bies

What was the conclusion?

On one hand people say option is always good. On the other hand it would be like with the MiG-21: everyone is flying without it as it obscures some view, even though it's completely unrealistic - IRL you would be grounded or punnished for such thing as it would imply unaithorized weapon use, a war crime, a friendly fire etc. IRL they always fly with them on, even during peacetime excercise. (Or maybe another solution: checking a box "civilian" like in Mi-8, when you can't carry a weapon and you can remove the gun cam.) For sure when flying with weapon IRL gun cam has to be there.

With all respect, but what are you even talking about? Everthing you've said is basically the other way around. Su-25(A) entered service in 1981... And produced in 1300 airframes. Su-25T was produced in just 8 (!) airframes, less then any MP server has, tested unsuccessfully during 1990s, rejected by the military as it had abysmal flight performance and its weapon system didnt work as intended and it was cancelled. It's a paper plane... A-10A was used pracrically only by the U.S., always by one side of the war - when Su-25 by some 12 countries in some dozen of wars. And in four wars from 1988 to today, Su-25 was used by both sides, Russian and Georgia, Azerbejian and Armenia, Russia and Ukraine. Original MiG-29 9.12 fits perfectly as DCS has plenty of 1980s modules from the era ready and coming along with MiG-29 9.12; like Mi-24P, Su-17M, MiG-21bis, MiG-23, Mi-8, Su-25, L-39, F-4E, A-6E, A-7E, F-14A/B, Mirage F.1C, IAI Kfir, Tornado IDS, C-101, MB-339, Bo-105, Huey, Gazelle L. Plus all AI air / ground / sea assets from the era. Plus 2 great maps Iraq for Desert Storm '91 and Fulda Gap for 1980s Cold War. That's MP with proper enviroment and both sides modeled. There will never be Blue vs Red MP past the USSR collapse timeframe as only NATO allow to their machines to be modeled. MP in DCS is WW2, Cold War and some NATO vs NATO 2000s.

F-35 is very affordable, it's cheaper to buy then Rafale due to massive econimy of scale. It would be rather 12 F-35 against 10 Rafale, money wise.

1) ED was nearly forced to abandon 1980s Soviet era MiG-29 9.12 due to Russian law. More modern variant will never be even remotely possible and Russian law is being even more restrictive and paranoid due to war. It's better to accept this, especially because 1980s offers more interesting and more realistically recreated combat enviroment in every aspect, weapon guidance, avionics, radar parameters, overall decision making etc., before computers took over everything. 2) Poland didn't modernize MiG-29 combat capabilities, they added few obvious elements to make it compatible with NATO air power, like different IFF, different radio, some GPS. Overall it didn't influence its combat capabilities, it was still 1980s weapon system. 3) Original 9.12 fits perfectly as DCS has planty of 1980s modules from the era ready and coming along with MiG-29 9.12; like Mi-24P, Su-17M, MiG-21bis, MiG-23, Su-25, L-39, A-6E, A-7E, F-14, F-4E, Mirage F.1, IAI Kfir, Tornado IDS, C-101, MB-339, Bo-105, Huey, Gazelle L. Plus all AI air / ground / sea assets from the era. Plus 2 great maps Iraq for Desert Storm '91 and Fulda Gap for 1980s Cold War. 1980s MiG-29 9.12 fits DCS perfectly and it can be recreated in a very realistic way. What is more 9.12 had the best raw flight preformance among MiG-29 family, highest T/W and lowest wing loading - far more exciting then late, overweight, underpowered MiG-29SMT. Whose avionics would have to be copletely made up fiction.

According to the announcement, the first to released will be original ~2005 A/A Luftwaffe Eurofighter with gun, AMRAAM, IRIS-T etc. And later on some newer features will be added, untill Meteor missile integration, so in case of Luftwaffe 2022-2023 P2Eb software. Please don't delete the original 2005 variant in the process. Just keep them both. This early one will be great as well, because it fits other ~2005 era DCS modules timeframe like F/A-18C, F-16C, F-15C, F-15E, AH-64D, OH-58D, CH-47F etc. and AI air/ground/sea enviroment form the era. And it will be the closest to real life, having least amount of modern classified electronics. So we would have both variant - without any additional work for the developer. Cheers!

Yes, and when it comes to Hip i would also like to have earlier variant as well, just like Su-25. Original Mi-28T, MT or mid 1980s modernized Mi-8MTV. Because right now we will have plenty of 1980s Soviet era red force aircrafts like MiG-29 9.12, Su-17M, MiG-21bis, MiG-23MLA, Mi-24P plus Fulda Gap and Afganistan maps - but too modern, 1990s Mi-8MTV2, not fitting the timeframe. Current Mi-8MTV2 we have is too late for Afganistan map, too late for the Fulda Gap map, with all the 1980s Soviet and NATO modules fitting them perfectly.

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.