[ATTN ALL DEVS] F-105D, F & G "THUD" THUNDERCHIEF ENGINEERING & PERFORMANCE DATA DUMP (upd. 2025MAY26)

[Fredders]

On 7/18/2023 at 6:37 PM, SOLIDKREATE said:

And it’s here!

Wish we had PDFs of this, what a find!

[SOLIDKREATE]

4 hours ago, Fredders said:

Wish we had PDFs of this, what a find!

 

I paid money for this and will not upload it. I have more stuff that is not included in my download. What I have compiled was free and publicly available. I am about to order two more books that are $400 and $800 soon. I dont care about the free stuff. I am sure someone here is trying to sell all of that right now (to the illinformed), LOL.

Edited Monday at 06:20 AM by SOLIDKREATE

[Blaze1]

13 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

 

I paid money for this and will not upload it. I have more stuff that is not included in my download. What I have compiled was free and publicly available. I am about to order two more books that are $400 and $800 soon. I dont care about the free stuff. I am sure someone here is trying to sell all of that right now (to the illinformed), LOL.

$800!!!  For what!

Edited Monday at 04:25 PM by Blaze1

[Blaze1]

On 5/3/2025 at 7:31 PM, TacticalOni said:

I have some photos of the back seat of the F-105G 63-8336 at the American Heritage Museum (Formerly of the Flying Heritage Collection) 
The intent was to figure out how to maybe wedge the AGM-78B panel into the back of the HB F-4E, as a possibility of how the IDF might have allowed for the AGM-78 to be fitted to a Kurnass before they got Weasel F-4s sent to them. 

Here's a link to the album on imgur (to keep the photos from clogging this thread up needlessly) 
 I will add my notes here though because they will be mildly interesting to the reader. 
Picture 1:
closeup of the AGM-78 button control panel. "ACQ" (top left) and "HEAD" (upper mid right) appear to be amber lights. The remainder appear to be backlit in green, or have green shades.
Also this is a good shot of the thumbwheel controls that let you manually input PRF and Freq, there's a better shot further down. 
Picture 2: 
This is the side wall on the EWO's right hand side. If Occam's Razor is true, then this would show the EWO what the AGM-78's seeker head is pointing at, and he can correlate this via the RWR to the intended threat.
Picture 3:
Just an interesting shot of a blanked off gauge, with hand-drawn notes by a former EWO. 
Picture 4:
A lot of panels and instruments have been pulled from the jet, judging by what's known to be missing, probably related to the AN/ALR-31 ECM system. This was either stripped to be fit into some other aircraft that was still using the system, or pulled so that curious museum personnel (like myself) couldn't share something secret.
Picture 5: 
The ECM control switch, like found on the F-4E.
Picture 6:
The missing AN/ALR-31 ECM panel, and more of the AGM-78 control panel, including the target alt knob. 
Picture 7:
 A fuller picture of the AGM-78 panel including a manual target azimuth knob. Probably for manual guidance override, this has a soft center that fixes it at the 0 position and requires some force to get out out of that position.
Picture 8:
The elusive double shrike pylon (From Thunderchief by Dennis Jenkins, ISBN 978-1-58007-259-5)
Picture 9 and 10:
From Thunderchief by Dennis Jenkins, a pair of pictures of the EWO's panel, including the missing ALR-31 panel and the center indicator panel which was so blanked off in the museum jet that I didn't even bother getting a picture of it. I think the only thing left was the Band switch. 

Some excellent pictures there TacticalOni.  Thank you.

Posted so information on discord a while back regarding the function of some of those buttons.  I'll copy and paste them here in a moment.

[Blaze1]

Okay, here it is:-

1) ACQ/O'RIDE: The 1st of the 12 buttons 'ACQ', lights up to show that the missile has acquired a target.  The 'O'RIDE' button/indicator with the light off, means that it is necessary for the missile to have the target acquired before launch.  When illuminated it allows the missile to be launched without target acquisition.

2) PRF/DLT: 'PRF' controls the PRF circuit logic in the missiles computer.  With the 'DLT' indicator unlit, the missile will only target signals programmed by the thumb wheels on the control panel or via the APR-35.  With 'DLT' lit, any signal/system within the missile's total PRF range, will be accepted.

3) MAN TGT/ON: This button allows target signal information to be input to the missile via the Missile Control Module using the control panel thumb wheels or the APR-35.  With the 'ON' light off, signal information is sent to the missile/MCM from the APR-35 exclusively.  When 'ON' is illuminated, signal parameters are manually entered/controlled via the FREQ and PRF thumbwheels.

4) ATTEN ON: This button controls the sensitivity of the missiles seeker.  'ON' unlit, means maximum sensitivity is provided.  'ON' illuminated, means a selected drop in sensitivity has been commanded.

5) AFC/DLT: This button controls the missile seeker's oscillator.  When lit, the 'DLT' indicator shows that the missile's oscillator stays fixed at that of the acquired target.  'DLT' unlit, allows the missile's oscillator to track/tune to variations in target frequency.

6) TRK DLT/HEAD: Unlit, 'TRK DLT' allows the missile seeker head to track a target within ±35 degrees.  Outside of ±35 degrees, a seeker head limit will occur.  With 'TRK DLT' illuminated, the seeker head is placed 20 degrees downwards and the target azimuth knob can be used to position the seeker ±25 degrees in azimuth.  If an angle greater than ±25 degrees is selected, the missile seeker will remain at -20 degrees in elevation, but is positioned at 0 degrees in azimuth.
HEAD: When the seeker head is in a rate mode and the seeker position angle is greater than ±35 degrees, power is removed from the seeker's motor and the 'HEAD' light is illuminated.  Programming a turn via the TGT AZ knob, pressing 'TRK DLT' or pressing the 'REJ' (Number 11) buttons, will stop the head limit and enable position mode.

7) <GATE/WIDE: This button is used to select the FoV used by the missile after it's launched.  With '<GATE' extinguished, the missile seeker FoV is set at the value selected via the 'SECT' button (Number 8), until after the missile is launched, where it's FoV increases to wide if it was previously narrow.  After the boost phase, when a signal is acquired, the FoV will collapse to narrow, but open up again to wide if there is a loss of signal.

8) SECT/NAR: This button is used to control the missiles FoV.  'NAR' unlit, means the seeker's FoV is set to wide before launch, with the '<GATE' button (Number 7) setting the desired post-launch seeker characteristics.  When 'NAR' is lit, (operative only with the '<GATE/WIDE' button's 'WIDE' light out) the seeker's FoV is confined to 'narrow', until launch where it opens to 'wide'.

9) CORR: The 'CORR' button remains constantly lit.  If the button is momentarily pressed on, it causes all signals with the exception of that acquired by the AGM-78 seeker to be suppressed, by being dimmed on the APR-35 panoramic display, the attack scope and the APR-36 warning scope, also the APR-35 will display the seeker's PRF.  Should the target information sent to the missile and the signal acquired by the target differ, then the attack scope will dim or be totally blanked.

10) GUIDE/PROP: This button is used to decide the guidance mode the missile will use, after its boost phase.  With 'PROP' unlit, the missile will commence midcourse guidance after boost.  With 'PROP' lit, the missile will fly a direct pursuit course to the target.  If a turn command had been programmed into the missile (via the TGT AZ knob) prior to launch, then the midcourse guidance phase will be initiated after boost, as in the 'PROP' unlit case.

11) REJ: This button is always lit and is used to clear the system and returns the missiles seeker head to the position mode.

12) MSL PWR/ON: This button is used to control power to the missile.  With the 'ON' light unlit, heater power to the missile is provided, but power to its onboard systems including the seeker head is removed.  With 'ON' lit, heater power to the missile is removed, but power to the seeker head and onboard systems is supplied.

The 'FREQ' and 'PRF' controls essentially speaker for themselves and enable the missile to be manually tuned to a chosen frequency and PRF.

'TGT RNG' indicates target range (I don't believe this function was very accurate at all).

The 'TGT AZ' knob programs a turn into the AGM-78, up to almost 180 degrees left or right and I believe there are two different profiles depending on launch altitude.  It's also used to position the seeker within the forward sector ±25 degrees to the left or right.

The 'SEEKER HEAD POS' Indicators, provide a visual indication of the missile's seeker position in elevation and azimuth.

The 'BDA VOL' is used to control the volume of the Bomb Damage Assessment signal, emitted by the missile's BDA system.  If the missile's signal stopping, is coincident with a target signal ceasing, it's very likely the target was hit.

Edited Monday at 04:36 PM by Blaze1

[SOLIDKREATE]

3 hours ago, Blaze1 said:

$800!!!  For what!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Blaze1]

58 minutes ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's dedication for you!

[Mike Force Team]

@SOLIDKREATE Once you have the manuals your ordered, perhaps you can approach heatblur or one of the popular mod creators to make the f-105.

[SOLIDKREATE]

2 hours ago, Mike Force Team said:

@SOLIDKREATE Once you have the manuals your ordered, perhaps you can approach heatblur or one of the popular mod creators to make the f-105.

Yeah but I have no idea how to contact them and even get a reply. I'm sure they are busy with the Eurofighter right now. I'd have to contact someone like Magnitude 3 or Grinnelli. Mag just dropped a module so their plate should be open, and they've already developed a similiar aircraft, the MiG-21BiS. Grinnelli is just about to pop with their F-100D (I am assuming), and they have experience with an American Vietnam Aircraft.

The thing about US Fighter Planes is that there are some of shared components between every manufacturer. Once you begin to understand how they operate, jumping from plane to plane becomes less of a chore. For example, with my F4U-1d, I didn't have to go through the training missions to use the "Bat Bomb". I know it's a guided weapon. I know I need a detetcion signal, and a lock, and a maximum employment range just on experience with all the other planes I have. I know the fatser and higher I am the better it will work.

Once we have a 'D' Model, making an 'F' really should not be an issue other than performance and aerodynamics. The back seat is literally the front seat with less equipment (correct me if I am wrong). Now the the 'Gift Horse', which is the 'G' model, and probabaly the most sought after in this thread will be challenging. I have yet to come across any supporting documention on how any of the ECM or EW systems worked. I do not own the module but I think HB did a bang up job on their AN/APR-25 (I saw it on YouTube).

Also their are no flying examples. The only well intact 'G' I know of is in the Smithstonian. And like Joe said in his interview (Grinnelli), getting a museum to let you crawl all over their priceless artifcraft is tough. They also have a 'D' model as well. Even using scafolding and 'soft gauges' (photogrametry) might be a tough sell to them. I'm only speculating though. I really wish I knew how to code in .LUA and model in Blender, I'd be well on my way building a MOD for us. I'm sure I can learn it. If I can use SolidWorks (hobbyist), CREO (professionally), and CATIA V5 (professionally; I can do that.

Edited Monday at 11:49 PM by SOLIDKREATE
spelling

[SOLIDKREATE]

I was just thinking right now that what a journey this has been with the research. All of the teammwork in here, and look at all we have now. If I have to be conservative, I'd say I have personally spent about 1000hrs researching, chasing rabbits, scouring, you name it. My last material aquisition was from an aerospace school in Ohio. Such an odd place to find things. I am glad that I did. I will continue the hunt for every scrap.

Edited Monday at 10:16 PM by SOLIDKREATE

[Andrew8604]

28 minutes ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

Yeah but I have no idea how to contact them and even get a reply. I'm sure they are busy with the Eurofighter right now. I'd have to contact someone like Magnitude 3 or Grinnelli. Mag just dropped a module so their plate should be open, and they've already developed a similiar aircraft, the MiG-21BiS. Grinnelli is just about to pop with their F-104 (I am assuming), and they have experience with an American Vietnam Aircraft.

The thing about US Fighter Planes is that there are some of shared components between every manufacturer. Once you begin to understand how they operate, jumping from plane to plane becomes less of a chore. For example, with my F4U-1d, I didn't have to go through the training missions to use the "Bat Bomb". I know it's a guided weapon. I know I need a detetcion signal, and a lock, and a maximum employment range just on experience with all the other planes I have. I know the fatser and higher I am the better it will work.

Once we have a 'D' Model, making an 'F' really should not be an issue other than performance and aerodynamics. The back seat is literally the front seat with less equipment (correct me if I am wrong). Now the the 'Gift Horse', which is the 'G' model, and probabaly the most sought after in this thread will be challenging. I have yet to come across any supporting documention on how any of the ECM or EW systems worked. I do not own the module but I think HB did a bang up job on their AN/APR-25 (I saw it on YouTube).

Also their are no flying examples. The only well intact 'G' I know of is in the Smithstonian. And like Joe said in his interview (Grinnelli), getting a museum to let you crawl all over their priceless artifcraft is tough. They also have a 'D' model as well. Even using scafolding and 'soft gauges' (photogrametry) might be a tough sell to them. I'm only speculating though. I really wish I knew how to code in .LUA and model in Blender, I'd be well on my way building a MOD for us. I'm sure I can learn it. If I can use SolidWorks (hobbyist), CREO (professionally), and CATIA V5 (professionally; I can do that.

I think you meant F-100D.  Grinnelli is doing the F-100D, not F-104.  Aerges is doing the F-104.  I'd hope Grinnelli could do the F-105.  I think that's right up their alley.  I'd like to see Magnitude do the SBD-5 Dauntless...assuming they've learned enough from the F4U-1D and have enough people to make it a 2- or 3-year job and not 10.  Although, I hope they will make refinements to the F4U-1D module.

[Mike Force Team]

@SOLIDKREATE I understand you are passionate about doing the research.  You are putting your money where your mouth is because you are paying for the books.  Research aside, it  would be great for one of the approved 3rd party developers to investigate the feasibility of making your virtual jet.  ED's vetting processes and standards are likely very stringent.  

For example, I would love to see a Vietnam era B-52 bomber. I can find books on Amazon that tell you everything you need to know.  While I would purchase this full-fidelty module, it is not clear if other people would.

Mike Force Team

[SOLIDKREATE]

1 hour ago, Andrew8604 said:

I think you meant F-100D.  Grinnelli is doing the F-100D, not F-104.  Aerges is doing the F-104.  I'd hope Grinnelli could do the F-105.  I think that's right up their alley.  I'd like to see Magnitude do the SBD-5 Dauntless...assuming they've learned enough from the F4U-1D and have enough people to make it a 2- or 3-year job and not 10.  Although, I hope they will make refinements to the F4U-1D module.

Ah, I had a brain fart I see . Yeah the SBD-5 would be great! I personally want an A-26B or a hard nose Mitchell.

Edited Monday at 11:52 PM by SOLIDKREATE

[Andrew8604]

16 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

@SOLIDKREATE I understand you are passionate about doing the research.  You are putting your money where your mouth is because you are paying for the books.  Research aside, it  would be great for one of the approved 3rd party developers to investigate the feasibility of making your virtual jet.  ED's vetting processes and standards are likely very stringent.  

For example, I would love to see a Vietnam era B-52 bomber. I can find books on Amazon that tell you everything you need to know.  While I would purchase this full-fidelty module, it is not clear if other people would.

Mike Force Team

I'd buy a B-52D!!  But I can see where others might not.  The F-105D, however, is a single-seat, single-engine, fighter-bomber that will exceed Mach 1 on the deck with a significant bomb load.  I'd think more would be interested...until they realize it doesn't carry Mavericks or JDAMs.  Now, 20 years ago, I had the impression the F-105 was not very good with a name like "lead sled" and that something like a 3rd of them were lost in combat because apparently the planes were terrible, and the pilots weren't that smart.  Others might have a similar perception and lack of interest.  That is, until I read Col. Jack Broughton's book, "Thud Ridge".  And I realized I was wrong!  They lost so many because they were always being sent "downtown" into the thick of the most heavily defended airspace at that time, on the same exact route every time.  And that those pilots had courage, dedication and determination, knowledge and skills that were impressive.  And another book, "When Thunder Rolled" by another F-105 pilot, Ed Rasimus.  Anyway, I'd sure like to fly the F-105D to get a much better feeling for what it was like.  We need that Vietnam Map, though.  Well, the F-105D could join the F-4E on the Germany Cold War map.  It's just that I suspect the F-105D will take an effort close to that of the F-4E, minus Jester.  Either Heatblur or Grinnelli...but like 2028 or 29, at the earliest, the way they've been going.

[SOLIDKREATE]

3 hours ago, Andrew8604 said:

1.)   I'd buy a B-52D!!  2.)   I'd think more would be interested...until they realize it doesn't carry Mavericks or JDAMs.  3.)   Well, the F-105D could join the F-4E on the Germany Cold  

 

1. I'd certainly buy one too. I'm willing to bet that would be a $150 ~ $200 module. That still would not deter me, even if it was always and only AI crew members. We actually really, really need dedicated bombers. In reality, I think we have more of a chance getting an Su-24M and am FB-111A before any big bombers ever came. Id be totally fine with that.
2. There would be an audience, especially me since SEAD is all I do.
3. It has served in Germany in the 60's but then replaced by F-4's.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 03:39 AM by SOLIDKREATE

[Andrew8604]

That comment under the picture about the length of the ladder.  I noticed that, too.  With the F-4, you have to stoop down to walk under the wing, trying not to whack your head on doors and antennas.  With the F-105, you look up at the underside of the wing like it was a ceiling in an average room!  Of course, the F-4 is low-wing, and the F-105 is mid-wing, but still. 

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

Yeah but I have no idea how to contact them and even get a reply. I'm sure they are busy with the Eurofighter right now. I'd have to contact someone like Magnitude 3 or Grinnelli. Mag just dropped a module so their plate should be open, and they've already developed a similiar aircraft, the MiG-21BiS. Grinnelli is just about to pop with their F-100D (I am assuming), and they have experience with an American Vietnam Aircraft.

The thing about US Fighter Planes is that there are some of shared components between every manufacturer. Once you begin to understand how they operate, jumping from plane to plane becomes less of a chore. For example, with my F4U-1d, I didn't have to go through the training missions to use the "Bat Bomb". I know it's a guided weapon. I know I need a detetcion signal, and a lock, and a maximum employment range just on experience with all the other planes I have. I know the fatser and higher I am the better it will work.

Once we have a 'D' Model, making an 'F' really should not be an issue other than performance and aerodynamics. The back seat is literally the front seat with less equipment (correct me if I am wrong). Now the the 'Gift Horse', which is the 'G' model, and probabaly the most sought after in this thread will be challenging. I have yet to come across any supporting documention on how any of the ECM or EW systems worked. I do not own the module but I think HB did a bang up job on their AN/APR-25 (I saw it on YouTube).

Also their are no flying examples. The only well intact 'G' I know of is in the Smithstonian. And like Joe said in his interview (Grinnelli), getting a museum to let you crawl all over their priceless artifcraft is tough. They also have a 'D' model as well. Even using scafolding and 'soft gauges' (photogrametry) might be a tough sell to them. I'm only speculating though. I really wish I knew how to code in .LUA and model in Blender, I'd be well on my way building a MOD for us. I'm sure I can learn it. If I can use SolidWorks (hobbyist), CREO (professionally), and CATIA V5 (professionally; I can do that.

If there is any chance of the F/G then it would be awesome to get Heatblur involved, and at least licences jester. The Wild Weasel variants are important to me as by dad was an EWO though he went to war in a EB-66

[Silver_Dragon]

38 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

If there is any chance of the F/G then it would be awesome to get Heatblur involved, and at least licences jester. The Wild Weasel variants are important to me as by dad was an EWO though he went to war in a EB-66

- Heatblur and Truegrit are working on the Eurofighter, and remember, the A-6E Intruder is coming next, and "confirmed" plans to build a F-4B/N naval version. Truegrit surely move to other german aircraft next and HB to a UsNavy carrier aircraft. Which I'm ruling out.
- M3 has already said the Christen Eagle 2 will be reworked and has already talked about a complete rebuild of the Mig-21Bis 2.0, in addition to the F-8 Crusader under development. Also ruled out.
- Aerges has to finish the Mirage F-1M and is developing the F104G. Another rule out, especially when I think they'll continue to focus on Spanish Air Force aircraft. (Rumors about a Mirage IIIE next).
- Grinelly "maybe" could do it, but it would be a huge leap compared to an F-100D. I have a feeling we might see an F-101 or F-102 as follow-ups. Maybe.

Let's completely forget about a B-52 (or any bomber) if ED doesn't provide the building blocks for a real multi-crew bomber (for that, they have to build one bomber in WW2 first).

The entire concept of electronic warfare (EW) has to be built by ED at the core first. It's pointless to try to model an EB-66, F-105G, F-4G, or EA-6B if it doesn't have the necessary electronic jamming and SIGINT functionality at its core.

Edited Tuesday at 11:48 AM by Silver_Dragon

[MAXsenna]

4 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Grinelly "maybe" could do it, but it would be a huge leap compared to an F-100D. I have a feeling we might see an F-101 or F-102 as follow-ups. Maybe.

What huge leap are you referring to? I'm asking because in my opinion the Thud could be Grinelli's next natural step. And would sell much more than 101/102. (Grinelli, not Grinelly. Italiens you know! ). 

4 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Let's completely forget about a B-52 (or any bomber) if ED doesn't provide the building blocks for a real multi-crew bomber (for that, they have to build one bomber in WW2 first).

Please don't gaslight. I'm sure you follow the Lancaster community module thread.

5 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The entire concept of electronic warfare (EW) has to be built by ED at the core first. It's pointless to try to model an EB-66, F-105G, F-4G, or EA-6B if it doesn't have the necessary electronic jamming and SIGINT functionality at its core.

 

[Silver_Dragon]

1 minute ago, MAXsenna said:

What huge leap are you referring to? I'm asking because in my opinion the Thud could be Grinelli's next natural step. And would sell much more than 101/102. (Grinelli, not Grinelly. Italiens you know! ). 

That's why I say "could." But we're talking about a very complex attack aircraft, both in systems and avionics. The F-100D's systems are really rudimentary compared to an F-105.

1 minute ago, MAXsenna said:

Please don't gaslight. I'm sure you follow the Lancaster community module thread.

You said it yourself, a community module, as the A-4. I'm the first to become see new third-parties with an official modules via the SDK and ED support coming to DCS, even though there are bombing mechanics, and system management, which are necessary in the core.

[upyr1]

45 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

- Heatblur and Truegrit are working on the Eurofighter, and remember, the A-6E Intruder is coming next, and "confirmed" plans to build a F-4B/N naval version. Truegrit surely move to other german aircraft next and HB to a UsNavy carrier aircraft. Which I'm ruling out.

I know that, however, the main question here is whether or not they would be willing to license Jester? 

while this is a far cry from a 100% definitive yes, it is, however, a very definitive maybe. Now we're left with the questions of whether or not there would be enough information to do a weasel or even Rayan's Raider.  We have a maybe from Heatblur about using jester.

[MAXsenna]

40 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

That's why I say "could." But we're talking about a very complex attack aircraft, both in systems and avionics. The F-100D's systems are really rudimentary compared to an F-105.

That's why I asked. Buy I have confidence in Grinneli. I'm sure the team can do it.  

41 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

You said it yourself, a community module, as the A-4.

Yeah, but means it can be done! That's my point, though I'm sure 3rd parties and not ED will take on the task. DCS didn't support four engines before, right? Now obviously it does.  

42 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I'm the first to become see new third-parties with an official modules via the SDK and ED support coming to DCS,

You have access to the SDK? Now that's interesting.  

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Let's completely forget about a B-52 (or any bomber) if ED doesn't provide the building blocks for a real multi-crew bomber (for that, they have to build one bomber in WW2 first).

 

I'd be happy with an AI D model and a G/H with a tail gun

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The entire concept of electronic warfare (EW) has to be built by ED at the core first. It's pointless to try to model an EB-66, F-105G, F-4G, or EA-6B if it doesn't have the necessary electronic jamming and SIGINT functionality at its core.

I know we need improved EW in DCS. I think the Wild Weasel would be a decent place to start though, the escort jammer would proabbly be more complex. With an F-4G based on an interview with an EWO there was an automated mode where the computer would do a frequency/PRF look up which worked like the HTS, an O-scope and a display like the HTS.  

 

The issue is the lack of ambeguity 

 

[upyr1]

8 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

You said it yourself, a community module, as the A-4. I'm the first to become see new third-parties with an official modules via the SDK and ED support coming to DCS, even though there are bombing mechanics, and system management, which are necessary in the core.

Right now I am hoping to get a community module. I need to get some how toos. 

9 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

What huge leap are you referring to? I'm asking because in my opinion the Thud could be Grinelli's next natural step. And would sell much more than 101/102. (Grinelli, not Grinelly. Italiens you know! ). 

Io conosco. It would be awesome if the thud is next on his list