bies

Exactly, a brain fog. I'll correct it not to confuse other folks.

Yes, original Su-25 would be fantastic, with engaging workflow and historically relevant, taking part in many conflicts. It would perfectly complement other Soviet/WarPac 1980s modules like Mi-24P, MiG-21bis, MiG-29 9.12, Su-17M. On one hand NineLine stated, before the current war, Su-25 is still classified by Russians. On the other hand it was widely used all around the world, even in NATO countries like Slovakia and Czech Republic. Big part of Africa. And it has been withdrawn as obsolete in many of them.

Even though specific data is classified, some obvious limitations can be estimated. There is an interview with Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton, experienced aggressor pilot, with 500 hours in MiG-29 alone and way more than 1000 hours in different NATO jets. He was one of the members of MiG-29 evaluation program. According to him, during the tests in 1990s, US flares proven to be effective against AIM-9M, but not really against R-73 - when Soviet MiG-29 flares proven effective against R-73, but not against AIM-9M. If 1980/1990s Soviet flares (what we have in DCS MiG-29, Su-27, Su-25 etc) were not effective against 1980s AIM-9M sensor, such flares would be basically useless against 2000s Focal Plane Array, creating a detailed, high-resolution "thermal image" of the target, not just relying on a single "hot spot" like the exhaust or the flare. Especially closer than ~20km. The focal plane array imaging seeker can distinguish between different parts of the target (engine, wings, fuselage, flare) and it's resilient to countermeasures such as flares because it can maintain lock on the overall shape and heat distribution of the target rather than just focusing on a single source of heat.

https://x.com/i/status/1835030148615131449

Instant mission generator may prove to be really importand addition. Months ago Kola map didn't look much better than Caucassus - but it looks way, way better now, flying Viggens through this detailed valleys is going to be a joy. Thanks for your work!

True, we maight have more 1970s modules in DCS right now; MiG-21bis, F-4E, F-5E, Mirage F.1, later Kfir. But 1950s/60s have their own taste, when often fantastic performance collide frontally with absolutely rudimentary weapons, flight controls, sensors and avionics. Like coming F-100, F-104, A-1, MiG-17, MiG-19, G.91 etc. and everyone tried to attach a nuke to everything. Even to the infantry granade launchers, the land mines, the aircraft engines, the spacecraft.

This. Developers made dozens of simulators from 1916 WW1 to 1991 Desert Storm, without perfect satellite image. And they were great, current DCS maps also have significant random element.

B-47 regularly landed with drag chute deployed way before the touchdown due to B-47 slick low drag design, after that touchdown, another, bigger chute was released.

When it comes to "B" it's worth to remember F-4B entered service in 1960, like MiG-21, Mirage III, Draken, F-104, F-106, way before Vietnam. F-4B already performed combat flights during 1962 Cuban Missile Crysis on board the USS Independence and the USS Enterprise, escorting reconissance F-8 Crusaders. It was cutting edge interceptor those times, with exceptional performance, weapons and avionics.

A plastic model of a proposed project, never even built as non-armed prototype? In a simulator where modules are recreated so faithfully nearly every button or switch in the cockpit works as it did in real aircraft? Well...

1988 looks like a perfect year. A treasure trove of knowledge for mission makers, thanks.

Nice to see, pilots models add a lot for the overall immersion over an empty cockpit with self-moving controls. Performance improvements are even more important. Thx!

A-10C used Scorpion Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, better suited for A-G especially CAS with ground forces identification. F-16C used JHMCS, integrated through other US fighters like F-15C or F/A-18C/E as a common USAF and US Navy program, it was better suited for A-A. What is more A-10C started to receive Scorpion HMCS only in 2012-2015, that's way later than our F-16C which represents ~2007. Scorpion on our USAF F-16C would be a fiction.

Yes, important Soviet anti-ship missile system, it would be particularly usefull on Kola map for Cold War Gone Hot campaigns.

Yes but bigger diameter missiles like R-33, R-27ER or AIM-54 or medium diameter like AIM-7, R-27, R-77, PL-10 are losing energy significantly faster in dense air compared to e.g. AIM-120.

Yes, it would be nice together with overall air refuel physics/lighting/communication update.

Slightly older aircrafts like F-4 Phantom will always have an advantage of being declassified and possible to model to the detail. In case of less older aircrafts like F-16, JF-17, F/A-18 etc. some systems, real life functionalities, weapons parameters and even some critical flight model regimes have to be omitted/changed, being classified.

The most important factor when it comes to losing energy is missile's diameter. With AIM-120 they were able to reduce its diameter to 7 inches (178mm), when AIM-7, R-27, R-77 (or Chinese 'AMRAAM' PL-12/SD-10) had 8 inches (200-203mm) what significantly increased their drag. R-27ER had additional segment with 260mm diameter, this was a massive drag increase, making the missile slowing down way faster. A design compromise.

For now 1985 Soviet era Su-27S is impossible. All we can root for is 1985 Su-27S being possible to model as full fidelity module some day in the future. Russian era 2005 Su-27SM would be totally unrealistic, with made up flight performace, completely fictional sensors, avionics, weapons, MFD pages. Basically as (un)realistic as amateur made Su-30 MOD, which is already available. Everything is strictly classified, without access to any documentation or SME. Su-35 from 2015, decade more recent even compared to relatively transparent our US DCS 2005 F/A-18 or 2007 F-16 (or 2006 F-22 Raptor), and being the most modern Russia aircraft, would be a joke, with totally made up everything.

It's nice, but 1980s would be more relevant, with the 1981 Gulf of Sidra Crisis, 1986 Operation El Dorado Canyon, the 1989 Gulf of Sidra Confrontation. 2011 was completely one-sided, first Kaddafi's military against Libyan civilian population, later NATO's swift annihilation of Kaddafi's military under UN resolution, without losing a single aircraft. Or WW2 era with many large scale air operations.

Yes. Better to have reasonably realistic ~2006 Eurofighter, compatible with the timeframe of ~2006 Hornet, Viper, Apache etc. and many AI ground, air and sea assets available. Than unrealistic late 2020 P2Eb Meteor compatible EF, castrated from all the classified equipement and purposely changed other ones and with guestimated avionics and weapons. Lacking any context in DCS, without 2020 AI ground, air or sea asets.

This is a part of a bigger problem - most of DCS maps are 'modern day' peacefull enviroment, like civilian flight simulator. Without actual warzone atmosphere, blackout, battlefield, real war timeframe. It means it's very easy from technical point of view.

True. Just adding some random variations to the explosion, smoke and fire would already make a big difference.

Vietnam-era Bullpup and HOBOS quirks and detailed modelling looks great. Bullpup will be used not only by F-4, but also by future F-100, A-6, F-8 or even A-4 MOD. Or Draken if thet's one of HB unannounced modules. Thanks.

That's why i think DCS shouldn't try to model aircrafts, systems, assets, sensors, weapons developed after the Cold War - they are inherently flawed as there are rarely any sources, big room for guestimation, being forced to omit many systems completely, and close to zero real life tests in real symmetrical conflicts. If DCS would stop in 1991 it would be far more realistic as systems and weapons being far less classified, tested in real conflicts, less complex, far more coherent with far more proper variant aircrafts from the unified timeframe, modeling the same aircrframes like F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, A-10, AH-64, MiG-29, Su-17, Su-25, Su-27, Mi-24, Mirage 2000, Gazelle, Viggen etc., just with earlier variants modeled in more complete and realistic way, far more attractive and engaging combat with way more within visual range A/A and A/G weapons, modeling more appealing symmetrical all out conflicts instead of one sided "War on Terror" anti-terror/anti-partisan operations of 2000s, far more symmetrical with both sides NATO and WarPac aircrafts modeled, not just one. Like our 1980s DCS F-14, F-5, F-4, A-6, A-7, Huey, C-101, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29, Mi-24, L-39, Kfir, Mirage F.1, F-104, Tornado IDS, MB-339, Bo-105, etc.