A new Dev Blog #86 is here!

[Philthy]

I’m looking forward to an eventual PTO expansion, but just as a hypothetical and at the risk of bringing up a controversial subject, the Middle East, say 1956-1973 offers a lot of great scenarios and an almost endless choice of aircraft, e.g.: MiG 15, 17, 19, 21; Dassault Ouragan, Mystere, Mirage; Hunter; Vautour; Skyhawk; Phantom…

[BlitzPig_EL]

I have a simple motto...

No BVR engagements, no guided weapons.

I'm an old fashioned stick and rudder kind of guy. Peak stick and rudder combat flying happened in WW2 and Korea.  That said, I am amazed by what modern military pilots, like MigCap do.  Staying ahead of a high mach number fighter, dealing with all the avionics systems, it's like playing 3D chess against a computer, while highly caffeinated, in a Formula 1 car at the Nurburgring.  Holy task saturation!!

[MiGCap]

12 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I have a simple motto...

No BVR engagements, no guided weapons.

I'm an old fashioned stick and rudder kind of guy. Peak stick and rudder combat flying happened in WW2 and Korea.  That said, I am amazed by what modern military pilots, like MigCap do.  Staying ahead of a high mach number fighter, dealing with all the avionics systems, it's like playing 3D chess against a computer, while highly caffeinated, in a Formula 1 car at the Nurburgring.  Holy task saturation!!

As I already stated, I wasn‘t a pilot, only aircrew, and my main task was public relations work and photographing when I flew in jets, so luckily I haven‘t to operate the systems in the backseat to full extent. 😉

And I completely agree with You, for flight sims I also prefer stick‘n‘rudder work with guns and bombs. 👍🏻

But as my 40 years flying career simply said reached from Starfighters to Eurofighters I can tell that the avionics of modern aircraft like the Typhoon are easier to handle than those of the times of the century fighters, but of course You have a lot more informations to deal with today. Clearer radar pictures, moving map displays, GPS, helmet mounted sights, weapons computers which do all the calculations etc.

The aicraft of the Vietnam era like F-4 etc. were much more difficult to handle in combat in my opinion.

[Calos_01]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I have a simple motto...

No BVR engagements, no guided weapons.

I'm an old fashioned stick and rudder kind of guy. Peak stick and rudder combat flying happened in WW2 and Korea.  That said, I am amazed by what modern military pilots, like MigCap do.  Staying ahead of a high mach number fighter, dealing with all the avionics systems, it's like playing 3D chess against a computer, while highly caffeinated, in a Formula 1 car at the Nurburgring.  Holy task saturation!!

I think the wars in the Middle East fit these criteria pretty well. Even the Mirage IIIs achieved many (most?) of their kills using cannons, and the missiles they used weren’t  BVR. Plus, as a bonus, in the Middle East you might come across what is probably the worst version of the Bf-109—the Avia S-199 😀.

Edited September 7 by Calos_01

[kev2go]

14 hours ago, MiGCap said:

And no damn SAMs which always bother me in DCS!! 🙄

I mean yes lack of sams It makes ground attack  easier. 

Sa2's were the only sam system in the vietnam theatre. Falcon bms has a better simulation of them compared to dcs imo. Thier smoke trail last much longer and You can dodge them pretty easy if you know how to. Although  the easiest strategy is to just drop down to 1000 feet agl to not get launched on. But then you are still vulnerable to AAA as a ground attacker anyways.

Edited September 7 by kev2go

[BoeingVertol]

18 minutes ago, kev2go said:

I mean yes lack of sams It makes ground attack  easier. 

Sa2's were the only sam system in the vietnam theatre. Falcon bms has a better simulation of them compared to dcs imo. Thier smoke trail last much longer and You can dodge them pretty easy if you know how to. Although  the easiest strategy is to just drop down to 1000 feet agl to not get launched on. But then you are still vulnerable to AAA as a ground attacker anyways.

SA-7 became available, and was used starting around 72.  Technically a SAM as well.

[kev2go]

23 minutes ago, BoeingVertol said:

SA-7 became available, and was used starting around 72.  Technically a SAM as well.

Yes very late in the war. an early manpad but not available en mass. In that warv it was only really an issue for helicopters or csar escort  assigned A1's not for fighters or fast moving strike jets 

16 hours ago, Bell said:

There were already things similar to CCIP(BZA 1) and CCRP(TSA 2D) ancestors during WWII.

Yup besides the German bombers,  The B29 had a form of computed release too. The B29 had the capability to drop ordinance on targets during overcast weather or at night via utilizing radar designation.  

Edited September 7 by kev2go

[BoeingVertol]

21 minutes ago, kev2go said:

Yes very late in the war. an early manpad but not available en mass. In that warv it was only really an issue for helicopters or csar birds like a1 not for fighters or fast moving strike jets 

Yup besides the German bombers,  The B29 had a form of computed release too. The B29 had the capability to drop ordinance on targets during overcast weather or at night via utilizing radar designation.  

So,do you think only early war scenarios and fast moving strike jets/fighters would be featured in a Nam game?  No Operation Linebacker, OV-10 etc?  I would surely hope not.

Edited September 7 by BoeingVertol

[kev2go]

12 minutes ago, BoeingVertol said:

So,do you think only early war scenarios and fast moving strike jets will be featured?  No Operation Linebacker etc?

If it were to follow 1c's expansion and dlc style  no i would not expect late war. At least not at launch with a hypothetical vietnam as a base game  aught to initially focus on operation rolling thunder( 1965-1968) rather then starting from Linebacker 1. And just like with multiplayer servers it would be up to server hosts to determine what aircraft upgrade mods or assets get used. 

 

 

 

Edited September 7 by kev2go

[BoeingVertol]

16 minutes ago, kev2go said:

If it were to follow 1c's expansion and dlc style  no i would not expect late war. At least not at launch with a hypothetical vietnam as a base game  aught to initially focus on operation rolling thunder( 1965-1968) rather then starting from Linebacker 1. And just like with multiplayer servers it would be up to server hosts to determine what aircraft upgrade mods or assets get used. 

 

 

 

Way to move those goalposts buddy.  

[kev2go]

3 minutes ago, BoeingVertol said:

Way to move those goalposts buddy.  

What goalpoats? 

[BoeingVertol]

3 minutes ago, kev2go said:

What goalpoats? 

Have a great day buddy. 🫡

[MiGCap]

4 minutes ago, kev2go said:

What goalpoats? 

SAMs.

They look like goalposts or telephone poles when they ascent.

[BoeingVertol]

13 minutes ago, MiGCap said:

SAMs.

They look like goalposts or telephone poles when they ascent.

Yup, they shot down a ROFLcopter this time. 😁

[Captain_Trips]

 

1 hour ago, BoeingVertol said:

So,do you think only early war scenarios and fast moving strike jets/fighters would be featured in a Nam game?  No Operation Linebacker, OV-10 etc?  I would surely hope not.

 

On 9/3/2026 at 5:03 PM, LukeFF said:

No plans for Vietnam, sorry.

[BoeingVertol]

Yea totally understood, was strictly hypothetical.  Another reason it wasn't worth continuing.  

Edited September 7 by BoeingVertol

[Captain_Trips]

[Censored]

I can dream, can't I?  🙃

And if I'm dreaming anyway...flyable Dorniers and HE-111.  

 

Edited September 8 by Captain_Trips

[Captain_Trips]

Just now, FuriousMeow said:

Woof, what in the AI... the longer you look the more wrong pops out.

Lighten up, Francis. 🤪

[FuriousMeow]

1 minute ago, Captain_Trips said:

Lighten up, Francis. 🤪

Not until memory prices are back to sane.

[Captain_Trips]

39 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

Not until memory prices are back to sane.

Tell me about it.  I desperately need a better machine but I don't want to sell a kidney.

Which I have to say is a testament to IL2K that is plays so well on my moderate hardware.  I don't use VR though.

Edited September 7 by Captain_Trips

[Reisen]

Please no more Bf-109s.

 

The aircraft carrier support and time skip ability is there now, just do the Pacific next. With those down, I think two of the biggest hurdles to making the PTO are covered.

[Captain_Trips]

20 minutes ago, Reisen said:

The aircraft carrier support and time skip ability is there now, just do the Pacific next. With those down, I think two of the biggest hurdles to making the PTO are covered.

How does Fast Travel work in MP?  Or do you just stack them close together like a WT lobby?

 

Quote

So if you're thinking about building a Battle of Midway scenario, I'd put the opposing carrier groups around 250 km apart and expect a coordinated strike package to take roughly 1½–2 hours from first aircraft launch to attack, while an already-formed fighter element flying directly between them could cover it considerably faster—roughly 50–70 minutes depending on cruise speed and altitude.

Over.  Flat.  Water.  🙃

 

Quote

Battle of Britain: France → London: ~30–40 minutes
Midway: carrier → carrier: ~1–2 hours
Guadalcanal: Rabaul → Henderson: ~4 hours

 

Edited September 7 by Captain_Trips

[Captain_Trips]

1 minute ago, Reisen said:

None of that is justification to keep copy/pasting the same airframes and maps ad nauseum.

Its been, what, 20 years since someone tried to cover the PTO? 

But you didn't answer my question first.

Do you stack carriers on top of each other in MP?
Or do you fly 2 hours?
 

[Valis]

I want BoB for the plane-set - but I concede the Channel gets old fast.

[Captain_Trips]

1 minute ago, Valis said:

I want BoB for the plane-set - but I concede the Channel gets old fast.

How old would 250km of flat water get?  🤪