bies

One important thing to add: Fulcrum detection ranges are most often cited for a mode in which radar is being steered for the ground/GCI. If pilot uses Fulcrum's radar independently, by himself, steering it manually, detection ranges are significanly smaller. But i hope such details will be really well modeled in full fidelity module, as FC3 Fulcrum omitted them completely.

Agree, Cold War era Soviet and NATO warships would be great. Especially considering how many additional modules from the era is coming. I'm not a fan of fictional ones though. There are dozens real ones to model first. And some day operating from the ships in SH-3, Lynx, Seahawk, Ka-25 or Ka-27 with anti-submarine-warfare modeled.

You've used wrong velocity for the GSh-30-2, probably just a mistake, it should be 870m/s. GSh-30-2 has 68% energy of GAU-8.

An ode to Warthog's low speed, low altitude manoeuvrability, and turning performance in its proper enviroment. The A-10A was designed for a high intensity war in Europe in 1970s/1980s where weather and terrain often means you have to fly low and slow to acquire battlefield targets. It would be great to have full fidelity pre-LASTE A-10A (or Su-25) in DCS. ssstwitter.com_1729425428542.mp4

A-10 GAU-8 fires much more powerfull AP cardridge 30x173 with 425 gram 1010m/s muzzle velocity when Su-25 GSh-30-2 uses far more moderate 30x165 with 390 gram 870m/s muzzle velocity.

I always felt like 1991 Desert Storm / 1980s Iraq-Iran war should be the first "desert" map in DCS. Nothing against "War on Terror" but such assymetrical warfare is neither particularly exciting nor possible to even simulate in DCS. When all out wars with both sides having tanks, artillery, aircrafts, helicopters, warships, SAMs etc. like 1980s Iraq-Iran war or 1991 Gulf War are perfectly suited for DCS. Thanks!

It belongs to "Maps Wishlist", not to "Core Wishlist" though.

Agree 100%. Cold War era assets would be fantastic. And AI ground, air and sea assets don't need to be of extremely high quality, just high quality. We won't see them from 10-20 meters anyway to be able to see any difference at all from the aircraft or even helicopter cockpit. It's especially true for the ground forces. With priority for the assets which actually are routinely visible from close distance, like the tankers, which currently are of, let's say, 'poor' quality. There is quite a massive difference in workhours and money needed to make extremely high quality model and just good enough one. Like many, many times more. You can often have like 10 decent quality models for just one single extremely high quality one.

Yes and no. Yes it can't be modeled using current, extremely simplified countermeasures model, probably not changed much since 1999 Flanker 2.0, developed to run on todays hand calculator CPU. On the other hand the whole countermeasures system should definitely be rewritten from scratch as even most bascic simulators nowadays use more complex model, it's high time. Flares, chaff, IRST, electronic warfare. I believe ED is working on it.

Yes. F-15A or F-16A would be great. F-15A was significantly earlier even compared to the first MiG-29. In mid 1970s F-15A were already fully operational and in numbers in Europe. F-15C were operational in Europe in 1979, also years before the MiG-29. In 1985 F-15C MSIP II became operational, with standard we ~have in DCS: TWS radar mode, NCTR IFF, MFD weapon control, new central computer etc.

It would be fair, as some additional e.g. "Semi-Historical or Relaxed Filter".

Well, "Historical Filter" being historically accurate have advantages as well. We can always turn it off. It will be increasingly important to make it right as many Cold War modules are being actively developed right now; MiG-17, A-1H, G.91, F-100D, F-104, A-7E, MiG-23, Kfir, A-6E, F-4B/J, Su-17M, Bo-105, Tornado IDS, MiG-29 etc. Original pre-LASTE A-10A (and Su-25) would fit perfectly.

Yes, embarking and disembarking infantry will add a lot of immersion and realism. It doesn't even have to be an ultra high quality models and animations. I remember an old Operation Flashpoint from 2001, 23 years ago, it worked just fine and it rquired today's calculator CPU to model the whole battlefield with hundreds of infantrymen fighting in a very realistic way, using covers, different postures, weapons with ballistic, tanks, APCs - again everything with calculator-like CPU and a small studio. Maybe relative simplicity is the best way to code it today, allowing hundreds of a bit simpler soldiers to fight in reasonably realistic way, big live battlefield, instead of just a few ones of very high quality we rarely ever see?

Exactly, a brain fog. I'll correct it not to confuse other folks.

Yes, original Su-25 would be fantastic, with engaging workflow and historically relevant, taking part in many conflicts. It would perfectly complement other Soviet/WarPac 1980s modules like Mi-24P, MiG-21bis, MiG-29 9.12, Su-17M. On one hand NineLine stated, before the current war, Su-25 is still classified by Russians. On the other hand it was widely used all around the world, even in NATO countries like Slovakia and Czech Republic. Big part of Africa. And it has been withdrawn as obsolete in many of them.

Even though specific data is classified, some obvious limitations can be estimated. There is an interview with Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton, experienced aggressor pilot, with 500 hours in MiG-29 alone and way more than 1000 hours in different NATO jets. He was one of the members of MiG-29 evaluation program. According to him, during the tests in 1990s, US flares proven to be effective against AIM-9M, but not really against R-73 - when Soviet MiG-29 flares proven effective against R-73, but not against AIM-9M. If 1980/1990s Soviet flares (what we have in DCS MiG-29, Su-27, Su-25 etc) were not effective against 1980s AIM-9M sensor, such flares would be basically useless against 2000s Focal Plane Array, creating a detailed, high-resolution "thermal image" of the target, not just relying on a single "hot spot" like the exhaust or the flare. Especially closer than ~20km. The focal plane array imaging seeker can distinguish between different parts of the target (engine, wings, fuselage, flare) and it's resilient to countermeasures such as flares because it can maintain lock on the overall shape and heat distribution of the target rather than just focusing on a single source of heat.

https://x.com/i/status/1835030148615131449

Instant mission generator may prove to be really importand addition. Months ago Kola map didn't look much better than Caucassus - but it looks way, way better now, flying Viggens through this detailed valleys is going to be a joy. Thanks for your work!

True, we maight have more 1970s modules in DCS right now; MiG-21bis, F-4E, F-5E, Mirage F.1, later Kfir. But 1950s/60s have their own taste, when often fantastic performance collide frontally with absolutely rudimentary weapons, flight controls, sensors and avionics. Like coming F-100, F-104, A-1, MiG-17, MiG-19, G.91 etc. and everyone tried to attach a nuke to everything. Even to the infantry granade launchers, the land mines, the aircraft engines, the spacecraft.

This. Developers made dozens of simulators from 1916 WW1 to 1991 Desert Storm, without perfect satellite image. And they were great, current DCS maps also have significant random element.

B-47 regularly landed with drag chute deployed way before the touchdown due to B-47 slick low drag design, after that touchdown, another, bigger chute was released.

When it comes to "B" it's worth to remember F-4B entered service in 1960, like MiG-21, Mirage III, Draken, F-104, F-106, way before Vietnam. F-4B already performed combat flights during 1962 Cuban Missile Crysis on board the USS Independence and the USS Enterprise, escorting reconissance F-8 Crusaders. It was cutting edge interceptor those times, with exceptional performance, weapons and avionics.

A plastic model of a proposed project, never even built as non-armed prototype? In a simulator where modules are recreated so faithfully nearly every button or switch in the cockpit works as it did in real aircraft? Well...

1988 looks like a perfect year. A treasure trove of knowledge for mission makers, thanks.

Nice to see, pilots models add a lot for the overall immersion over an empty cockpit with self-moving controls. Performance improvements are even more important. Thx!