UrgentSiesta

Well, A-10's carry Sidewinders, right? If a Fulda Gap scenario ever played out we would see extensive helo on helo combat. Just like in WW 1 when the recon planes began arming up to take each other down, you'd have helo's picking each other off as targets of opportunity at first, and then it'd go from there. If a laser guided Hellfire/Vikhr can take down a moving tank, it can just as easily take a low & slow helo trying to snipe from cover. Sidewinder & Stinger have been available on helo's for years (and Stinger is a customer-ready option for the Apache). And I bet a case of (good) beer that there's "Doctrine" for helo A2A.

Seems like the original Apache A would be the appropriate counterpart to the BS, given their dates of introduction.

I'm ABSOLUTELY willing to pay an upgrade fee. Even better, i'd be happy to pay a monthly subscription if it meant bug fixes, texture/graphics upgrades, and new features were prioritized. And while I'm at it, I can't for the life of me understand why ED doesn't change over to the Microsoft Office 365 pricing model. It just makes so much more sense for both ED, and believe it or not, for us, too. For ED, it really helps to even out the cash flow and make revenue forecasts realistic. These 2 things are key to keeping ALL the modules up to date and less bugged. It also allows them to decide to hire more developers to make more modules simultaneously, or perhaps get a module out the door in 12-18 months instead of 3-5 years. If you use the Microsoft historical example, you basically take the MSRP of the product and divide by 36, which gives you the monthly fee. E.G., this could result in you flying the Hornet for less than $2 per month... If you're willing to commit to a two year monthly subscription, maybe they lower the price to $1/mo, and/or include the PG map. To increase the user base, I'd retire the TF-51, convert the SU-25 to payware, and give the Mig-15 or Sabre as the free module. the TF-51 is too hard to fly for a noob, and the SU-25 is too complex. The Mig or Sabre are truly iconic aircraft that almost anyone would love to fly, they're easy to get into, and they're relatively simple from a development standpoint.

Did you plot your GPS flight through that arch? :megalol:

Funny thing is that combat aircraft are only real BECAUSE airmen did things their aircraft were never meant to do. No one's asking YOU to do or support or pretend that Tigers are carrier capable, and the post title made it super clear that YOU shouldn't waste your time gumming up OUR thread with a non-answer. People do crazy, unrealistic, unworthy, nonproductive stuff all the time (especially IRL): it's called "fun" - and you should try it! :D

My starter aircraft is the F-5. Love it and IMO the best intro plane for DCS, for probably very similar reasons it was such a successful export fighter IRL: simple enough to get started, capable enough to keep using over the long run. I, too, have the Hornet, and am practicing it regularly. Very easy to fly, very complex to fight. And if I was smart, I'd spend my time going deep on the Hornet instead of shallow with several different aircraft. But I'm learning a ton experimenting with several other modules and I feel I'd miss out if I didn't have the exposure. All that said, my next "serious" step will be the Mirage 2000C. Ironically, it's one of the airframes I was LEAST interested in learning at the beginning. But after looking at the other modules, I just think it's the next logical progression: IRL it came along not too long after the F-5E, and has "just enough" more advanced capabilities without any concern of being as overwhelming as fighting the Hornet. If I really had my choice, my next step would be the A-7 Corsair II. But I don't, so I'll "settle" for the M2K. :smilewink: and p.s.: I don't think the F-5 will ever gather dust in my hangar. Just too easy to fire up for a quick flight/fight.

I just got the F-5, too. Found it similar to your experience till I added curves; even added curve to the rudder/NWS to help keep it straight on the runway. Even so, I do find it to be hands-on and needing constant (small) stick and trim adjustments even for high altitude cruising. FWIW, the C-101 is the same, and a LOT less sexy! I'm finding the more I fly it, the smoother it seems, so practice is definitely helping me!

CybrSlydr: I just got the F-5, too (and i'm a total noob to DCS). I bought it because of it's simplicity, it's IRL Top Gun creds, and it's multi-role capability. So far, I really like it and even tho it's "simple", it's plenty challenging enough for now and I can see putting a LOT of time into it. And the cool thing is that because of it's simplicity, the challenge of operating it effectively will continue to keep me coming back to it. :) Kev2go: lighten up, man: you're way, Way, WAAAY too serious on the carrier landing thing. The dude isn't advocating it, he's just saying it's one more cool thing you can do with the module. y'know - in THE GAME. And FWIW, it does take effort and skill to figure out what actually puts a plane down precisely. And really, what better test of a landing than catching a wire on a heaving deck in a plane that was never designed for it? Hell, I'm super impressed that DCS & the F-5 are modeled so realistically that it's even possible - I CAN'T WAIT TO TRY IT! :D