Good question, the hornet and the viper are probably the best aircraft in the sim for that kind of work. I enjoy doing things a little differently that is all :-D

@@deephack We're a bit speshul 🥴

They could still give us a an F-18 superbug two seaters like the mod. Pretty sure that information is available to the public and was pre SH.

@@deephack Valid. Then can i recommend the F-4? Multirole and if you are surviving using the F-5, you can survive in that. A fair bit more of a challenge on a modern server compared to the Mud Hen though.

Now that is a top tip. The manual said that it was behind the seat but I could find no way to get the view around to that position. Thank you very much for that. I'll make a bonus video about this soon.

This is all true. I was just repeating IndiaFoxtEcho's own statement that the A model never carried them.

We're just having a bit of a laugh. The SPO-15, for example, can actually tell you quite a lot of information if you read it right, its looks are deceiving! There's no doubt that a lot of Russian hardware is pretty incredible. 👍

Perhaps a bit of a generalisation as I would count myself in that War Thunder crowd :-D

Hi Jim! Let me clarify. We never said you "have" to go into prototype only aircraft. It's an interesting topic and ultimately up to any developer to follow through with. We used the F-20 Tigershark purely as an example to reflect against a developing DCS airframe like the J-8 Peace Pearl. Other than the F-111, everything you've mentioned there - A-7 Corsair (Flying Iron), A-6 (Heatblur), F-8 (Magnitude 3), Tornado (AviaStorm), J-8 (Deka), MiG-23 (Shrodingers module at the moment with the current Razbam drama) and Su-17/22 (OctopusG) have all been taken by 3rd parties and are under development - as have the Century series F-100 (Grinelli) and F-104 (Aerges). Warbirds are also not "3rd or 4th gen". Mig-25 is still very much a hot topic due to cooled relations with Russia. This has limited what can be developed on both sides of the lines, as documentation and data is either unavailable or far too sensitive to cover. So where else do you go? You then have to discuss what are financially viable options - what have most people heard of and are desirable? The further down the rabbit hole you go, the more obscure it gets, the higher a risk it is to invest into. ED have however stated, that 3rd parties are far less limited in developing certain airframes than they are. Also with foreign sales operators, you might get easier get access (Mig-29A is a great example, with the Slovak version being used for scanning). I think that's possibly the solution.

The Vietnam and Korean war era really needs to be the focus. Getting those models and Combined arms polished for that era would set up DCS and ED for decades. Its the theatre of war that everyone seems to gravitate toward.

@ Korea and Vietnam? Absolutely. Combined arms? Meh. I don’t want this turning into War Blunder either……

@simtaylor61 Combined arms (as I view it) is really more about in depth scenario control. I don't care for the idea of a bunch of COD and Adderall fuels brains wreaking havoc on a server. More so that real time manipulation by server moderators and more in-depth scenario building would be important to attract people to the game. A lot of people view DCS as not a game but more of a Microsoft flight simulator with guns. Combined arms, if done right, would create a more attractive scenario overall and allow for greater replay value as scenarios evolve differently every time.

Naval F-4 (Probably a J i reckon?) would be fantastic. A-6E is coming (soon*tm*) and 'Nam/SEA Theatre would also be baller!

@@DonzeJ I think I’ll politely agree to disagree with you on that one. There are plenty of tank sims and fps for the kiddies out there. They keep polishing the ai and God forbid, come with a dynamic campaign, combined arms will be nothing more than a footnote

Yes, I think you are right.

Yeah bud, I think you're on it. It's the 9.12A export version if I remember correctly. Super cool stuff though.

@@JonBloor7 wonder if they could do an export SU27? India has em……not sure who else other than China does though

These are all HOTAS controls so where they are will vary depending on your hardware. Excercise for the viewer to map them where they like in the controls page.

@@deephack They don't exist as physical controls in a real F14 cockpit? Or they do? We don't know, because you didn't say either way in the video.

They exist as buttons and switches on the throttle and stick in both the real aircraft and this model. However you don't interact with them in the cockpit, you map them to either your keyboard or other devices.

@@deephack Exactly the kind of info you should have put in the video, plus their names in the DCS control-binding settings. Don't you think? That's what makes a good tutorial good. If people already knew that stuff, what would be the point of a tutorial in the first place?

Haha, yeah I don't make it look easy do I. I think with some practice other people could do much better but of course having the AI pilot would be very helpful.

Yes of course, I should have mentioned this. I was simply meaning that for pilot reference it only appears here on the IDN and doesn't drive any other instruments.

*mig fighters

I don't know that most people would have the power to support running that large of a map, especially with the number of players it would now support

A7 and skyraider, where have they gone! Oh and the EE lightning not carrier of course but seems years

Yes you are correct. Thanks for the tip.

I think it was Casmo who noted in his videos that they didn't use this feature. It's the kind of thing which was theoretically useful but in practice not really. Black Shark has the same feature in Shkval.

@@deephack thx for the feedback

Very good reminder. I am still planning to do this when time allows. Perhaps even this month.