bies

So it has to be Apache or F-111. Or Wright Flyer. Or AWACS.

F-117 had two different avionics standards, original and upgraded. To be honest i prefer original variant without MFDs:

+1

F-111 would be great to be honest, it's not a FBW JDAM truck. And it took part in real serious wars where enemy was also able to inflict loses, like Vietnam or Gulf War. Or Apache, both passes all the checks, but Apache is more brain melting and more eagerly awaited. And they already have Apache coded for their military branch. Apache looks like more obvious seller. I mean F-111 is also great but Apache.. It would be enough to see the poster in their shop "DCS Apache" and man is sold, everyone would like to have Apache. F-111 is a bit more refined choice. BTW. Imagine seating in VR inside modern graphics Apache, with IHADSS.

IIRC Nick or some other ED official said in last interview they would like to make F-22 or F-35 but it's impossible because they wouldn't have a license and they would have to made up nearly everything, it would be totally unrealistic so it would be pointless as they want to make everything as realistic as possible.

It is not.. NineLine stated on Reddit "brain melter won't satisfy any RedFor dreams".

Why they don't do an F-15C instead if two seats are so controversial, they don't plan any AI and are bottlenecked by coding? Graphically they are doing great job. If I understand correctly F-15C would take incomparably less time to code without fancy guided A-G ordinance, systems, advanced two cockpit functionality, electro optical pods. Considering RAZBAM has many graphics artists and smaller amount of coders single role single seater but with higher performance looks like perfect choice for them. I'm afraid RAZBAM can stuck for years coding advanced A-G functionalities, two cockpits, pods etc. Being also forced to hold all other projects. Strike Eagle will be also A LOT more resource consuming to support/maintain in DCS with all this avionics. Like with modern A-G Harrier, it took years and it's still not finished. Bomber two cockpit F-15E can be even more time consuming. Looks like they already came to similar conclusion chosing cold war single role jets in the future - with attractive real warfare history, performance and outlook but without modern gizmos extremely time consuming to code - like MiG-23, EE Lighting, legacy A-A Harrier, Mirage III etc. ​​This looks like logical choice which suits them perfectly. Being bottlenecked by coding they could make like three cold war single role planes for one super sophisticated multirole. Maybe i don't know something? Maybe it's about the license ED gave them?

Oh yes, D was still capable but we don't have D in DCS. And it was only 37 planes + 18 modified out of A. They planed to upgrade the whole fleet to D standard but USSR collapsed and there was no point of upgrade (or even maintaining the rest of F-14 fleet really) and everything gone.

I wouldn't be surprised if F-111 is a "module to be announced later this year by ED" But yes, after what Heatblur shown with kind of similar Tomcat (TF-30 engines, multicrew, variable geometry wing) if i had to chose in a perfect world i would prefer Heatblur to make this particular plane.

Exactly. '70s and early '80s colorfull muscle flexing like from Vietnam are my way to go. Dull gray Tomcat loses some part of his visula sexappeal. And '70s - '80s Tomcats were top tier birst of prey when '90 and later, without mdern NCTR IFF, Link16, AMRAAM (and proper purpose anymore) - F-14 was just a remnant of its former glory and close to retirement. That's how Tomcats painting was changing through the years: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-colours.htm

This would be the most moody map possible. Nearly all combat planes developed after WWII were designed to fight on this specific theatre.

Southern Baltic or Fulda Gap, 1970s -1980s Cold War, NATO vs. WARPAC Soviet Union Red Strorm Rising would be awesome. The ultimate map and scenario.

UH-1H entered service 1967 during Vietnam war but our version seems to represetn 1980s standard and avionics IIRC it's modeled after Australian Bush Ranger. MiG-21bis entered service 1972, F-14A Tomcat in 1974. So even Tomcat is more of a Vietnem plane since, entering service at similar time as MiG-21bis, at least F-14A took part in last episode of Vietnam war. Contrary to MiG-21bis. But i would love to see a Vietnam map and Vietnam era aircrafts.

Yes and it would benefit all soviet planes, not only MiG-29 but also MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23. Western planes also use GCI support, US just relegated the control to air AWACS earlier.

Up to about 10-15,000ft - in classic big mouth GE F-16C block 30 in light AA configuration? As long as pilot withstand the G force. Look at F-16 energy maneuvering chart - is can sustain 9G untill the end of gas up to 10-15k ft - bviously it depends on configuration, mass, even weather to some degree. If you are not aware you can even accelerate - squeezing 9G at the same time - if you start pulling above 450kts at low alt. F-16 is designed specifically to generate very low drag in turn, unstable configuration helps also decreasing AoA needed for specific G in contrast to stable F-15 or MiG-29. Some overweight strike variants like block 40 and 50 have harder time with additional mass neded for multirole applications, but the most common C variant - Block 30 and A Block 5/10 are universally praised by their pilots being the strongest dogfighters in existence untll Eurofighter entered service around 2004. F-16C Block 30 having the best T/W ratio excesive power and acceleration, better than MiG-29 or F-15, and Block 5/10 with "small tail" paying off in dogfight and having the lowest wing loading and instantenious turn rate among F-16 family.

Squeezing 9G at 450kts in real combat enviroment makes the plane a lot harder to kill with any weapon than one making 7.5G at 350kts - regardless of similar turn rate - real combat enviroment is rarely a honorable 1v1 duel. It also gives the plane a lot easier time disengaging accelerating from 450kts to supersonic after unloading the plane or chasing enemy which is trying to disengage - if you start at 350kts the chances an enemy will flee or catch you are significantly bigger. Maintaining 450kts allows also starting vertical maneuvers - like loop over the top. Maintaining 350kts barely gives any reserve. Hornet's 7.5G is just a compromise - not some design feature. Non naval Hornets for Switzerland with uniform wing spar due to non-folded wings allows it to squeeze more G savely than naval variant with folded wings. The whole 20 degrees low sweep angle wing of the Hornet is a compromise which makes plane slower and lowering it's acceleration due to increased drag but this wing was needed to achieve low speed carrier approach. Non naval planes with conventional aerodynamic like F-15, F-16, MiG-29, Su-27 etc. - all have moderate wing sweep angle ~40-45 degrees.

Noone ever say ED will not make some AI plane. As AI plane, very simplified, they can even make Raptors, F-35s, Su-57s, J-20 without any problem. Totally unrealistic though...

Personally for me pure single role fighters like MiG-29, F-15A/C, Su-27, MiG-25 are the most exciting. And let's not forget there were only 3 pure multirole planes Hornet, Viper and Phantom. (excluding classified and impossible to model like F-35, Raptor etc.) Only Phantom left.

So what after the F-4? Is Phantom going to be the last plane for DCS by ED? No, they will be modeling single role planes.

Agree Agree 100% 3rd paries are smaller issue here F-14, Viggen, Mirage 2000 etc. are 1980s/1990s variants.

For real life training dogfights and direct comparition between F-16 and F/A-18 check C.W. Lemoine "Mover" channel. He flew both types. IIRC what he told was F-16 easily outrates and outaccelerates the Hornet. Marking he was flying F-16C Block 30, lighter and more maneuverable GE engine 1980s variant than our multirole Block 50.

In order not to write back over and over again, man need to establish some fixed, unchanging framework to even start any discussion: //There is no moden Russian plane and ED is stating time and time again in nearly every interview they are not able (not allowed) to make one and they do not plan to make one. Period.// Only accepting this fixed point we can start considering other options. Banging a head against the wall crying childishly "but gib modern Russian rest is useless" is completely pointless. And counterproductive diluting the discussion and other options. I proposed one clear option in another topic which is available and possible: 1980s F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, A-10, Su-25, Mi-24, Apache, Mirage 2000, Viggen etc. - all possible to model, even if temporarly some of them as FC3 standard only, and some like 1980s MiG-29 9.12 or Su-27S at the verge of not being possible/allowed - fighting each other in symmetric scenario like 1980s war in Europe, with realistic enviromet, AI planes, SAM systems, radars, ground assets, ships etc. I would be pleased to hear some other, realistic - not just whining or wishful thinking, solutions.

In order not to write back over and over again, man need to establish some fixed, unchanging framework to even start any discussion: //There is no moden Russian plane and ED is stating time and time again in nearly every interview they are not able (not allowed) to make one and they do not plan to make one. Period.// Only accepting this fixed point we can start considering other options. Banging a head against the wall crying childishly "but gib modern Russian rest is useless" is completely pointless. And counterproductive diluting the discussion and other options. I proposed one clear option available and possible: 1980s F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, A-10, Su-25, Mi-24, Apache - all possible to model, even if temporarly some of them as FC3 standard only, and some like 1980s MiG-29 9.12 or Su-27S at the verge of not being possible/allowed - fighting each other in symmetric scenario like 1980s war in Europe, with realistic enviromet, AI planes, SAM systems, radars, ground assets, ships etc. ultimately in dynamic campaign.

Exactly, all of them MiG-29, Su-27, F-15 had similar A-G capabilities - only most rudimentary unguided weapons. Would someone say not to make full fidelity MiG-29 or Su-27 because they are single role? Yes they are single role just like 95% of other planes. Following this line of reasoning (excluding some strictly classified planes impossible to make like Raptors, F-35s etc.) there is only one module for ED to make as the only one true multirole left - F-4 Phantom II. All other planes are single role. MiG-17, MiG-25, MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-7, Su9/11, Su-15, Su-25, Su-27, Tu-128, F-101 Voodo, F-102/106 Delta Dart, F-104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief, F-111 Aardvark, Tornado IDS, Tornado ADF, F-117, A-4 Skyhawk, A-5 Vigilante, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, A-10 Thunderbolt, B-1b, Mirage III, Mirage F1, Mirage IV, Draken, EE Lighting - you name it, all of them are single role A-A or A-G with most rudimentary secondary capabilities just like F-15A/C.

1980s are not MiG-21. 1980s are MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Mirage 2000, Viggen. 1980s barely even exist in DCS? The whole FC3 flayable planes - MiG-29, Su-25, Su-27, Su-33, F-15C, A-10A - and nearly all DCS assets are from 1980s/1990s, AI planes, ground units like tanks, artilery, infantry, SAMs, ships, radars, everything. Full fidelity modules like F-14, Mirage 2000, Viggen. The whole DCS in it's core is 1980s/1990s. What barely exist is mid 2000s with single modules like Viper, Hornet, A-10C without any mid 2000 assets to allow some realistic scenarios, no ground assets, no SAMs, no flayable enemy planes nor even AI enemy planes to fight against. The enemy for mid 2000s Viper are Soviet 1980s planes and Soviet 1980s SAMs, radars, ships etc.