I really have no interest in them doing an F-16. Falcon 4.0 BMS 4.32 is far better than _anything_ ED could make. They have no chance competing with it. There's no way in heck they could make a comparable product.
... in your imagination
1. Air-to-Ground radar--they've constantly shown they aren't willing to do this so it will be a first. This I think they can accomplish for sure.
All in good time.
2. Dynamic campaign. This is where they would fail. There is no way they could make a campaign like Falcon has.
... because what? People who didn't create falcon don't have the expertise to implement an old, flawed AI system for DC and then make it work better over a span of 12 years? ED is already working in the direction of enhancing replayability - they're not stupid nor asleep at the wheel. I do realize that people who want things right now
can't see nor acknowledge that, and fawn over F4's DC as some incredible magical genie. The truth is that even the guy who made it happen (in its original, much more flawed form than what you have right now!) said he'd not have done it had he known what it took.
So, what's the point? Why bother? BMS 4.32 has all the depth a typical DCS title would have along with a dynamic campaign.
It more than likely will be an AH-64 sim (a series... they don't want to do the radar again) or what I'd LOVE to see them do is an F-18 sim (with air-to-ground radar).
Who told you 'they don't want to do the radar'? As i said - all in good time. If/When a module calls for A2G radar, it'll happen. I'm not sure why you somehow think that ED should drop everything and make a DC or A2G radar happen right now
instead of looking after what's good for them, especially in sight of F4 so far apparently poisoning every company that has touched it. Don't blame others for not wanting to repeat mistakes that have happened in the past.