bies

For me obviously full fidelity is way better than low fidelity simplified FC3 standard in every possible regard. It's even easier to learn without the need to bind and remember some 40-50 abstract functions, but having interactive cockpit. The only reason i fly FC3 sometimes is FC3 modeled the sexiest late Cold War jets, with the sweet spot 1980s/1990s F-15C, MiG-29A, Su-27S, A-10A, Su-25 semi analog-semi digital era, when air combat and ground attack were close and personal for the last time during 1991 Desert Storm. Obvoiusly i would greatly prefer full fidelity versions. I hope we will see them in the future.

Block 25 and 32 were not only significantly heavier than non-MLU Block 15, but the worse part of increased weight was the new heavier APG-68 radar and new avionics blocks were placed in the nose. Both F-16A pilots and pilots flying against it in BFM called F-16C "lead nose Vipers", with APG-68 F-16 became nose heavy, significanly reducing its meneuverability. But even non-MLU Block 15 was already significantly less maneuverable than earlier "small tail" F-16A Block 1, 5, 10 with original leading edge flaps and tail authority, significanly reduced later on and F-16A Block 15 already lost its maneuvering edge over other fighters. Further degrading it with C variant with new avionics and heavier APG-68 radar. Gaining more and more weight with the same small wing to generate lift.

F-15A from mid 1970s - great. Cold War superfighter with semi analog/semi digital taste and the most maneuverable F-15 at low speeds. F-15A achieved some half of ~100 F-15 kills. F-16A MLU - bad, it was 1990s F-16A upgraded to Block 50 standard, just worse Block 50. But original early analog, super nimble, lightweight F-16A Block 1, 5, 10 with small tail, like the one shooting down some 40 Syrian MiGs in dogfights over Bekaa Valley would be great. F-16C Block 40 - good. Strike aircraft from late Cold War/Desert Storm with LANTIRN suite and WARHUD. F-16C Block 32 - bad. It was poorer performance derivative of Block 30 which had the best acceleration among F-16 family. Block 30 from late Cold War/Desert Storm, before it gained additional weight later on, would be good. Soviet (pre Russian) MiG-29 9.12 and Su-27S would be great if possible some day. Pure variants with best kinematic performance, avionics declassified and possible to model in DCS. Russian (post Soviet) MiG-29 SMT - bad, poor kinematic performance and reduced maneuverability, classified avionics and weapon. Russian (post Soviet) Su-27SM - 100% totally classified with close to zero data, it would have to be completely unrealistic made up fiction, having nothing in common with real jet, way less realistic than FC3.

I've managed F-5E in one afternoon, together with friends. Dogfighting in MP, attacking ground targets, navigating, manually starting and overall having fun the very next day. Similar with UH-1, similar with MiG-21bis, similar with MiG-15bis, similar with F-86 Sabre (not using radio rangefinder the first day here), similar with Mi-8 (without manual startup here), similar with basically every WW2 warbird (except for slightly more complicated P-47 with turbosupercharger). Clickable cockpits made them way more enjoyable and way esier to remember than FC3 ~40 random keyboard shortcuts.

Yes, FM are good, when avionics is mostly year 2003 Lock On: Modern Air Combat with few cosmetic changes.

I understand your sentiment and i also like simpler aircrafts, but absolutely not purposely simplified, unrealistic, gamey 20 y.o. low fidelity FC3 standard. It would take all the fun out of DCS and make it closer to WT. That's why i would like to see the full fidelity A-10A - way simpler and easier to learn and remember than the A-10C. Full fidelity F-16A - way simpler than F-16C. Full fidelity F-15A/C - way simpler than F-15E. Or other full fidelity simple Cold War era aircrafts like MiG-29, Su-25, Su-17, MiG-23, MiG-25, A-1, AH-1 Cobra etc. Basically 1-2 afternoons and you already know how to operate them in full fidelity and you can focus on having fun. And you will not forget how to use them after not flying for a few weeks. In short, simpler aircrafts yes - but absolutely not lower fidelity, gamey, old FC3 standard.

Yes. Overall both defending against tactical nuclear strikes, intercepting enemy aircraft. And trying to perform them with e.g. low altitude nuclear toss bombing would be very interesting missions, especially in cold war scenarios where it was considered as basis of the air warfare and jet fighters main role.

Agree. What is more F-15C MSIP II from 1985-1995 has plenty of both flayable and AI opposition and whole timeframe proper enviroment in DCS.

Yes, and it's comfortable, durable and practical anyway.

That would be lethal even without any bombs. Crazy 1960s ideas like Project Pluto or M-25.

All McDonell-Douglas F-15C/D MSIP II, F/A-18A/C, F/A-18E/F, AV-8B, F-15E ues the same grip, with only very small changes from type to type. It's being used in some other aircraft as well e.g. Tornado GR.4.

So which setting is close to real view in VR? 5-8?

Advanced inverse kinematics/pilot body animations, tail buffeting, wing fatigue damage, elements of radar modeling, it's just a few things i've noticed - all of that sets the highest standard. Good job. If RAZBAM would make a Cold War fighter variant F-15A or C as well in the future I would hardly ever leave my basement. Overall RAZBAM progress over the last few years is fantastic. It's a top notch developer.

Agree. Overall both defending against tactical nuclear strikes, intercepting enemy aircraft. And trying to perform them with e.g. low altitude nuclear toss bombing would be very interesting missions, especially in cold war scenarios where it was considered as basis of the air warfare and jet fighters main role. But i think, for now, ED doesn't want to model nuclear weapon for political/ideological point of view.

Overall wipers works and it looks good, but only in automatic mode on console, pilot's cyclic button moves but it don't swept the rain. Thanks for your work!

Yes, if you would be able to make Cold War timeframe variant of the map, from the time of military conflicts in the region, it would be fantastic! Thanks for your work

Today's Updates of Open Beta: Added Windshield wipers clear rain drops

It was Su-34. Su-35 is totally classified and it would be completely unrealistic even as AI aircraft. According to main topic - yes, absolutely, it would be great to have Cold War era ground assets and AI aircrafts. It doesn't have to be tens of thousands $ extremely high polygon models like full fidelity module, just on par with average DCS AI assets.

Casmo's comments on updated Apache FM, it looks like a step in the right direction, but there is some issue with excessive tail rotor thrust.

Did Iranian F-14A, F-4E, F-5E use original english cockpits or their native iranian versions? I'm asking about the Cold War era - 1970s pre-revolutionary Shah Iran and 1980s revolutionary Iran during Iraq-Iran war.

And MiG-17 is officially coming!

Yes, it would be even better, i just proposed different flag to minimise ED work, just a different texture over the flag for earlier scenarios.

Cold War era Mi-8 would be great especially when Afganistan map will be released, together with Mi-24, Su-25, SU-17 the Mi-8 will be most important module for 1980s Afganistan war.

Our Mi-8 co-pilot always has only Russian (Russian Federation) big flag on his uniform, even if pre-1991 date is selected. Please make it the Soviet Union for earlier scenarios on uniform for USSR era (or no flag like it historically was). This flag is really big and very much visible for the whole flight and it breaks the immersion in earlier Sovier-era scenarios, Cold War, Afganistan etc. when such country didn't exist. Soviet helicopter pilot during 1980s:

Yes, we've tested it with friends few days ago, it worked very well. I can't wait for the final release and implementing it in most MP servers instead of SRS external application.