FlankerKiller

Short answer to the, hell yes! I would love any light bomber that served in WWII, and more importantly Korea. A lot of people, including myself, want a level bomber in DCS. I personally think something like this would fit the DCS world alot better then a B-17 would.

+1

I for one would really really prefer the A model. But they wouldn't have teased it if it wasn't well on it's way. So I imagine that ship has sailed. Honestly though it won't matter as I will buy the Hind, and the Apache the day in not the hour they are released. Hopefully one day ED will go back and make the cold war/Desert Storm versions available.

+1 for and F-15A.

It is because I named the three jets that I was referring to. One of which is the A-10A, which isn't a 4th gen anything. Although, yes I would love to see Razbam do a Desert Storm F-15E. I also truly wish ED would do the AH-64A first. There's a trend here. One I would like to see the Desert Storm aircraft fleshed out, more because of the era it happend in, and the aircraft involved. Two I would like to see future developments release the older, simpler model first, then the newer more complex model later. The latter probably won't happen, the former might. As for aircraft generations, it's a marketing tool, and a buzz word, and very little else. There is no set definition of the generations. As someone who understands aircraft technology very very well, my views may be and are uncommon, but they are not bizarre. They are however irrelevant to this conversation. As I would like to see aircraft modules of any generation from the late cold war time period.

They would have to get enough unclassified data. I personally would love to see an older Gripen in game. Or that and a new one. I've seen the promo vids for it and that is one sexy, and capable, looking jet fighter.

Well, it's a free forum, and we all paid some amount of money into this sim. So we all get to have and state our opinions on the direction that ED takes the sim in. And apparently several of us would like to see that be the late cold war. That isn't to say anyone is suggesting that the projects already under way dont get completed. Just that we would like, and be willing to pay for the variants from that era.

I think I can agree with both of you. I do feel that the older versions should have been developed first. But I also agree that ED should have developed the current ones once the older, and therefore easier, ones were completed. I think ED bit off a bit more then they could chew, with the rout that they took. Two and a half years later, and my Hornet is still getting finished, the Viper is still pretty beta. Also EDs sympathies with customer opinion mean not a thing to me. ED provides a product for us, if we buy it they will profit, but if we dont they will fail. Also you may be here to get the most modern aircraft you can find, and that's all well and good. But it's not the only reason to be here.

I think I can agree with both of you. I do feel that the older versions should have been developed first. But I also agree that ED should have developed the current ones once the older, and therefore easier, ones were completed. I think ED bit off a bit more then they could chew, with the rout that they took. Two and a half years later, and my Hornet is still getting finished, the Viper is still pretty beta. Also EDs sympathies with customer opinion mean not a thing to me. ED provides a product for us, if we buy it they will profit, but if we dont they will fail. Also you may be here to get the most modern aircraft you can find, and that's all well and good. But it's not the only reason to be here.

But that's the thing. Lugging AIM-9Ls on your super high tech 2000s plus jet fighter feels off.

That's the issue there isn't a hard and fast set of standards for generations of aircraft. It's a marketing tool at best. But there are core technologies that once they're out they set a standard that is then followed by all others. Technologies that can't be easily added to existing aircraft. But at the end of the day it's a pointless distinction. For instance what generation is a MIG-21 bison? Or an F-4 with updated radar, leading edge slats, and AMRAAM compatibility? Also what difference dose it make when its trying to kill you? So to my estimation the core technology's listed are the the most disruptive to aircraft design. Once there out everything that fellow has them or is considered obsolescent. I'm well aware that it's a minority view. It's also irrelevant. All three jets listed above were, and are staggeringly lethal. The F-15 and the Mig-29 are actually my favorite fighters. But this is off topic. There are some highlights that get back on topic though. Like how the electronics change over time on any aircraft, and how interesting the time between 1975, and 1990 was for combat aircraft. There's a lot of cool jets from then, and having correct late 80's early 90's Vipers, Hornets, Hawgs to fly and fight them with would be an absolute blast.

Yeah, my next post is going to be about better ground AI. The infantry will actually move a bit to get to and engage targets. But they need to know to move into cover, and concealment when facing overwhelming force. When to stop and hold if facing overwhelming force, and when to retreat. They need to be nasty little buggers that can make you give up your advantage and safty, and kill you if your to careless. I do believe this could be achieved without going crazy on the AI side of things. But there needs to be some decent AI.

+1 at least in jets that are better radius fighters.

I don't. The whole "generation" thing kinda got started as a way to sell the F-22. Yes I do remember it. I think the original criteria was something like this. First gen, jet fighter, it has a jet engine, and is a fighter. Second Gen, all of the above with the addition of: swept wings, moving tail, Afterburner, super sonic, and is a fighter. Third gen, all of the above with the addition of: has an internal radar, has BVR capability, primary weapons systems is missiles, and is a fighter. This is the generation where cost started to sore. 4th Gen, all of the above with the addition of: relaxed static stability, fly by wire, digital cockpit with increased use of MFDs, increased use of composites. I could also include the ability to do air to ground without significantly impacting its air to air capabilities owing to the lighter weight of digital equipment, and is a fighters. Until roughly the last decade these jets were also typically very cost effective. Fifth gen, all of the above with the addition of: massively reduced radar cross section, super cruise, AESA radar, data link I don't know how much I'm allowed to say about that so I'm leaving it there. I'm intentionally leaving off thrust vectoring. I agree with this as much as I agree with the whole generation thing. Obviously with technology back porting to older generations creating +gens it gets a little blurry. I also left off the inclusion of EW on purpose. It was a logical conclusion to the third gens, and SAMs and started appearing on the third generation of fighters but seems to be standard equipment on the 4th gen. personally would call it a feature of 4th gens since they came with it. I'm also leaving off the ability to do multi target engagement and employ fox 3 missels because they have been added to every jet of any gen that could carry them. But the 5th gens are then first jets designed to maximize there capabilities. So by that logic the F-14, F-15, Mig-29 are all late third gen fighters, or 3rd+ gen fighters. The only real 4th gen capabilities they had were ECM as standard, and maybe the Phoenix on the Tomcat. But it was more of a brute force solution then a new technology one. I know that the F-14 and F-15 are typically referred to as 4th gen. But I think that has more to do with not upsetting taxpayers then the actual new technology that thay incorporated. Make no mistake I'm not putting down those three airframes at all. Actually I find there engineering to be amazing. They use older technology and still manage to keep pace with or outright out perform the 4th gen aircraft. Albeit at a much higher cost in the case of the 14 and 15.

I want to clarify something. I'm not neccesarily trying to get away from the AIM-120 as much as I'm wishing to fly jets with the propor weapons, air to air, and air to ground, that would have been used in Desert Storm, a fictional conflict with the USSR in Its waining days or the fictional Red Dawn war, or a fictional war with Iran set sometime in the 90's. While I totally understand, and agree that ED needs to update the core game, I also want to see them create awesomely detailed models of combat aircraft. I hope that as DCS becomes more popular, it will generate more revenue, and that will generate more content. I've been on this ride long enough to remember how close it came to not happening at all. I'm never suggesting that they make a new toy instead of improving the world it flies in. But I am suggesting a product that I for one would buy, and i suspect many more would as well. And selling products makes profit. Profit makes more upgrades and fixes. Combined they make a better simulated environment. I believe it was Tom Cruise that said the upcoming Top Gun movie is a love letter to aviation. That's fine and all, but to me DCS is the ultimate love letter to aviation, and one we can all participate in, and I'm damn grateful for it. I've spent my entire adult life around these incredible machines. I've made a career out of keeping them in the air. DCS allows me to get a glimpse of them from the other side, and that is pretty damn awsom. Let's hope the future holds many more interesting modules, many more core upgrades and features, an unending virtual war, and peace and safety in the real world.

My understanding is all the 4th gens, caveat I don't consider the 4th gen to have started until the introduction of relaxed static stability and FBW, were designed to carry the AMRAAMs. Even the F-20 was planning to use them. The C block 30 would be awsome. If after 91 it could carry the AIM-120A which would be pretty cool. And could still carry the B and C depending on time. I think it would also cure some of the dissatisfaction with the Vipers BFM capabilities. Also being the most produced variant it could be adlibed as an export version in the modern era. It could carry the Srike, as well as the HARM, and so its load out could be tailored to the year, and county using it. It would be a really cool variant, I hope ED is reading and agrees. I'd buy it, and might even fly it.

While I respect you opinion, and agree that ED needs to finish what they started, particularly in regards to the Viper, and that wether, ATC, and a dynamic campaign are seriously needed. However already sold modules, and core features do not make a profit. A profit that can then be applied to core features. There is at least a vocal minority that wants late cold war content. Also the Best we are gonna get on the Russian/USSR side of things is late cold war content. I can't imagine that it takes anywhere near the effort to modify an existing module as it dose to create on from scratch, and even at a discount it could be sold at a profit. So more sales, means more programmers and more resources for more products and features. It isn't really a choice between one or the other. It's more like more of one allows the other. Although if ED wants to let a third party make older, or multiple versions of there 4th gen jets I'm fine with that. On top of all that, I'm an aviation enthusiast, and I'm more then a little interested in flying different versions of the same jets. As for just carrying sparrows, and no data link. Well one, how do I carry sparrows on my F-16 as it is? Two, as was discussed earlier just turning off the data link, and carrying older weapons isn't the same as having the older blocks. The gulf war was as a major event that the Hornet, Viper, and Hawg took part in. And the Yugoslavian intervention was another. This is what these jets did in there prime. If the cold war had gone hot at the end, it would be the jets that I'm wishing for battling the jets from flaming cliffs that would have fought it.

With the Mi-24, and it seems AH-64 coming to DCS, it seems that the sim will be returning to its close air support roots. I vital part of this is infantry combat. But we have very limited infantry in game. There are heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, rifles, and shoulder fired AT weapons all in game. But no infantrymen use them. I love the new models detail, but infantry also use heavy weapons, and it would be awsome if the infantry in game could as well. Automatic riflemen, grenadears, light machine gunners, and AT troops are and should be part of every major militaries infantry. With the right weapons infantry could be the best units for taking and holding urban environments. Sendkng Tanks into a city is suicidal IRL, and it should be in sim as well. Clearing out the other teams troops is a vital role carried out by attack helicopters, and I believe could and should be in game as well. There are other changes that I believe would make the infantry more realistic, and effective. One big one would be if they could be transported in trucks, and IFVs like they are in helos. Another would be to make mortars only fire if there are infantrymen within a certain distance, like sams work now. Having infantry that can be transported for assaults, destroy combat vehicles, and take and hold towns, city's, wooded areas would be great for the upcoming dynamic campaign. Killing, or supporting them would be a great way to utilize the helicopters we have, and will be getting soon.

Honestly I don't think it too terrible about the F-4E because I honestly hope Heatblur picks it up. They seem to be the only ones that could do it right.

I understand EDs reason, kinda. But I respectfully disagree. It's a simulator/game, and playing out scenarios that haven't/won't happen is part of the fun. I've gotten pretty damn good at the idiot loop in the Mig-21 for that reason. I can't imagine that with current computing technology that a propor flash, and blast effect is beyond reach. And nukes could be used as a fun macguffin for mission builders. But it is what it is.

+1. For a number of reasons. One as someone who is looking to do some multi player after a long time single player, I would love the opportunity to train/practice without having to reset if I lose. Two, its something real fighter pilots do, alot. And I would love training missions, and red flag campaigns to actually be training, and red flag/Top Gun. I for one would gladly play through a red flag campaign before staring a dynamic campaign. I think the training side of DCS could actually be pretty fun.

I would agree, hopefully you could ether pay a larger price for the pack, or a base price for the module you want, then a discounted price for earlier blocks.

That is a good point. Heatblur has 4 versions of the Tomcat that they are doing, and I agree that isn't entirely feasible. So to be clear, I'm not asking for an F/A-18A, or an F-16A. I'm asking, or wishing, for earlier versions of the C models we have. I would like to see a full fidelity A-10A though. As for what models, that does get complicated. But I would suggest pick out notable historical conflicts that the airframe in question participated in. Gulf war, the Yugoslavian intervention, ect for example. Or just do an early, middle, and late block to keep it simple. As for is there interest? There seems to be. Maybe myself and a few others are a vocal minority. But the late cold war is a really interesting time. There are plenty of different airframes ether in game, or coming that fit the time period. Also there seems to be a 4th gen fatigue setting in. Add to that the old weapons for the Hornet are cool a hell, and a ton of fun to figure out how to utilize. Plus the shear challenge that is dumb bombing, and I think there will be plenty enough intest from the community to make it worthwhile.

His point is kinda my point. You can't just restrict weapons and be back in the 90's. There not exactly that same jet anymore. I do agree that the Hornet and viper should get completed. Honestly I believe they should have done earlier versions, then offer the upgrade, similar to the A-10. But that isn't how it happened. And the Hornet at least is getting close. And yes there should be a ton of work already done. The Hornet might need new engines, I was looking at it and couldn't tell. The Viper I believe would need new, or old lol, avionics. However I do believe there is enough interest from the community to make doing them worthwhile from a business standpoint. They could increase the cost of the module for new buyers to include the multiple variants, and offer a significant discount to owners of the current modules since they have already paid for a portion of the work.

Like the title states. Having different models of the same airframes is becoming a thing in DCS. I would love to see some Desert Storm era Hornets, Vipers, and Hawgs. They would fit much better with other assets, and modules that we already have, or are getting.