ResonantCard1

However the Soviet philosophy and doctrine is deeply flawed. In an air war you can't just spam aircraft at a technologically superior enemy and see if it goes away. The arabs already tried that and it didn't work. Plus, the pilots would also be relying 100% on GCI to be useful at all. Which means when the GCI network gets, inevitably, destroyed or jammed, they're going to be like headless chickens because their radars won't allow for self-search and even if they did, their weapons and aircraft are simply not up to par. By late 70s the best thing the Soviets had was the...MiG-23. The F-15 was already in service back then, and it would have eaten MiG-23s for breakfast, lunch and diner. Not to mention the MiG-21, a fine aircraft for the late 50s but completely outdated since its introduction.

Literally impossible. They're scraping the BS3 because Russian laws forbid them from making stuff that new. The Ka-52 would only be worse. Besides they're going to need the manpower for the Apache so don't even bother with the Ka-52. Yeah, because the 70s/80s are so fleshed out in DCS...We have what, the MiG-29, Su-25, -27 and the F-14? Russia has been trailing behind the US since...I'd say Korea but it's more like WW2. I can't think of a single thing that the russians have ever done better than the US (except making vehicles that lose wars of course). The Apache for example is from the 70s and back then it already had that crazy HMD and the Hellfires. Meanwhile the Russians had what, the Hind with some old-ass SACLOS (at best) missiles?

While it's true that the modules certainly exist, I don't see many of those "older and less capable" ones being flown in the servers I frequent. Literally 90% of the players spend their time in the Hornet or the Viper, undoubtly because they're the most modern and capable ones. Sure, there's a lot of people very interested on them and that's why they fly them, but most of the time it's because they can erase whole SAM sites with a single press of a button and they love that. And you can argue all you want that a simulator isn't about the capabilities but about the plane. That's 100% true, but it's not the case for DCS. Remember in DCS developers, such as ED, have added stuff to their modules that they shouldn't have just for gameplay or capabilities purposes. Look at the F-16, with it's 4x HARMs (which it shouldn't have, strictly speaking, because it wasn't possible on the F-16CM Block 50 in USAF/ANG service ca. 2007. Maybe in other F-16s it was, but not in this particular one) and its Triple Maverick racks which afaik were never actually a thing because it damaged the airframe and the software didn't recognize it fully. And yet we have them, because how is people supposed to enjoy their plane if they can't erase whole armored columns and SAM sites from the face of Earth on a single sortie? Capabilities are definitely a very major factor in the DCS community, there's no changing that. That's why the less-capable modules are almost forgotten, why the Ka-50 will become completely irrelevant, and why the Hind will be dead on arrival. The Apache just does their job so much better that in the minds of most people, there will be no reason to take them. Add to that the fact that both the Ka-50 and the Hind are "the enemy's" helicopters, while the Apache is the one that flies around saving the soldiers' asses.

Except they're absolutely useless now. If you're given the choice to take a Ka-50 or an Apache, unless you really really really like the Ka-50 there's 0 reason to use it over the Apache. Everything the Ka-50 does, the Apache does it 10x better. The sensor? The Apache's is just better. It doesn't just have better gimball limits, it also has FLIR. The missiles? The Hellfire is objectively better than the Vikhr (LOAL/Fire and forget/radar guided). The gun? Better angles than the Ka-50's and much more ammo. The helmet-mounted sight? This is something the Ka-50 does better, actually. Because the Apache doesn't have an HMS, it has a full blown HMD that displays flight data, can cue sensors, the gun, and even display FLIR imagery. I don't think there's any contest. Historical relevancy? The Ka-50 is historically irrelevant unless you're roleplaying the 2nd Chechen War. The Apache has fought in all major wars since its introduction and has saved countless lives by providing fire support to troops on the ground. It was the machine to fire the first shots of ODS, it was there in OIF, it is still there in Afghanistan. Maybe the Ka-50 could fit older "what-if" scenarios? No, the Ka-50 entered service in the 90s. The Apache is at minimum 10 years older than that, so even then you should take the Apache. The only use of the Ka-50 at the moment is to be the Red counterpart of the Apache, and, as usual, it just became completely irrelevant because Blue has machines that aren't even on the same planet capabilities-wise. Besides, PVP sucks so there's really no reason to play the Ka-50 anymore

Yeah but let's be honest, the people who likes the russian cockpits more are a minority. If you want an attack helicopter (which the Mi-24 is at its core) you'll go for the Apache 90% of the time because it's just vastly more capable, there's no way you can look at it without arriving at that conclusion. So the Apache will take away a lot of sales from the Hind just because of that. Also there's people that is very disgusted with the russian cockpits, those will go for the Apache automatically too. So yeah, the Mi-24 at the moment is on life support. Only time will tell if the Apache has completely killed it or not Maybe you should have waited for the Apache lol

I hate to say that my suspicions were proven right, I knew there was something weird going on since the delays. With the A-10C 2 we went from knowing absolutely nothing to release in a matter of weeks, we knew even the features of BS3 since...hell I can't even remember. More reasons to take whatever ED says with salt at spades I guess. The BS3 isn't just cancelled but the Apache is also happening this year (And with the preorders on February, killing the Mi-24's sales). The latter was a surprise, but at least the BS3 was sacrificed because the Russian government doesn't want it to be done instead of being sacrificed for the objectively better choice.

The Ka-29 would be a very solid option, imo. Yes, it's "just another" transport helicopter, but maybe we could get one of the modified ones that served in Chechenya, on the Combat Experimental Group/Combat Attack Group alongside the Ka-50. A couple of Ka-29s were modified, one with a 2A42 cannon and the KSAS system (Automation and Communication Aids Package), and another with the same KSAS system but also the PrPNK RUBICON flight, navigation and sighting system. The Combat Attack Group was made of 2 Ka-50s, a Ka-29 and a Mi-24. The Mi-24 or the Ka-29 worked as target designators for the Ka-50s. It'd be a cool helicopter to have, as it can do both transport and designation if we had the one modified with the KSAS and RUBICON, and serve as a counterpart to the Kiowa designating for the Apache.

Well all we know is that the Hind is happening this year, and that work on BS3 will continue this year. We don't know exactly when BS3 is going to release just like we don't know exactly when the Apache is going to release. If it's going to release with relatively few complex systems then it's entirely possible that the BS3 and Apache releases are close together enough so that people will see themselves forced to choose between one or the other.

Hello, could it be possible to add the option to not fill a Vikhr rack completely? Maybe it could be done like with the TERs, choose between loading just 2 or all 3 bombs on the rack.

Hello, could it be possible to choose how many missiles to load per rack? So instead of always loading the full missile rack to be able to choose between loading just 1 missile or something.

So dangerously close to the Apache, got it. At least it hasn't been cancelled just yet

Is this the same "on hold" that the Phantom ended up in? Yeah I think the same. The Hind will come before the Apache because they have to polish Multicrew and the AI, but the Apache is more likely to come first. And if it comes first, why even bother with BS3? It'll just be a waste of money for ED to make because just a handful of players (Ka-50 enthusiasts) are going to buy it, the rest are going to stick to the Apache

Is this especulation? What has ED said about this?

Hi, I recently read that BS3 has been put on hold after being delayed earlier this year. When can we expect it to be released? I also read the Apache was coming in 2021 (by Kate on the Discord), if that's the case, is the BS3 even going to happen?

Technically BST iirc. ED has only done modern modules

However the Russians already were behind even in the 80s. The F-15 appeared in 1976, the Su-27 in 1989. And the Su-27 wasn't as good as the F-15 (Worse radar, worse missiles, worse avionics and pilot interface, worse range, built in much smaller numbers). The F-16 at least showed up at around the same year as the MiG-29, but it was still much more advanced, with actual FBW, access to precision guided munitions and a much better radar. The Su-25 has never been comparable with the A-10, the A-10 is just much more advanced in most if not all aspects. The A-10 is also older than the Su-25. The only time they were somewhat equal to the US was with the Tu-4.

Honestly I kinda just wanted to talk about this and see what people thought. I don't think a poll would be accurate to the actual opinion of the community. The people who wants a red jet will come and vote, but at the end of the day most people doesn't care so they'd ignore the poll, heavily biasing it towards the red side. I think DCS will remain a mostly modern jets-focused sim, because people wants the bestest shiniest most bombasticest of the planest. That's what the community loves and that's what the devs will do. ED will figure this out once they release the Mi-24 and then the Apache (at least) triples its sales. Or when they release the MiG-29 and it sells much less than the Hornet. They are a company and have to chase the money, they will stick to what sells. Simply not true. The Soviets tried to clean their reputation during the War of Attrition...and managed to get their ass kicked by the Israelis 5-0. A damn Cessna also managed to land on the Red Square unimpeded. They shot down an airliner, on the other hand. Maybe that's a case for being able to follow an intercept course... The R-27 is less advanced than the Sparrow, ask the devs that are supposedly working on its rework. That'd lead to worse performance even if the range is slightly longer. About the F-15, you're forgetting that their AWACS will inevitably detect the MiG first and then vector the Eagles to destroy the MiGs. Which will invariably lead to the destruction of the MiGs because the Eagle is just superior. The F-15 has the upper hand on BVR and is more maneuverable on WVR. The F-16 had only Sidewinders, that's where the strength of the MiG lies as it had actual BVR missiles. In WVR the F-16 is also more maneuverable if not more than the MiG, and American pilots are known for being very good at air combat. The chances aren't stacked in the MiG's favor. They didn't even had the numbers advantage as the other MiGs were just pushovers.

Keep in mind the radar of the 9.12 is awful. An F-15 will see you coming from at least twice the range you're going to see him, and the Sparrow was a pretty decent missile. The R-27 has barely seen any combat so we can't be sure, it's better to err on the side of "It's not as good as it seems" because it applies to every missile. The americans still have the better trainning and the better avionics and planes in general. Because ED has to take care not just of the planes but also of the game itself. If they can move people to work on the core game, that'd be great. They've already biten more than they can chew with the Hornet and the F-16 being done simultaneously, the MiG-29 would add to the list of modules to do and I don't think that's smart, specially because the MiG-29 uses systems that are completely different so you have to spend more time decyphering them and then coding then, while western systems are generally more standardized and ED has already done like 3 very modern western jets. Doing a 4th one would be easier now. And yes, the F-16 does bring new things to DCS. First of all, fantasy loadouts. Secondly, the HTS for increased SEAD efficency. While I agree with your "variety of missions" bit, we also have to keep in mind people keeps playing that USA! Vs. Whatever scenario, so they probably aren't fed up with it. In fact I do believe there're enough modules to make a Russia Vs. Whatever scenario, but there's none. There's no scenario catering to that crowd, so 1) either DCS is really just a NATO sim (which it is) or 2) there's simply not enough people interested on it to make it worthwhile. If the second one is true, then a new module won't change anything. Except the 80s Fulcrums didn't get R-77s, obviously. In fact Russia didn't started to deploy R-77s in numbers until...2015. The service history of the MiG-29 may be extense but it's not great, it's definitely not the most shot down plane of the Russian side but it's certainly met the American weapons several times. It's not great. In the 80s it may have been serviceable but the truth is, it's not up to par and you can argue it wasn't even up to par in the 80s. To use the R-73 you need to be WVR. To be WVR you have to survive BVR, which the MiG-29 wouldn't do as it'd be facing F-15s.

However most of the new features in the core game have been added thanks to new planes that require them. That's a way of furthering the development of the core game, adding better FLIR simulation, actual A2G radar, better modelling for weapons, so on and so forth. By making an older russian plane they're not going to be furthering the development of new things as they don't have anything that doesn't exist on the simulator already. The only thing you could try doing would be actual RTX radar simulation but even for that, you could do it with a plane that has a radar that is actually good, not the MiG-29. While that's true, it still doesn't mean it has been a majority of people. There's plenty of people clamoring for a Super Hornet or an F-35 too, Red planes aren't the only ones being asked for. And according to sales numbers? They're objectively the least bought. The MiG-19 is the most recent russian plane added to DCS and how many of those do you actually see being played? Only around 1600 of them were produced, even the F-15, which is supposed to be a very Elite kind of plane with few fielded, has been produced in similar numbers (around 1200). And seeing that it's way more difficult to make even a MiG-29 9.12, which also wouldn't offer anything significantly interesting and wouldn't help develop the simulator as a whole, isn't it better to just stick to US planes? They seem to be much easier to make, with less bureaucratic hassle and they're extremely popular and certainly much more capable (believe it or not this is a huge part when you're going to buy a plane)

Hello, I've been thinking lately about the status of Redfor on DCS. Yes, currently we got the Jeff (which has caused a lot of discussion, and we still don't know if it's 90% propaganda, and is also more Greenfor or even Bluefor than Redfor) and the MiG-19. But aside from that, we have the FC3 MiG-29s, Su-25s and Flankers. They're a fun experience but ultimately not what DCS is about, after all DCS goes for full fidelity simulations of the aircraft and FC3 are as far from that as it gets. We have the Ka-50, the original DCS module, and the Mi-8, which is amazing. The MiG-21, old as the 3rd party modules, the MiG-15, the Yak-52... I think that's about it. They're all good and fun on their own ways, but ultimately, do they bring anything to the simulator? The Mi-8 is amazing, yes. The Ka-50 started it all, yes. But then again the Ka-50 started it all...and DCS had to be rescued by the ANG asking for an A-10C simulation. That leads me to think that even in the days when the Ka-50 was the only thing around, it already wasn't very popular. The A-10C is loved up to this day and just got a massive update, on the other hand. The Ka-50 hangs around as the only attack helicopter in DCS, but will soon be completely killed by the Apache Longbow recently teased. The MiG-21 suffers from the same issues as the Ka-50, it was there when there was nothing else, so people kinda bought it. Nowadays it's almost forgotten. The MiG-15 is a very niche aircraft, but luckily it has the F-86 to fulfill the Korean War ethusiasts' wishes. The MiG-19 is basically a 0 on the left as it released too close to the Tomcat and in an state maybe not good enough, so everyone ignored it. FC3 has its players but, as I said, it's not what DCS is about and is doomed. As fun as they can be, the experience falls flat and feels bad when compared with the other modules. Hell some of the panels on the planes aren't even animated when they clearly should be (navigation panel on the MiG-29 for example). However, there's still hope for Redfor, right? The MiG-23MLA by Razbam is promising, and will bring something that is more modern than what we have now in terms of fixed wing and will serve as a tease for what a MiG-29 or Su-27 could bring to the table. ED has said they want to do a MiG-29 (which will come in at least 2040, after the F-35) and the Mi-24 is almost finished! Well, yes and no. The MiG-23 is made by a 3rd party, they can do whatever they want, it's their development time (you could argue the time used to develop the MiG-23 could be used to develop the objectively better and more popular F-15E but that's up to them). The Mi-24 is clearly a prototype for the Apache Longbow, so not much to say there. It's basically being done to polish the attack helicopter second seat's AI and multicrew, just so the Apache Longbow can come out with working AI and MC to rack up the maximum amount of hype and sales. It's smart, even though there were other choices in terms of helicopters to do this. For example a Cobra, which I believe would sell generally better and people has been asking for since BST announced it. However, the MiG-29 sits in a weird place. It's not a module that would push the boundaries of the game engine in any way, because it doesn't have a good radar, or FLIR pods, or TFR pods, or even guided munitions (I think they said they wanted to make the 9.12, which is the original model introduced in the early 80s). It doesn't bring new weapons to the table as pretty much all of them are already in the game and can be easily added. It doesn't add new capabilities, as IRST is something that FC3 already has and in any case, the F-15 will eventually bring the LEGION IRST pod to the table or the F-35 will get its DAS. The plane may be interesting, but it's still just a MiG-29. Some people may buy it, but it's not going to be the new Hornet. IRL it isn't much better either, as it was already barely comparable with the F-16 even if the F-16 started being deployed at around the same time, it would definitely get its ass kicked by the F-15, and further down the line would go on to become the US' plane of choice to shoot down in a conflict. In fact even Russia has fully dropped it already. So it's not a plane that would bring new capabilities, systems or weapons to the game engine, it's not a plane with a remarkable service history IRL, and it's not a plane that would be a money printing machine. Why does ED want to do it? It'd be much better for ED to just forget about it, sweep it down the carpet, and keep making modules that bring new and more advanced things to the game engine. TFR pods with the F-16 Block 40, datalink-guided AIM-120D and LEGION pod with the F-15C, stealth and magic radar with the F-35, etc. At this point, it's been proven time and again that Redfor modules aren't really that popular, even if there's an small group of people that will scream to get a new one, any one. In the grand scheme of things, the most popular modules are still the Bluefor modules, they're the most capable, the coolest, and the newest. So why go against the current and develop a module that would surely flop? Why not just sticking to making Bluefor planes? They are the ones that help further the game engine's development, they're the ones that bring new capabilities to the table. Any Redfor module that you could possibly make is only going to profit from what other Bluefor modules have accomplished. And honestly, would it change much if ED decided to stop development of any Redfor module? DCS is clearly dominated by the Hornet, the F-16 and the A-10, both in terms of SP, and MP. In MP there's literally not a single PVE server focused on Redfor modules so it literally wouldn't matter if none were made, and PVP is already Hornet+F-16+Tomcat Vs. Hornet+F-16+Tomcat, and the addition of an old plane like the MiG-29 9.12 won't do anything to change that. So really, why bother? Why lose time and money making the MiG-29 or the Su-27 when ED could be doing modules that would actually improve the game's engine and do well economically?

Well. Both the Hind and the A-10 are used in the same way. Why would the Hind and the A-10 use different weapon systems then? If both carry a big gun for straight line strafing, how is the Hind any different from the A-10? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for the literal best ground pounder in the world to use a clearly superior weapon system, like a flex-mount 12.7mm instead of a fixed 30mm?

Let me ask you something. If you had to choose between an A-10 with the famous BRRRRT memegun, fixed to the fuselage, and an A-10 with a backseater to control a 12.7mm gun in a flex mount, would you still take the one with the 12.7mm gun?

I honestly don't get why getting the 30mm or the 12.7mm is such a big deal. Not only just because at first glance the 30mm is the superior choice, and clearly favored by the Russian Armed Forces *and* the crews, but also because arguing this much about wether or not we should have gotten the 12.7mm turret is unnecessary. The developers chose to make the Mi-24P, so that's what they're making. They could have chosen to do the V, they could have chosen to do the Apache, yet they chose this. They probably have their reasons. If the 12.7mm machine gun is so important for one's enjoyment of the Mi-24, why don't you go and make an Mi-24V module?

Hello, in preparation for the module I'd like to practise the troop insertion/air assault tactics employed by the Mi-24 and the Mi-8. Does anyone know where can I learn about them? Or knows anything about them?

Hello, I've been watching Vietnam War documentaries where they talk about air assaults conducted by Hueys and such. That made me wonder, do you guys know where can I learn about the air assault tactics employed by units using Mi-8s? Or have anything to say about it?