Ramius007

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.

Except, that it's not middle way, it's just "realism on" or "realism of" setting. It's same middle way that man and his dog on avarage have 3 legs. Solution is not change realism, but to change enviroment. We will be in same spot with F-100, F-104, Mig-17, and then EF, F-35 and non announced Rafale. People will be asking to adjust them to fit pseudo Fox-1 servers, instead of making one that suit those planes. Like add fictional chaff/flares dispansers on first 3, and/or disable some features of most avanced jets.

Elegant solution!

I wonder if F-35 drop, we get thread like: "allow F-35 to be visible on radars" becouse stealth gives unfair adventage on servers, and is not balanced, just a little realism option, what's wrong with this?

I dont think that this "video game" designers, have to bow to small minority of arcade pvp servers participants, and balance modules around arcade style servers. For many people, only thing that DCS have going for them is realism, if you remove it, you can fly FC modules, free DCS mods or other game forever, there will be no diffrence with FF modules made in a way you like them to see. Issue is not realistic Fulcrum, but enviroment made by pvp server admins, that is balanced around assymetrical early XXI centaury conflicts, and made for majority of XXI centaury jets, and people who belive that Sparrow=CW. When they get actual CW technology they are shocked. This version of Fulcrum should compete vs F1, F-4, 530D less M2k, Tomcat without Aim-54, and all CW Fox-2 only fighters, and a lot of helos and attack planes, still plenty of platforms to choose from, and potential for great REAL CW server, where FF Fulcrum would be top of the food chain, yet difficult to master plane.

There is more of this I suppose, like Aim-7M on Phantom or "swedish" Maverick B on Viggen

Problem rather lies with how PvP servers are designed currently, than FF Mig itself. Single players can adjust mission/campaign and tune threats to what Fulcrum could realistically expect IRL, but servers, naturally geared towards modern modules are the issue, just a reminder that Contention CW have Ka-50, apache, A-10C and Su-25t as playable modules. We basically lack single one offering realistic early to mid 80's experiance, that removes planes with 90's and 2000's upgrades, supprise even FC F-15C is from 90's with APG-63 (V1) it wasnt really the case for original APG-63 to track low altidue threats, at least according to real Eagle drivers, and then we have F-16, F-18, Jeff, SE, even more important, such server should remove aid defence threats from late 80's or 90's, and some assets names may be misleading, our Avengers and sa-13 use all aspect 89 made missiles.

Be awere, that IR SAM's we have in DCS, are on avarage more advanced than system entry date suggest, and more advanced than ir a2a missiles on avarage. Sa-13 is using missile from 1989, Chapparel is mid 80's late upgrade, Avenger and M6 are using Stinger version from 1989 as well, even all manpads we have in game are not first generation either. There should be some flares rejection implemented.

Gazelle didnt get any update for a year or more, still is working perfectly fine, and is in better state than a lot of "maintained" modules. Even if there are no signs from PC, I would expect fixes, if something become broken in KW (or Gazelle)

I split my time betwean pve and pvp, SP pve is usually played on "hardcore" settings, but people who claim that AI planes can offer higher or even similar level of challange as human players are dellusional.It's possible against begginers of course, but even semi advanced player will be stronger than AI. Similar level of detachment from reality are claims about cheating being part of pvp, it's practically non existent. Dream come true would be server that offers realistic scenario based on realistic order of battle, with many MOVING AI ground units, but with human players in air as opponents.

I would reccomend DCS Retribution/Liberation to players who are waiting for dynamic campaign. It's IMO one of most infuential mod for DCS, and definitely worth trying, if You are into more immersive scenarios, but be advised, that enviroment with tens of AI planes, emphasizes all current issues with DCS that have to be fixed, before ED make their own DC. Some are mentioned taxi bugs, lack of sirious ATC, or AI killing themselves midair and bad fuel menagement, those to be alleviated first before DC. Also some AI modules have terrible AI, from bad BVR strategy, to crashing into the ground as wingman. You dont see those in scripted/paid campaigns or in small missions/training, but in anything resembling military operation, they are striking

I never said, that Fulcrum is better or even as good as Eagle, I m just saying, that even in DCS, while in SOME circumstances they are close, overall Eagle is much better. My point was, that combat scenarios involving those 2 were assymetrical, also be mindfull, about 3rd grade export variants, used by Iraq during Desert Storm, no helmet cuing system and R-73's, and in those fights where they faced Eagles, this IMO mattered. You can find raports from those fights online from US pilots perspective.

F-15C vs Fulcrum IRL were asymetric fights most of the time, with one side having all AWACS/ECM support and numerical advenatage, if you recreate those parameters in DCS and switch planes, Fulcrum will be performing similar to RL Eagle, you can notice this on PvP servers. Also remember about RL dffrence in flight hours betwean "West and "East" pilots.

Hunter, Sea Vixen and Lightning most likely have no market share, Buccaneer is closer, Jaguar could make some money as DCS module, and Tornado is in development. Brit Harrier have to be delivered by RB, they at least have FM for it, but again, GR would be just either too similar, or too limited to current AV-8B, while FRS no matter what particular era we pick, doesnt strike me as fun module, unless you are SA map enthusiast and like to recreate history in DCS. Old FRS is propably more fitting DCS, some niche for CW interceptor, butt with just aim-9L and unguided a2g it would have hard time making it competetive, both pve and pvp. IRL it was fighting against 2nd gen fighters...

I'm not even trying to make it another "Why no FF redfor?" I m just giving valid reasons, and those are legal, or unwillingness of ED employees to break local law, and this is understandable, I just made a reminder, that no lack of information or "secrecy" of those planes are reasons, this would be a thing, for not having most modern chinese jets, where we really struggle even with finding of cockpit photos, not even talking about performance charts or weapon capabilities. OTOH I firmly belive in future modern FF "redfor" but most likely it will be based on version used by some export customer, maybe Indian, or Maleysian, maybe Algierian, but I wouldnt expect actual workflow or specific detailed informations about avionics being modelled, as I dont expect from F-35 or even some planes we already have in game already. If ED was talking about aiming at 90% realistic Hornet, I think that 80% realistic Su-30 is possible, just not based on Russian version.

You dont have data on crew workflow during combat, but this kind of data is to some degree restricted even on current modern FF modules, technology itself is preety old, PESA radar was first used on 1985 Mig-31, a lot of weapons are late CW standard, capabilities are preety well known, also something being classified, doesnt mean that it's not known for aviation enthusiasts, You can proapbly find on internet that "classified" Su-27 manual, that prevent us from getting FF old Flanker, of coure becouse of legal status, cant be added to DCS, but does it mean it's secret or unknown?

Yeah, it was funny to me, when people were complaining about Codename Flanker Su-30 saying it's fantasy super secret plane, when Su-30MKI is actully older than Viper we have in DCS, of course devs added some weapons that are not even in service, or are on never Russian planes, but jet itself with weapons that are already in game is preety much our Viper/Hornet era. Btw, I reccomend this mod, even to people who are not planning to fly it, works very well as AI opponent in missions,we really miss something like this in core assets currently, and you can adjust weapons to scenario date. With r-77-1 finally it's F-teen peer in a2a, without having to lua hack FC-3 planes and grant them pl-12. Mod is not breaking IC

NS430 is not allowed on MP servers, It used to couse lag, not bringing GPS as integral part of module, selectable with mission editor is quite an issue. Fulcrum role IRL and landscape of DCS make it more focused on PVP IMO.