ngreenaway

Sweet jeebus, that's awesome news. I don't even know anything about this Helo and I'm excited! With this, oh58, bs3, and mi24 all in the works good times ahead for us rotorheadd!

Nope. You need to read the original post, here is what they said: " Unfortunately, most members of our team now suffer from Big-MFCD PTSD, internally, we decide not to make a class cockpit module next; externally, we want to choose an aircraft with unique design; regarding type, fighter would become lowest priority. "

i dont know, while i spend far more time playing DCS, ive found IL-2 is a lot more fun. DCS is more satisfying in terms of mastering a skill. the IL2 planes are FC3 level low-fi and i find it a more fitting comparison in that there is some degree of historic fidelity. ace combat series (i remember playing it on the original playstation) makes no attempts at realism beyond the appearance of the aircraft...much like the Area88 comics from the 80s? 90s?

Problem is, tu-16 is a strategic bomber....doesn't work so well for our maps which are more suited for tactical bombers. Anyway, I imagine a typical strategic bomber mission being as excited as a typical airliner in xplane as far as gameplay goes (ie just slightly more engaging than watching paint dry) . Interesting airplanes don't necessarily make good sims. As always, that's my opinion- I understand others likely feel different. Case in point: there's a truck driving simulator, with Washington state DLC. The steam page shows gameplay of driving a truck south on I-5 out of Seattle, my exact commute. My reaction was: great, that's just what I need, after sitting in rush hour traffic I can come home, fire up the computer, and reenact that same commute again! Fun!, As awful as it sounds to me, it's sold more than a few copies

I have a feeling they will. At this point, they've exhausted most of the low-hanging fruit..ie most recognizable modern aircraft that have the broadest appeal/recognition. Moving forward means moving into more niche, character-rich older aircraft

Dunno, if I post 2 f-4's, does that count as an f-8?

F-8 scene from thirteen days https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DoSNLeC-eMUQ&ved=2ahUKEwjZ0MjA3ZrnAhVFvJ4KHUNABHoQwqsBMAB6BAgHEAQ&usg=AOvVaw3eqk4aVgGDdcd7uBvKffwY

I only fly vr, so the keyboard is only used for bindings I can find by touch. I use the mouse for the rare stuff that I haven't bound, but that's not very common. Additionally, using a common binding system across all aircraft for universal tho controls (gear,flaps, speed brake, et cetera) makes it easy to jump from plane to plane with plenty of open bindings still available that's unique to each airframe- but I don't notice that much of a difference going from, say a mig29 or the -25T to say, a viggen or m2k (in terms of control, not flight experience obviously) Fwiw, I've been spending most of my time in the mi8, gazelle, and ka50 lately I'd love to put the tomcat to use, but at the moment it's a beautiful slideshow. With as much as I'd like to see more non-naval air in DCS, I really really want to see the f8, especially if I could do this: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-true-story-behind-the-famous-sequence-of-thirteen-days-movie-featuring-the-rf-8-crusader-low-level-high-speed-run-over-cuba-during-the-missile-crisis

I think dcs has enough flanker variants as it is, but that's just me... A Chinese helo would be be pretty interesting, especially a carrier-borne one

This, on the PG map, does it for me

I would too, but I'd like to see more non-clicky ones as well for a few reasons: like I mentioned before, for newer players. Why ,in the future, would they buy an ossified and outdated module like fc3? Second, I rarely ever actually click anything, having mapped the most critical controls to stick/hotas/mfds Third: with as many planes as we'd like to see released, and as many hugs as we want seen fixed on past modules, and with the limited number of people actually coding/developing the modules, perhaps the occasional medium-fidelity module would be a realistic compromise

I see no reason to exclude FC3, and while "full clicky" is a must-have for some, there is certainly an important case to be made for an "abbreviated model"- dcs has a pretty brutal learning curve, and it's certainly something to take pride in learning how to operate these aircraft, but there does need to be an onramp of sorts to bridge the gap between those just getting started and the hardcore simmers. Il-2 isn't clicky at all, and although I spend more time flying dcs, I've had far more fun with the other sim. Bringing the casual players on is important, if for no reason than the potential development dollars they bring with them.

I'd love an H-5 . A tactical bomber would be different, and more useful than some of the strategic bombers people have been clamoring for elsewhere on this forum. H-5 is pretty flexible too, in it's usage: it can be used as a stand-in for the il-28, used by Afghanistan& Pakistan ( useful for future Afghan map), Russia (Caucasus map) ,Egypt, Iraq,& Syria (upcoming Syria map) If we ever see a Vietnam or Korea map, h-5 or il-28 has seen use there as well

A-10A : ))laughs in GAU-8 ((

The grey dash with English labels works fine for me, but I'm on stable & not using something like jgsme. Now if only I could get the viggen English cockpit mod to work..

that's very much a subjective point of view. perhaps there's people out there who like to go low&slow and do CAS or COIN operations. some people like unusual or (dare i say it) ugly ducklings. i may be taking a wild guess, but it would stand to reason that less-complicated aircraft would lead to a somewhat truncated development cycle- it would seem with fewer systems to model, it could possibly be rolled out quicker. of course, there's nothing wrong with saying the aircraft isn't for you- that answer is as valid as any and this wasn't a poll of "only yesses apply" , but the assessment that the aircraft is "totally unnecessary" is perhaps a bit off-base. there is applicability for it in the coming map (and a map without appropriate planes is as bad as planes without an appropriate map- im looking at you f-86, mig-15 & -19) and just because its not your cup of tea doesn't mean there's no room for it in someone else's virtual hangar personally , id like to see it, especially in light of the new map.

Yes and no. That patriot site would be used as-is in wartime as well. They would not relocate simply because hostilities break out. While the system is mobile-ish, jumping to another site would be a result of a change in protected assets the unit would have responsibility over, it wouldn't be moving simply to keep the guys with the bombs guessing Even "mobile" patriot sites look remarkably similar. Ours is iraq had a berm surrounding the site, and the infrastructure is still set up in the same way, albeit a bit more austere.

I was wondering the same thing, having not heard if aviodev has any plans for a future module, i saw the f1 on the website, but pretty much silence ever since. If not the f1, are there any other projects coming down the pipeline?

I find the website easier to read, but i tend to come here for my news and go to the website only to view screenshots Thats my dos centavos

If only patriot would work with some semblance to reality, wed have a match :) ( launchers aren't supposed to be behind the radar, the radar isn't supposed to slew to face a target prior to firing, et cetera)

Youre thinking of the norther persian gulf, which would be an excellent map with plenty of real world conflicts that could be modelled with our current plane set. The pg map would more accurately be called "straits of hormuz" map, an immensely vital strategic location and a hotspot worthy of plenty of "what if " scenarios, but nowhere near as useful as the northern persian gulf. If thats to be modelled, it would have to be on its own map

im not saying such things couldnt be done, but youll find a wider audience (and ROI) for recreating areas/eras more suited for the aircraft available. doing a good map of a historical conflict area is essentially a license to print money sure, straits of hormuz is great for "what if" scenarios, but a northern persian gulf map- at least the intersection of sauidi arabia, kuwait, iraq&iran would be far more useful in both historic& make-believe scenarios, as well as provide some use for combined arms. flying classic aircraft over modern cities is about as immersive as modern jets on the Normandy map. sure, it can be done, but its not as interesting or you can go all in on the make believe, declare batumi to be the capital of the people's republic of carjackistan , fly spitfires out of there to wreak havoc on the surrounding area- but it wouldnt be so easy getting others as interested as, say, flying hueys to drop off troops throughout vietnam, or recreating the highway of death in an a-10 in kuwait, iran/iraq tanker war...

with angola, id finally have a use for cuban skins! since a cuban map is unlikely, at least. honestly, id prefer korea or vietnam- we have iconic aircraft from the era(and more on the way, and even more on our never-ending collective wishlist), but no real appropriate setting to fly them in its kinda pointless flying an f-86 in modern caucasus region, mig-15 around dubai

im curious what the results of this poll would be today in light of falklands map coming? seems this poll was run quite awhile ago. looks like an interesting/unusual plane that could be fun to fly, even if it did have a limited number of operators. i mean, if the CE2 can find a niche in DCS, i dont see why this couldnt id vote yes, if the poll was still open. which its not. so i wont.