Kev2go

Although i joined this community long before any multi-role fighters were about and although i enjoy flying just about any type of combat aircraft i really finally found what encompassed of what i was looking for in an aircraft when the Hornet came out. ( even though i would have preferred a Super Hornet even more). It was also great to see more diversification of flashy multi-role aircraft with the additions of the Viper and Jeff.

No, more of a technical fascination of more cutting edge technology, and was just trying to brainstorm of what truly would be another technical milestone in development of a module, since stealth or AESA is not something yet done in DCS, and like i said probably too optimistic to think it would. Although i wont deny that the F22 would in fact be an automatic I win against anything else currently flying in DCS, that is until youd eventually get servers that mixed F22's on redforce. XD

ahh i see

Yes that is a noted capability. It will remain to be seen if ED will simulate that. Edit: From a totally different thread that this image was posted but in this image is something that resembles an Island shape on the A2A search radar, with what looks to be a 7th waypoint ( Some additional sensor fusion?) Not sure if it is indeed what it looks like though, but that look like a monochrome map, that is for some reason displayed on the A2A Radar page

Flanker may have started the series, but got gradually more popular as aircraft were expanded to include nato one. Lets be honest the first module that really set the bar for DCS study level simulation was the A10C . Though most would agree A10 being somewhat of a acquired taste due to being single role aircraft relative to more mainstream appeal of faster multi role fighter, but for that reason the next major milestone in DCS in terms of modules and new tech related specifically to them ( ignoring core game play or engine improvements) since then has been the F/A18C. Multi mission fighter coupled with the soon to be released Super Carrier addon for immersive carrier operations. If we use keyword like milestone, I dont see a full fidelity Flanker module version of the FC3 version as a milestone just as most here would agree that the F15C module ( whilst both addition would be welcome) wouldn't really be a milestone relative to what we already have.

Actually you can model a modern battlefield, just call it it a low intensity "modern" battlefield :megalol:. In all seriousness though whilst what you state is true, ED wishes is to do a "modern" time period. I know the term can be vague, and relative to a person witnessing events at a certain time frame but the game series began with Flanker and continued to with FC3, and with DCS today. Remember that the original map and oldest initial campaign for DCS that was intended to be represented was the 2008 Georgian war. The first release of DCS came around not too long afterwards. All other scenarios since ( such as NTTR and Gulf) were also centered with the 21st century, and almost certainly post 2008 in terms of map design. It also appears Syria and Mariana islands in design are also 21st century, if not outright present day (at most only a few years old in terms of intended time frame design) I dont know about you, but would you call conflicts from just a few years ago not still be considered "modern" relative to present day? Even if you want to go back more than a decade, life in 2008 was not fundamentally different as opposed to today. Although i suppose that an be relative to what part of the world you live in. Sure Flaming cliffs preceded full on study sim that was DCS , and before that Flanker series, but the aircraft represented there were probably the more modern types that could be simulated during the 90s. In the 90s, the Su27S was still Russians cream of the crop air superiority fighter, as was the F15C for the USA.

i know its called that interchangeably but people use the term AMPCD to avoid confusing with preceding MPCD which is an older color capable (CRT as opposed to LCD) display that debuted with F/A18C Lot12 Night attack. similarly if you want to play semantics... one could argue endlessly why in the super Hornet Left and right displays are still called DDI's and lower Center display is still call an MPCD, when all displays can be considered "digtal display Indicators" or especially in the case of the present day super Hornets, "multipurpose Colour Displays" as all are capable of multipurpose use and of displaying colors. AS is the air forces term multi function display is instead used, but honestly mulifunction = multipurpose. They are different words but basically convey same meaning. Besides being proffered selected terminology for a given service its all just semantics.

modern doesn't have to mean the latest and greatest technology available or even necessarily set in the absolute present day. IN the 1860s in the us civil war, breach loading weapons even some with metal catridges ammunition existed, as well repeating weapons ( level action) existed, But were not that common. The standard issue weapon during this era were muzzle loading rifled muskets. Such new weapon types didn't become common place standard issue until the following decade. In ww2 the Germans invented the first assualt rifle, yet the standard issue weapon for Germany and most other nations armies ( with exception of the USA) were still bolt action rifles. the STG was noted in skirmishes, and from a design perspective mattered for what future small arms design would head, but in the grand scheme of war, its impact was minor. With exception of russia Most western countries were slow to appreicate advantages of an interim sized catridge, and ofa selective fire "assault rifle" and still went with the "battle rifle philosophy" post ww2. As another Jets existed in ww2. Germans were the first to put Jet driven aircraft into combat use with the likes of the Me262, but the standard fighter type for air forces including Germany remained propeller driven aircraft. Jet powered aircraft would not have a chance to proliferate into mainstream use until the early 50s for the Korean conflict. AS a nother example somtimes the equipment utilized is modern ( relative of a time period) but the tactics and doctrine are dated at the start of a conflict, and only after a rude awakening are changes made by military leaders to match the current technology present. ( Crimea, Civil war, and ww1 are good examples o ths) The same can be made for more modern eras of aviation. So what if the F22 existed in 2007? so few were produced, its an expensive air frame and its a designed as dedicated air superiority . Sure it would be cool to have in DCS, but its actual use in historical conflicts has been nearly non existent. The F16 up until recently was still the US air forces (and tbh still is until more F35 squadrons come about) its primary workhorse fighter, and other gen 4 aircraft like the F15C and F15E Strike Eagle are still in active duty use and are expected to be so well into the future. Wheras the F22 raptor has farted around in circles, the F16 has seen extensive use even into the GWOT. Block 50 we have in DCS is fairly considered "modern" becuase the CCIP program essentially brought vipers to 21st century standards, even if most of the updates are incremental and not groundbreaking big like a new radar type or other. Sure Super Hornets were already around in more significant numbers by 2007, but the first block Super Hornets were really just larger Hornets with longer legs and 2 extra hardpoints for the most part. Block 2's had incremental improvements, and didnt get any major upgrades until AESA radars. Due to developmental problems with software, AESA radars only exited in low rate on a handful of Super bugs for evaluation purposes until Lot 30 of the block 2 production were the first to actually get serviceable AESA radars ( and those were Growlers) and first SH production batch to have them. It then took a number further years to back fit AESA radars for all block 2 LOt 26-29 production already in operational service. The super Hornets produced since lot 30 for the USN , have all been Growlers with the exception of lot 37 and 38 batch which in included a handful of of low rate E' and F's. the F35 is the latest and greatest multi mission stealth , but even that wont replace everything in the Air force or Navy. The F16's will continue to see use with Air National Guard, nor will the F35A replace the Strike Eagle or A10 warthog as initially intended. IN turn the Navy are going to operate Super Hornet's alongside F35C's. You have to realize that more major changes to the Viper didnt start happening until very recently. Stuff like 3 center MFD, or AESA radar are sets of upgrades that are just happening now for the USAF.just like the F15E strike eagle only a small number have AESA radars ( first batch only delivered for operation use in 2017), and are far from seeing mass proliferation among the Strike Eagle fleets. Stuff like the block 70 Viper are export market only, for nations that either cant afford a true next generation design like the F35, or for nations that USA won't sell the F35 to. Edit: would also point out, that the F18C hasn't been retired for "many years"? But only 1.5-2 years at most. And even then its only retired from active duty service, not from Blue Angels or reserve units. The Marine corps for example cant afford to retire the legacy hornet yet because they didn't opt for super hornets nor do they have enough F35B's yet in service. They instead investing money to upgrade Legacy Hornets with AESA radars, the first of which should reach operational service this year.

honestly dont get too obessed with exact service dates, becuase there isnt always a time in history where 2 adversaries are evenly matched. What you also need to consider is that evne with how the F5E is currently represented most of its campaigns and missions are in fact centered around training in the Nevada NTTR anyways. Its like saying whats the point of the Mig23MLA when it came into operational use at time when USA already had the F14A for a few years with the F15A entering operational use around the same year? you can easily just sick it against oponents from a similar technological footing or era for balance IE against a F4E or F4J phantom, if they were in game. What you dont realizie is that the F5N is literally an F5E under different nomenclature that the navy assigned it, just not the "vanilla" type of F5E that USAF operated. F5N's are buyback of retired Swiss F5E's that happened to have a few extra avionics, like digital radios, and an INS to the current F5E. Although actual USAF F5E's had neither CM suite nor RWR, hence why if a remodel happens there aught to be a split for 2 variations like the P51D25 and D30 for ww2 aspect of dcs. SO just because they navy didnt buy them until early 2000's doesnt mean they didn't exist in such configuration at an earlier date with swiss air force.

yea in many instances AMPCD in F/A18C's seems to have white font color as opposed to green given one can find references of green font, this perhaps would mean that font colour can be changed based on preference?

an F22 would be less advanced than a Hornet in terms of A/G , but still vastly superior in terms of A/A capacity. Not even just for the stealth aspect, but remember that F22's do have AESA radars. ED have yet to attempt to make an AESA radar, and going for an F22 seems too big a leap. A less risky move to first gain expereincen in simulating an AESA radar? it would make more sense to create a gen 4.5 aircraft, that is equuiped with such an radar before also trying to deal with stealth mechanics ( or low observable RCS). For that it owuld have been more logical to make a smaller baby step with a Lot 30 super Hornet ( or earlier models from lot 26 that were eventually retrofitted with them) I honestly don't see an F22 or even AESA equipped super hornet happening any time soon, although id be happy to be proven wrong. :smilewink:

The statement clearly used the word "aircraft". Whatever the module will be it wont be a simulation of a ground vehicle.

you know what else could have all of the above bolded categories ? attack helo like the Ah64D longbow. :smilewink: SOmething that would certainly be anticipated and be a blockbuster hit for rotary winged part of aviation to be sure.

key word is also 'eagerly awaited" i would think anything ww2 is still not quite mainstream or anticipated as the sort of "blockbuster":hits we have seen so far ( IEteen series fighters) keywords to take into consideration are "Complex" and "milestone", so it it isnt likely to be another mulirole gen 4 fighter, ( not even redforce) as that would be something in the same category, thus no longer a milestone.

Easier said then done in actual reality. Can try to do the same with the whiskey cobra mind you which is more suitable for a contested environment than the a mod apache due to agm122 and aim9,s, countermeasure system derived from the hornet and if a 2000s mod a mws.

If there is going to be a blueforce helo I'd want at least 1 modern attack helo for the 21st century, before going back to cold war. The single engined cobra aught to be a throwback to the cold war. Not the apache. Ah64a was only in the cold war for a few years anyways. The ah64a didn't see its first combat action until the gulf war. The single engine cobras are more fitting for the cold war depending on model but even the ah1f is barely cold war like the f14b. Just as one can lump AH1W cobra in that same basket, although that remains relevant due to prolonged use well into the 2000's due to time it took for the USMC to find an appropriate successor ( which really is yet another more beefier cobra). Perhaps that model would be the best compromise as it still retained an analog setup until present day where it is almost nearly phased out.

Its a totally different airframe i get it. Apache has better flight performance, and better protection against small arms dont get me wrong, but avionics wise, both are extremely analog. ID rate the navigation suite better too if going for a late 90s- early 200s mod ( EGI system), but late life AH1F's arent too shabby with navigation as they also got an off the shalf GPS system installed into cockpit. henceforth i would say AH64D would stand out alot more vs AH1F than Ah64A vs AH1F. weapons wise, as i mentioned the A model apache is superior because Hellfires > TOWS, at least in range, and the 30mm autocannon certainly better against armor than 20mm gatling gun TBH though if i had to choose i absolutely would take a usmc Ah1W over AH64A purely because it has better variety of weapons (both TOW and Hellfire options) as well as Aim9L or M capability for air defence or AGM122 Sidearm for protection against radar based anti air units. A 2003 era AH1W already had Missile warning system integrated something that apaches didnt get until 2012 with the Ah64D block 3 which is basically a early mod Ah64E with older nomenclature which changed to E designation a mere 1 year later.

i would be far less interested in an AH64A if the AH1F is also made. Or vice versa for a cobra if Ah64A came out first. THe main difference will be bigger calibre gun, and laser guided missiles over wire guided TOW's. I think an Ah64D would stand out more in contrast to an Ah1F as opposed to An AH64A vs AH1F, since the D will be the rotary analog of a gen 4 jet in terms of avionics ( glass cockpit) and the fact it would fit in 21 century - present day GWOT scenarios more amd the AH1F is oldschool enough for cold war itch.

*correction* people aren't burned out on blockbuster jets, they are just burnt out on playing blockbuster jets in a never ending EA cycle.

F/A18E block 1? ;) Ok jk i know that probably wouldn't be nearly as big of anticipated release given not only its a multi-role fighter but a host of similarities to the Legacy Hornet. That being said, it would be the quickest way for ED to churn out another module in faster time for a quick buck if you could just copy paste nearly all the coding aspects needed for avionics like the radar or software aspects for the MFD pages, and weapons employment procedures. If going for two seat F/A18F that would be more work ( but still same displays as front seat within block 1) because of dual cockpit but would offer a 2 seat experience for a modern multi role navy jet, one that could still be fully operated without a human backseater, and not requiring development of an AI for singleplay.

F4 phantom? vocal minority? Bahhh. This is one of the most prolific aircraft series of the 3rd generation for the western side of aviation. It would be like saying Mig21bis or Mig23MLA is not relevant for redforce and only for vocal minority. Yea thier not gen 21st century gen 4 jets, but some of these older era jets are still anticipated. Although i agree, to an extent somone thats anticipated is still subjective depending on what a person wants, and for the time period. At one point the F/A18C was the most highly anticipated module, then until a year ago It was the Viper and Tomcat. So at the end we will just have to wait and see.

The Hornet we have though didn't use an older radar than the APG73. The Lot 20 was a final produced in 1998, and on top of that we have plenty of post Y2K post production upgrades. The first APG73's were delivered as early as 1994 . At worst itl be APG73 Phase 1, but even that is unlikely as the very last delivery of the APG73 phase 2 was in 2006, and our hornet is circa 2005. Really IF ED doesn't have enough data il imagine they will just have a worse approximation of SAR technology in the sense of the exact image quality presented in screen. Otherwise I dont see why they wouldn't do an EXP 3 A/G option that SAR allows, as such radar modes certainly are documented ( see beamscanners APG73 thread) Judging by wip of ED radar tech for the hornet many years ago ( and seeing it already implemented in some form for JF17 Real Beam mapping) its already looking to more authentic representation of A/G mapping capabilities than anything else id seen in other sims.

Not that your wrong with the limitations of using older A/G radar for attempting to aqure and pinking individual tanks, but i just wanted to point out its a good thing we have the AN/APG73 phase 2 in the Hornet and not the AN/APG65 ;) . Phase 2 of which introduced SAR technology for further refined radar map resolution and a extra level of magnification of sorts ( EXP 3) Its said to be comparable quality to that of the F15E. Overall the radar in Hornet is better than that of the F16C viper because the USAF never updated AN/APG68 past V5, wheras the closest technological neer peer radar for a viper to the Hornet would have been the AN/APG68 V9, which apparently only export users upgraded too.

That other sim honestly doesn't do AG radar justice. Its one area where it felt short.

Dcs is flight sim. Not everyone has combined arms or wants to be a strategic ground commander. The lot of us are here to fly. There are other games for that. We all know that most wars are not won with airpower alone, but it really depends on the conflict type and war aims tbh. There are plenty of examples in history where there were just limited independant air campaigns and no ground forces invasions. There is a certain line that has to be balanced between realism and fun. Even the most unforgiving of infantry based simulators, dont punish players remotely the way you suggest for dcs because pure realism isnt fun, but dull. Dcs is still a virtual hobby and not real life. I dont lnow of anyone that wants to wait a day to be able to fly online again just because thier virtual pilot avatar died. Similarly why it simply makes sense to reset a lost scenario as no one is going to fly really time for 12+ hours or wait real time for reinforcements that take days or even weeks. Or if a war is outright lost there is surrender , a cessation of hostilities, there is nothing to fight with. It really seems like you just want to have an excessive amou nt of control, and I'll tolerant of any mistakes. We are not professional pilots, but hobbyist, and we learn from mistakes. Mistakes that we can afford to make because we dont die in a computer generated world. You just have to accept that you cant have the sort of control you want unless you have a private server and are part of a like minded squadron, which seems is what you really want. As someone else suggested just have your own custom server with a password, and presto you won't have undisciplined plebeians messing up your vision.