Rick50

Recently I've seen a couple of decent Russian movies that you might enjoy: Salyut 7, a true story about a space mission: I saw it on Amazon Prime just days ago. Well, it's mostly true... a few scenes were not exactly as it really went down, but it's mostly true, and worth a watch: T-34 This movie is... well I don't believe it's a true story, but rather based on many real events, sort of strung together, with some fiction, as a kind of tribute to the people who made the tank, and the crews that suffered in them to save their country. Don't try to rivet count, or dive too deep into what's reallistic or not, but I admit I enjoyed this movie much more than I thought I would! Also on Amazon Prime So my youtoob feed put this movie trailer for me to watch! It seems to be depicting the real SU-24 shootdown... well, the Syria situation from the point of view of Russian airforce people. I'm not super convinced by the computer effects, but it might turn out to be a decent movie. I've no idea if it's released yet or where to find it, but here's the trailer The one I REALLY want to see is known by two different names, either "The Spacewalker" or "The Age of Pioneers:", and is about cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, the first human to perform a spacewalk

No harsh judgments here... but... um... I'm intrigued! And i hope you post more details, some key feature closeups... looks like a unique solution, as does the Lego mod!

I personally love this map suggestion, and indeed most map ideas that people put forward. Honestly I'd love for DCS to have the whole world modeled as some civilian flight sims feature. It's just that at the moment there seems to be some practical limits for maps in DCS, and no one really knows when those limits might change or even disappear (possible with a major game engine change maybe?). The main reason I respond this way, is so that there is understanding of why such large maps aren't appearing yet. If I'm harsh, well, that was not my intention, and I'm not dismissing the idea, just proposing that we might have to wait a little while! This topic link give a bit of an idea of DCS map sizes... they are not all the same, some are MUCH larger than others but feature much less detail and have some "empty" areas too:

Isle of Man to St Petersburg is about 2200km, as the crow flies. South coast of England, to the north coast of Norway, is about the same, 2200km. Most DCS maps measure (roughly, as none are exactly the same in size, detail, object number density), something around 500x500km. That is 250,000 square kilometers of terrain data for a dev to make, for DCS to handle in multiplayer, for your stonkin' gamer rig to chug through at very high framerates. Now... quick calculation says that your proposed map, which just only barely has any Russia at all, since I capped it at St Petersburg, results in 4,840,000 square kilometers of terrain data. That is more than 19 times larger than your average DCS map of today. Consider too that expectations in details, for the terrain textures, the terrain elevation resolution (how many data points show the shape of the ground), and the increasing number of objects placed on maps (houses, custom buildings, single trees and millions of trees, lamp posts, airports, unique landmarks) is increasing dramatically... I mean, compare these things between say the old Caucasus map and the newer Syria map... or the newest Mariannas map where the high detail is confined to a few very tiny islands. The recently released DCS Channel map features England... a tiny postage stamp of 40,000 square kilometres. Now I'm not criticising, it's good and has a lot of details, but compare the area size to the maps mentioned above? I myself want something similar, basically the Nordic countries and a corner of Russia (think the EF2000 terrain map!), and would welcome the addition of the UK if it were practical. I do believe it will be practical in future... (maybe 5 years from now?) but it's not practical today.

Over-G'ing a strategic bomber... I kinda get the notion that doing so might limit one's advancement in the USAF...or most other employment for that matter! As for a Bone Simulator, as it's complex, likely lots of security issues for documentation, it runs into the similar situation as a BUFF module might. But full fidellity Bone DCS module is... well it's unlikely for many reasons. As such I advise the same solution: develop a B-1B Lancer freeware mod. Aim for as much realism as your team can muster, make it cool and fun, it would be popular. The same for an F-111, Su-24, TU-22M Backfire, B-52D and H and G, maybe some UH-60 variants. Get inspired from the Anubis C-130J Super Hercules mod, the brand new (yesterday) CH-47 Chinook mod, the T-45 Goshawk mod and others!

FBW was not all created equal, or the same. Prevention of over-G was likely not considered for bombers and cargo in the early days... even for fighters it seemed more an afterthought at the very start. Nowdays it seems prudent to include such limits on everything that flies.

MAYBE... maybe they are working on such a plan. No, this is not a hint, I don't "know" anything. But sometimes, when trying something new, early "tests" and "prototypes" get created, not shown to the public. I'm guessing is making some simple tests to try and determine the best route forward... Thing is, making a global map needs many resources. FS9 had one of the world's most powerful giants to help develop it. XP10 or 11 is more impressive for the tiny team that makes it... but they depend quite a lot on the community users to help upgrade it's world, especially airport layouts submitted by users, and lots of freeware scenery makers. And despite all that, sometimes XP11 can look amazing... and sometimes look potatoe... it's a monumental task. It all makes the latest MSFS2020 look like an "impossible dream". Not actually impossible, but seeming to require soooo much efforts from data resources, from teams of humans, from AI and photogrametry (requires big number crunching), many manual corrections... and then a truly VAST cloud-based data distributor for the users to syphon from. MS partnered with several other companies to make that all happen. For ED to do similar would likely require several partnerships. I have no idea about the financial needs to do this. "proof of concept" is a good term, for when someone has an idea, and wants to see if the idea might be worth trying, they will try testing the concept. I think maybe ED is near this stage for ideas for increasing map coverage. Maybe.

Maybe... have you ever been qualified to drive a jeep with a head-mounted periscope ?

Nice previews!!

I'm curious though about the fuel states for the aircraft in the diagram: was there any explanation for why the Phantom was at 65% but the Mig-21 was at 40% ?? Was that an expected fuel state for such engagements? It makes me wonder if the Mig Bingo state would only allow an extremely short engagement time.

Right... but my post was not about adversaries. It was about the slight difference between the E and Navy variants.

well... I don't "know" for absolute. But... CG is important for all airplanes, and fighters. So yes, the gun and it's ammo in the nose does put a lot of weight there, but I seem to remember something about a change to weight in the aft region to balance the weight... fuel tank: I don't think the CG would be a real issue, but the two new weights up front and at the tail, would likely slow down initial pitch inertia, especially while pulling G's. On the other hand, the internal E would probably be "sliperyer" aerodynamically than a big fat pod slung underneath... and neither is gonna be a hardcore dogfighter, because a flying anvil is still an anvil !! Navy might be a little more "pointable" even with the pod, and the E might be a little less draggy and that might give a slight edge in "dive extend away" a little better...? Might be splitting hairs here, with very minor differences, might not even notice sometimes, in the heat of a fight. well... I don't "know" for absolute. But... CG is important for all airplanes, and fighters. So yes, the gun and it's ammo in the nose does put a lot of weight there, but I seem to remember something about a change to weight in the aft region to balance the weight... fuel tank: I don't think the CG would be a real issue, but the two new weights up front and at the tail, would likely slow down initial pitch inertia, especially while pulling G's. On the other hand, the internal E would probably be "sliperyer" aerodynamically than a big fat pod slung underneath... and neither is gonna be a hardcore dogfighter, because a flying anvil is still an anvil !! Navy might be a little more "pointable" even with the pod, and the E might be a little less draggy and that might give a slight edge in "dive extend away" a little better...? Might be splitting hairs here, with very minor differences, might not even notice sometimes, in the heat of a fight.

A SuperSabre does sound cool, but honestly I really want the Mirage III, Phantom B and E, and F-8 Crusader all something fierce! Mirage for the history and bare metal looks, Phantom for the power and mission flexibility (almost everything under the sun?), and the Crusader for stunning good looks and being the last gunfighter! I also do think the F.1 has a cool factor, a pocket cruise missile, that's a bit unique in looks... it shares the "look like a mean weapon of war" look to it that the F4U Corsair, Phantom and Hornet share, though maybe with sharper look to it! Don't mind me, just asking for the whole world on a platter here!

For a carrier variant, would it make more sense to choose the B ? I mean, because it was introduced earlier in the war, say compared to the J ? I think someone made that point already... Also, 649 built...

Hmm. Ok, thanks! Had been hoping they were a bit further along with it, but I do lookforward to the Bo-105 and A-29... the Lightning might be a fun rocketship! Huh... didn't know about the F-100 there.

Bump! Also:

How many DCS modules are there, for multiple variants of the same airframe? I'm not talking say the Gazelle between ATGM vs cannon/rockets, but an actual different variant of the aircraft? Fw190 A-8 and Fw 190 D-9 Dora F-14B and... A (is it out yet?) A-10A and A-10C... one is full fidellity... but the other is FC "simpler". Su-27 and Su-33... but both are FC "low fidellity". Nothing wrong with that, but IMO it's not the same thing as expecting multiple variants in full fidellity. That's... not a long list. Three of them are low fidellity. Five are full fidellity.

Hi, I've seen occasional mention and a few screenshots of a Mirage III that I believe is being developed by the Razbam team. But I know nothing about the project! Is this meant to be AI only? Full fidellity flyable module? Arriving soon, or in some undefined distant future? I ask because it would make a great plane to fly for many maps, not just South Atlantic! Simpler than the flying server networks of today, but fast to altitude, has a real history...

Minsky, thank you for your efforts! I believe you when you say you made a "literal translation of Kate's words" I believe there was no mistake in the interview OR the translation. I believe I made a mistake in concluding that it might be ED making this Phantom module, but now believe it's being made by a 3rd party dev, thanks to BigNewy's response saying it's not ED. But ED management would know about 3rd party devs getting near release time for a new module. Did she make a mistake in revealing this tiny scrap of info? No, I don't think so either... she didn't name the dev, nor did she give a release date, nor even a variant... all she did was answer a question about a well loved plane many of us want to see, and gave us hope that we'd probably see one soon! Now... could she have mistaken F4 for F-4, and forgotten the name of the aircraft? Not remembering the Corsair name and upon hearing the Phantom name with F4 just reflexively agreed? Possible I guess. But even if that were such a mistake, so be it, I make mistakes all the time, and I bet all of you make mistakes from time to time too, that's just part of life. I'd be far more disapointed if people got upset at her about such a mistake, than in realizing a Phantom was not arriving. Disapointed? Sure, yes, but upset at others, that wouldn't be fair. I just hope that over the next while we get more information that confirms or denies a Phabulous module! I ALSO hope this doesn't scare off ED from giving interviews, which is a real possible consequence of this fallout.

I think long term, we'll see not only the Corsair, some carriers, but also Wildcats, Hellcats and others. I do wonder if they have a bomber quietly planned, like a B-25 Mitchel or something? Perhaps able to do both strategic and tactical missions? I vaguely recall camera footage of light bombers doing ultra low level bomb-let drops at maybe 50ft, lots of small charges, on a time delay fuze I think. Others have seen B-25 gunship variants, with 8 half inch Brownings, I think one even had a 76mm howitzer in it? But I think before all that, we need a Mitsubishi Zero, full fidellity module, to meet in the air!

I'm curious but we'll never find out. HOWEVER... ED stating that a Phantom is "SOON"... and since they have no 3rd party projects to evaluate... suggests to me that it "might" be ED themselves who are making a Phantom (!!!!). MIGHT. Don't take that as fact, I'm just guessing based on slivers of info... but this might be the best news for the F-4 that we've had since ThirdWire ! EDIT: I only think it could be ED making it, because it was mentioned that ED did not have any current module submissions for evaluation at this time. However, thinking about the wording, that may be reaching for a conclusion too much. It may well be that ED knows of a 3rd party dev making a Phantom, that they think they are getting near completion or EA status, and will soon submit their module for evaluation and quality control. This interpretation seems more plausible, since just a year ago Nick Grey suggested in an interview with GR that ED would not be making a Phantom, but that 3rd party devs were welcome to do so for DCS (which is itself good news). Really, to my mind, as long as a Phantom module meets ED quality and high fidellity, with a minimum of bugs and crashes... really that's what I'm looking for, regardless of who makes it!

Even ED doesn't seem to know, because neither Kiowa nor Strike Eagle have been submitted to ED for quality evaluation/approval yet. Actually they currently don't have anything submitted to look over, evertyhing is either already released and in our hands, or is still deep in development.

Ooh... that's great news, a major change from what I'd last heard! AND a full fidellity Fulcrum Mig-29 ?! Just days ago it looked to be not happening... Wow, well, I welcome all of it! Did they mention if the Phantom is being worked on by ED or a 3rd party dev ?? I'm guessing it's too early to guess what variant or variants, unless they stated. I think when it was briefly discussed years ago I think they were aiming at a Gunslinger E, but that might have changed. Ok I just discovered I can get youtube to autotranslate... not perfect but makes the vid worth watching!

I wouldn't be too excited either, to dogfight with British Harrier pilots armed with brand new Limas and itching for a good fight... with an hour or more of hostile, very cold ocean to swim home in, for even a tiny amount of damage... I mean, if you had to ditch 300km from land... that wouldn't just be very miserable, I'd be severely doubting successful rescue before dieing of hypothermia. Sure, maybe today with the very long range specialised rescue helos you might stand an ok chance... but in 1982 Argentinian service? Doubtful, I'd think. The Argentinian pilots did their job, followed the orders, and did what they could in the conditions they were stuck with. Might not be glamorous or inspire big movies, but I do think they ought to have pride just the same.