2022 and Beyond Video (Stay on Topic)

[Kang]

Lovely to see the speculation is in full swing in several threads, as well as several derailments well underway.

[Silver_Dragon]

2 minutes ago, okopanja said:

For instance, Flanker ECM pods are underrepresented. Nobody builds something like that just to deny range finding, especially not in asymmetric way.

Also from the point of usability present way of switching the nav points is frustrating on maps featuring lots of airports (e.g. Syria).

There are more issues like IR missiles not tracking in conditions, where they should (e.g. R-73/R-27ET stop tracking dead on rail with no flares being thrown or no visibility lost).

Clearly these modules need more attention from ED even within the bounds inside red line.

Now I understand from commercial point of view: it does not make sense to extend something that was offered initially at lower feature/price range (by this I mean it was bundled, so per module it was way cheaper) to the level of FF model. But what I would expect is to find the way to up-sell these products, off course without totally excluding present user base. E.g. A-10 scenario, or the way F-15C benefited from AIM-120C development.

At the end I think I provided enough feedback on this and would not want to further abduct this topic.

- ECM has a feature on the core, no exclusive of a module. On progress yet and waiting in the future the funtionality with ED can add to a L-005 Sorbtsiya-S Mid / High band defensive jammer pod.
- Simplified systems has part of FC-3 as entry level simulation, if you expected some more detailled, need wait to a Hardcore module.
- Issues on IR missiles has talked on the russian forums and has outside a module, on progress but no timeline.

[LooseSeal]

27 minutes ago, Kang said:

Lovely to see the speculation is in full swing in several threads, as well as several derailments well underway.

Indeed. Including multiple people who clearly don't understand the words "No Discussion" in Silver Dragon's roadmap thread.

Absolute mayhem.

[Silver_Dragon]

18 minutes ago, LooseSeal said:

Indeed. Including multiple people who clearly don't understand the words "No Discussion" in Silver Dragon's roadmap thread.

Absolute mayhem.

The "no discussion" was put by the continue chit-chat and derails on my post. Has better talk here.

[Jayhawk1971]

 

vor 16 Stunden schrieb Flagrum:

Where is this? The Falklands don't have glaciers, right??

Big Ass Glacier!

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_de_Agostini_National_Park ? 

Edited December 25, 2021 by Jayhawk1971

[QuiGon]

On 12/24/2021 at 2:32 PM, Lurker said:

I find it very odd that HBs Eurofighter was nowhere in the video. I guess that probably means it will come out in 2023 at the earliest.

How is that weird? Work has just started on the Eurofighter and will probably take several years from now on.

[Furiz]

3 hours ago, LooseSeal said:

Indeed. Including multiple people who clearly don't understand the words "No Discussion" in Silver Dragon's roadmap thread.

Absolute mayhem.

 

Yea I can't believe people just ignore "no discussion"

[1MajorKoenig]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Silver_Dragon:

RAZBAM Mig-23MLA has none a timeline to release yet. Mig-25 has more plausible as 3rd party module. FC-3 has locked and none plans to add new aircrafts. If ED add red modules, has by Hardcore modules, no simplified.

I am aware of the current situation but I don’t appreciate this.

 

Hence why I would like to see more modern (at least 1990s style) Russian fighters in low fidelity as we all know they full fidelity is not going to happen and the selection of planes will stay insufficient 

[Chinaski]

I have found this image posted on a Facebook group. 
 

I think it has much more chance to be south atlantic map but  that would be cool if it really is Afganistan map, even if it is one more "desert map", it fit 80-2020 era blue, red and fictionnal pakistan side.

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I am aware of the current situation but I don’t appreciate this.

 

Hence why I would like to see more modern (at least 1990s style) Russian fighters in low fidelity as we all know they full fidelity is not going to happen and the selection of planes will stay insufficient 

Remember ED has building Modern Air Combat, a more "Playable" entry level game, and actually, has no clear data about coming into them, waiting a future newsletter.

[1MajorKoenig]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Silver_Dragon:

Remember ED has building Modern Air Combat, a more "Playable" entry level game, and actually, has no clear data about coming into them, waiting a future newsletter.

Yes I heard about that and think it is a good idea. However it looks like they simply „recycle“ DCS modules (eg. MiG 21) into a simpler FC style product. 
 

Instead of enriching DCS with more variety in 1990s planes 

[IVAN01rch]

I have found the spot and it is much farther to the north than Alberto de Agostini National Park.

https://goo.gl/maps/MKh35G9F5J4WCEhEA

 

[QuiGon]

2 hours ago, Chinaski said:

I have found this image posted on a Facebook group. 
 

I think it has much more chance to be south atlantic map but  that would be cool if it really is Afganistan map, even if it is one more "desert map", it fit 80-2020 era blue, red and fictionnal pakistan side.

That picture from the trailer is definitely the South Atlantic Map, somewhere in Tierra del Fuego (Fireland) or Patagonia, but not in Afghanistan.

Edited December 25, 2021 by QuiGon

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

14 hours ago, okopanja said:

 

IRL: For the last 30 years USA and allies exclusively did fight against weaker and inferior opponents. Do you honestly thing that will always be the case? Why did Canada consider the Super Hornets to be inadequate for the future?

 

Because they aren't suitable for Canada's needs? It's not hard to find that it's a more complex issue than you think.

 

 

12 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

MiG-25 wouldn't be all that interesting to fly on the maps we have. It didn't even have a gun, just four missiles. All it did was go so fast, it would be out of the map boundary before you know it. On a global map it still wouldn't be too interesting, as it's an interceptor and only that. It can drop dumb bombs, but not very accurately.

Hurtling through the air at Mach 2.8 with a real limitation like 4 missiles and no gun sounds very interesting. More so than a Thanos-Hornet, at least.

Edited December 25, 2021 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Too bad the MB-339 gets no love. 

[Beirut]

3 hours ago, VFGiPJP said:

Too bad the MB-339 gets no love. 

I admit to being curious why this plane is even being made for DCS. There are already two planes available that mirror it closely, with a long history of fixes and updates to make them more or less complete. And the MB-339 is, if you will pardon me, not that exciting. It will be our third two-seat light jet with no real difference from the other two. (But correct me if I'm wrong on that.) I don't dislike the plane, I bought it for FS20 and enjoyed it, but in this sim, it just seems like there are a hundred other planes that would draw more interest and stand out from the crowd.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

It is okay, I would like to quote many that "I can say this to many other planes". I am just the fan of the MB-339 and the last time I heard, the code is submitted to be review, and without accident, it should be out next year.

[Beirut]

2 minutes ago, VFGiPJP said:

It is okay, I would like to quote many that "I can say this to many other planes". I am just the fan of the MB-339 and the last time I heard, the code is submitted to be review, and without accident, it should be out next year.

 

If they make it and you enjoy it, then all is well. 

 

Edited December 26, 2021 by Beirut

[Northstar98]

8 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I admit to being curious why this plane is even being made for DCS. There are already two planes available that mirror it closely, with a long history of fixes and updates to make them more or less complete.

Because it's a new developer for DCS, and it's much better to start off with something small, that isn't that complex, that has lots of information available.

Aviodev/Aerges did the exact same thing.

8 minutes ago, Beirut said:

And the MB-339 is, if you will pardon me, not that exciting.

I mean, that's fine, but it's also something that I'm sure at least one person will say about basically any aircraft that gets developed, even those that are otherwise popular among some groups.

8 minutes ago, Beirut said:

It will be our third two-seat light jet with no real difference from the other two. (But correct me if I'm wrong on that.)

Well for starters, the MB-339 (though not our version, which is newer) was actually used in a major conflict, a map for which is in development (Falklands).

Edited December 26, 2021 by Northstar98

[Mr_sukebe]

I assume Argentina or Chile, both of which will have land within the south Atlantic map

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

I assume Argentina or Chile, both of which will have land within the south Atlantic map

Yes, and it was an Argentine MB-339A, and it was involved in an attack against HMS Argonaut (which was a Leander batch 2B).

Edited December 26, 2021 by Northstar98

[Rebel28]

Well that was nice, what got my attention was the C-47's dropping troops. That brings a new area to the WWII use for greater expansion of action.

[Admiral_ZIPANGU]

The addition of paratroopers will bring more movement to the DCS battlefield, not just C-47s, but any transport aircraft. Even more so if the transports become flyable.

I would like to see a more proactive approach to transport aircraft.

[Kang]

It is one big step to take if there are plans of making an official module out of a transport plane.

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, Kang said:

It is one big step to take if there are plans of making an official module out of a transport plane.

 

A big fat C-130 with some bells and whistles would be a great plane to have.