bies

It depends what do you mean by Russian. The Soviet Union 1922-1991? Yes. Many Soviet aircrafts are in DCS already. MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Mi-8, Mi-24. And many more are coming being already developed MiG-17, MiG-23, Su-17, MiG-29. Or The Russian Federation 1991-2025? No. Russian aircrafts won't be allowed due to extremely prohibitive Russian law and during the war they became even more paranoid - ED was nearly been forced to cancel early 1980s Soviet era MiG-29 9.12. Probably they will never be any Russian 2000s fighter in DCS. Surely not modeled to have anything in common with the real aircraft. Just pure fantasy amateur-made MODs.

I've just checked, Su-25 costs $7.49 It's one kebap from a hole-in-the-wall, a guy made you in 10 minutes and you ate in 5... ED products are in reality extremely cheap value / money. Plus most of the whole games, at some point, goes free of charge, does it mean developers should then return money for all the people ever bought their product? It would be ridiculous. If someone paid kebap price Su-25, he's going to receive MORE then what he paid for. Paying for an old, dated model, when receiving refreshed one with fantastic graphics.

Exactly. Which is a great news anyway, even though i don't like or use FC3 modules. Free for all and with great graphics. My hope is, spending such a big amount of resources on very detailed cockpit and external model, will make ED use it for full fidelity Su-25 later on.

I think Su-25 is actually a great choice, a whole lot better choice then Su-25T. As Su-25 is mass produced (some 1300 airframes) real life aircraft, very relevant, veteran of dozens of conflicts all around the world. Exciting flight performance, engaging gamepleay, history, atmosphere, weapon employment, fitting other Soviet era modules like MiG-29 9.12, Su-17M, MiG-21bis, Mi-24P etc. When Su-25T practically didn't exist IRL. There were 8 airframes built, tested without success as it had abysmal flight perofrmance, range, maneuverability, fire control didn't work in practice as intended so it has been rejected by the military and cancelled. I feel like the only purpose of semi-fictional prototype Su-25T would be to spoil the fun from the real Su-25. Su-25T has been created by ED back then, when DCS was being developed, precisely because it was just an irrelevant prototype, like Ka-50, and Russian government didn't care.

Great update! BTW I would gladly pay for full fidelity Su-25A later on. It was used in so many conflicts and it is extremely enjoyable to fly and fight, like a jet IL-2 on steroids - manual flight control, skill dependant manual weapon aiming, guns, dumb bombs, unguided rockets. All from close range, seeing the targets and weapon effects. Classic analog Soviet cockpit. External model looks great, cockpit is gorgeous, it has to take a huge amont of work. It would be a sin not to use it for full fidelity Su-25A later on. Just look at that, it's Heatblur-like level of work. And scratch this late Soviet era times, all this bare metal, gugged painting and welding... Love it.

And later on he killed a MiG-29 flying an F-15C MSIP II Eagle during Derest Storm in a part 2 of the interview.

When it comes to Cold War and F-15C in developement, it's not 100% sure at the moment:

"French pilots [on Rafale] regularly confronting fifth-generation fighters [such as the American F35] in inter-allied exercises note that the mismatch between stealth fighters is unavoidable in terms of the current level of sensors." "In the event of a combat alongside its Western allies in a high-intensity conflict, the French fighter could be confined to the role of supporting fifth-generation fighters." https://www.lopinion.fr/international/en-combat-air-air-laviation-de-chasse-francaise-tiendrait-trois-jours

Go the first page.

Calm down Do you really thing FlyingIron have invested 3 years of work, research, coding and testing for nothing? They will post an update when ready.

Yes, 9.12B wasn't a "standard", like 9.12 or 9.12A, it was negotiated separately.

9.12 was baseline Soviet model. 9.12A for WarPac, basically the same, lacked one ECCM radar mode (not relevant in DCS at this moment) and had slightly different IFF and antenna. 9.12B for export outside of WarPac, e.g. India, Iraq, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Hungary, Peru, ldowngraded radar, SPO-10 instead of SPO-15, lacked IFF, lacked GCI datalink, sometimes lacking Schel helmet sight, limited countermeasures,

"T" would be a poor choice, just a few prototypes built, poor kinematic performance, poor maneuverability, unfinished, lacking documentation and SME to cooperate thus reduced realism/fidelity, not accepted by the military, zero history, zero relevance. The "T" and "TM" were rejected for excessive cost and poor handling. But original steam gauges Soviet Su-25 from 1980s for Fulda Germany map and Afganistan, to fly together with Mi-24, would be great. Skill dependant and engaging Soviet flying artillery, jet IL-2 on steroids, rich combat history, probably possible to model in depth. Going in hot wit a pair of Su-25 with guns, rockets, bombs and still being able to return home after getting hit by some AAA would be satisfying. I have a gut feeling it's going to be the next module, as ED decided to recreate some FC3 aircrafts as full fidelity, especially if MiG-29 sells well as both are from the same 1980s era with similar vibe.

"Gina" looks awesome! And we're getting 4 variants. Italian, German, NATO and NATO with different equipement.

I agree and all you've described require just high quality. Not full fidelity-like quality. Full fidelity-like extreme detail are visible only from ~5m where you're observing the object from external camera. It just kills the graphic card memory, causes micro-freezes during merge, generating big cost and time for the developer. Some reasonable high quality compromise should be found. Especially for the ground unnits. Better optimalization and big battles are more important, realistic and engaging - than every single antenna and hand handle of the single Tiger tank being modeled.

AI assets 3d models shouldn't be made in such extremely detailed way. Except for YT video, you will never be able to see them so closely to even notice such details. And super detailed models cost ED whole lot of money and time. To be fair every AI air/ground/navy asset (except for aircraft tankers and aircraft carriers) should be just high quality - good enough. Not phenomenal, close to flayable module quality. As 10 good quality assets are better then 2-3 super high quality which in practice player will never be able to see anyway.

APG-70 was a stop-gap radar for the F-15C, used temporarly on 45 F-15C/D airframes, then replaced by the more advanced APG-63(v)1. APG-70 offered more A/G options at cost of somewhat reduced A/A performance and reliability. F-15E avionics-wise it completely different aircraft. Performance are different as well.

Question is - is this become widespread standard in DCS or F-35 only. When all other aircraft will be still a single number, regardless of type of pylons, number of missiles, aspect angle rtc.

IIRC GE required slightly more room even though the main diameter was the same, it would require airframe modification. And its intakes may, or may not, have sufficient flow for the mass-pushing GE engines. F-14 may possibly not have sufficient flow in some regimes for the GE engines, but i'm not sure. F-16 required new, bigger intake to utilize GE engine to the fullest. Oh, BTW, such modified F-15C coupled with GE engines would have empty Thrust to Weight above 2:1 and in combat configuration (50% fuel, 8 AAM, gun ammo) ~1.5:1 It would have higher T/W than any fighter in history, including F-22...

Full fidelity MiG-29 may be an impulse to take care about them.

Okay, Buddy. Whatever you say...

Oh this F-15 Eagle firing Sparrow! I hope we will get Cold War 1985 MSIP II F-15 as well, as a variant of just announced 2005 F-15C MSIP II.

I understand your frustration, but no, it's not the same. Not even close. And i'm not even an enthusiast of F-35 in DCS, being as sceptical as many other guys. F-35 and J-20 documantation availability is on a completely different level. J-20 is like F-22 - Chinese exclusive totally classified air superiority fighter, and more then a decade more recent, in a completely closed country. So good luck. And even F-22 in DCS at this moment would be impossible. (contrarly to export highly open F-35) And just ask yourself - would flying and fighting in 100% made up J-20 where nothing, avionics, weapons, cockpit, HOTAS, performance, sensors etc. - not even remotely resembling real jet?

"D" AMRAAM truck wariant may be a imposible to model in reasonably realistic way due to common datalink with Gripen. And it wouldn't fit the timeframe anyway. But 1980s Cold War JA-37C with Skyflash missiles and its ultimate sniper-gun would be great! Counterpart to all 1980s modules like MiG-29 9.12, Tornado IDS, F-14A/B, A-6E, MiG-21bis, Su-17M, A-7E, Mi-24P, Mirage F.1, Bo-105, Gazelle L etc. Perfect for Cold War Gone Hot over Kola Peninsula and declassified for highly realistic simulation.

Yes, having ONLY 2005+ variant would be a gatekeeping 20 years of F-15C service. With all the real life fighting.