Tonker

Very true. I just wonder how reasonable the community is to equate desire to reality. Who but HB know :) Oh, absolutely none! It's just been picked as the 'best fit' (I'm excluding the AI A-6) to the, admittedly very scanty, information we have. That's why I orginally posted - the Tonka has been picked ahead of all others on this basis, by quite a margin according to the poll. But I wonder what we might have missed. If you flip it the other way round, would we ever have picked up on that HB were making a Viggen? We have no evidence for them making anything just yet, I wonder what the other 'best fit' options are apart from the Tornado and F-111 ...and, frankly, what good is a long-range strike aircraft on 500km maps? All agreed! What do you take to be HB's self-developed technologies? Interesting point I'd not considered, thank you. This! This is where I'd love to see DCS heading. I can see multirole being great for an individual - lots of bang for buck - but it's easy to be just alright at lots of things. Dedicated roles for aircraft do limit scope for varied tasking, but also encourage expertise to be developed and a role for everyone (and every aircraft) in online and the upcoming dynamic campaign, giving a much better sense of being a small part of a large whole. And with aircraft developed to HB's standard, every time you light the fires will be an interesting and varied experience :) Cheers all

This doesn't follow. Yes, HB are making an AI A-6; yes they would like to make a full module; no, the next module is not an A-6. We have no evidence of them making a full module. Nor a statement of intent. Just a statement of desire. I'm no programmer or developer, but my understanding is that the gap between AI and full module is so big as to make limited impact. It certainly does no harm, saves research time etc, but the work involved in making a full module is the work involved in making a full module. Particularly given HB's fantastic attention to detail. Somebody please correct me if I err, every day's a school day, but I simply don't understand the 'AI A-6 therefore flyable A-6' rhetoric. Am I misinformed? Forgive me for being blunt, but which reasons? I feel I've missed a memo... All the characteristics? Does it? As far as I'm aware, all HB have said is 'it will be a complex jet utilising some already-developed technologies'. Yes, they've said they would like to develop the A-6. I would like them to as well. I would like a pay rise. It may happen, it may not. But what I will get next is more certain. What HB are doing next is, I feel, l more certain and this topic may be more interesting if we pursued that with more intent. "...a complex jet utilising some already-developed technologies": A-6 ticks some boxes - twin seat. Also a nice fit wth the carrier, and arguably complements the F-14. F-111 ticks some more boxes - twin seat + swing-wing Tornado ticks still more boxes - twin seat + swing-wing + reverse thrust + terrain-mapping radar The 'AI = full module' thing is not necessarily true and so I think it's the Tornado next, as do many others. But are we right? What are we missing? What have HB spotted that we haven't? What era? What nation? There are probably other 'Western' (very loosely) aircraft that fit the bill - what are they? There are definitely Soviet (equally loosely) aircraft that do - what are those? Here's hoping for some education :) Tonk'er :pilotfly:

Genuinely surprised that the next Heatblur module is, by popular belief, going to be the A-6. Obviously the voting is irrational, willfully selctive in acccepting evidence, and only tangentially related to the question actually asked - but even so I wasn't expecting so much demand for yet another US and/or strike aircraft. Isn't there enough capabality for this already? Yes it's fun and it's cool, but it's already catered for. There are huge areas that are not, and I'd love to see these investigated in DCS and Heatblur have the chops to make the unusual interesting rather than irritating. Given that DCS should just come clean about really being a c.1980-1990 Cold War simulator and drop all other pretences, there are some glaring ommisions. I know that the narrative is America vs. Russia, but is it really acceptable for DCS to continue to cater only to these two nations? Thank you Heatblur for the Viggen, congrats on the F-14 (by all account a remarkable achievement), and please please let your next module be more closely related to your first rather than second release... What do I think will be next? The Tornado fulfils a much longer and more compelling list of criteria than the A-6, and I'd be happy to see it next. I'm sure the A-6 won't be far behind, because it is great, would be a good addition to DCS, has (evidently) a lot of support etc etc etc. What would I like to see next? Anything that wasn't used in Vietnam but would've been used in the Fulda Gap. There is so much to choose from, and it's all quirky and interesting and fun - like the Viggen and the F14 - and Heatblur are the only developers who might pull it off :) Anyway...

Isn't this just the most Heatblur thing you've seen? :) There's heaps of good stuff, but check out the input of waypoints via electronic cursor, c. 6'30', programming the flight information cassette, and feeding it into the aircraft at c.11'54'' Yes please... :)