Rick50

So lemme get this straight: Heatblur has two modules that will show up before the EF2000, and you want to book them for a project after all that?!? When will this "BH Rafale" project begin development, in 2033, and be ready for Early Access in 2036 ? Declared "full featured" by 2040? Yea, ok.

Correction: must add baby oil to all exposed surfaces before playing the volleyball, then a boombox must play select 80's rock hits

One day that will be possible. Right now we seem to be limited to around 550km by 550km for a map, or about 275,000 square km of area data. The area AG-51_Razor talks of, and I do agree that would be the ideal... is about 1500km by 1500km or larger. That's around 2.25 million square km of area, an awful lot more data to store, keep in memory, load from hard drive, and have the developer artists create. We're not there yet... but hopefully soon!

That's the wave of the present, not the future. Hornet C+ upgrades were to get these very large displays, not sure if that happened or not, as the C+ was not intended for very many airframes (31 units??). Recently went up in a 4 seat homebuilt w. a 300hp piston, and the dash looked a lot like this, because the glass panels took up most of the dash space. The info display did sorta resemble this a little bit. The avionics suite was made by Dynon, for "Experimental Class" homebuilds... and honestly it was VERY impressive for $5000 USD !! Since then they have been trying to get a full flight certification, obviously that will cost a LOT more, due to costs for meeting certification. It won't be long before young pilots will be struggling with flying around with steam gauges, at least early on.

So it's been 2 months since the topic has started... where's the kickstarter link?

This seems to me to be a way of just cutting costs and freeing up the same number of pilots for a lot more flights, without having to pay for training new pilots. They still want to have pilots pay for all their training, despite qualified pilot shortages. And now there are other shortages too, leading to not enough resources to complete flights, and now some airlines have started cancelling flights apparently. I think one effect is in the near future is a dramatic jump in ticket prices

So apparently there is an effort to certify the A350 long-haul airliner for flights with a single pilot. Consider that this airliner has one of the longest ranges available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350 A350-1000 accommodates 350 to 410 passengers, has a maximum range of 16,100 km (8,700 nmi) It's one thing for me to be comfortable with a single pilot for short hops like an hour or two... but for a 10 to 22 hour flight? So the lone pilot, goes for a bathroom break... and no one is on the flight deck?! What if the lone pilot gets sick, either from tainted food, or maybe a flu or something? What if the plane experiences a fuel loss that's not noticed early enough due to fewer eyes and one less brain than normal? And what's next for future airliners looking to reduce costs? A move to single engine? I get the desire to reduce from 3 or 4 engines to two. I get the desire to reduce from 2 pilots a navigator and flight engineer down to just two pilots... but to then just have one single pilot... I dunno.

If the arming page didn't include one or three pieces of ordnance that the real plane has carried... you'd get a lot of grumbling, low level complaints, on vid and reviews, that could harm sales. Look at how upset people are that nukes won't appear on any other aircraft in DCS other than the Mig-21? Or the early loadouts available to the Viper guys (lacking JSOW, JDAM, HARM and so on. They are now all included... but there was complaints) I see your point about PMDG products... but that's a totally different market. The users of civil sims, think differently, have different expectations... and I'm not sure that would translate over to the DCS community. Also, PMDG products benefit from a sim that models the whole world. A BUFF in DCS is kinda like trying to drive a dragster inside a warehouse, it can be done, might even be fun, but it's not the same as using it's full potential. We currently are limited to 500x500 km patch.

LOL!!! Yea, agreed!

Well... unfortunately, the plane and the missile are kinda inseperable when discussing this topic. (Well, until launch anyway!) But seriously, Meteor IS going to be a major factor with an EF2000 module, no question at all, and so it's worthy of discussing. As for the very long range of Meteor, I think that will be effective, in part because it won't just use the launch aircraft radar for intercept data. I think it probably uses the whole network, any radar that's linked, including probably satellite data. But I'm just doing a "edumacated guess" on that! As for the realism in the aircraft, we fanbois on the forums, aren't really sure. We can't give you a %. Mainly because, I don't think the public really knows how much, or how little of the EF's real world capabilities are in fact shrouded in secrecy. I think that the flying will feel like the real thing, and likely be 95% or closer, to what the real deal can do. The weapons pages will likely be 100% or close to it, for most of the weapons (likely a couple of exceptions). The fuel burn rates and volumes... that may not be 100%, but it could be completely accurate, kinda depends on how much an airforce wants to keep combat radius numbers secret or not... these days they might not care as they used to. I think the biggest area for secrecy, will be the more advanced radar modes, the ELINT gathering, the countermeasures systems, any EW and jamming capabilities. Similarly, the datalink networks will likely "look" like the real thing, but may not actually behave exactly like the true aircraft, because secrets and classified documentation. The thermal imager on the nose may not behave as truly realistic... it might behave more reliably in DCS but with less range, or it might be truly OP where in real life it's got real world limitations. I don't care about what's classified, personally. Make the module as close as possible to the real plane for all the unclassified data, and then give us a "good representation" or "best guess" that feels like it's real world, of the classified side of the plane, I'd be very happy with that. It would never be truly 100% accurate, but I'm good with that. Militaries around the world are very open about some things, and then suddenly get VERY cagey about certain topics and data. That'll only change when the world decides it doesn't need militaries at all anymore! There are a couple other modules where a few capabilities had to be "guessed" due to secrecy as well, and that will likely also be true for the upcomming ApacheLongbow too... nothing Eagle Dynamics or any 3rd party module maker can do about that. ED has to be careful even about Russian aircraft content, because the Kremlin (well the airforce anyway!) would be very unhappy with them if secrets were released. This is why a full fidellity Flanker module is probably several years away, at best, and might never happen at worst. There are STILL classified secrets, partly about technology, some about operations even from WW2 even today. Good luck getting ALL the secrets out of a military about their new shiny super jets!

Was it this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetstream_(TV_series) In one episode the Canadian fighter pilots travel cross country from Cold Lake Alberta, down to LAX, partly to get experience in very busy civilian airspace while flying Hornets. I think it was also a one or two day relax time during the course, before the final bits.

Thinking a map that covers Israel, parts of Jordan, parts of Egypt... one that eventually might be "bolted to" the Syria map! Why? Because the Six-Day War of 1967, Yom Kippur War of 1973, because Migs Vs. Mirage, because history, because having a larger map by combining two, is a good long term goal! Also get the Mediteranean waters too. So using the same map size as Syria as a theoretical template (about 550km by 550km), the Egypt map would include all of Israel and Sinai, and would stretch from a little west of Cairo to just a little east of Amman, allowing for vast contested areas, three capitol cities, and even include the beautiful Jordanian desert mountain region around Petra and Wadi-Rum. I'm not sure how many airbases this map would exclude from Jordanian and Egyptians, but I have to think there must be a few near those two capitol cities. If that's not super practical, then maybe it could be increased in width and decreased in length, say maybe 380km, from Haifa to Eliat, and that would still keep a little bit of the Gulf of Suez. Then, it could be widened from Alexandria, to about halfways into Jordan, right by the Saudi border near Kaf or Al Hadditha. That might be better geometry, and still keep most of Israel/Sinai. That said I still want the Nordic region and the two Koreas! Edit: I'd love to have some Mirage III's for such a map... all gleaming in polished aluminum!

For me, BO-105 with HOT missiles F-8 Crusader EF2000 OH-58D Kiowa Warrior AH-64D Longbow Those are known to be for sure in development, and would be day-one buys for me. There are others I'd love, a vintage Navy Phantom, a Phantom gunslinger too, Mirage III, UH-60 variant, an older C-130H (the very common Herc), an OH-6 Cayuse and/or AH-6 Littlebird. Also nice would be a Tornado IDS. But I also want cool maps to go with them, like Norway or the entire Nordic region from Norway to Murmansk and St. Petersburg, you know, to go with the EF2000! Korean peninsula, for both distant past historic use, and modern hypothetical conflict. Although it might not be wise from a real world point of view, it occurs to me that an India/Pakistan map could have a LOT of potential too, and would be quite visually unique I think... but that might be seen as too "politically hot" to actually make. Such a map would have historic significance as well as modern today era significance. It would be perfect for the JF-17, Viper, the Mig-21, Mig-29 and others too, like Sabres and early Migs.

ah interesting! When I saw 846 two years ago, it looked about roughly as I expected, but I'm no expert in the differences in variants, especially how the cockpits would have appeared at this year or that... I'm just glad there's a few of these around, protected from the elements... one of the saddest things to see is an old bird withering away in the weather. The paint flakes off, and the canopy "glass" goes yellow and starts looking fragile. There's a CF-100 like that in Calgary, and a few jets over in Wetaskiwin AB, like a CF-101 Voodoo, and a couple of others. I'm sure they are short on indoor space, but I always wished to see such beauties be kept indoors. I hope you managed to get to Nanton AB, it's just 30mins south of Calgary, they have a working Lancaster... it's not airworthy, but you can't tell to look at it! All four Merlins still work, and they usually fire them up once a year at dusk! They also have a Tallboy on display right under the bay doors. My brother and I got the opportunity to crawl inside the big bird, in exchange for a donation... I figured that was very fair! Of course, I believe Winipeg still has one of only two airworthy Lancasters in the world, in its collection there. I think around 5 years ago it flew to Britain to fly in formation with the British unit... I think they both flew over Buckingham in formation at one point.

Well, consider that you do have the SLAM and SLAM-ER, which are terminal TV guided, on the Hornet module. They have ranges of 69 to 170 miles, much further than the '130's 46 mile max range. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-84H/K_SLAM-ER Maybe the "LW" variant was little more than a proposal, with no real develoment money spent. "hey, what if we could put something like this on the Fighting Falcons?" Maybe money was spent and development underway... but it's a LONG ways between that, and actual flight testing (captive) on a Viper, then drop/separation testing, then developing all the software for systems integration, then start training courses to get the pilots up to speed, then acheive initial operational capability (IOC). From start to finish, this can be a couple of years to more than a decade. Even further out is use in combat conditions, which sometimes never even happens before the ordnance is retired. My guess: never weight beyond the "what if we?" point, and got shelved before real money was spent, perhaps because the future focus was on the JDAM, laser JDAM, and SDB glide bombs, to which increasingly advanced guidance systems are being developed and fielded, such as the new GBU-53/B StormBreaker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-53/B_StormBreaker Oddly enough, the AGM-130 has a shorter range of 46 miles, Vs the Stormbreaker's 69 mile standoff distance. Yes, I know, it's an apples to oranges comparison, due to the massive difference in warhead weight, as is the dramatic difference in tech and years developed. But my point is that the LW variant might have been discussed at the same time as the SDB's were being discussed, and the newer glide units may have been seen as more attractive for many reasons. One being that the future was stealth, and hanging a '130 outside of unstealthy precious few airframes might not have looked very prudent compared to combining stealth with an even greater standoff distance, and able to eventually be integrated into most airframes. Even the Super Tucano is getting SDB integration... there's no way an AGM-130 could do that! Now... maybe adding a rocket to the SDB could be the next-generation. Not as silly as you might think, as there is now development of an MLRS 227mm rocket type that puts a fully guided SDB glide bomb at the front. It's been test fired at least once already, quite a bit of standoff distance was acheived too, officially listed as 93 miles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb#Ground_Launched_Small_Diameter_Bomb_(GLSDB)

Nice!! Did you manage to get pics of the cockpit interior?

heck if you go back far enough, there was a game that featured US Navy fighters (hint hint), and while it was a fun arcadish experience... the graphics (if you could call them that) were... um... well, let's just say that the cannon fire resembled something from an epic space war, and the enemy jets... well they kinda looked like vague sprite artworks, and you might mistake a Mig-23 for a Tomcat because swing wings.... Now, I'm not knocking it, in those days that was good cheap entertainment, a "rock'em sock'em dogfight!" kinda game! But the aircraft could be mistaken for UFO's and realism was not present... contrasting to today where actual realistic "photorealism" is starting to become very much an acheivable goal. The funny part is, that game with the fighters, it spawned a whole bunch of sequels that featured the Israelis, the USAF, Vietnam and so on. That publisher made a bunch of money on those games!

The problem is probably not about what people "wish" they could do, but rather what they "can" do. A lot of people who look like they are doing quite well, are actually drowning in debt badly. Imagine the wife finding out you are paying $20 / month to a private corporation, not to buy, but to "donate".. she might have a LOT to say about that. I don't know why you'd think that this would be a common thing, it's not to cure kids dying of cancer, or bringing eyesight corrections to the blind living in the 3rd world... or food for Africa, medicines to the Middle East.... But again, no one is stopping you, or anyone else, donating money to ED or it's 3rd party devs. And the number of such donations would be small enough to not really justify a huge effort to set up a program or subscription

BTW, if there are enough "rich" DCS fans willing to donate money, maybe they could pool their money together, and assemble a 3rd party dev team to make map modules... like say Korean Peninsula, Vietnam circa 1968, or the Nordic countries like those that an EF2000 Typhoon would look very much at home flying/fighting WW3 !! There's so many aircraft modules in development, yet I don't hear much about new map projects now that the incredible Syria and Mariannas maps are released. The "South Atlantic" map sounds promising for recreating 1982... but... then what? I'm just saying that a fantastic future map project could have an amazing effect on DCS, and I think it might not be all that risky.

One reason to not choose subscription: In 2022, you have money, you buy many modules, maybe all the modules. In 2026, your legs get amputated. Or you suddenly face retirement, and can't work anymore. Money isn't just tight... you are drowning in bills you can't pay. Your income is low now, and no visible recovery in sight. Subscription? Your DCS days are OVER. Even with a fancy gaming computer, doesn't matter because can't pay the subscription price. Buy a module once, keep forever - well, you can't do much with little money... but the DCS modules you have had for the last 3 years will continue to work just fine for many years to come! Hey, it beats being reduced to watching "reality TV" shows... Yea, maybe you wish for the Typhoon module, and the F-8 Crusader, AH-1 Cobra and F-4 Phantom modules, and you can't afford to buy them. But you can still participate online and singleplayer with your Hornet, Viper, Hind, Tomcat, that you paid for years ago when money was growing on trees!! And maybe an online buddy can spring for a new F-8 module as a Christmas present or something! Meanwhile, rich people with the local title "El Patrone" can donate to their hearts content, for a life-size cardboard cuttout of a Tomcat spreading it's wings (hmm, might need a really large room for that)

Bradley's don't use 20mm. They use 25mm, and while a difference of 5mm diameter doesn't sound like much, with autocannons it really does make a significant difference. Then some autocannon / caliber combos have a lot more kinetic energy due to velocity and mass increase, maybe significant better projectiles... and suddenly some real damage is being done. And yet, armor upgrades as seen the last 30 years on many APC / IFV's can really diminish autocannon effectiveness. So we come sorta full circle. But now with huge additional conditions and ambiguities! There was a time, way long time ago, when I was able to remember a lot, about this system and that, what the capabilities were. But since around 2000, the pace of weapons systems development, dramatic increase in the number of variants in use and development, and in many cases we know less about their ACTUAL capabilities, despite having more access to articles and manufacturer's "sales info" than ever... sooo... maybe there IS a Bradley 20mm variant that I don't know about yet! But through it's history, the M2 Bradley and it's M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle used a single barrel 25mm chain gun known as the M242 Bushmaster chain gun. So some people get confused about "chain guns", equating them with gattling guns. This is because they sound cool and are mounted on cool aircraft, and maybe partly because both are powered by electric motors. In a Gatling, the motor spins the 6 barrels (give or take a few for some versions). In a Chain Gun, the motor moves a chain, that has pulleys and idlers, the chain attached to the breach, moving it open and closed. It's... slow to cycle, but it's reliable, and i believe is fairly easy to continue firing even if an individual round fails to ignite, it just gets ejected (that's theory, I'm sure it's more complicated in real world on a live rage, or "down range"). Since the barrel is fixed, and the action cycles slowly, and cycles without using recoil or tapping off gasses, theoretically it should be a bit more accurate at long distances... but I'm not sure it actually is more accurate in real world, gotta ask a US Army specialist about that!

A long time ago, in a decade far back in time, simulations had aircraft that vaguely resembled a particular plane or heli. It would generally look like the real thing, sorta, but while it had the correct tail section, and the right number of turbines... but usually it's curves, maybe the cockpit canopy, maybe the nose or something, would look "off". The geometry was close, but not quite "there". You'd expect that. But not here, here you get paint scraping on radios, that look like real mil radio sets that had wear on them! And we've already seen many small tastes of what the B0-105 will look like... and it looks incredible even in it's unfinished state. I have every confidence that whenever this module is complete, it's 3D representation will be the equal of the real heli, and that's a high praise!

Nice! You should share more pics of it's development if you have it! Maybe make a custom cyclic to match? Or mod an existing stick to be a great cyclic?

Eh... well here you are starting to lose me. I get that you'd want to see a bit of value for the extra money given... but really, I think that a simulation company has enough challenges and headaches to deal with, and having to listen to fans of their work tell the company how it should handle it's internal time allocation... well, no. No. If I were the owner of ED, or a manager in the company, I'd say a flat "not just no, but HELL NO!!". Or maybe I'd say "Nuts!"... as quoting General Anthony Clement "Nuts" McAuliffe's famous reply! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe I do think there's a time and a place for most things, but fans who are not in the company itself, I don't feel should dictate how a company micromanages it's time and resources. Donating $50 to a company should not give outside randos the power to overide owners, investors, managers and directors. Just donate the money and be happy that the company is growing and evolving and giving us more of what we really want! I'd kinda say the same about spending reports, too. A $50 donation shouldn't entitle someone to internal details of a private company (as opposed to a public company). And making such a report for the public would divert time and human resources away from what really matters: making the pew pew and boom an zoom! I'd suggest instead, maybe for the larger donations, you could receive a limited edition shirt, hat, wall poster or something, you know, a limited edition merch. Something to wear to the next airshow. Donate a hundred k, maybe ED arranges for a flight in a Flanker! But no, I think ED can figure out for itself how to allocate it's people and time, for bug fixing and module creation. As for future modules, there's no lack of threads with people screaming loudly that "THIS, THIS RIGHT HERE NEEDS TO BE THE NEXT MODULE BECAUSE REASONS!!!" (myself included!).

Fortunately for everyone, the team at ED (and presumably their 3rd party developers too) have decided to offer "free test drives", even without subscriptions! It's a new program, get to "try and fly" a module for a short trial period. I can't recall details, but it was a recent announcement, and quite popular! I feel that will let people sitting on the fence about a module, can soon try the module and KNOW if they like it or not, and by doing so reduce DCS forum posts by 5% as well! (jk) Ok.... on to your main suggestion... with your more complete explanation... yea, I think the clarification changes how I interpreted your first post rather dramatically. Basically you seem to be suggesting a way for people who have excess money, to help the developers out a bit more. And that you aren't suggesting a different business model. Soooo.... ask Nick Grey to set up an Only Fans account for DCS? "ooh, see the Tomcat spread it's WINGS!!!" oh, the Tiger II without it's outer skin!! Naughty naughty HINDs showing their backsides!! Ok, all jokes aside, I don't really see much problem with affluent afficionados contributing some extra Deutchmarks to the company... but rather than a subscription, just send the company a "donation"... preferably in electronic transfer funds, (and not in glass jars). Also, while I joke about OnlyFans, a growing number of content producers are getting Patreons and SubscribeStar accounts, where really dedicated fans can donate extra and get small but nice exclusives to feed their thirst for every little scrap of content they can consume.