Rick50

LOL!!

Though during VN most of the "52's used tall sharks' tails... were there any short tail BUFF's around at that time? or was that a later dev? Or maybe a then-current thing but not deployed to Guam for conventional bombing? Maybe short tail for low alt flight in Europe?

okaaaay.... joking about torture seems, at the very least inappropriate, possibly even considered harassment in some cases. If I'd posted that I'd have reconsidered and deleted that part of the post, but that's just me. As for the rest, sure, as we get older, we have less time left to enjoy things. But what would you like done differently to get the Phantom Phaster? Do you feel that HB isn't working fast enough?! ED now has a newer policy about announcements and releases... I think it's goal is to not whip up too much hype and frenzy long before a product release is arriving. If that's the purpose, then I agree and support!! Don't dote all your time on a project that's in heavy development long before it arrives... use the modules you have, go outside, talk with people you don't know at the mall food court. If you have a good idea to suggest to the dev team about said module project, by all means post it and discuss, and drop in once a week to see if there's any new news... but when you find yourself so wound up that joking about torture, step away from the device and go for a walk outside and get some sun, talk to other humans using mouth and ears!! Develop your sense of perspective.

Wow... ok, that sounds great!!

First, apology accepted, I know I've sometimes made the same type of common mistake! As for the rest, a few observations: I think module development speed can vary quite a bit, team size, experience, ability to coordinate and cooperate might be amazing or... compromised, sudden major challenges might be more easily adapted to than for other teams, and the subject topic itself (the aircraft being dev) Some forum members seem to be optimistic about development time, seemingly thinking that some modules only take 5 months to make, despite evidence that the Hornet is roughly nearing the 5 year mark. That said, I think a module like the Mirage 3 might realistically be completed by an efficient dev team in maybe 2 years, much like the Mi-24 Hind... I mean, in complexity the M3 is no ViperHornet Maybe the biggest variable to making such modules might be simply legally acquiring documentation about the aircraft/weaponsystem, and permission to make it into a retail entertainment product... might be easy and super fast for one project, and so lengthy and essentially permanently stalled for another. This is the Razbam sub-forum, might be seen as "poor form" to be heaping praise on, and advocating for other companies...

The downside is that such a display "looks like azz". The upside is that one button press could make the display look AMAZING. Another button could make a super-informative display with ALL the situational awareness you'd ever want. Another could give you a tuned set of displays appropriate to specific moments during a mission profile. Best of all, it probably has a LOT of pilot-chosen display options to choose from. Nothing stopping anyone from making the entire dash look like an early retro EF2000... DID people, call yer office!

Mirage III 6 Day War 1967 Egypt. Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Vs Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War Yom Kippur War 1973 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

Mirage III Why? BECAUSE, that's why!! Historic wars and engagements. A very important fighter in Cold War context. Flown in many airforces all over the globe. It also helps that it looks pretty! The Mirage III also fits in very well for the Sinai and Syria maps as the Israeli Air Force was a heavy Mirage operator. North Australia map, as the RAAF used them some. Normandy too. And of course the South Atlantic/Falklands/Argentina map on the Argentinian side! Not that anyone'll stop you from using it on any of the other maps,

Best aviation documentary evah!!

Only because over the decades I've noticed that most of the time an aircraft gets an engine upgrade, there's an increase in power too, albeit sometimes requiring de-rating for airframe stress or other issues like those you mention. It's not so common to see the same thrust rating is all !! Sometimes that increase is mild, sometimes wild!

I KNOW they have different turbines, and canards and such... what's that got to do with a dev team being able to make two modules that are SIMILAR ?!?! Heatblur made two planes that are wildly different, and a variant with a much different engine too... no one questioned whether they could do so. Razbam made a Mirage, a Mig, a Harrier jump jet and even a helicopter... ED made several helis, two "Swiss Army Knife fighter jets" and many other modules, which are wildly dissimilar from each other. I'm simply pointing out that if a dev team has proven itself capable of doing either a Kfir or a Mirage, they are "probably" capable of doing it's "distant cousin" too. But I NEVER suggested it be a quick modification, that was your assumption of what I meant.

Uh... please re-read my post CAREFULLY.

So it seems like in the past few years, there have been headaches for dev teams and ED, with how things have been. And after having thought of it, ED has made some policy changes to reflect the current reality. An example might be the Kiowa PC project itself: for some time now, there's very little we the public can see as far as screens and dev progress details. Yet in the first year, the Kiowa project had lots of nice screens, many detailed streams showing entire mission profiles. And then it stopped. So why did the project continue but the screens and streams stop? That'll be for PC to decide about sharing. They DID tell us about personal life issues, and medical issues... real world that hurts projects of all kinds, especially ones with just handfuls of people involved. It would seem that ED may well be concerned about the greater community getting all this hype built up, whipped up into a frenzy... only to then be acting all desperate, pleading begging for screens and updates... junkies wanting that next "hit", suffering a mild form of withdrawal. Maybe the new strategy is: the minute ED approves of a module's development for DCS, the announcement is made so that others don't duplicate (this was laid out by an ED moderator last month), show off a few screens showing us what that might look like, but after that, so silent or mostly silent, no idea of timeline or estimated release date. Spark interest, gauge that interest from forum posts, but then don't build massive hype, let people get on with their lives, enjoy the modules you have. Then, when ED is happy with progress, and sees the project finishing up, has met quality control tests, and looks to be soon ready for release or early access... then and only then will they be allowed to release 200 screens, multiple videos, tutorials and so on. Enlist DCS focused "influencers" to promote or review the new module, maybe make tutorials themselves. Or something sorta maybe vaguely a bit like that. As opposed to watching streams of doing full mission profiles... and then silence. For months at a time. Just a few words "yep, still working on it". We as consumers ought to have a little more patience ourselves too, often real world can't match the timelines we would like... I mean, this isn't EA putting out yet another annual sports game for console, with where the budget for marketing swag is many times larger than the entire dev budget for a DCS module... with literal armies of humans to make it all on a super-tight timeline. Ultimately we need to manage our expectations in terms of time required. This notion of "silence = dead" has happened MANY times now for the PC Kiowa project. And each time, after a week or two of no response, people conclude it's dead. And then someone says they heard from one of the devs that it's still being worked on.

True, Kfir and Mirage are not the same... but I think they are similar enough that a dev who's done one could probably to the other well and maybe save a little time. Similarly, Aerges have proven themselves with the F.1 so yes, they would be great for the Legendary Mirage 3! For me, I don't have clear dev team preferences, because ED has a say in quality control. And with the difficulty of making FF modules, I'm confident that when a product reaches 3 months into early access, it's probably in pretty good shape. No, not "perfect", and lacking features, but also not a model that vaguely resembles something sorta like the intended product, nor that flies like a UFO, or omnicience like an otherworldly being people worship! Sooo... IMO if someone takes on the subject matter and pushes hard to complete, that meets my criteria! Of course experience matters, but sometimes devs are wildly successful right on the first try too, so no, I'm not against anyone taking a try at the Legendary III !

I'm very certain that the Beagle is inbound soonish, that the Mig and Tuc probably after that... long before a new Mirage gets started! IF it gets started... as It's not clear Raz will make a full fidelity Mirage 3, I just want it! I guess my issue is just that Raz have teased SOO SOO many possible future projects, I want them to focus on certain topics more than others. As interesting as the IA-58 Pucara is, with the free mod being available, I'd rather they try the Mirage 3 and EE Lightening... in that order!

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/this-is-what-the-b-52-will-look-like-with-its-new-rolls-royce-engines Hmm. I thought there would be a significant thrust increase with the re-engining... but a quick wiki look suggests they are roughly in the same ballpark/class of thrust. It's difficult for me to know "EXACTLY" as I'd have to dive much deeper, and then the new F130 config has apparently not been settled yet either... so it might be about the same, or maybe a modest gain of 2000lbs ? But they might not want to increase stresses on the old airframes and just electronically "de-rate" them to match the original H's TF33-P-3 17,000 lbs thrust... Then I found this: Now that said... though seemingly the exact same thrust, I wonder if the physically wider turbofan might offer more "bite" for a slightly improved takeoff? I don't know enough about jet engines for a definitive conclusion!

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4595/flying-the-iconic-swing-wing-f-111-aardvark-at-the-height-of-the-cold-war

You know, after participating in other threads advocating for the B-1B and B-52H, I can see the desire for bomber/strike aircraft into DCS... but the F-111 seems to me more likely to be picked up as a dev project, more likely to get permissions from rights holders, and more likely to complete into module. And much like WW2 "Pathfinder bombers", this might Paveway to more bombers! (see what I did there?) I was totally undecided about which variant, but you've managed to convince me the later model is worthwhile. I'm curious though, how much similarities/differences there are between the variants, other than the PaveTac pod ? I mean when the article mentions "digital cockpit", do they mean just the computers... or do they mean a glass or partial glass cockpit??? As for future modules, I do wonder if a Backfire TU-22 would generate enough interest? I'm starting to be inclined to think it might be popular enough... though I wonder how difficult it might be to get enough documentation legally, and whether the Kremlin would be ok with it?

Sure, for pure purpose-built aircraft. But before and after the OV-10 there were and are other planes adapted quite well to COIN air. The USAF had a whole motley fleet of them in the early years of Vietnam... Boxcars, Canberas, Raiderrs and such. And more recently one could make the case that UCAV;s are more COIN than anything else. In Afghanistan and Iraq the Cessna Caravan got FLIR pods and Hellfires. There was even a variant of the P-51, offered with a turboprop and tip tanks, for COIN. Then there was Puff the Magic Dragon, Spooky, Specter and so on. The Fairchild gunship entry was definitely for COIN.... whether it was a success or not is debatable, and seemed to not attract much interest.

Yes. It was a Pilatus PC-6, but when they added the Vulcan 20mm, and probably US mil radios, Fairchild offered it as a COIN aircraft to the Pentagon, and they bought a few.

Agreed, good idea! As you pointed out, several conflicts. Only two users, USAF and RAAF, but interesting! as a module, it could complement the Tornado Module recently announced. Which brings to mind whether the SU-24 Fencer might also be worthwhile too. If an F-111 and A-6 modules sell well, that could lead to future possibilities like the B-52 or Tupolev Bear. Which F-111 variant do you think ought to be the subject of a module?

On a general level I agree... however, past products have in fact resulted in the "we are f___, 4fps, damit!!" Happened to at least a couple racing sims, several FPS types, and a few flight simulations too. Most of these I experienced firsthand, went online and discovered thousands of others were experiencing the same poor performance. Such a situation often kills a product, and puts the dev company at risk of collapse. Many years later, that same product might flourish for gamers with MUCH more powerful 'puters... but it's too late for collecting money for the efforts of the company making it, because by then the title is either abandonware, freeware or cheapware ($5 or less, maybe donations). Now... did they not do enough testing on various levels of computers? Maybe. But I'm not talking about novice teams, all of them were experienced with multiple successful titles already, so being an outsider it's not entirely clear why they chose to only enable running on super powerful machines at ultra-low levels upon release. I'm not saying "impossible"... just that nothing's a guarantee, and the arrival time is an open question!

Well, I'm just gonna go ahead and disagree with you on this point. Then I'll point out that Vietnamese palm trees won't be as uniform and "same looking" as those in Kola. And then after that I'll point out that in the areas of VN that don't have trees, you'll have millions of bushes and shrubs on a scale not seen in Kola. Then all the tall grass. Will Nam have more nature to model than Kola ? I think it'll be wildly more, but let's say I'm wrong and they are similar or the same: it's still gonna be a challenge, I think, for both map projects. Lots of villages, many on stilts. Lots of roads and unique buildings. Unique islands. Very mountainous, lots of unique elevation changes, including the terraced farming. I think Marianas map is the new standard going forward. A Vietnam map will likely have that level of detail density, if not higher. In fact, I think Marianas is a test to see how feasible a VN map is.

I disagree... I'm 100% convinced we'll get BOTH in DCS, probably in the next 4 years!! The ones I didn't expect were the Apache Longbow, due to it's systems complexity and possible sekritz. The Hind, I thought they'd make one but didn't think they'd make it so soon! The C-130 was unexpected 3 years ago, but since then the mod created major buzz and people saw why it was needed! The Phantom wasn't expected because twin seats, millions of sub-variants, older platform, and other issues, yet it's in strong development. And as Xup points out, now the Tornado, and of course all the map announcements, the A-1 Skyraider too!

Well, be careful with Razbam announcements! They make nice products, and are very dedicated to the hobby... but they've announced a CRAZY number of modules, that it causes many of us to think "oh ya, we'll believe it when we see it". Not because of abiliity, but because of how long it takes to develop ONE module. And seemingly modest manpower to accomplish it. Right now it almost seems like they are staking claim to modules for the next 20 years!! At least it seems that way on the surface, but who knows, they could surprise us! Three helos MBB Bo-105, in partnership with Militec 5 (not sure how much this involves Raz though) South Atlantic map English Electric Lightening Pucara Strike Beagle AI Mirage 3, possibly followed by FF Mirage 3 Sea Harrier Mig 23 Super Tucano And a bunch of others were announced over the last several years. Not necessarily in that order... and not a complete list for what they've said they'd make. But I think they also said they'd slow dev of new stuff until sorting out issues with already released modules (maybe that's done now?) Not trying to discourage anyone, and I wish the Razbam best of luck! I'm just saying that an announcement no longer means it's "inbound in 6 months", it might simply mean "hey, we'd like to make X, here's a few screens to show u that we've started on the model !!"