bies

Lynx AH Mk 1 in Germany, 1980s.

F-16XL didn't have Block 50 avionics. It had analog avionics of F-16A Block 10 as it has been developed in 1980/1981. F-16XL was also 2500kg heavier and generated far bigger drag at higher AoA then F-16A so it couldn't dogfight well. If F-16XL would't lose to F-15E, and actually been developed into fully functional aircraft it would enter service around 1988, it would receive F-16C Block 40 avionics, integrated with LANTIRN with wide, FLIR integrated HUD, as it was a strike aircraft. It would be like F-16 Block 40, but with better low level fast strike performance at cost of worse preformance in a dogfight.

Though this two were much different. P-80 from 1945 was evaluated by the USAF against German Me-262 and concluded being much worse then Me-262. F-80 from Korea was significantly better, more reliable, much faster, using a lot stronger engine and different wing profile. In my humble opinion F-84 may be better as P-80 didnt't make it to the WW2, and it was a bit dated in Korea. When F-84 had quite a payload and it was successfull ground pounder.

Yes, earler A-10A, F-15C, F-16, F/A-18 variants would be crucial for the map.

Right now only 2000s F-15C has been confirmed, original F-15C MSIPII from mid 1980s and Desert Storm has not been confirmed by ED:

Yes, original analog pre-LASTE Cold War / Desert Storm A-10A has been requested many times. It would be one of the most iconic aircraft over divided Germany map.

This eliminates the possibility of any Russian advanced module in the future. And eliminates the point of working on it at all - once it was released, the Russian government, obsessed with paranoia, could immediately block it any day and waste years of work, bringing the company to the brink of bankruptcy.

Before considering classified Su-27M, which would be made up, completely unrealistic and with fictional avionics, weapons, systems, sensors, performance, with zero SME input and fine tuning etc. - let's wait if 1980s Soviet Su-27S will be possible and announced after the 1980s Soviet MiG-29 9.12. Reasonably realistic 1980s Soviet Su-27S, working like the real aircraft, would be a lot better then made up, unrealistic, fictional, extremely simplified Su-27M. When Su-27S would flight along other 1980s Soviet MiG-29, Su-25, MiG-23MLA, Su-17M, MiG-21bis, Mi-24P, Mi-8 etc., and against 1980s NATO F-14A/B, Tornado IDS, A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair, Bo-105, Mirage 2000, L-39, IAI Kfir, Mirage F.1, Viggen, Gazelle L, Huey, C-101, F-4E etc.

They didn't. They were experimenting with NVG since Vietnam. In the late 1980s U.S. pilots were sporadically using quite advanced for the era AN/PVS-5. Even during Desert Storm in 1991 - the last battle of the Cold War - they were flying without NVGs. Even cutting edge late 1980s F-16C Block 40 and AH-64A were using FLIR. Only F-15E had, partially, NVG-compatible cockpit. And this was the US, decisively leading with microelectronics. The only device the USSR was using, at the end of 1980s, was Очки Ночного Видения-1. It was a simple gen 2 image intensifier, significantly inferior to standard AN/PVS-5 used in NATO aircraft, with poor clarity and low signal-to-noise ratio and poor resolution due to dated microelectronics, small 32 deg. field of view, lack of depth perception, big and bulky, poor reliability and high failure rate, blinded by cockpit's instruments illumination. It was used to takeoff and landings and navigation, not for any kind of air combat, it would be a grave danger - for the pilot wearing it, unable to see his flight instruments. MiG-29 and Su-27 had non-filtered instrument panels, blinding the googles. On MiG-29 and Su-25 - limited trials in the late '80s, operationally only in the '90s. On Su-27 rejected due to cockpit lighting issues and overall marginal use. It was used by special forces Mi-8/17 and Mi-24 pilots in some very specific conditions. "Dogfighting" wearing NVGs during the Cold War was basically impossible.

The guy must have felt like a king of the skies back then. Initial F-104A was designed by Kelly Johnson's team as an air superiority fighter to combat MiGs, with lessons from Korean War. In the late 1950s/early 1960s it had phenomenal performance, acceleration, speed, ceiling. The best armament in the world; vulcan gun and two Sidewinders. All this coupled with a good radar for the era. An ultimate BnZ suite.

I wouldn't bother as well, but there was a lot of differences between EF two decades ago wen it entered service - and todays P2Eb software, when it start to integrate Meteor.

This. Notice how most of the old simulators have just one or at most a few flyable aircrafts – but still were immensely enjoyable, drawing the player into the living world. Modules are nice, but what really matters for the experience are a proper timeframe map, an atmospheric campaign, preferably dynamic, a decent, believable AI, ground/air/sea assets from the proper timeframe, ATC and wingmen comms. You can make a fantastic experience even with just one single flyable, greatly recreated aircraft.

Su-25T would require different flight model and flight performance then Su-25, different engines, different weapon system, different cockpit/HUD/TV etc. Basically a work of a full new module. Not worth as there were just 8 prototypes, later cancelled and rebuilt.

Yes because it would fit all the late Cold War Soviet roster, like MiG-29 9.12, Mi-24P, MiG-21bis, Mi-8, Su-17M, MiG-23MLA etc. Yes because this original Su-25 is just exceptionally fun to play, like a bigger jetipowered IL-2, all werapons, guided and unguided are within visual range, it's all about skill, flying, aiming, dodging, navigation. Everything about original Su-25 is engaging and fun.

Yes and this is exactly what i'm afraid. And the main reason i propose to make two variants, not requiring any additional work - by just not adding some capabilites to the earlier variant. Which were absent in the early jet IRL. But adding them to the second.

It looks like they want to do even better - make them full fidelity. What so many guys proposed through the years. MiG-29 goes FF, F-15C goes FF, Su-25 free rework may bring a FF later on.

No one authorized most of the modules we have in DCS. Only a few are producer-licensed, many companies don't even exist anymore for decades. F-35 is just created by the most open country, produced by very open Lockheed company, export oriented, built by +1100 airframes, presented widely and publically all around the world including avionics, workflows, sensor integration, HOTAS functions, cockpit etc. Chinese/Russian somewhat modern aircraft will never meet any of that. It would be either 100% made up fiction, having nothing to do with the real one, with fictional avionics, MFD pages, fictional weapon systems and HOTAS, made up sensors - or just absent. It's a different culture. When Soviet era Su-25 will be awesome. Full fidelity even more. Just like MiG-29 9.12, Su-17M, MiG-23MLA etc.

Or, it maight be a German campaign i've played with voices. And yes, more assets, AI aircrafts, ATC/flight interaction, campaign, proper timeframe variants - this are most important things. Far more important then another module.

"New modules" are the last thing to make DCS feel like WW2 is dead. Most of older sims modeled just a few WW2 birds but none of that sims feel dead. It's the enviroment that can make WW2 or any other period feel dead or alive. You can have just 2-4 flayable modules, or even 2, with rich enviroment, and still everything will feel alive. Enviroment = proper era map, proper era variants of flayable aircrafts, reasonable amount of AI air, ground, sea assets, ATC, capmaigns etc. - this makes some period alive or not. And i have to admit DCS WW2 is doing a lot to make it happen in the last few years; improved Normandy map, campaigns, proper voice over ATC in German, British, WW2 asset pack (even if paid). What would be most welcome are better fitting summer/fall 1944 Normandy era variants of P-51, Bf-109, FW-190A8, Spitfire IX - as they are currentyly either a bit too late (Mustang, Dora, Bf-109K) or a bit too early (early FW-190A early Spitfie IX). And more refined overall ATC.

I feel like it would be an excuse NOT to improve the the real director lights. When this overlay would be just an immersion breaking substitute anyway. Such solution may be required for some configurations when lights are a mile away on an aircraft carrier on final - but not on the tanker when the lights are merely 100ft (!) away from pilot's eyes... Come on, they cen do better than that, they can improve the lights visibility from such a short distance, without such artificial distraction.

Definitely yes. Though not some classified variants, or not the ones very different from the original variant, requiring basically a full work of a new module from scratch like F-15EX or MiG-29K. But at lest the ones requiring absolutely minimum work, like disabling few functions, to make a different variant, unlocking many years of aircraft service. E.g. F/A-18C or F-15C from the Cold War/Desert Strorm era, earlier Mi-8MTV from Afganistan, Vietnam era F-4E, Cold War era AJS-37 Viggen etc. Where changes required to make a new variant would be minimal.

It's so confusing, what this 3 options mean? I would like a full fidelity Su-25 module. PFM/EFM is the same, depending on developer. I would like in-depth Su-25 system modeling like e.g. Mi-24. Just a full fidelity paid module. Which may be coming considering how much work they put into the 3d model, textures and all this gorgeous looking cockpit.

That's true and Heatblur/TrueGrit have very good idea what systems were adder after initial 2005 machine and absent initially. Leaving it in original 2005 standard as additional variant, withou any additional work, would be great.

Is it possile the same gun, mounted in similar way in heavier and more stable F-14 would be so much more accurate then F-15, F-16, F/A-18? If not - a compromise should be made because unified standard throught the DCS is more important then slight discrepancy in two documents.

Viking would be great, but only after ASW implementation. Right now it would be pointless.