Rick50

The claim is probably not USN shootdowns, but rather Iranian Tomcats... at least that's what I'd guess, or it would have been fairly big news when it occured and we'd likely have heard of it and remembered seeing documentation. But an Iraqi shooting down an Iranian in the 1980's ? Not exactly big news outside of the Middle East, back then, I doubt even the global news services of the time would even bother reporting it, and might not have even caught wind that it occured. Assuming of course that the claim is true, and I've no reason to suspect a falsehood on the part of the author. But the original report could possibly be suspect too, sometimes military people in a few countries have... well, have a way of "exagerating" their military adventures... as a survival tactic: claim a small victory and I get to live a longer life... tell the absolute truth that I didn't even see an enemy and didn't fire any missiles... and I might be accused of cowardice, desertion in combat, or just not interested in doing the assigned mission... could end up on the wrong side of a rope, or firing squad... "ok so there I was an I swear it was a Tomcat, and I fired ze missilez, and down went the plane!" "oh? and where did this plane crash?" "Ah, um, well it disintegrated into a firey ball before hitting the water, so uh, nothing to see!" "Convenient comrade pilot!!! We shall give you our highest medal, and a family vacation to a seaside resort in Basra!" "whew, that was a close one!" "Sorry, what do you mean, close one? Do I need to call the Secret Police?!"

Hmm. It's likely just a programming oversight in the DCS system, maybe this thread observation might correct this. Or a limitation in static object not beeing seen by the "virtual" sensor. On the other hand, it might not be a mistake. The skeet's optical targeting might reject stationary aircraft in real life, though I don't know why it might do that, as it would be very useful to use such a weapon on enemy airfields or FARPs and such. It could be simply a limit in data storage capacities to ID targets inside the tiny skeets... Worth looking into, IMO

Then again, maybe "Marketing" knows something we don't:

If Mariannas is struggling on your machine, so will Syria IMO.

So true... but as you point out, that 30% is absolutely HUGE, overwhelming amount of data for home recreation use at this time! But in our lifetimes that will change, and you'll eventually be able to pick out details of your friends' local parks, and the color of their car, anywhere in the world, look through windows to see your father watching the football match on the tele! Just not today or next year in DCS... but in 5 or 10 years, maybe/probably... Maybe a partnership with big-G, or a commercial sattelite company, or a mapping company...

Ok jack, you convinced me! Not that I was against Balkans in the first place, but you made a very convincing case! Nice effort !!

The 4-way hat switch found on many joysticks (but missing on many of the very inexpensive budget sticks) sometimes called a "trim hat". In real aircraft these are most commonly used to adjust trim, but in complex fighters, warplanes, and modern helicopters they will have a lot of hat switches that will also do MANY other functions too, like adjusting radar modes and directions, weapons selections, defensive expendables like chaff and flares, on helis for aiming spotlights, radio modes/channels... but even on those, at least one hat is for trim usually

I think most of the time, the models are not made by the same people that program systems functions, or flight dynamics behaviors. And I think there is generally a lot more people who can make a really good model, than who can do systems or dynamics... so it's not that much surprise to me that models get shown. I think this is why we are seeing more talk from several devs about them making some AI assets... but truth be told, I really want the flyables! These modern flying mainframes must be difficult to program, as when you put out a new release, it sometimes "breaks" a different function that had been working well for months or years, and now the debugging begins... just look at the Hornet for instance!

Not to mention that the IP holder of the actual aircraft (Sikorsky and Boeing) would both have to approve of such a project, and ED itself too. I think it's not especially probable that all three would approve of a module that would be partly realistic, and partly fictional (representing systems that never got developed to completion, or even "set").

Thank you Luiz Renault, for the update and all the efforts for this mod project!!

Hmm. Well I guess the minute you switch from enemies with Toyotas and MANPADS, over to real SAM systems like BUK and TOR (among other capable systems), suddenly radar stealth becomes a major factor? Or the S-300 and 400 with the tower radar for low flying cruise... Kinda makes me wonder how common or uncommon the S-300 is, around the world, and in what kind of relevant quantities/coverage? That's probably Pentagon/Moscow HQ type info though, unless there's some great open source int ?

Ok, I must be remembering something wrongly... maybe it's the side the tail rotor is on, Mi-8 on one side, Mi-24 on the other? Something to do with high speed vibrations discovered in the early dev of the '24, speeds you don't see in the '8 ?

To add to what Harlikwin said, ED doesn't seem to want to have anymore nukes in DCS. And it seems like many in the community don't want them either. Sure, some will always want mushrooms... and for that they'll have the Mig-21 to enjoy! Who knows, maybe in the future nukes will be reconsidered, but for now it's the Mig and nothing but the Mig!

I think the general consensus from the first weeks of release, is that while not "perfect", it was a pretty good initial release... people weren't screaming or moaning, but rather having fun, learning the new heli, figuring out what tactics worked and what would get you shot down in seconds! In my books, that's a success when people are trying to figure tactics and having fun in the first week of release!

Eh... I think that's true to a degree, but a dev still needs to have lots of relevant documentation that they have permission to actually use (not just a random PDF download), license agreement and other items too. But yea, with enough public interest, I think it's generally an acheivable goal for a single seater that's 50 years old!

I'm reminded of a pilot from those days over a collapsing Yugoslavia describing a typical air to air engagement. He suggested the fight wasn't between friendly/enemy... but rather the radio fight to get permission to get the intercept order, and then to get permission to fire ze missiles! "This is UZI 11, we have a lock on the bogey" "This is Baguette 33, we have ze lock and closer!" "I say old chaps, this is Britannia 65, we have a visual ID, it's a Boeing 747 cargo!" "Ok knock off the engagement, Britannia, please escort them to land at Zagreb Intl" ... or something like that! To me the takeaway was that long range air to air missiles were not always very useful if the situation required positive Vis ID for every engagement... maybe a great "heater" was of better use, like the newer Pythons, Archers and 9X (though I think the X was still in development at that time, not yet fielded). I seem to think that this was also an issue during Vietnam days too, where sometimes a Sparrow shot was not taken, due to target uncertainty needing a VisID. Similarly, I've heard that some F-15 Eagles and Phantom drivers featured a powerful rifle scope, so that the intercept pilots could do a VisID from earlier/further away, giving an edge/advantage a few seconds earlier. Nowdays we have IRST, we have radars that compare the return signal against a library of enemy/friendly radar return shapes/signatures. We also slave targeting pods to give an image of flying targets from further than the bare eye can see... not sure exactly if there are limitations to that, but I know it's sometimes done. I have to imagine though that in today's world of JDAM's, not to mention other standoff wpns, the ability to precisely place iron on runways and taxiways, HAS shelters and fuel farms... an airfield attack done by a well equiped air force must be downright crippling these days. Maybe not so much if they have really nice SAM systems like say TOR or something, but even then... some will surely get through, at least I'd think some would. Years ago there were fold-out wing glide kits for the JDAM to extend high altitude standoff range... were those ever actually bought or put into service?! Or did that get dropped? I think they doubled or trippled range, but maybe they found they weren't needed or something?

I hear what you are saying, but I'm not so certain that the Longbow just yanked all it's newer systems from the Comanche, allowing for an easy port-over. But it's understandable. Thing is, we don't have any idea of what the MFD pages or HUD symbology would look like, as I don't believe it was ever that deep into development of it's systems integration... might not have even been begun at that point, maybe just using Cobra/Apache display systems to fly the aircraft. The Hellfire tests, well, I'm not sure how much we can assume from those tests. They might have used lasing from a 3rd party, rather than onboard laser/optics that could have been still a "test-stand only" item. It might have only been a "captive carry" test to see how the weight shift is when flying, to open and close the weapons bays, test aerodynamic effects... I'm not super clear on EXACTLY what state the development was, at the end when it got cancelled, but it seems to me there was many years of remaining costly development to go. So maybe "not possible" is poor wording on my part, maybe Heatblur or others could come up with sufficient documentation and resources to create a high fidelity Comanche. If that's possible, I'd imagine it would sell quite decent! Maybe not as much as the ED LongbowD, but probably enough to make the effort worthwhile. But I do think that would be highly dependent on the quality and volume of documentation.

Yea, and I'd be happy to see such a popular mod! Maybe after all the new helis come out, and raise the interest of combat helos in general, we could see mod community think about taking on the Comanche! Then we could make silly scenarios to remind me of all the Novalogic Comanche games!

I think the programming of both the Hip and Hind was done by an ED employee who had actually flown the Mi-8 Hip in real life... and I know they are very committed to getting everything correct. I seem to recall that the real Hip and Hind do share the same engines and rotors, but that there are in fact small differences, one being that the rotor does spin opposite from the two models. Also, one of them has shorter rotor blades (Hind?) to allow for higher top speeds? As for 1), sorry I'm not an expert so others will have to chime in!

But ED are wanting to take the community to very high fidellity modules. That's not possible for RAH-66 Comanche... because it never came even close to a real world system. It was barely more than a flying airframe. No weapons systems, no fire controls, no datalinks, no advanced systems integration. There are no MFD pages to model, because it never got closer than 7 years from a production/service introduction variant.

Hmm... yes. So basically the globe, in low detail. And you have "high detail maps" that you purchase, that get precisely placed. The benefit is very long range flights, though don't look too closely! It also give them time to maybe eventually purchase/partner with a full detail global map, say 5 or 10 years from now, perhaps from a Bing competitor. Maybe Giggles or Yandecks or another new upstart?

It might take a similar form to that of MSFS020... that is, as you fly to a new area, the terrain streams in onto your machine. Not as much hard drive space needed, but you'd need a darn good 'net connection. It's probably a wee bit early to try and guess ED's sales strategy for such a product, it might be before they have even concluded a plan. The future of ED and DCS, might need a global terrain system, not short term but for the long term. This way, all terrains from conflicts past present and future get represented. Fictional conflicts too. The global map would help to make heavy long range bombers fully worthwhile, whether it's old Flying Fortresses or B-21 Raiders, Hustlers or Aardvarks and Backfires. It would also make it easier for campaign creators and mod makers to put new content into region-appropriate locations, instead of trying to make a map "resemble" a totally different place on the other side of the world! A global map would also make advanced dynamic campaigns require more effort using cargo supplies brought to the front. Imagine Hercules flights being an integral part of a campaign plan. Or a possible future C-17 and Antonov maybe. A global map would make a LOT more sense for a future possible expansion of the complexity of true Naval operations, that might in future include a full sonar system, complete with ocean salinity and density layers, ASROC launchers, Sea Hawks, Los Angeles class subs, magnetic anomaly detection and simulation. As well as an even more detailed ocean weather simulation, with the vast of the sea. Also, think of alll the bandwidth and time saved by no longer having map discussions on the ED boards! (joke!)

What's going on with the wavy leading edge!?

Bringing up Dunning Kruger, that sounds like an insult...

Well so is WW2, but that occupies a very VERY large portion of flight sims, war games, combat sims and such. Indeed there are companies that are supported ENTIRELY by "dwelling on the past" as you might say! ... and yet nowdays there is a small but growing market for WW1 flight simulations and FPS games, which is even further in the past! Maybe the 70's and 80's Cold War is mundane to you, but I don't agree: it wasn't that long ago, and while it didn't go "red hot", it was very real, potentially devastating for all parties, and eventually got so scary that it was easier and nicer to just make friends with your "enemies" and lay down some weapons and try to have a better life. That said... I'm not totally convinced what area of the world would be the nicest for a DCS "Cold War map". No large bodies of water, not much mountains. Cuba: What about the island of Cuba?!?! Ok, not the entire island as it's 1000km long... but what about the southern tip of Florida and the north western end of Cuba, sort of covering Miami to Havanah ? Sure, for historical it would only do to have F-8 Crusaders doing photo-recon, and maybe a couple of Mitchells for Bay of Pigs... but it has potential and could be quite "fun gameplay". Turkey: Ok, so Turkey was strategic in part because of Soviet Navy access to the Mediteranean, it enabled U-2 and Blackbird missions to overfly the USSR, I believe they had SAC nuke bombers there too for quick strike on Soviets. But for DCS it could be cool because it could mesh with the Caucasus map to the north, and the Syria map to the south, once that might become possible! It also would mean interesting terrain that's not almost all flat, rather there's a lot of mountains and large hills in Turkey. Now... the whole nation is rather large for a DCS map of today... but in time this could become practical. Austria Czech Hungarian and Poland map: Not the entirety of all those countries, but a map that stretches from Munich to Budapest, from Prague to Innsbruck. Flatlands, lots of mountains and natural obstacles. Israel Jordan Egypt map: I've proposed this before, basically starts at the bottom of the Syria map, and goes down from Haifa to Eliat, and from Alexandria to Amman. During the cold war, this was a very hot zone of conflict in the Middle Eastern wars. But it also saw direct Cold War events, such as the Soviet deployments by air transport to Egypt, and some close calls in the Mediteranean. Sure, it's not "pure cold war Soviets vs 'Muricans" but it is of that era and the Cold War planes certainly were in those battles. It also could be used convincingly for more current scenarios, and could even see some old warbirds action representing the early days of the state of Israel when they put Bf-109's into Israel's fledgling air forces. A sort of "do all eras" map. Of course I would also love to see Vietnam, the Korean peninsula, and the Nordic region overflowing with Eurofighters, but those have been discussed many times in other threads, and all three have significant technical issues to overcome.