Rick50

Ok I gotcha... I've used NVG's and the Kitesight way back in the mid 1990's with IR aiming for a rifle or MG, but I was Canadian Army and we didn't work with LGB's or Apaches in those days (well a couple of JTF guys maybe, but not reg infantry). For us, lasers were mostly what tanks used for rangefinding!!

Ok, I can see the utility of using it to confirm and communicate... but... why a second laser needed? Couldn't you use the TADS laser for this too? Or is there some limitation that I'm not seeing? Is it a different IR frequency? Is the TADS laser not visible using NVG's or something?

Uh... clearly I'm missing something. All Apaches have a laser for ranging and desginating targets to Hellfire and other units, correct? Ok, so what's the purpose of adding another laser ( IZLID (IR ZOOM LASER ILLUMINATOR-DESIGNATOR) ) to the cannon?? I don't get it, help me out!!

You know, the source materials are a bit deceptive in their headlines... go figure~! It's not really accurate to say it's "retiring" the Raptor, or even "retiring" any of them. Ready storage is just saving some so they are fresh in future! And there's probably some weasle words being assembled now for a future deception to Congress, to get more dollarinos for something else, without throwing out all the Raptors for real.

Well, I'd like to see some D's not just for Vietnam scenarios, but also for fictional/speculative SAC intercept scenarios: go up in Mig-19's and '21's to intercept the "shark tail" all nice and shiny!! But I dont' think that's in any plan right now. Maybe a great idea for an AI mod ?

Maybe... Re-engining would require a lot of engineering, testing integration, and with it a lot of cost and time. I'm imagining a significant contraction in oversize/overweight cargo market in the next years. Significant inflationary costs, economic downturn, reduced purchasing power affecting global sales... I hope not, but that's what things look like our future will be. Might be a short couple years, might be a couple decades, dunno.

Sorry!! Ok let's put the train back on the track!

Dunno. But the B-52 got rid of it's guns some time ago, be they 50's or 20's. I'd personally like to see an H, and a D version for the 1960's SAC and Vietnam era with the big "shark tail", because it just looks very different and more graceful!

True, but stop bursting my lovely bubble!!

It'll be costly and time consuming, but I do think Ukraine will build a new AN-225. And Antonov will probably need some help, which I'm certain they will get. Way back when first rumors of the 225 destroyed came out, I was hoping it was just some fire damage (and much more fire damage than I thought!). But seeing those detailed videos... there's SOOO much shrapnel damage... holes everywhere... Repairing holes in an airframe skin is probably not a big deal... my fear is damage to hydraulic lines, damage to wires... the damage that's not easily seen right in front of your eyeball... they'll have to gut the lines and wires, inspect every black box, every pump, replace all the lines and wires... I've heard that has a similar cost as buying a brand new plane, I would think. Many airlines discovered that Kapton wire (actually just wire that's insulated by lightweight Kapton) was not good for prime mover airliners, meant more for fighter jets and carrier-based aircraft, like Hornets and Intruders and such. Extremely light, but doesn't do long term well, nor vibration over time... tends to overheat and catch things on fire. So a lot of airlines suddenly faced having to replace the wiring. A large number decided it was easier/better to just park those jets indefinately and buy planes that didn't need wire replacement. Then again, they'll probably have to do the same for the eastern end of the country anyway... Much better to have a war in DCS than in reality.

Mirrors on or off? In the past I've often noted that turning mirrors off, enables better framerates. Often in games and sims, the mirror image is a new rendering, putting more load on the system.

Well that AH-6 mod was made by Nibbylot as a demonstrator, a template to make your own helo mods... I'll bet that a deep dive by a knowledgeable mod coder could figure out from his example how to add rockets and minigunz!! I seem to think that doorguns that use a human or ai gunner, like on the UH-1, is for full licensed pay modules, needing coding otherwise not available. But fixed wpns, that sit on a wing, are doable for mods. I read something like that a couple years ago.

a quick update: a local has visited the giant Antonov a week ago to see the damage done:

Oh never heard of it, sounds cool, ya see, IronHand's my thing!

Failure is a lesson. There is a LOT to be learned from failure. Not everyone learns from it, because sometimes people want to bury their heads in the sand, but some of worst failures directly caused spectacular successes soon after, as a result of lessons learned. Apollo 1 saw all three astronauts burned and died in seconds... and hadn't even gone anywhere. But the aftermath investigation, recommendation changes, DIRECTLY lead to the success of the moon landings and the safe return of all the men who risked going there. Many who were on the investigation team believed that the fact they could look inside the burnt capsule and see the problems, meant there was lessons to learn, that had it happened instead in space, they'd have no idea of all the problems, and going to the moon would have been a MASSIVELY HIGHER risk than it already was. A few believed that they'd have NEVER gotten to the Moon at all, had the Apollo 1 failure not happened. RIP: Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger B. Chaffee. S! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 Operation Eagle Claw, was a rescue plan to get American hostages being held in Tehran in 1980. Newly formed OD Delta, having been formed from Green Berets that were hand selected and then sent to the UK for some training with the SAS, made a hugely ambitious plan that required not one, but TWO covert FARPs inside Iran itself. Indeed at one point they had to detain a bus so the operation wouldn't be blown wide open (they released the bus once that danger was gone). But the helo pilots were not used to the kind of operations (extreme awake hours, extreme conditions) for special ops, they were heavylift helo drivers suddenly thrust into specops. They weren't used to night vision goggles in desert ops. They weren't used to giant sandstorms. The helos were not able to handle turbine damage due to the sandstorm. One by one helos went down until they didn't have enough for mission success. And as they were withdrawing, one helo hovering to take fuel struck a C-130, and the flames killed many. By any measure, a failure. The investigations and lessons learned though, were quite dramatic. FARP operations were improved. Helos had modifications for turbine intakes to keep dust out. And the biggest change? The formation of a dedicated special operations helicopter squadron, first known as Task Force 160, renamed SOAR 160 today. Flies almost always at night, so NVG's and night fliying was no problem. Operates on a special forces operational tempo, so the crews are used to being able to do complex mission profiles. Equipment and helos selected and modified to meet the high demands of the taskings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

Free mod of the PBY Catallina in previous post... anyone try it yet?!

Um... check Assetto Corsa. Among others.

I don't really have a hard opinion on this subject. On the one hand, civil aircraft in DCS seems to be slightly off topic for this DCSWorld... I mean, the distances are especially short for civilian flights... even single engine private owned aircraft. It seems a silly addition when 98% of the content is related to combat of some kind. BUT... and this is a big butt... ... I'm also a big fan of civilian aero too, and civil flight sims... and the last thing I want is to stifle a dev from making a cool vehicle of any kind, from doing so in the sim platform of their choice. If they are putting in the effort, I don't want to stand in their way!! Thing is, civil flight seems silly for DCS. At this time. But ED have invested a LOT of money time and effort for more than two decades, and held firm in their commitment, grown to be known even beyond the normal "flightsim geek squad", in part thanks to Youtube videos that get shown to many that live beyond simulation forums. When I think of ED's future, I believe they will be expanding significantly. I think there will be a "world wide map" of some kind, indeed they have announced that they have started a bit of work on it, though some years away from play use. I believe there will be increases in the quality of the maps. I believe ground vehicles will see expansion, possibly including a sequel to Combined Arms. Look at the history of a certain very VERY well known sim developer from Washington State: started off making very simple flight sims. But those spawned SOOO many versions of the SAME programming world: fictional fantasy combat dogfighters of a 1930's style that was just good ol' fun! Train simulations, ship simulations including sailing ships I think, it spawned at least three realistic (for their time) combat flight of ww2 including the Pacific. There is literally an entire INDUSTRY of companies small and medium who support and are dependent on that series of products, bringing everything from whimsical topics to super-realistic addons that can and are used to train real aircrews (PMDG). And last but not least, the system was leased to Lockheed Martin who made it into their own kind of product that helps train civilians, entertains at the retail market, helps train professional pilots and special purpose military training that's probably mostly still secret. I could imagine a similarly bright future for ED's system/products, and for their devs. So while I too wonder "why a C-172? LOL!!", I also say "bring it on!!"

??? Sorry but his statement about the TF-51 IS fact, not opinion.

Er... well... I partially disagree. The CEII was made not by ED's devs, but by Magnitude 3 LLC, the people who made the MiG-21Bis and soonish the F4U-1D. Maybe an F-8 Crusader after that. ED's own teams have done some amazing things too. But Magnitude and ED are not the same people, AFAIK. I have no idea why the CEII is still in EA, doesn't make sense to me either.

I hear you... but in the last two years I've assumed that the complexity of making a full fidellity module for the F-4 Phantom, and the AH-64D would be REALLY difficult, I mean there's a LOT of factors in those two subjects. Yet the Apache has had a successful launch into Early Access, and the Phantom is full steam development at Heatblur... soooo... maybe they are not as complex as I thought (unlikely), or those two dev teams are able to do the VERY difficult projects (more likely) and deliver! Having been inside an Lancaster a few years ago with my brother, it would not be any more difficult to make the 3d model than for the Mossie, Thunderbolt... it's just more sheet metal parts, and more workstations. I think the biggest hurdle would not be recreating the aircraft at all, but rather making sure that the network coding is stable enough for having humans and AI crew be able to jumps from workstation to station, ensure that all the projectiles from all the turrets works well in DCS. That might require a future update to DCS World. But after that, I've every confidence that Mitchels, Lancasters and Flying Fortresses could be in our future!! Edit: Not saying it WILL happen, just that I don't see any real pitfalls for such a project. And I don't even think it would be any more expensive that the current high end like the Apache Hornet and Tomcat, which have to model many weapons systems, many radar modes and display pages, none of which apply to a ww2 medium or heavy bomber.

Because sometimes you simply can't make a mod into official. Mods skirt issues such as the intellectual property, the likeness and so on, of the original rights holders of the real aircraft and it's manufacturer. Even for old things long out of production made by companies that don't exist today... SOMEONE almost always owns the rights to part of it. So getting permission might require cash money. Or acceding to several seemingly unreasonable demands. Or they might not give any permission no matter what you try to do to make it happen. Maybe the fees they want would be rediculously high and not make it worthwhile. But I feel your pain, there are many decent mods out there that deserve to thrive.

By the time the Apache is finished, I think the team would be very much ready to move on to other topics. Other modules, new exciting modules, or needing upgrades to older modules be somewhat current (think of the Blackshark upgrade/renovation, which is not yet ready).

Hmm... I think that would be hugely beyond the scope of a retail entertainment product, IMO. The complexity, the time needed by lots of dev members, the coordination, the deep knowledge of how ACTUAL operations really happen. Such software used with professionalism and determination, would be SOOO much more valuable than any single platform, I'd consider it a "force multiplier". Even a "weapon" unto itself. Probably even more important than stealth tech, IMO. I think the closest you could make for DCS is to do it yourself (or part of a collaboration): pick a plane, and do flights to fuel exhaustion with various loadouts. Put on autopilot, watch and record your fuel flows at the different weights and loadouts and alts, and sit back occasionally looking for flameout and other behaviors. Check the range, and pick a distance short of that, say maybe 15%, for the "must land now" distance, and then you have your answer. From there, half it for a combat radius, maybe allow for a pre-Bingo fight time. Record it all... now you at least have some kind of benchmark for range. Keep in mind the more you depend on that fuel to get there and back, you may have very little time to fight in AB before you hit Bingo and need to dive and extend back home!! You'll also want to check ground speed for future timing of packages, and airspeeds so that you can know you are doing the proper speed for Time On Target timings. Thing is, it would be a lot of work, building slowly either in lots of tests, or recording actual data from missions you fly. But over time you'll get a much better idea of how far you can push a mission! My guess is that this is done for real even with the fancy advanced USAF software, to get it tuned very well for actual conditions, albeit with massively more functions. Meaning the post-mission inspections and checking fuel states, checking how much was taken while in AAR, what ord if any was brought back or dropped, for a drag coefficient.