bies

IIRC it had 4 different games to cover the timeframe; late 1960s Vietnam, Europe Fulda late 1960s/early 1970s, North Europe GIUK 1970s, Israeli-Arab wars 1960s/1970s. Every part had proper timeframe map and proper timeframe realistic aircraft set + ground assets. It had nice timeframe inspired GUI, music and atmosphere as well.

Agree with most points. One think i would add is "A" variants mentioned here means mostly 1980s and late 1970s at most. Like F-14A, F-15A, F-16A, F/A-18A, MiG-29A, Su-25A, A-10A, F-117A, first Su-27S etc. - classic 1980s menagerie. At the same time nearly all DCS assets, which are inherited from FC, represent exactly this 1980s/Desert Storm standard. All SAMs like Patriot, S-300, Shilka, Tunguska, Hawk, Kub, Buk, M163, all EW radars, most ships especially Soviet ones, nearly all AI aircraft etc. Nearly all of that is simply 1980s late Cold War/Desert Storm era technology in DCS. And i agree completely with you when it comes to maps. I.e. Persian Gulf - we don't have Kuwait/Iraq true Gulf War 1991 map to recreate the last real life big scale air land battle and air camping with hundreds of aircrafts engaged, thousands of tanks and AFV destroyed. Or all out high intensity Iran-Iraq 1980s war with big air and land battles. Instead we have some ~2020 Hormuz Strait map which practically didn't see any combat at this time. Only some fictional/hypothetical scenarios. Similar with Syria - we don't have Cold War Syria map to recreate real life all out wars and big symmetrical land and air combat campaigns like 1973 Yom Kippur war, 1982 Lebanon war etc. Instead we have ~ 2020 Syria map which saw only one, completely asymmetrical skirmish/civil war with minimal air action and zero air combat, typical one sided mud hut bombing against helpless partisans/terrorists.

ED stated they do not plan to make any low fidelity modules in the future except for MAC, a different game. But the idea of making full fidelity modules out of FC3 is great. FC3 used some of the sexiest airframes. ED already plan to make a full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 which is present in FC3. I think it would be a low hanging fruit. Let's take i.e. A-10A. External 3D model is ready, complex flight model is ready due to ff A-10C, cockpit would have require some modifications from A-10C to make an analog version but the whole general geometry is identical. All it's weapon types are ready. The thing to be done would be a simple, very rudimentary analog avionics and we would have full fidelity A-10A. Let's wait for the official MiG-29 9.12 announcement, this can be a role model of full fidelity module made out of FC3 aircraft.

Exactly. Analog 1970s A-10A modeled as full fidelity would be still incomparably easier to learn and to operate than digital A-10C from 2010. The true difference is A-10A was useful in high intensity conflict in 1970s-1980s against capable enemy - like Soviets in Europe. When A-10C in 2010 was possible to use only in low intensity conflict against handicapped enemy, so called mud hut bombing. They were very different, A-10A in 1970s/1980s was flying at the tree tops level, manually attacking targets at close range using dumb bombs, unguided rockets, short range Mavericks and internal gun, maneuvering at very low altitude dodging AAA fire. A-10C in 2010 was supposed to fly at moderate altitude in practically save environment, drop some self-guided GPS munitions from the distance, maybe fire a gun if the enemy was completely helpless. For me personally A-10A looks like more exciting and engaging to use, full fidelity would be fantastic, but ED had to make C because it was a military contractor demanding it.

So it's just like me: i don't want any artificial balance in DCS. The only balance i like is historically accurate proper timeframe. I don't care at all if i.e. 1980s MiG-29A is better in combat or worse that the same timeframe 1980s F-14A. But i kind if care if my 2007 F-16 would be fighting against 1980s Su-27 and attacking 1980s S-300 site covering a naval base with 1980s Soviet cruiser. Not because of balance but because of historical timeframe accuracy. It's like MiG-15 in WW2 (except for the fact MiG-15 in WW2 is only 10 years more modern than it's environment when 2007 F-16 is 20 years more modern). But it's all going to change since DCS is being saturated with more and more modules and 1980s/Desert Storm timeframe will have 2 symmetrical sides NATO and WARPAC modeled soon. And I don't care if i.e. 1980s MiG-23MLA will be stronger in combat than 1980s Mirage F.1E. I just care for them to represent roughly the same period in history or real military conflict. BTW: I would buy any 1980s/Desert Storm period Viper or Hornet add-on in a blink of an eye.

F-16 or F-18 (any variant Cold War A, later C, super E, just absolutely any) will always have higher sales than MiG or Mil, any variant. They are part of American pop culture exported all around the world. If ED would make i.e. F/A-18C Lot 10 instead of Lot 20 the sales would be exactly the same. More that 90% of the people didn't even know what "Lot 20" means, let alone what is the difference between "Lot 10" and "Lot 20". They see a Hornet from the "independence day" or Desert Storm photo - they buy.

People are smart. If they see i.e. 1980s server with coherent timeframe diverse aircrafts for BOTH sides (not USAF vs US Navy) like MiG-29A, Mi-24P, Gazelle M, Bolkov-105, Su-25A, A-10A, MiG-21bis, F-5E, Su-27S, F-15C, Su-17M, A-6E, A-7E, MiG-23MLA, Mirage F.1, F-14A, Mi-8, UH-1, L-39, C-101, MiG-19, F-8J etc. with interesting engaging more manual gameplay and other 2000s with USAF vs US Navy standoff datalink AMRAAM/JSOW fest - they would gladly jump in i.e. nimble lightweight F-16A and fly to meet the adventure and dogfight MiGs with Sidewinders and guns! It's simply a matter of time since big amount of this modules are during the development as we speak and they will be saturating late Cold War/Desert Storm timeframe which is "possible to model for BOTH sides, in a reasonably realistic way". Right now more guys are sandboxing playing with Hornets vs Vipers and it's ok as well.

They would obviously balance things, i.e. F/A-18A without datalink, helmet sight, with Sparrows and Sidewinders is a perfect match for the MiG-29A with R-27/R-73. MiG having somewhat better acceleration/climb and moderately off-bore missile, Horner better low speed handling nose authority and more head-up avionics and better radar control suite. Overall better pilot wins. F/A-18C from 2005 with datalink, AMRAAM, very high off bore 9X, Helmet HUD integrated with sensors, very modern digital avionics etc. is a totally different league. Heatblur added F-14A and in Cold War 1980s scenarios and servers this variant is being used balancing things in a natural way. There is going to be similar with Mirage F.1 where basic fighter F.1C will be used in 1970s scenarios together with F-5E, MiG-21bis, F-8J, MiG-19, Huey etc. Multirole F.1E for 1980s with F-14A, MiG-29A, F-15C, Su-27S, Gazelle, C-101, L-39, Mi-8, Mi-24, A-7E, A-6E, Su-17, A-10A, Su-25A, MiG-23MLA etc. Digital F.1E for later scenarios. I think it's the way to go and I appreciate they are making few variants increasing it's usability and stretching it to cover way bigger timeframe.

Definitely. Simple Cold War helicopter would take a fraction of i.e. Apache development time, money and man-hours.

+1

Sounds like a good idea. Very relevant for many DCS modules, real warfare, lot of sea for both aircraft carrier operations and land bases, not extremely urbanized. Nearly all of 1980s "Line of Death" and "ElDorado Canyon" aircraft are present in DCS or during development US F-14A, A-6E, A-7E, Libyan MiG-21bis, MiG-23, Su-17, Mirage F.1, L-39, Mi-8, Mi-24. Only F-111 would be missing but it operated from land bases outside of the map.

Cobra, depending on variant, would be a Mi-24 counterpart in Cold War scenarios and MP servers. Both Vietnam AH-1G with miniguns, grenade launchers and rockets to escort UH-1 and Europe 1980s AH-1S/P/E/F with anti-armor missiles to hunt for Soviet tanks breaching Fulda Gap, together with Gazelle M and Bolkov-105. I would guess it can be developed after the Apache.

I didn't include Phantom because I've listed only existing modules in DCS + the ones in development. Phantom would be great but I'm waiting for ED or some 3rd party to announce it.

Agree, as i wrote like 2 days ago in similar topic: Solution is simple: add F-16A and F/A-18A - voilà! Issue solved! Then we would have Cold War NATO vs Warsaw Pact the same timeframe 1980s both REALISTIC and BALANCED at the same time: MiG-29A and F-16A/F-18A, Mi-24P and Gazelle M/Bolkov-105, Su-25A and A-10A, MiG-21bis and F-5E, Su-27S and F-15C, Su-17M and A-6E/A-7E, MiG-23MLA and Mirage F.1/F-14A Mi-8 and UH-1, L-39 and C-101, MiG-19 and F-8J and so on. All currently ready in DCS or in development, all reasonably realistic, declassified, possible to model for both sides (no US Navy vs. USAF spAMRAAM), with attractive close skill-based gameplay, mostly manual weapon employment and all the sexiest 4th generation airframes.

This was very memorable serie. It had 4 different games; Vietnam, Europe Fulda 1960s, North Europe GIUK 1970s, Israeli-Arab wars. Every part had proper timeframe map and proper timeframe realistic aircraft set + ground assets. It had nice GUI, music and atmosphere. This things were even more important than action camera.

Yes. When the Soviet Union collapsed any kind of parity disappeared immediately. Soviet Union's military spending was comparable with the USA, with nominal US dollars! Russia spent about 9 times less than the USA in similar measures so any parity or balance never existed since the fall of the Soviet empire. Not to mention the Soviet Union operated 11-12,000 combat aircrafts + about 3 thousands of the rest of WARPAC. Russia operates 1500-1600 combat aircrafts.

Just to clarify: The first F-16 Block 50 entered production 1997 (very different than our DCS Block 50 CCIP, without Link16, without JHMCS, different IFF and many other pieces of avionics/weapon/pods integration) Our CCIP represents year 2007. The first F/A-18C Lot 20 entered production 1998 (than our DCS configuration, without Link16, without JHMCS and many other pieces of avionics/weapon integration) Our F/A-18C represents year ~2005. AIM-9X entered service 2004.

9.12 from 1980s is way sexier than 2000s SMT. 29 SMT is overweight, it has lower T/W, higher wing loading, lower acceleration, slower sustained turn, slower climb rate. It only has better avionics but this is totally classified so it would has to be totally fictional anyway. Plus 9.12 was operated the by half of the world and extensively used in combat when SMT is just a curio with low priority even is Russia.

Simple solution: add F-16A and F/A-18A - voilà! Issue solved! Then we would have Cold War NATO vs Warsaw Pact the same timeframe 1980s both REALISTIC and BALANCED at the same time: MiG-29A and F-16A/F-18A, Mi-24P and Gazelle M/Bolkov-105, Su-25A and A-10A, MiG-21bis and F-5E, Su-27S and F-15C, Su-17M and A-6E/A-7E, MiG-23MLA and Mirage F.1/F-14A Mi-8 and UH-1, L-39 and C-101, MiG-19 and F-8J and so on. All reasonably realistic, declassified, possible to model for both sides (no US Navy vs. USAF spAMRAAM), with attractive close skill-based gameplay, mostly manual weapon employment and all the sexiest 4th generation airframes.

Not really, as I said the player would be required to physically look more or less straight before squeeze extreme Gs, he would be free not to do that, but he would injure the virtual pilot or lose consciousness way faster. But nothing would force his virtual head straight separating physical and virtual head movement. (And separation of physical and virtual movement is what causes nausea in VR)

Well, some exploits are due to limitations of average user hardware and they are compromises (like high magnification "telescope" in your eyes), but some could be ousted from the sim quite easily. I think each and every case should be treated and judged individually. I.e. owl head - if you are under some only moderate G in real aircraft you can check your six if you have proper bubble canopy and purposely loosened straps. That's why some fighters have side handles inside the cockpit. But obviously 180° degree owl head under extreme G loading would tear your neck muscles or even break your neck and possibly kill you if connected with some rapid roll maneuver in modern fighter helmet having significant mass. Solution could be squeezing some extreme Gs virtual pilot's head should be required to face more or less straight by the user, based on the seat's headrest with only small movement, slightly more in vertical. If you wouldn't do that and still pull 9G you would cripple your virtual pilot or lose consciousness way faster. But it's only a game after all so who knows what would be better. Maybe it would be an interesting additional layer adding depth to close air combat? Or maybe it would be a hindrance?

It would be engaging and interesting gameplay, but it would require some 3rd party with in depth knowledge to make ASW into the DCS. It works very well in Sonalyst's simulator named "Dangerous Waters" when you can fly MH-60 helicopter from Oliver Hazard Perry frigate and P-3 Orion long range plane. With throwing different buoys, active and passive sonars towed and dropped, magnetic anomaly detectors, FLIR and cameras, torpedoes, mines, bombs, Harpoons, Mavericks. Hunting for Soviet submarines hiding below the thermoclines, shallow noisy waters, sandy bottoms, inside the underwater canyons, under the Arctic ice or near tectonic shelves.

Imagine Heatblur's F-15 as an F-14 counterpart: Analog F-15A from mid 1970s Israeli-Arab wars, Semi-analog F-15C from 1979, Digital F-15C MSIPII from 1985, with all it's electronic gizmos and the Desert Storm But what other guys said it wouldn't be wise making different F-15s by different developers. Even if Heatblur is arguably the best 3rd party.

Better speak with RAZBAM, they were asking Dassault many times for Mirage 2000-5 - refused. RAZBAM stated something like they would have to made up nearly everything and invent some fictional systems and equipment by themselves this it would be pointless. EDIT: RAZBAM's developer citation:

Yet you see the difference in real world - an early German Eurofighter is going to be modeled with cooperation with real life EF pilots when Mirage 2000-5 is not allowed, not even mentioning any Rafale. No Rafale pilots around eager to disclose anything. No Dassault eager to sign any license.