care if i.e. 1980s MiG-23MLA will be stronger in combat than 1980s Mirage F.1E. I just care for them to represent roughly the same period in history or real military conflict. BTW: I would buy any 1980s/Desert Storm period Viper or Hornet add-on in a blink of an eye.

F-16 or F-18 (any variant Cold War A, later C, super E, just absolutely any) will always have higher sales than MiG or Mil, any variant. They are part of American pop culture exported all around the world. If ED would make i.e. F/A-18C Lot 10 instead of Lot 20 the sales would be exactly the same. More that 90% of the people didn't even know what "Lot 20" means, let alone what is the difference between "Lot 10" and "Lot 20". They see a Hornet from the "independence day" or Desert Storm photo - they buy.

People are smart. If they see i.e. 1980s server with coherent timeframe diverse aircrafts for BOTH sides (not USAF vs US Navy) like MiG-29A, Mi-24P, Gazelle M, Bolkov-105, Su-25A, A-10A, MiG-21bis, F-5E, Su-27S, F-15C, Su-17M, A-6E, A-7E, MiG-23MLA, Mirage F.1, F-14A, Mi-8, UH-1, L-39, C-101, MiG-19, F-8J etc. with interesting engaging more manual gameplay and other 2000s with USAF vs US Navy standoff datalink AMRAAM/JSOW fest - they would gladly jump in i.e. nimble lightweight F-16A and fly to meet the adventure and dogfight MiGs with Sidewinders and guns! It's simply a matter of time since big amount of this modules are during the development as we speak and they will be saturating late Cold War/Desert Storm timeframe which is "possible to model for BOTH sides, in a reasonably realistic way". Right now more guys are sandboxing playing with Hornets vs Vipers and it's ok as well.

They would obviously balance things, i.e. F/A-18A without datalink, helmet sight, with Sparrows and Sidewinders is a perfect match for the MiG-29A with R-27/R-73. MiG having somewhat better acceleration/climb and moderately off-bore missile, Horner better low speed handling nose authority and more head-up avionics and better radar control suite. Overall better pilot wins. F/A-18C from 2005 with datalink, AMRAAM, very high off bore 9X, Helmet HUD integrated with sensors, very modern digital avionics etc. is a totally different league. Heatblur added F-14A and in Cold War 1980s scenarios and servers this variant is being used balancing things in a natural way. There is going to be similar with Mirage F.1 where basic fighter F.1C will be used in 1970s scenarios together with F-5E, MiG-21bis, F-8J, MiG-19, Huey etc. Multirole F.1E for 1980s with F-14A, MiG-29A, F-15C, Su-27S, Gazelle, C-101, L-39, Mi-8, Mi-24, A-7E, A-6E, Su-17, A-10A, Su-25A, MiG-23MLA etc. Digital F.1E for later scenarios. I think it's the way to go and I appreciate they are making few variants increasing it's usability and stretching it to cover way bigger timeframe.

Definitely. Simple Cold War helicopter would take a fraction of i.e. Apache development time, money and man-hours.

+1

Sounds like a good idea. Very relevant for many DCS modules, real warfare, lot of sea for both aircraft carrier operations and land bases, not extremely urbanized. Nearly all of 1980s "Line of Death" and "ElDorado Canyon" aircraft are present in DCS or during development US F-14A, A-6E, A-7E, Libyan MiG-21bis, MiG-23, Su-17, Mirage F.1, L-39, Mi-8, Mi-24. Only F-111 would be missing but it operated from land bases outside of the map.

Cobra, depending on variant, would be a Mi-24 counterpart in Cold War scenarios and MP servers. Both Vietnam AH-1G with miniguns, grenade launchers and rockets to escort UH-1 and Europe 1980s AH-1S/P/E/F with anti-armor missiles to hunt for Soviet tanks breaching Fulda Gap, together with Gazelle M and Bolkov-105. I would guess it can be developed after the Apache.

I didn't include Phantom because I've listed only existing modules in DCS + the ones in development. Phantom would be great but I'm waiting for ED or some 3rd party to announce it.