notproplayer3

I quite agree with you, the missions aren't bad but they seem really repetitive after some time.

Of course want it too but RAZBAM is probably focusing a lot more on the long awaited f15E, it has been I don't know how many years since they first announced it so it would only be logical they released it before the flogger.

Yes, of course, a new 3d model/textures would be amazing. But I'm wondering, are there any comprehensive upgrades that could be added to the uh1 just as in the a10c II and blackshark 3? I don't know what it could be, new systems that were present in later/alternate models, perhaps even the dual engine uh1n but I guess that would be pushing it a bit far since there are a lot of differences that could require some substantial work.

Ultimately you'll probably figure what can be done and what can not be done once you get into the meat of the project so I guess it's too early to know how the guesswork will turn out. Having said that I am rooting for you to start developing your project once you find a team. Like you said, it is ambitious but heck, I think I might just be convinced that with the right team, anything could be pulled off. As I said before, I really do wish you the best of luck and I'll buy anything exotic there is for DCS. PS: I must admit, the TSR-2 is a sexy beast, I think out of the list you provided, this is the one I want the most

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29653/this-is-what-grummans-proposed-f-14-super-tomcat-21-would-have-actually-looked-like Yes, of course, bad phrasing from my part. Though my point remains, I'm sure it is immensely different than trying to find information and build a full fidelity module of an already existing plane. The fact is that all these upgrades to the f14e tomcat were proposed though never tested nor documented. Things like airframe modifications, control surfaces modifications and the new fcs system will need you to conduct some aerodynamic research yourselves if you wish to make something remotely realistic in it's handling. The new systems and how they interact with each other and how they are integrated in the cockpit would also be guess work (mfd pages and such...). At the end of the day you're pretty much designing the whole aircraft yourselves (by trying to integrate all of the proposed individual components into you design) which is a whole lot different than piecing and guessing information on an already flying obscure aircraft. I get that the f14e you wish to make is a "what if ?" plane, though the fact that you'd like to make it full fidelity is making me believe that you'd actually need to make it so the module you develop transcends the realm of "what if ?" and actually is something that could be reverse engineered by real military plane makers and be made in real life for real life wars, so the thing I see here is that you need to be an aeronautical engineer if you are willing to make it as real as possible. PS: I may have seen your project in a too ambitious way in that last paragraph. I just think that you'd just have to imagine how the aircraft would operate yourselves meaning it'll pretty much be fantasy. I don't know how I feel about that. As a mod I have no problem but as a paid module, I doubt ED would want to take part in this adventure. I'd much rather have a real, obscure aircraft have it's capabilities educatedly guessed than systems pieced together by imagination. Don't let my words discourage you, do what you prefer at the end of the day. I don't know much of anything about this particular subject anyway.

I absolutely support your project but don't you think there's a big difference with aircraft that had pretty normal deployment in combat operations such as the f117 and aircraft that never existed outside the few sketches that were made of them such as the super tomcat ? But hey, if you manage to find most of the relevant the information you need for full fidelity on any "obscure" military aircraft, I'm all for it and I wish you good luck

If you were doing the f111 I'm sure you'd make this guy really really happy https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/flightsim/comments/70tez8/im_building_an_f111_simulator_from_a_real_f111/

Yes I agree, most projects start out of passion for something, but in the end, once the problems start to accumulate, it becomes exponentially harder to want or to be able to continue. Man, I was quite moved reading through this thread. They had a team, they were professionals, they had worked a lot and invested money in this project but unforeseen problems arose. Sorry, I'm almost teary eyed to see this story not really end on a happy note, well at least I hope the developers learnt a lot of things from this project and I hope they're doing fine now.

Thanks for mentioning this thread, it was extremely interesting to read through and the information might come handy for me personally too. It's such a shame they couldn't continue development of the mod, especially after all the hours they probably put into it.

I'd be a very happy man if I were flying that kind of bird too. I just believe that since even the president S system has seemingly been removed, this ka50 model is just a distant dream... But I'd gladly buy anything new that ED proposes even if it isn't that substantial. MWS is cool, IGLAs are cool, third pylon is cool (sorry if I offended some of y'all ), new 3d model is cool, I also hope they'll also add new cool weathered cockpit textures just as they did with the a10cII.

Yes, you can use this in every module once you bought it except in the a10c, ka50, fa18 (and now f16) as mentioned on the page. The NS430 will appear as a 2d overlay window for all these modules. If you want to see the thing actually integrated inside the cockpit of some DCS aircraft, you'll need to buy this https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/fr/shop/modules/ns430_mi8mtv2/ for example.

Yes, you need to buy the base NS430 module and then you can buy the NS430 integration for the mi8 cockpit. Here's what you need to buy first: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/fr/shop/modules/ns430/ And then you can buy the cockpit integration https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/fr/shop/modules/ns430_mi8mtv2/

So let me get this straight, you are saying you basically opened this whole thread so that people would be like "wow, this technology is so cool, we have a runway overlay function in the helmet". If that's what you meant, alright, suit yourself then, I know runway overlays exist so I'm already cool with that. Except, you actually started your thread by asking for ED to add this function to the helmet to which people responded that they didn't believe it existed on the real a10c scorpion helmet. So yes it became a debate between you and everyone else. No, I don't believe I know everything and I never implied it, but you on the other hand act like you personally know of this helmet feature ? Why make it hard when everything could be simple: give me a single picture, document, vague description of this feature being actually present of the a10c scorpion helmet. Or perhaps you could even introduce yourself and explain why you are so sure of this feature being present on the exact a10c scorpion helmet we have in DCS. Look, like you said, this doesn't need to be a debate, just clear up all our doubts about this feature actually being present by giving us strong evidence and the debate will end and we'll thank you for the useful information you've given us.

I agree with kengou above me. You've written multiple comments in this thread yet you didn't give a single link to the source of your statements. You even said ED should ask Boeing about this system (does this mean you've got special information from Boeing too ?). If ED managed to model the helmet symbology (meaning they had some sort of source to do it), why would they not already manage to add the runway outline in the hmcs. This is probably due to the fact that their source didn't indicate this feature. Let me get this straight, I would much rather believe ED's research work than yours especially if you aren't giving any sources explaining how this feature works or if it even is present in the first place (I couldn't find anything about it either). If only there were an a10c sme that could say yes or no to this question we wouldn't have this debate.

Exactly, that's what I pretty much did. At the time I bought the hornet when it was in very early access but since it was the only 4th generation multirole there was, I flew it all the time. But with the Viper I feel as if I would rather enjoy the much more complete hornet than the other less complete 4th gen multirole that is the Viper. I am sure it will change when the f16 gets more complete but at least I have a plane I can get excited for every time it gets updates to it just like the hornet was exciting when it got it's updates. But like @Exorcet said above me, the core plane is still very nice and I'd add, it's the best quality module imho. Just gotta wait for it's full release

Yeah, there's already livery options for some other static objects, why not for the FARP ? Seems logical to have that

F me, I knew the HTS talk was suspicious. In any case, my comment is still applicable, I shall only change the plane's name

PB mode is my favorite feature of the Viper (thanks Florence201 for correction) update, there's just something so satisfying lofting the agm88c from 30'000ft, seeing the missile fly near 50'000ft and finally dropping with a near 90 degree angle at supersonic speeds on the poor radar. I know you should probably use it further and lower down but heck, it's just so fun seeing this much raw energy being unleashed on the targets.

I'm curious about why you personally prefer it over the Litening, in any case from my limited time with it I must say I don't prefer it over the Litening. Atflir has less zoom, the point track doesn't track as well as the litening and it shifts the view a bit each time the pod view gets masked and then unmasked. I admit I like the way the zoom works even though it has less of it because I can unzoom much faster if I want to see around the object for instance and I like the fact that one click of the undesignate button doesn't recenter the TGP. I also love the fact that it displays the waypoints on the TGP view. But all in all I personally think the disadvantages outweight the advantages and bugs I had with the atflir aside, the litening is more effective in my practise.

I'd love to try rudder pedals, but I must say, helos are still by far my favorite aircraft to fly around even without them pedals.

I really don't feel like anything has changed, perhaps someone else can confirm this ?

Interesting, and pardon my curiosity but between the A-10CII, Mirage-2000, F/A-18 and F-14 planes in real life ? Seeing how you prefer older analog planes and own all the ww2 warbirds, I would guess the F-14. If that's the case I mean, the tomcat is a very good choice and you'll also need to learn the radar system among other rio controls not present in those older planes so it adds to the value. On top of that the F-14 module is stunningly done and the flying is very hands on, no computer babysitter. I advise, and I hope it's not a deal breaker but jester may be a hindrance gameplay wise, I prefer planes where I interact with all the systems at once and basically half the work during combat is made by jester operating the radar and doing other essential things you might've wanted to do.

I'd say a safer bet would be to pick whatever plane you prefer in real life and you'll probably get the most bang for your buck if it's a plane you'll always want to fly in DCS but it isn't always the case. Here's ranked by hours spent playing, the type of modules I've played: It could very well be an aircraft you don't really find interesting in real life and in sim, this was the case with me and the ajs37 viggen and the harrier (I've got by far the fewest hours in those two). It could also be aircrafts you liked irl but then never liked flying them around in DCS such as the mirage 2000c, the sa342 gazelle, or the f14 for me. It could be an aircraft that you want to like because they are very capable and like them irl but simply don't click with you for some reason such as the f16 and jf17 (I have moderate hours in them) It could be aircraft you didn't really care for at first but after playing them you really started to enjoy flying them just as it was the case with me and the a10c, the mig21, the ka50, mi8 and huey (I have a lot of hours in those planes). Or you can have the perfect match such as the f/a-18c, I love this plane in real life and I love flying this plane in missions in DCS (I've got the most hours in this one by far). I'm curious, is there one DCS aircraft you really like in real life ? Which one is it ?

There is a modding subforum on this site with probably most of the information you'll need, also if you type "dcs modding discord" on Google you should be able to find a discord server about that stuff. Otherwise I personally didn't find a step by step guide for adding in 3d assets in DCS (there is a quite good one for making plane mods though), the thing is you'll probably need to piece together the information you find on the forums (and in YouTube videos)

So to be clear the f/a-18 has a TA radar mode exactly as in the jf17 ? I am excited for this one but what @AvroLanc stated about this feature not being brought up by ED is worrying me a bit too. Does our hornet lot even have the correct software with this radar mode on it, because if it has I really don't see why it shouldn't be added (since the jf17 has that too).