Richard Dastardly

Many, and it's not hard to investigate - as an example Assetto Corsa, which also doesn't have a linux client. The hard part is usually dealing with graphics & audio, dedicated servers are generally much simpler. 20 servers? have you even looked at the browse list? and that's just the public ones.

? I'm kinda assuming it's AI like the Ju88 there's screenshots of, though.

Whether a desktop version is worth it is debatable, but at least a headless server... no sound or graphics subsystems to worry about at that point. There is a version of Wine which will run DCS. I'm not sure if it performs any better or worse than using qemu and a W10 VM with passthrough, which is only about 5% loss.

Go read up about the war in the Med, it's got everything you'd want, on both sides - and it's nice & compact too.

I'm British & interested in aviation ( and a RAF brat ), and even I struggle to remember what a Valiant looks like. Flyable Vulcan one day & a Victor AI tanker, I'd take those. Fully multicrew Nimrod, now that'd be a thing :)

"No, but well, maybe, but no, but well, maybe. No, probably" - https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3983067&postcount=1360 from the FighterPilot podcast interview, iirc. An answer worthy of a politician :P Maybe they could work out a properly modular production & marketing pipeline & do every Flanker variant they can get data for... Where's the data for the Mi-24 coming from, anyway.

The F-5 has a hook too, not the easiest thing to land on a carrier thanks to the hook being a bit weird, but doable without busting the gear. I'd think the 16's will be just as full of magic...

ED providing dynamic campaign servers would be a service, you'd expect to subscribe to that - you're not buying anything, you're paying for access and I expect everyone's fine with that, although probably not so fine if it's technically possible to run them yourselves and you're not allowed to. I suspect the temptation after that would be to run *all* MP servers like iRacing does ( and charge subs ), and I'm not onboard with that :p

It's not popular because it can't happen, not because people don't want it. Same as Gripen, Rafale, etc - classified systems ( BAES involvement seems to put a lid on things too ). The 104? good lord, you masochist :) I'd take a F-111 if they can get the kinks out of AI multicrew ( that's necessary for pretty much every strike aircraft of the era too ).

Cat 1/2/4 both have helpful deck markings you can align the pilot on - next time you hook up look 90 deg left/right & you'll see a line on some marking pointing at you. There is something useful for Cat 3 too but I can't remember what it is, I just remember where the shuttle is when I'm taxiiing. It's the same for Hornet & Tomcat alike. My other Hornet tip would be elevator trim set to 18, but that's not carrier specific...

There needs to be a balance - you did buy an EA product, on the other hand you paid up-front for a finished product too, so you should be able to critique it and it's development process if it's going astray. A fine line between critique and whining/remote management though.

People are after an adversary for the Mig-21 that's a little more capable than the F-5 - and the F-4 was used for strike & recon missions ( and the E has a gun ). You don't need a SE asia map to run a cold war scenario, we don't need to model Vietnam, there were plenty of other flashpoints to what-if. The Phantom also served *far* beyond Vietnam. Personally I'd rather something else because I've never heared anyone say "The F-4 was a joy to fly", but it was on the list. Much as I like the A-4 there are some desperate limitations you can't get round without being a partner, but the Skyhawk is at least on Razbam's intentions list ( albeit an 80s Argentine one ). You can't do F-35, Rafale, Typhoon, Raptor - you just won't get any data on them. We can't even do a Sea Harrier II which is out of service ( and someone mentioned a big nope on Tornado the other day, but I've no corroboration on that ) presumably because of forward development into modern systems. What's an A-8? the F-8 is WIP already, I thought I saw something about an A-7 somewhere... Mosquito is not all that far off release already.

Heh, well, the carrier would have been the second ship sunk by a nuclear sub, but yeah - what-ifs are what we've been dealing with all along; Georgia is a what-if after all. That was an interesting conflict not just because of the naval aspect, but it managed to not be a cold-war proxy fight. A nastier what-if would have been if Yugoslavia broke up a decade earlier, perhaps. I'm struggling a bit to find a scenario that'd involve early 4th gen Russian aircraft without a full-on cold-war-turned-hot, though.

Yep - although I'd take it all the way to Gulf War 1, I think. That was the first war PGM really played a big part, but even then most of the ordinance wasn't guided - so it's an interesting crossover point. Still using INS too, and all the other stuff we're used to having well developed was in it's infancy.

The thing is the transit time in an aircraft is usually short enough that it's not a great part of your gameplay. In a ship, even a MTB or an E-boat ( or a destroyer, some of them aren't much slower ) the transit time to the combat area would be a huge percentage. Now let's talk about U-boats... If you could jump into vehicles already in place, then yep - there's a number of issues about just hopping around then though, and also just hopping in & out of vehicles does tend to break immersion. Cross-channel raids in fast coastal vessels, that'd be a fun game - a bit surprised there haven't been more games involving small raiding craft.

In that interview/news/whatever it was the Cobra was also put on the "like to do" list - I don't think there's anything actually "guaranteed" from ED modern-stream ( the WW2 stuff is from a seperate team ) past the Hind if we're taking that as the official line.

I believe Wags said no 4th gen or newer Russian aircraft, rather than none at all.

The skillset ( and thus involvement ) for CFS is a little broader than commanding a tank, though - I seem to remember successful land / sea sims having a fair bit of strategic involvement, much beyond planning a flight ( and Combined Arms obviously set out along those lines ). Sub sims are about as close as we get to flying stealth strike aircraft, I'm not sure how much a sub sim would gain from being part of a combined sim family though - not least because of the huge amount of time you'd spend doing next to nothing if your environment isn't tailored for you.

They've obviously decided the cost of a new A-10 cockpit will be made up for in some way ( maybe they're gambling on VR takeup, I don't know ). There *is* value in updating old products if they're still on sale - primarily so old products don't look dated & unattractive to more recent owners of newer ones. Unless you subscribe to individual modules seperately ( ouch ) there's no drive whatsoever to do this in a subscription model, as long as there's a new shiny aircraft around. Is your model that of renting seat time in aircraft modules individually? even then there's only so much time users have to give, and if they don't like an old module they'll just get in a new one instead.

Razbam are already doing it.

Ignoring the things we know are already in progress, from that list I'd have to take the F-4E. I clicked "other" though, I have a list of wants in my sig ( Lynx, Bucc, Su-22, Hunter, Tempest/Sea Fury, maybe even a Vampire/Venom ) but yes I'd love a Tornado GR1 or equivalent early mark as well. What I don't want is yet another overcomplicated module that takes a decade to finish & makes everything else redundant.

It was *the* gunship for a while ( in Vietnam ), untill the AH-1 arrived as a direct result of cutting out the bits of the Huey ( albeit the short one ) that weren't needed for the role. I don't think they used it for attacking armour though, just as support for infantry operations - there was plenty of fixed wing support on call for harder targets anyway. There's something very underpowered about splash/blast damage in DCS, I feel. Not just Huey rockets, but bombs & some missiles which should do far more like the HARM.

Can we stop comparing it with other in-game planes, btw? how do you know anything else in-game has an accurate FM to compare to? just stick to comparing it with what we know of the real thing.

No JP233 for the Tornado either, which is a parrticularily nasty runway denial weapon. You can improvise some pretty destructive anti runway bombs out of some of our other munitions though.

If you look at those screenshots & compare the front view of the Spit with the 109 & Mustang it's instantly visibly different - so is the Anton, now I look at it.