Kev2go

hmm so i guess the EW is still EA, as ED didnt not implment these options? Or are they saving more advanced opton when they figure out thier new EW API?

ahhh so it finally make sense why ED called the DCS A10C II "tank killer" instead of just retaining the warthog in the title like A10C I. Looks like they wanted to pay homage to an older game.

Its not necessary should in the future ED consider remodeling Uh1H, if they wish to include a GPS that was actually used in military hueys it should to be a Circa late 90s Uh1H huey. By that point us army UH1H's had the AN/ASN175 GPS module installed, as well as AN/ARC 220 digital radio set. UH1H Manual Link https://www.docdroid.com/otIUUww/bell-uh-1h-iroquois-flight-manual-pdf

should be also be also considered that MAC will be the future of FC3 style modules. Considering MAC will include all the aircraft already in FC3 ( and then some) its probably safe to assume that MAC will have updated FC3 models and systems, whereas FC3 is a legacy product that will fade into obscurity like FC1 and 2 FC3 will be merely succeeded with MAC planes instead. Sure MAC was initially said to be standalone product but it seems ED has shifted thier initial decision to instead making MAC the next Flaming cliffs and have it same DCS environment as FF modules.

I think you missed my point of my response. Just to clarify what I meant was that whilst it is true that if you only look at lot 20 hornet specifically, which was only a production series of 10 aircraft ok sur3that doesn't stack up to much against the total fleet of su27sm upgrades by the mid 2000. I pointed out that true meeting a lot 20 specifically was slim,it was unfair comparison in such a manner when there are more legacy hornet on the fleet that are up to the same standards as lot 20 via retrofit that one wouldn't be able to tell the difference externally or capability wise unless looking at buno number and then compare the t.o in the manual to see what features are apiece to which series or buno numbers, and in general that lot 18 and 19 have basically all the same features that lot 20 have. The hornet " lots" aren't quite as broad as air force f16 "blocks" It's not like the f16 blocks where a "block 50" can be anything produced from 1991 to like 2001, and have virtually the same general features ( or whenever production ended) Where's lot 20 production was started and concluded within the same year of 1998 ( notwithstanding post production features the lot 20 itself got that were passed down to a whole slew of earlier lots) , lot 19 produced from prior year of 1997 . Etc etc Yea it bit more confusing to identify since the navy didn't give legacy hornets any new designations for modernization/ post refit features like the vipers did ( ie f16cm post ccip program)

sure but if you look at a few earlier lots, they have been retrofitted with new feaures. So its quite disingenuous to suggest that " LOLOL lot 20 not much" If you only wanted to discriminate Su27SM purely by the batches they original Su27's were produced in versus what standard they upgraded to in the same way you single out Lot 20 Hornets specifically to im sure we could reduce Su27SM numbers to a much lower number than 77 by the mid 2000's. So whilst sure there may be only 10 production F/A18C lot 20s if you count those earlier F/A18C lots retrofitted to the same standards, you are looking at a larger number of legacies, that would be virtually indistinguishable ( reading Buno numbers aside) Lot 18 and upwards had AN/ALE47 CM suite ( but not reffited to earlier lots, but otherwise a large degree varying degree of other features from earlier ones reffited if looking at T.O's within the manual) but FIne il be conservative and still stick to the ones thatr have all the same major features so even so including Lot 18 and Lot 19, un addition to lot 20 all combined together via, that's actually 70 F/A18C's that are up to the same capabilities. Also consider that Super Hornets in operation if looking only at Lot18-20 hornets in the mid 2000s. Aproximating the Lot types in operation by end of 2005 Counting the Superhornet bunos lot 21-27 leaves 220 something Super Hornets available. So yea i guess even with widened net for legacies up to same lot 20 standard Su27SM is less likely to see F/A18C lot 18-20 and instead see Superbugs. anyways I surmise reason we have a very particular BUNO # in the cockpit ( which belongs to a lot20 production) is because that's probably the given aircraft ED happened to have access to for 3d modelling. They could have just as easily done a Lot 19 or 18 in roughly the same timeframe as the 05 lot 20 , and you wouldn't have been the wiser to discern if from a lot 20 if you didnt have BUNO # in the cockpit to tell you

even the original Su30 isn't 1980s aircraft, anymore than the first F/A18A's were a 1970s aircraft. The first batch of Su30's didn't go into operation until the 1990s, and besides they originals were limited production aircraft Su30 isnt just a su27p with 2 seats, as that was still a2a only. Specifically what we have in dcs would be more akin to the su30kn, which was a multirole model . This SU30 in DCS has R77's and various A/G guided weapons but still limited to 10 pylons unlike the mk model. ( you can take a look at its armament list in DCS). Not quite Su34 modern, but certainly post cold war service. IN purely in A2A capabilities the avionics nuances aren't really that apparent when looking at AI aircraft to really make a difference. maybe su34 has better detection range because a better radar, and has more varied A/G weapons. IF any real issue with the su30 is the fact its 3d model is much more dated relative to the SU34. see this response . Also for the Su27SM AI there would really not be much of a difference as an AI aircraft over a AI piloted su27 beside having R77's( and we already have Chinese flanker for that which is also flyable) ,better radar , and some more uprated engines if talking sm3. on paper sure hands down better radar an but not sure how ED models radar for AI's and how the AI detect targets or gets SA from sensors to the point where it would make a noticeable enough of a difference.

Su30 or even su34 isn't "modern" ?

Clearly that wasnt a deal breaker before considering that for the longest time DCS was really just ED with FC3, A10C and black shark 2 and a single Caucasus map based on the 2008 georgian war. The Influx of more modules and maps only became a thing in the last few years and with 3rd parties. So there has been quite bit of progress in fleshing out content, and eras. Also need to take into consideration PVE allows for more options. Considering there are some AI aircraft being made and the potential that lays there to flesh out eras. This already allows for more content in general but especially for those complaining that gen 4 opforce contemporaries are lacking purely pilotable modules. I Think there are merits towards they way they have gone have gone for is better because it offers something for everyone. You have a taste of a bit of every era, versus purely being 1 specific era. Granted there will be a time where ED runs out of modern era Bluforce content, and will probably have no choice but to go back in time and instead focus on earlier jet eras. Realistically ED is a small company though, and i think they already have more to bite on then they can chew, especially considering the support and constant improvements to the overall game engine that are gradually being worked on.

IM wondering how is it that in F15 Su27, or Jf17 you can still actively be using ECM but still have the possibility of operating the radar but in the Hornet, the ECM is designed that it shuts off all radar functionality when it get activated after a lock on? IS the interference that much more worse that they needed to do it in such a manner? seems like too big a of a trade off to be worth using in A2A combat given crude implementation of electronic warfare in DCS, when the others do not have make sacrificial tradeoffs

that is largely true. i was merely stating that the least effort would be block 50 pre ccip. becuase then ED doesnt have to fiddle with the Flight model making adjustments for the weaker engine. Although i admit most would probably want that block 40 just so it stands out more, due to the wide HUD, versus just getting a a pre CCIP block 50. But yeah IF ED wanted to they could have probably make a post CCIP Block 40 viper as well/, since the TO 1F1CM-1-2 supplentary manual covers block 40/42/50/52 that are CCIP commonality standards in 1 go. Even wags himself said he got time in a block 42 Air force simulator to get a better feel for how F16C block 50 functioned saying it didnt matter that it was block 42 ( or even using a more modern software tape than V4.3) because minus the HUD there was just so much commonality between it and the block 50 they chose to model. I conclude ED probably chose the block 50 over the block 40 purely because it has the better engine. The whole point of the Wide angle hud was to make it suitable to displaying Lantirn FLIR imagery for low level flying at nighttime but HUD advantages i think became moot when cockpit NVG's became a thing, and also when Lantirns got phased out for Litening 2/Sniper pod. pretty much . Looking a pre ccip block 50 viper documentation from mid to late 90s indeed not a whole lot different between a 2007 F16CM viper. Basically just less features in a nushell : analog HSI, No JHMCS, no Link 16 , monochrome instead of color displays , older LAntirn TGP, no GPS/INS,( just INS), older EGGS gunsight symbology, no GPS based munitions, to name a few things off the top of my head.

depends which service. UH1N remained the USMC "medium" Utility helicopter until the UH1Y was adopted. Given how much longer it served Uh1N also had more modern features applicable to 21st century scenarios such as modern RWR, missile warning system, AN/ALE 47 countermeasure suite which include semi and automatic chaff/flare dispensing a, INS/GPS system, and option for mounting FLIR sensor. All the while retaining lots of steam guages, so its not like it turns into " piloting an IPad" experience for those who like the older school cockpits. In Lieu of a UH1N module, a modernization /update of the UH1H model would be welcome as well, considering in the US army it served unto the 2000s with national guard units, although still not remotely as "gucci" as the USMC UH1N's, but at the very least an updated UH1H to a more recent period would meanGPS and new radioset as well as an RWR ( then again for the latter the current UH1H should have already have had RWR scope and sensors included consider the external airframe has the mounts)

not to mention the UH1H is a bit of a franken huey as it has the Aussie bushranger gunship setup, but in turn has 80s features like composite rotorblades,s Night vision compatible cockpit, but lacks rwr installation ( external 3d model is a later production mod has the provision for where the rwr sensors would be mounted, nad the US army manual from the 80s does reference a rwr panel and scope in the cockpit) same with the Countermeasures system. I dont see it referenced in either Aussie or US army documentation, so im wondering if this was unofficial field mod or foreign operator version it came from. Either way the Uh1H has a aproached a point where it aught to get external 3d model update to look more high res, and get a cockpit update as well. Maybe also to correct some inconsistencies so its representative of a specific UH1H version. rather than a hybrid of multiple versions.

although it would be less work to do a block 50 pre ccip, there is documentation for a block 40/42... cant post it here due to rule 1.16 but you can defiantly find 90s era block 40/42 manual if you look for it

disagree because "modern" paradigm fits a broad period. Alot of sam systems, and other ground armor assets from the 60- 70-80s are still in use today either by states who dont have the most up to date equipment, or simply are in in service in country of origin but in more modernized form. Unlike ww2, where every year a new series of pistons made the older ones obselete and fade quickly into obscurity, and the enemy was a modern peer military. in contrast jets ( gen 4 in particular) have soldiered on through multiple decades in frontline service, merely going through avionics updates now and then. And reality is, there hasn't been a peer vs peer conflict in a long while. So all the other content is valid for a wide variety of scenarios. SO as it stands cold war -modern period are most fleshed out. WW2 is much more particular, and only really applicable to ETO 1944-45, and then most around Normady invasion. Wheras You have far more assets and maps for post ww2 period. let's BE honest most people come to DCS to fly jets in a missile era not for ww2 content. (Ww2 is a niche within a niche) . That is its main selling point. WW2 flight gane have been dime a dozen ( if discounting fully clickable cockpits). And being on DCS discord, alot seem to agree that there is another sim ( which has more assets, more plane,s better damage model in particular) better suited for warbirds if you only care about ww2 only, and if lack of clickable pits arent a deal breaker. Hint:: if that still not enough. the name of the game series is that of a Russian attack aircraft from ww2

I think maps we have are mostly focused around more modern era combat, looking at the scenarios, maps, and assets that have existed before DCS ww2, and the ones that have been being added since ww2. More modern era is still the focus, even if ED has invested enough into build a ww2 era. Even then its mostly late ww2 era European theatre circa 1944-45 i think the main driving factor behind DCS ww2 has been not player demand outdoing the numbers who want cold war or even modern era modules, bur rather that that one of partners of ED, Nick Grey is owner of The Fighter Collection in England ( a non profit organization that collects, maintains, and operates warbirds) , and probably pushed his ww2 aviation passions into DCS which still is more focused gen 4 missile era jet combat, hence giving us a bigger ww2 environment than we would have otherwise had.

some foreign operators like the Finns or Swiss with thier F/A18C had more modernization than USN in their legacies, and have same glass touchscreen UFC's olike Super Hornets including full colour LCD based DDI's. take this for example. Can still tell its a F/A18C due to the legacy style fuel/engine display

Havent been able to find an accessible natops A7E manual online, so i can't really read into detail. But does A7E still have Agm12 bullpup capability? or was that only the airforce version A7D that retained it?

When the US navy got those Surplus Swiss F5E's , i suspect the guns were removed because they werent really used. AS a purely aggressor aircraft, Its not like a pilot would actually fire thier ammunition from the guns against other aircraft, so it may as well be deadweight if all you do is simulate a2a kills. Its not like those holes or empty spaced blocked off. IN the same way how a Thunderbird F16 has its guns removed, they can easily be reinstalled and put back into combat configuration if it was necessary.

taiwanese F5E's have thier countermeasures panel in front of the left hand panel as opposed to being at the back.

Although i had overlooked those side panel inconsistencies I had also noted other ones. Truth be told BST sort of did the same thing with the F5E tiger. It also isn't quite accurately representative of any one model even though it was specifically mentioned it was supposed to be a US agressor.

its only in use by the Dutch air force. US army does not use these they instead went for a CMWS system( which is more integrated as those IR sensors and CM suite are installed into airframe as opposed to being addon wing tip mounts) Plus one would need documentation to accurately represent how it works.

AH1 variant ED wanted to do was not the USMC SUper cobra but was an army version AH1F

would be nice but A10C's arent equipped with that missile In real life, so why should they be in DCS?

The official roadmap says it will be based on a Circa 2002 Block 2 Ah64D Maybe based on the features you noted from the teaser the Apache will be a " Hybrid/franken" model Kinda how the A10C v1.0 was technically supposed to be a Suite 3.0 jet circa 2005, but ED module had features not introduced until suite 5.0 ( which was like 2008-2009ish) like the SADL va TAD, and the MAWS integrated, which suite 3.0 never had but in turn lacking some other suite 5.0 features like Laser mavericks or AN/ARC210 digital radio which was introduced in suite 5.0.