WobblyFlops

In the newest version of the official ED manual, the MIDS DDI format was added with a text saying that "This format will be documented in a later edition of this manual." This seems to be a new addition, earlier versions of the manual didn't mention this page at all. Does this mean that ED are planning on implementing in depth MIDS configuration options and this DDI page or is the addition to the manual only refer to the fact that the functions on the page (which as far as I know currently have no functional effects and are only for roleplaying purposes) will be detailed later on?

That makes sense, but what about the other, non DL related currently non implemented CAP functions? Are any of those planned?

That never happened.

Yup, it's a weird change because they didn't even talk about it in the patch notes. Hopefully this means that eventually all the other relevant missing features of the radar will get implemented. I'd add quick look, ECCM (which is marked in the official manual as 'coming later') and maybe even an engine wide support for different radar channels, which would be cool.

The speed gate is selectable now, but I haven't had enough time to actually test it.

I agree with this 100%. The Supercarrier ATC is a step in the right direction but still has long ways to go and both airfield ATC, GCI/AIC and other related assets need an almost complete overhaul.

To sum it up, I believe that the level of implementation that you describe is almost just as doable for the modern jammers. The Hornet shouldn't even have the ASPJ, (as you said) but according to their comments they have some data on it, so that's a given. The Air Force jammer pods could also utilize roughly the publically known techniques and then be adjusted by the implementation of a CMANO-esque generational capabilities as you suggested. Another important point to note is that certain older jammers form the base for modern ones (like the ALQ-126 series) or have overlapping histories which may mean that certain older types of equipment may also be considered highly sensitive. The Hornet's air to ground radar's implementation is highly unrealistic to begin with (pilots described both the APG-65 and the 73 as worthless of anything other than INS updates so much so that allegedly utilizing the air to ground modes wasn't even practiced at a squadron level and only taught at the RAG), so I'm not surprised there. While Fox 1 based BVR combat is most certainly different than modern Fox 3s, I wouldn't really say that either is particularly simple at all. The two modules we use in the group are the Tomcat and the Hornet and I certainly don't find air to air engagments or intercepts any more boring in the Hornet. And sure, these tools make the air to air engagements fundamentally different, but simulating the Tomcat in the 80s or the F-4 in the 70s is still a lot closer to modern day air to air ops than a strictly guns/very early Winders based arena. It's certainly easier to have superior SA and the jet makes everything easier but it's never really easy. In a highly unrealistic and simplified scenario (spamming AMRAAMs) it most certainly is easy and boring but again, if someone finds airquake boring, they should join a squadron. All of these things are tools that determine tactics and employment but if you operate in a somewhat more realistic scenario within the constraints of the game, things will become very complicated very quickly. Some things will inevitably be missing from the game (like the EW aspect that we talked about) and there's not much you can do about that, but those lacking aspects or errors also impact both the 80s Cold War scenarios and the modern ones. For the Navy's side, we can reasonably conclude that a limited but reasonably accurate Air Wing will be available for us in DCS, with period accurate, full fidelity opponents as well. (Except for the Flanker.) I agree, the F-16A would definitely be fun to have, but it was fundamentally a fighter-bomber ever since it first got into service, so its lack of BVR capabilities aren't really that relevant. The main USAF air superiority fighter was the F-15 in the relevant time period and that most certainly had great sensors and Sparrows.

Flying on pewpew servers where people approach a simulator in a fundamentally unrealistic way doesn't mean that modern air combat doesn't require any skill. Airquake truly doesn't but it's a very different thing compared to simulated air to air engagements and even those are a smaller slice of the bigger picture; faithfully simulating how a modern strike fighter operates in air to air missions. Flying in a chaotic ocean of random single ships firing on one another is just so far from even what we can simulate (let alone reality) that it truly isn't a worthy notion to entertain. Of course due to the inherent limitations of DCS the effective tactics in competitive PVP servers are based around "outplaying" the limitations of the game engine and at a high enough and equal skill level, all Fox 3 engagements will end up in a visual range. But this abomination of a gameplay can be corrected if you don't treat a simulator as League of Legends with jets.

The techniques are known, but the exact performance, relative effectiveness and utilized tactics are as you said have to be 'approximated', which is a fancy way of saying made up to be believable. To have any reasonable way of simulating this at any level of accuracy, first and foremost you'd need the supplementary avionics manuals and TACMANs for the relevant platforms that detail the ECM. To have an idea about the actual combat use and effectiveness, you need the supplementary TACMANs or in Air Force terms, the triple sticks manual. Guess what, those are classified for virtually any relevant aircraft that I know of, dating back to the 60s. But to prove me wrong, if the US definitely considers the older systems and airframes a clean slate, do you know for a fact that the (let's consider Navy for now) goldbooks and the TACMAN supps for the relevant platforms are all declassified? Have you made any FOIA requests? To put this into exact terms, for the upcoming A-6E Tram (which is a very iconic Cold War airframe), you would need the -1T(A) supplementary TACMAN (classified SECRET), which amongst other very relevant things details the working and the tactics related to the ALQ-126A. We do know the techniques that the jammer employed but to have any kind of representation that's based on quantified data and real capabilities and tactics, we need legitimate primary sources. To make things worse, the DCS engine doesn't support these techniques, so 3rd parties can't implement them without a heavy engine wide rework, even if they had all the data. The AIM-120 is a different topic all together, but again, what you're talking about, aside from kinematics (which most definitely can be approximated) can be just as problematic for older missiles, especially when it comes to performance against jamming targets and countermeasures. And if we start to peel the EW onion layer by layer, you'll have to implement not only ECCM techniques of various radars, you'd need the performance of not only US, but Soviet systems (SAMs and aircraft included) and the ability to show the effects of jamming and the related ECCM techniques on fully simulated radars. And with that, we arrive to the radar, which is another fun topic. The most relevant thing here is the ability of the DCS engine. We do know that the Viggen's radar can't see oil rigs and buildings due to an engine limitation. We also know that things like proper PRF simulation, antenna gain, doppler filtering are not properly supported for 3rd parties (based on Zeus's and Elmo's comments). The F-14's radar is somewhat better, but it's still fundamentally unrealistic. In pulse mode, even with the gain set to max, the only clutter you get is the ground, which just isn't how it should work in a realistic simulation. You'd have atmospheric effects, generic noise from the environment and for PD modes different types of clutter other than the MLC/altitude line clutter that you would have to manage with the PD threshold knobs. This results in a much clearer scope than what you should expect to see. The lack of noise means that the RIO can basically leave the radar as is and it would work out fine on its own, which just simply isn't realistic for a radar from that period.We haven't even touched on specific features of the AWG-9 like the AGC or the parametric amplifier, all of which are as you guessed, not simulated. I could go on and on, radar/missile channelization (which is a pretty big deal when it comes to interference) is also missing for example. This isn't HB's fault of course, they did the best they could, but based on their comments, the DCS engine just doesn't allow for a truly realistic rendition of any radar, let alone an older one where you would have to have control over factors that today would be managed by the magic boxes. It will be interesting to see when they release the A-6 and the radar control panel will be basically completely non functional, because it would be impossible to even approximate that with the current engine. As for the guns only dogfights, just go back a couple of pages. People are constantly talking about the good old days where the jets relied on dogfighting instead of BVR, which is simply not true.

1.) But the initial point was that modern environment can't be simulated accurate because sensors and jamming are so ubiquotous and heavily emphasized in the modern battlefield. Which is of course true, and they are obviously much more sophisticated and numerous than what was used back then, but the vast portion of a cold war gone hot scenario is still the electronic battlefield. And as you said, it can't really be simulated in a home simulator, so that's a draw. But this very clearly shows how even older scenarios are always going to be fundamentally unrealistic and simplified just like the more modern ones. 2.) Even if we agree that ending up in WVR is probable (which I would say as plausible instead but that's a different debate), saying that both sides would heavily utilize their BVR missiles and in addition to that may end up in dogfights is a very different scenario than what people describe in the thread, which is that those older aircraft would primarily rely on winning the WVR engagements, which just simply isn't true. Sure, it was probably more likely to end up in a BFM/ACM situation back then than it is today, but if we examine realistic scenarios, both eras in a near peer war would primarily try to win with their BVR missiles. If we want guns only dogfighting, that's fundamentally an unrealistic scenario and by that logic, you can just force modern Hornets, Vipers and whatnot to dogfight as well. 3.) The mid 70s specifically (which is kind of a moving goalpost, because people brought up the 80s as well specifically for the Fulda Gap scenario) already had the pulse doppler radar equipped F-4Js in the USN arsenal, and even the F-4E with the original pulse radar would allow BVR engagements as you said. And I'm willing to go out on a limb here that even the APQ-120 outperformed the radar of the early Floggers, let alone the Mig-21s. And even if (theoretically speaking) the radars hadn't been superior, they would have been heavily utilized and important, after all, the guy in the back has a job to do, he isn't just there for a joyride. 4.) I'm not sure how your point about Vietnam is relevant. Again, if you're trying to do this realistically, you should simulate the heavily utilized ECM (we still don't even have Vietnam era techniques in DCS), dedicated jammer aircraft, SIGINT platforms, and fairly sophisticated SAM simulation to at least approximate a reasonable air to ground environment. It's fine if you want to do guns only dogfights with older jets, but that wouldn't be a realistic representation of the doctrine and capabilities of the era. This is why I never understand why people are obsessed with the cold war on paper, when in actuality what they describe has very little to do with reality, only with some romanticized fantasy of F-4s, Tomcats and early model Eagles dogfighting Migs above the Fulda Gap en masse. Of course it's a video game, people should feel free to construct whatever scenario they want to have fun. Furthermore, as for simulating earlier jets is easier, I'm not entirely sure about that. The radars were a lot more hands on, the DCS engine doesn't even simulate a lot of the intricacies and this would definitely have to be corrected. It's easier to hide these issues behind the magic black boxes of modern PD radars. Plus, earlier jets may be less classified (although things like ECM performance, detailed missile data, ECCM performance often still is) but you have to deal with lost and destroyed documentation and the fact that SMEs are not getting any younger, and it's certainly more difficult to find one willing to help for these older platforms.

Very strange thread. You people are talking about WVR combat and lack of sensors and EW, even though the US doctrine heavily utilized (and in fact relied on them) ever since Vietnam. The VID requirement was a doctrinal issue that didn't allow the US fighters to utilize the long range advantage that they enjoyed. The current radar simulation is incredibly highly simplistic (and it would be true for all the older radars), the EW/ECCM performance of the old systems are just as classified as that of the new ones, and if you were to simulate any kind of realistic Cold War gone hot scenario, you should most definitely utilize the BVR capabilities from both sides. What you're describing isn't the 70-80s era at all, it's the 50s. In reality, you guys describe Banshees, Skyknights, F-104s and other early jets. Even the currently available F-14 (which is the quintessential Cold War fighter alongside the F-4) extremely heavily relies on superior sensors, weapons and in reality, the ability to deal with jamming. With a less restrictive ROE the engagements would heavily revolve around Fox Ones, not guns only dogfightin. It's fine if you want that kind of gameplay but 70-80s Cold War is not what you want. For that matter, the same can be said about Vietnam as well.