Ramius007

I agree, and now ask devs to stick to this idea, and allow ALL weapons on all platforms they are simulating, that were wired for those weapons, at least allow those weapons as editor option. It's fair and realistic, and part of simulation, right?

Do HB have plans to release Tomcat variant that wasnt multirole, similar or exactly the same as iranian one, with 2nd generation of aim-9 and aim-7e? Then You are going to sacrafice realism, to deliver multirole Tomcat in 80's, that didnt exist IRL, in a combat flight simulator, unless player is knowladgeble enaugh to do it himself

Lets agree to disagree. Mentioning Amraams was hyperbole ofc, I know Tomcats were not wired for them, but You are overestimating avg. DCS player ability to recognize what year was X Aim-7 variant, for majority of playerbase, multirole Tomcat is 80's bird you portrey it as such, for majority of playerbase GPS navigation was std in 90's military aircraft, and both helmet and link 16 was std on every NATO Viper and Hornet in 2005, It's what is obvious if you read this forum. I understand that Tomcats varied plane to plane, even late in service life, but some combos are still VERY unlikely, like aim-9p from 1993 on early F-14A. It's just my personall opinion, that you are doing Tomcat not good promoting it into 90's and 2000's, becouse it's either outclassed, or you have to buff AIM-54 beyond realistic level to compete, instead of crafting CW niche with new variants. ED is helping with this btw, but restricting redfor missiles to early 2000's at best.

To sound less offensive, I just add, that HB is doing great job giving us diffrent Tomcat versions, but using editor option for anything is just poor man tool to increase module fidelity, that should be done HB way, providing 3 diffrent modules, so I just not get why not takie adventage of this. There are practical DCS considerations for doing this, not just sticking to historical accuracy, like PVE server that offer time specific older setups, so they can pick 1 version without having to modify werehousing and Tomcat loadouts, PvP servers-this one is obvious, but similar, another reason are tools like Liberation and Retribution, where adding 1 specific version of module, cuts time for making realistic scenario. 1 more thing about std for x plane being wired for, but not used y, We have my beloved HB Viggen with fictional swedish AGM-65B, if we go this line, we should add to Viggen US Mav A and B, along all Sidewinders versions that were wired for swedish aim-9l and 9J pylons. It's not good hill to defend and die. Sorry for sounding offensive, I wasnt mean to

With this attidue, why not add AMRAAMS to Tomcat, you can also limit this in editor? Where is the line? It's really str8forward, in 1991 Tomcat wasnt multirole fighter, as key sensors and weapons that were part of being multirole were not integrated. Amraam is maybe extreame example, but lets say Aim-9J, out of service, but why not add?

I did some logi, mostly on servers with Hind, Gazelle and uh-60, but it was never beyond basic A>B trucking using CTLD script. I know that quality is diffrent compered to FF C-130, I m just more interested how close to release version, both FM and cargo transport functionalities are.

I m just asking about any Tomcat pre Bombcat upgrade, and such Tomcat shouldnt have aim-7p at least, that was not used during Gulf War, and have all PGM removed, in short something more fitting for 80's (real ones)

Any particular reasons, why early F-14 have all weapons from 90's availble?

Can this mod be used as preview of some functionalities of FF C-130, is it still working? I had no interest in logistics, but if it's in game now, may be worth it to give it a try.

I agree about upgrading old models first, certainly just 1 blue and red mid cold war era with area air defence would be nice for a start, my pick is Kashin for Russia, and Adams for USA, both of them primary wepons are already in game, so less stress for devs. From gameplay perspective hovercrafts would be cool to have. Personally I would love to see CH Iranian pack included in some future update, PG map still look good, and is a bit forgotten, and manpads speedboats are adding new threat type.

With blue SAMs we are in decent spot, NASAMS get popular only in 2nd decade, it's very modern, maybe we miss THAD, SAMP get added recently, Israeli systems should be map specific IMO. I m as bit supprised, and dissapointed that Currenthill decided to focus on modern warships, Udaloy and Sovremenny are both more capable in a lot of ways, but more important, they cover wider timeframe. In a2a, we dont really have blue platforms that can carry better weapons than some 120C variant, but on the other side, even just upgrading Mig-31 from oldest possible version to something like early 90's B variant with R-33S would spice things a bit, even in small numbers, old R-33 is R-27ER level at best, by date it's end boss for F-4 but not blk 50 Viper or Lot 20 Hornet or even Tomcat

What were those "ED's own additions in the recent years"? We have massive hole in redfor SAM's that take time to fill, and even bigger hole past 2005, it's hard to play WWIII scenario in XXIc, when best red SAMs are from mid 80's, and best redfor a2a missile is R-27ER, not counting Jeff here, as it's just not used by China or Russia, and have no performance to compete with F-teens. This leads to rather trivial a2a pve with 120C, and PvP create even more issues, you have to either hack lua to make red FC3 modules somehow competetive by adding pl-12 or add blue jets to red, but I would focus on pve for now, and nacessity to use mods, if you want to have engaging modern a2a or SEAD

Late 2025, maybe time to add R-33S at least and modernized Mig-31B from 1991, no AI model can compete with 120C armed NATO planes currently, it's rather dull.

Hinds were used in combat in Afganistan in XXI c, hard to imagine they were able to hit anything with this NVG we have implemented rn. Somehow I dont see L16 on Hornet used in 80's scenarios a problem, but other way around it is?

Problem is DCS AI, compered to some, even very old sims, if You want a immersive fox-3 fight, you can only get one vs human in DCS, and paid maps and future asset packs are murdering PvP, as they split already small portion of crowd even more, and this preety much drive a lot of people from DCS for long time, or for good. Sure, in perfect World, if AI in DCS wouldnt die to every fox-3 fired from 80% range, paid asset packs/map would be better, becouse you have immersive content coming with core, it's just not the case with DCS in current state. I m not even driving deeper into other AI bugs, we can write book here. Another factor is, that DCS content, that is not commuity made OR paid is small, so servers are rather natural way to play, and not all DCS players spent thousends of $ for hardwere, to justify spending 50$ for asset pack or map, especially if we compere cost of DCS modules with other games, even AAA, IMO current model of having to buy map to play MP, is harming DCS in long run, and is narrowing potential player base, paid asset packs would be no diffrent. Best what ED can do is propably making optional install for asset packs, maybe mods, so if some server require those, you can immediately install, Im afraid, we still didnt get this, becouse ED may be thinking about monetizing asset packs in the future.

While I love representation of old Soviet NVG, I think that editor or ground crew option for more modern one would be more than welcome, especially that Hind have many operators to this day, and it's hard to belive that in XXIc, crews are still using old generation of NVG.

Would be great if this mod can make it's way to DCS core, really versatile asset, most fun ship in game IMO, also good fit for a lot of maps and eras, and is great advertisment for DCS engine. ED should take a look.

Plenty of country or region specific assets/. mods are avaible, I dont think that Oslo class frigate (if someone make model) make more sense in DCS core, than as part of Kola map, we propably find some assets that make little sense outside PG map, and small reminder, that relatively small CH SWE asset pack take over 10GB on HDD, while I loved, I doubt, they make much sense to make into DCS core, for people who dont have Kola map.

Paid asset packs are much worse than mods, they are so bad, that even ED, with exception of WWII, stay away from them. I use Retribution for SP content, it has support for a lot of mods, I cant imagine playing SP DCS without them. Even if ED release asset packs, still you can spent money better than for asset pack. In MP, paid asset packs are a no-go IMO, and servers that use mods, choose those that are high quality and not create issues. SA map and Kola! RBS-70 would be unique in DCS, laser beam riding SAM of older generation, than what we have in game, so not great choice from me!

I was thinking about linking some elements of packs with specific map, rather than DCS core, like Sweden pack should propably be included with Kola, rather than added to main game, some assets are very region specific, like RBS-70, or models from Iran pack. This would both increase incetive to get a map, but also keep DCS size small for not interested.

Re new F-14 variant, I wonder how early 135GR can carry guided weapons and Lantrin, that was all included in 90's upgrade, maybe bug or no payload update yet? This make little sense currently, even for early US Tomcat I expected some older weapons, especially aim-9's, that are older than Lima.

Just any redfor SEAD platform do the job in current state of things, Su-17/22, su-24, mig-27. With fighters we are fine for now. but having to use semi fictional su-25t for SEAD is painfull. Also, no need to ask for modern russian multirole, Su-30 Flanker C from 90's, would be enaugh.

I saw around dozen of r-27r fired by AI in my SP mission scoring 0 hits, rather unusual before last update. Flight of 4 FC Fulcrums against pair of Eagles C get decimated. Fulcrum was used to be best performing Soviet CW AI plane after Mig-31

I have no **** idea where you see similarities betwean l16 setting that would be timeline/country specific option vs INTEGRAL part of avionics of all version of mig-29A. Sorry I m more against realism on/of settings in DCS than I m against working SPO-15 on FF Fulcrum. I dont think Soviet engineers were dumb, rather opposite, but quick reminder it's very first version of Fulcrum, and SPO-15 interaction with radar have symptoms of typical childhood ilness of the airframe. If we get very first block of F-15, F-18 or other western jet, i m would be supprised if all parts of avionics were working as intended. If ED SME decide that SPO-15 was actully working, and change it, great, but if device 90% of the time was acting like broken, and DCS represenation is realistic, I dont want to see any realism setting, becouse it's dengerous path to take for future modules, and DCS as a whole. I m usually flying redfor modules, both online and SP, and I would love to see competetive Russian/Soviet jet in game, but I m just worried, that very first version of Fulcrum we get, is not best decision made by ED, but maybe they had no choice. edit: nobody in this topic mentioned, that SPO not working with radar was propably smaller issue if Fulcrum was used in it's RL scenarios, that is point defence interceptor guided by Lazur/GCI, in such scenario pilot would turn on radar just to fire missiles, knowing target position before. In DCS currently, without those features those are major issues. I also think, that this very specific defficency of SPO-15/radar could be tolerated, given plane role. But I can imagine how frustrating for DCS players this particular quirk is, if they try to use it like XX c. western jet.

1. It bother me, becouse threads like this sidetrack servers into arcade style, similar to more popular other video game with planes. Me, and I m sure, many other would like to see devs time spent elswhere, than what practically is realism setting for FF module. 2.Disabling DL on modern jets is not really realism setting, rather timeframe setting, it's completely diffrent thing from turning realism on and of. 3. Re F-35, there are educated guesses about all parts of planes, both modern and older ones, you are even guesstiamting about realism level of F-35. It's just your word, not supported by any quantifical data vs mine, but you wrote it, like some definite truth. I think all members understand that making simualtion is never real plane, else nobody would spent fuel, but use simulation for training. Most important point about thread is, to not sidetrack it more, that ED SME on Fulcrum, given state of SPO-15 suggest that natural state of this device was being broken. There is anegdotal evidence that he is most likely true, commented on this forum from people somewhat related to ex eastern block airforces, also, you find interview with shot down Fulcrum pilot, that RWR didnt work. If normal state of device was being broken, then broken becoming new normal, andshould be simulated as such.