Rick50

Yea, those two do look sharp! Mind you so do the Qatari and Indian Apaches too. Not real sure why India decided on light blue/grey scheme though, but I'm sure it works for them in some way! Must be for reducing it's eyeball visibility from the ground, the assumption being that it's not hiding behind trees, but using as much standoff distance as it's sensors will give? Edit: India is typically really hot, and it seems that the dark vs light color Apaches can vary almost 20 to 30 degrees difference just by color... makes perfect sense, who wants to work on an airframe that's cooking your skin... not to mention the heat problems for internal components... keep the high investment working in great condition! I love Australia's UH-60 paint schemes... is the same camo used on their Apaches? Oh, not arriving for another 3 years... never mind! So at EA launch, US Army, United Kingdom and Dutch paint skins, not bad, I bet those will be popular in those countries! I'm also sure that the super-skilled painters of DCS will make many downloadable skins for them too, probably see all the world's fleets painted in just the next 3 months or less... (!! no pressure though!)

Did ED announce what nation's paints would come at Early Access in the next few weeks? Or is that still a secret?

A little followup on the ship strike: only 23 of the 41 bombs dropped actually hit the very large ship. The spill was 3 times more petroleum than the Exon Valdez that we probably remember better. some pics https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/18/torrey-canyon-disaster-uk-worst-ever-oil-spill-50tha-anniversary

For reference, DCS map sizes in ascending order: Channel map : 40,000 km2 Normandy map: 92,916 sq km Caucasus map: belongs here Persian Gulf map: 200,000 sq km (note, this number seems to represent the detailed area, not the pure edges of the map) Nevada NTTR: uncertain, but it's probably roughly fits here Syria map : 450,000 km2 NTTR is roughly half the raw size of the Syria map, albeit with less objects to render (much fewer buildings, much fewer trees and shrubs) Also, keep in mind that more than 1/3 of the Syria map is Mediteranean sea... so the Nevada map is not that far behind Syria for the actual land area... but again, the map is not as dense as the Syria map. Similarly, the Caucasus map, right to the edges, is massive, but most of that is flat, little textures, no roads or buildings... the detailed area is probably roughly between the size of Normandy and Nevada. Compare to other video games, where only a couple are larger... and "no man's sky" is a spaceship game/sim...

Well, you could try dropping a string of bombs to hit one target. Seems dumb today, but before precision munitions, it was NORMAL to have several aircraft with many bombs each, to hit a SINGLE target. And sometimes that wasn't enough, and another strike would be ordered up. That was for high quality aircrews with experience and lots of training... pilots with low hours was almost a waste to even send them out on a ground strike. I remember hearing of a ship that ran aground, and some time later it was decided to use fighterbombers to blow it up, get rid of the wreck and then send in salvage or something. But despite a very professional Air Force, they had embarassingly missed on the first try, and required more sorties to do the job. No guided munitions, but still, no SAM or AAA threats, peacetime, daylight... it was a little surprising to get results like that! Especially for the Royal Navy. And the Royal Air Force. Now, they DID get some hits, but what this article didn't mention was how many misses accompanied the hits. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/29/newsid_2819000/2819369.stm Similarly, many have noted the difficulty in WW2 for bombing runways... very few hits on the runways themselves, despite huge numbers of bombs dropped. It's these frustrations that lead to air to ground guidance systems, be it Walleye, or the earliest Paveways. And even in the 1980's it wasn't certain they would be reliable dependable enough to work in combat. Only in the 1991 Gulf War did it start to look like a winner, and the CIA's famous battle damage report about that war has driven PGM policy ever since. Indeed the JDAM was developed right away as the Gulf War ended, to be cheaper than Paveway, and able to strike multiple targets with less effort on fixed targets. The loss of Paveway stock was to be replenished with JDAM purchases. But before all that, dropping lots of bombs for one lousy point target wasn't just the norm, it was an absolute requirement! The only hints of the future world of PGM's, was the use of Paveways in the Vietnam war to blow up bridges, and the use of CCIP with dumb bombs during the Israeli strike on the Osiraq nuclear station construction. But no one really knew how much would change by the 1990's!

Along with an early Cobra, the Cayuse OH-6 ought to join the Huey Iroquois if a Vietnam jungle map appears someday! Meanwhile maybe an MD-500 Defender TOW ? or AH-6 variant? MH-6 magic carpet ride?

Maybe seriously consider the F-5E Why? Because it's neither simple nor a super complex flying supercomputer with 300 types of ordnance (lookin a you, HornVipers!). It's nicely in between. It's like a big fast trainer... or a simpler "multi-role" fighter. It'll do AA with sidewinders and cannon for BFM, and it'll do basic AG with rockets, iron bombs, snakes, and so on. In the same mission! Think of it as an A-4 but with afterburners and a very simple radar, and full ED quality. Consider that these are still used today for "Agressor Squadron" training in Canada and the USA. In the real world, the only dramatic shortcomming of this jet was it's short operational range with full ordnance loaded, limiting it's usefulness. But as an advanced trainer, it's tops!

Oh, I'm in total agreement! Also, the DAP versions are VERY few in number, and due to the munitions weight don't carry troops or cargo... really I was just pointing out a rare exception, though the exception proves the rule!

Welllll.... don't tell operators of the UH-60 DAP !! As I understand it, no one's intentionally deploying from the Apache! I believe it was a rescue mission where two stranded soldiers badly needed a ride... desperate. And worked well enough to test and train for some future similar ops. Just an FYI, the Bell Cobra gunship also did a couple such rescues too, one during the Vietnam war, and at least one with the Israelis who might have even installed seatbelts for such an occasion (maybe?)!!! Not on the stubby wings, but rather the side ammunition door that drops down like a bench seat...

Well, I think that just as a general observation, there may come a time when there is more product than users who can fly them all regularly. Meaning "oh wow, I already have 20 modules I don't fly more than once a year... do I really need another 7 more modules this year?!?" I think some people are already at that point. Not everyone, but some. So that brings me to a counterpoint: how badly do we "need" every variant? Is this an important goal? Does this goal have a downside to it, namely drawing effort away from other aircraft entirely? It's similar to conversations I've had about the F-4 Phantom's many variants, and the B-52 hypothetical module and it's possible variants that people might want. To answer your question directly, I feel 3 Cobras would be enough, and released in this order: 1980's TOW Cobra I mentioned above, one SuperCobra or twin engine USMC variant, maybe something from the 1991 Gulf War era, but maybe the people want a new Z Viper? And lastly, if/when a Vietnam jungle map is released, then a 1960's Cobra to go with it! I think subdividing further than that would be a waste of resources that could be better used on other interesting aircraft, such as the EE Lightening, or the Jaguar, the Mirage III, C-130H module with Specter, cargo and KC air tanking variants, maybe a B-52 module... OH-6 or Littlebird or MD-500 Defender, CH or MH-47, UH and MH-60, a full fidellity Super Tucano with designator and all the ord, full fidellity T-72 and BMP-2,... ok I'm starting to ramble, but you get the picture. Do we need more unique airframes or most of the variants? for me the answer is... depends on the subject and how important it's been, maybe it's important to cover more than one era, but also maybe offering 4 or more variants is greedy and counterproductive? Remember, since we are talking DCS and not say ARMA-3 or War Thunder, making full fidellity modules even for variants takes a LOT longer than pumping out a whole bunch of nice looking 3D models for "each variant".

That's... ... one crowded deck! I'd have thought they'd put those planes in the hangar deck underneath, protect from the salt water when not flying.... but was the ship too small for all those planes?!?!

OH NOOOOES!!!! SOMEONE'S TESTING A PRODUCT JUST BEFORE RELEASE?!?!!? THE HORROR!! This isn't a good thing, it's a GREAT thing... real world Apache pilots helping to make sure the Early Access product works well, and then getting permission from ED to post the video... which will help drive sales, some sales which might be first-time DCS World customers, just on the strength of the Apache all by itself! But you know this and are probably joking!

I also believe there was a really significant setback, as one of the big DCS World patches "broke" something in the code/function of the Kiowa project, and required a significant effort to research the problem, try out different possible solutions, implement, test and then carry on. Now, it's my belief that this setback was solved a long time ago, but it did seem to push their timetable signficantly. From what I gather, estimating time to create a complex flight sim product is difficult. But you can double or tripple the difficulty to create complex COMBAT flight sim products... making time estimates basically useless. ED is only good at time estimates because they've been successful for litteral decades with dozens of products, and even they struggle at accurate time estimations! Also, particularly with tiny teams, real world issues can greatly interfear with the time needed to code/make such a module. From what I gather, Poly is not made of two dozen employees on salary working 9 to 5, but rather a few people working in their spare time, with no income from the Kiowa project, rather they are investing their own money for Kiowa hardware and their own "sweat equity" (meaning they are investing their spare time) to make this happen. And maybe they hire a specialist for a short term contract to help make this or that be created and work well ( like maybe to make sure the thermal image works properly like the real world, or maybe to make the Hellfire behave like the real deal, or figure out the stability augmentation system, maybe to paint it up well with different liveries, maybe an audio specialist who made recordings of the real OH-58D in cockpit, external engines, and maybe it's .50cal firing). I'm not trying to make excuses, but just offer some perspectives to help possibly explain what it might look like from the inside!

I agree, it'll be a different experience from the Apache, and may be as or more fun too! One of the downsides to the early 1980's Apache is that it's heavy, but the later D Longbow is that it's REALLY HEAVY... it's not nimble at all. It's got a lot of inertia, and yes easy to fly, but it's no "rocket"! By contrast, the Kiowa probably feels a lot like an A-4 Skyhawk, in that it's very light, very nimble, and despite it's small size, still packs a punch, (albeit nothing like the fire and brimstone from it's partner in battle). Any doom and gloom over Kiowa module sales needs to keep a particular factor in mind: free trial. I think that as people learn to fly fling-wings with the easy Apache flight, and then see that it's a lumbering plodding freight train of Hellfires and cannon shells, may decide to try the Kiowa, and may end up loving it's nimble sportscar handling, it's varied mission taskings, and decide to buy! No, I don't see refunds in the Apache's future, but rather that the Apache sales could significantly boost the Kiowa sales. Another factor for the Kiowa module having a brighter future for sales, is that there will be a lot of Apaches to cooperatively target designate for... originally my fear (before the Apache module was announced), that Kiowa sales might be stunted if AI Apaches were poorly implemented and thus not providing the "Hellfire truck" that the Kiowa was meant to cooperate with. But nowdays, with the Apache ready and appearing in store in just weeks or days, and the improvement in AI behaviors... well, despite the Kiowa dev team being rather quiet here, I think they may have their own success after release. Big sales maybe not on day one or even the first month or two, but as youtube reviews come in, and early adopters make forum reports, as virtual helo squadrons get experience with them, and then people having a good experience with the free trial... I think Kiowa sales might accelerate for a while!

Ok, but the Vietnam era Cobras were ONLY used by the USA, and the SuperCobra used only by: USMC, Islamic Republic of Iran Army Aviation, Republic of China Army(Taiwan), Turkish Army By contrast, the 80's TOW Cobras, the ones with flat glass, single engine and 20mm, were exported to a great many nations and saw action all over the planet. There were 1,100 units made: Bahrain Air Force Japan Ground Self-Defense Force Royal Jordanian Air Force Kenya Air Force Pakistan Army Philippine Air Force South Korea Republic of Korea Army Royal Thai Army Turkish Army Florida Department of Forestry U.S. Forest Service Israeli Air Force Spanish Navy U.S. Army Washington State Department of Natural Resources No matter how you look at it, that's a lot of unique users all over the world!

No doubt! Here's hoping that a Tornado gets made!

I forgot about all that, fair point!

Hmm... initially I liked the idea, but then looking at the Wiki, only 60 units made, and only in service in Italy and a handful in Turkey... eh, I'm leaning back toward Cobras that are employed for decades in a great number of nations and have seen action lots of times. But big points for a cool and creative suggestion! EDIT: ok so it's not actually alone, there's also the TAI/AgustaWestland T129 ATAK variant, which has another 76 units made... but it's still quite limited in users and numbers. Personally I think the decade to represent ought to be part of the decision. The Apache Longbow for the 2000's. So I'm thinking of a TOW capable Cobra from the 1980's ought to be first... at least most of the maps are appropriate already. This would also be appropriate for Korea and Germany maps if any materialize. Later, if a jungle SEA 'Nam map shows up, then the early "Snake" should seriously be considered! I mean, I don't wanna poop on the Supers as an idea for DCS, and or the Tiger gunships, but I wonder if with the Longbow, it would be a case of too many "modern/current" AH's ? And not that I want to derail the topic or anything, but what about smaller AH's, like the OH-6, Hughes 500D Defender with TOW and electroptics, or its more modern "Little Bird" variants? Again, that aircraft spans a very long time, so choosing which variant would be important. Of course, while I like the 500 Defender, the Gazelle anti-tank would be quite similar, and we do expect the MBB Bo-105 which also would have wireguided ATGM's too... soo... I dunno...

I think there would be a significant market for the F-15C, and that the Strike Beagle would also be popular. Similar but not the same at all... mainly the mission purpose is so different, I think most would buy both variants. I don't quite understand why Raz wouldn't do both, unless they just don't have the resources to do so.

I agree that such a "feature" won't be in it upon release. And also agree that your scripting idea is a good one! But later in development, like just before exiting Early Access when everything else is done... I don't see why ED couldn't add such "wing walker" model. But then... resources/time/money to spend a day or two to model the soldier and place, test and re-test... for something that might be done VERY rarely in-game (like WELL under 1% of missions played)...

LOL!! Dunno how yer gonna escort a speed demon that's gonna run away on you in a hot minute... but I approve your list just the same! And the Hustler is one of the coolest planes evar! Hmm, nice list!

Ok but, that's not what he said. He used the word "presumably" in that sentence, which means he's assuming that to be the case without actually knowing, he wasn't confirming that as fact. He wasn't being deceptive about it either, as his use of the word presumably was clear and meaningful. So there is now a new H-60 variant: the Schrodinger Hawk - 60, it both exists and doesn't exist... and will change once you find out for certain fact!

How much did that unit cost ya? !!!!

Mmmmm... MH-60 Knight Hawk!!!

That would be nice! I kinda think though that they might have picked another area. Vietnam would have absolutely mind-boggling object count to do it properly. I think maybe Europe or Korea might be more likely, fewer trees to render, and highly desired. Although I'd be enthusiastic for this map... I'd guess that this is unlikely. Because the Phantom is apparently gonna release sometime this year. Yet Raz' South Atlantic map isn't even yet released, albeit hopefully releasing this year. We've not seen any big announcements about Raz doing another map, at least I dont recall hearing that, and usually we tend to hear about an upcomming map roughly 2 to 3 years ahead of release, a rough idea of where the map represents. I think the Mariannas map was announced maybe 1.5 to 2 years before release, Syria map maybe 3 or more years? Not that there's any reason for anyone to tell us that far in advance, if they are being sekrit squirls and have sneaky phantom-like maps in the works, I'm not opposed to it!! Imagine if a new map appears one day for purchase in the ED store...