kseremak

Agree, in my experience Cuban Ace is not to be treated seriously, unfortunately. I would like normal DCS module.

It was similar to Sea Harrier GR.1 with Sea Harrier being arguably a bit more successful having only one engine. VTOL requirement naturally cost reduced range and usefull payload, both of them were quite simple attack aircrafts. But having attack aircrafts, even with limited range and payload, was important advantage for the fleet. Yak-38 utilised unique automatic ejection system which saved the lifes of many pilots during VTOL operations accidents. Full-fledged aircraft carrier counterparts like A-4 Skyhawk or A-7E Corsair were obviously a bit less compromised having bigger range and payload, not being forced to use additional engines or movable nozzles and some other design compromises, but they required an aircraft carrier. Both Sea Harrier and Yak-38 had their charm being the only two operational VTOL aircrafts of the XX centaury and VTOL operations add additional attractiveness.

Yak-38 is *a bit* older than MiG-29. Yak-38 entered service in Soviet Navy in mid '70s and it has been phased out together with fall of the USSR around 1990. It was a counterpart of British cold war Sea Harrier GR.1 (Ground/Reconnisance) with quite comparable capabilities. I agree it would be nice as full fidelity aircraft, it would be challenging to fly, especially during VTOL operations, it would require manual aiming most of it's weapon, interesting USSR Kiev Class aircraft cruiser operations, it was quite simple so it wouldn't take long to model it.

Such detailed map, so different scenecry than everything we have in DCS so far, and all of that for free. Great job ED team.

First look at the number of exclamation marks in your title. I'm not sure if this is some kind of provocation or you are being serious. Competitiveness against what? Current Su-27S or MiG-29A are very competitive on '80s servers - their real life timeline. Like Mirage 2000 or F-14A. No '40s Spitfire IX nor '70s MiG-21bis or '80s Su-27S is going to be /competitive/ in decades different timeline. On a Cold War servers MiG-29A and Su-27S are at the top of food chain. ED plans to make full fidelity MiG-29A. I also feel that choosing the '2000s version of the F/A-18 and F-16, while practically all the rest of the simulator consisted of equipment and technology from the '80s and Desert Storm 1991, was not the best choice. If ED would make Desert Storm F/A-18 and F-16 there will be no /balance, competitiveness, LACK OF REDFOR COUNTERPARTS/ issues at all. There would be one big coherent enviroment, balanced, realistic and filled with content and two sides flayable realistic aircrafts. MiG-29K begin active service in Russian Navy about 2014 exactly when F/A-18C has beeing already practically phased out from US Navy. Either way, adding some absolutely bogus, wild ass guess aircraft, having close to nothing in common with the real life jet, like MiG-29K (which is a decade newer even than DCS F/A-18) would be the worst possible option for the DCS as a project. My 2c, respectfully.

If some day ED would withdraw from the buisness there would be a huge gap, they are one and only. There is nothing similar in quality on the market. Tkank you whole ED team.

Yak-38 in DCS would be nice. It was a simple yet skill requiring CAS VTOL from '70s, operating only at close proximity to it's own fleet, under M-11, S-300F surface to air missiles umbrella. To be fair it was a counterpart of British Sea Harrier GR.1 (Ground/Reconnissance) from '70s. Sea Harrier FRS (Fighter/Reconnissance/Strike) or F-4, F-8, F-14, A-5, A-6, A-7, F-18 didn't have their counterparts in Soviet Union. Soviets ran out of time to deploy operational Aircraft Carrier with carrier air wing. If someone remember an old Harpoon serie Soviet Fleet vs US Navy was interesting but non-symmetrical combat doctrine with completely different non-symmetrical objectives. My opinion as well. Obviously some aircrafts were still better at something and maybe worse at something else, but it's feirly balanced in a natural timeline way.

Su-17 in DCS would be fantastic. Counterpart for US Cold War strike A-6E and A-7E. Somewhere in between the two, not carrier capable but supersonic, with Soviet approach.

This balance issues are exaggerated, people still kick ass in MiG-21bis. Yes F-16C block 50 from 2007 vs '80s aircrafts is obviously a big mismatch and it's not balanced, but all '80s aircrafts we have F-14A/B, F-15C, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Mirage 2000, Mi-24, Mi-8, Huey, Gazelle are quite well balanced. This are contemporary fighters from NATO and the Soviet Union bloc, some differences in approach and doctrines but still they are naturally balanced by being in active service at the same time. Other like attack Viggen, MiG-21bis, L-39, C-101, future Mirage.F1, MiG-23MLA, A-6, A-7 and others are going to fit quite well being only at some disadvantage. Which, before Fox3 BVR, can be mitigated quite easily by proper tactics. Nitpicking some small differences in capabilities doesn't do any good if the aircraft is proper timeline variant. Is FW-190A-8 at some disadvantage against Spitfire IX in maneuver fight? Yes, so what? I.e. '80s F-16 didn't use medium range missiles for air combat, only sidewinders and gun? Yes, but Block 30 had better performance, turn rate, acceleration, climb, energy retention than modern Block 50 and F-15A was far more maneuverable and had far longer time on afterburner with similar T/W. I don't see a problem, if this is similat timeline model you can easily overcome some weak points and use some stron points, or proper tactics. There are two types of balance: Fake balance - changing some real life capabilities of some aircraft to better fit the oposition. Luckly ED is clear they are NOT going to do that. Natural balance - it's simply chosing proper timeline version of the aircraft. F-16C block 50 isn't balanced against all '80s aircrafts, but any '80s F-16 from block 1 to 30 is balanced with them in natural way.

This. I don't understand why ED decided to make this few modules as more modern then basically all of DCS content. This is also the reason they are constantly struggle to model or ommit some classified stuff in this few '2000s modules. I would like DCS to have 1991 Desert Storm technology but with two sides. NVM i hope they will add 1991 F-16 and F/A-18 in the future to fit the rest of the DCS World. I think i'm going to have even more fun doing close combat in this pure versions against Soviet Union opponents. For me full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 and Su-27S for life.

I'm waiting for this system as well. One of the most impressive SAM systems of the XX centaury. Maybe they are integrating it with the new SAM overhaul or IADN module? ED know what they are doing, i'm sure they would like to release it to the public if it would be ready, they have many tasks at once to work on.

I would prefer Desert Storm AH-64A as well, with it's limitations and semi-manual fire control, but i'll take any Apache ED will make, especially now seeing how satisfying Mi-24 is to fly. DCS shouldn't be artificially balanced even if AH-64D would turn out be completely overwhelming decimating everything around from relatively save distance. The only form of realistic balance should be simply by chosing proper timeframe variants like they have fought each other IRL.

Call me strange but A model restrictions sounds like a ton of fun to operate as well in a computer game. Even if as real pilot i would appreciate i don't have to risk my life when flying D model firing from afar by radar, fire-and-forget Hellfires and having perfect GPS position all the time. I agree with you, but overall I don't like this /not to touch/ atmosphere around Apache FCR. Soon it will be the most important Apache system in use in DCS. If ED have volountairly chosen to make such modern variant i expect they can make it in fairly realistic way with some documentation. Nobody forced ED to chose AH-64D. If i remember well many people here were speculating the /highly anticipated module/ is Apache but almost everyone was expecting AH-64A, stating Longbow is impossible and may be too calssified. Going back a few months in memory AH-64D announcment was quite a surprise for most people. I have faith in ED team, i'm believe they know what they are doing, even more so after fantastic Mi-24 release, i love every second with this helicopter. Long live ED!

Yes, F-14A used simple datalink since early '70s, it was designated Link 4A and Link4C and it is present in our F-14. I don't want to see any unrealistic MiG-29 prototype (or any other aircraft) in DCS, without proper documentation and without SMEs. I can download MiG-xxx MOD and it would be similarly (un)realistic. There are 15-20 or more eagerly awaited declassified aircrafts with documentation waiting to be modeled in DCS, digging to model some historically unrelevant and unrealisticly modeled prototype would be a waste of time and resources. I would love classic Soviet and Warsaw Pact MiG-29 9.12 because it's historically relevant, declassified and it is more attractive to operate.

I don't fly on '2000s USAF vs USNavy servers, mostly Cold War or WW2 because they are way more authentic and engaging with realistic opponents for the NATO and Warsaw Pact/Soviets. But if we are talking about any realism at all both '80s MiG-29 9.12 and 9.13 (with some prototype 100% classified R-77 not even accepted by the Russian Air Force untill 2016) would be equally helpless against '2000s F-16 and F-18. Month after month i can see more and more people on Cold War servers with Mirages, Tomcats, Viggens, MiG-21s, F-5Es, FC3 '80s F-15s, Su-27s, MiG-29s, Su-25As, A-10As doing things manually, dogfighting, going close to the enemy in the air or on the ground, now it's Mi-24, soon Mirage F.1, then all the rest other folks are mentioning. MiG-29 9.12 will fit ideally here, both capability wise and historical realism wise. In this enviroment skillfully used MiG-29 9.12 is going to be one of the most capable fighters around. I can bet before MiG-29 9.12 will be even released (2 years from now?) Cold War servers will be at least as popular as 2000s USAF vs USNavy soup.

I prefer realistic 9.12 as well. 9.13 had been used by the Soviet Union only and didn't see any combat when 9.12 had been used by the half of the world and fought in Iraq-Iran war, operation Desert Storm, Ethiopian-Erithrean war, operation Allied Force. '80s MiG-29 9.12 is going to have a lot more historical realistic opponents from it's Cold War era like all mentioned here and overall realistic enviroment, assets, compared to just two semi-modern F-16 and Hornet from mid '2000s

Looks like Apache is going to have even bigger obstruction with CMWS

I love how the campaing is in '80s when the Soviet Union is still a thing and the overall '80s atmosphere.

To be honest DCS F-14 is still cheaper than just F-14 1:48 plastic model, so i would say it's very cheap in relation to what it offeres.

This would add another layer to the sim, but they would need to be really rare to make it realistic on some arbitrary level selected by the developer, not chosen manually everytime by the mission creator. To make it a nice additional thing to consider, not a hindrance.

Ka-29 would be very nice.

How can man not believe the stereotypes....

If it would be non-documented questionable realism WAGuess (wild ass guess) Su-30 i would skip this one as well. Decreasing realism standard is not my cup of tea nor the direction i would like DCS to go. If they would have proper documentation on par with other DCS modules count me in. I simply don't believe Su-30MKK will be disclosed being a backbone of today's Chinese military. Especially in current situation. By the way Su-30MKK is the poorest performer among Su-27 family, with worse acceleration, slower turn rate and climb rate, smaller speed, lower ceiling, even shorter range than legacy Soviet Su-27S from '80s. Only avionics would be way better - and avionics would be, as i understand what DEKA has, the least realistic part...

For me even some lower quality pilot models like FC3 Su-27 are lot better than empty cockpit. Especially in VR.

It wasn't for you being salty, it was for the folks suggesting modern aircraft are not easier than older ones. Both are nice bu in a different way. To learn how to fight with modern aircraft yoy need a few days. To learn how to fight with WW2 or cold war jet, months.