bies

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.

They have chosen an early German variant Gero flown IRL ~2006 as their first goal so it looks like they do care about realism and accuracy. They could go full fantasy totally classified Tranche 3 right away but they didn't - that's a good sign what we will see is going to be reasonably close to the real aircraft. Classified systems and inability to verify it's realism due to lack of public data may obviously take their toll, but I hope for the best. I trust in Heatblur supervising it seeing how fantastic their modules are and how they care about realism and accuracy.

Overall i agree earlier variant can come first. I enjoy the most historically relevant variant in it's prime. I.e. F-4B/C/D/J/E from 1960s / early 1970s with hard wing fighting full scale Vietnam war as US Top Dog, doing the most dangerous fighter, bomber and carrier job, able to face the most capable opposition on equal terms and with it's true atmosphere as an iconic aircraft - Great, the best choice Late F-4E from late 1970s/1980s with slats, partially replace by way more capable F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18, still used as a fighter, but already more often as a bomber, not being the top dog anymore, though still relevant especially in the Middle East - Good F-4G from late 1980s/1990s when F-4 became truly outdated aircraft, completely replace by F-14/F-15 in a fighter role and converted to SEAD, with only limited historical context and limited role - Not so much F-4 exterminator 2000 something, from 2010s etc. when F-4 was utterly hopelessly outdated and replaced by two subsequent Generations of fighters, reduced to standoff weapon carrier and zero threat environment operations, being completely out flied by basically everything in the air and with close to zero historical relevance and zero atmosphere - Absolutely not

Rafale is so classified, being used in combat currently, everything would have to be totally made up fiction. I would risk to say US F-22 could be made more realistic than Rafe. And without it's SPECTRA suite, one of Rafale's most crucial system it depends more than most other aircrafts, it would be crippled. It would be as (un)realistic as fan-made MOD so no point making it at this moment.

I've heard this information from a few guys and seen in some guide video so i believe it is angled downward a bit for strafing like typical A/G aircraft. But i can't really be sure because with Jeff - for the first time in DCS - they did something, it works, it flies, but absolutely nobody can verify it realistic or not. I can't find any real life detailed documentation about JF-17.

Gero said something similar that 27mm Mauser was probably better suited for A/G strafing. Do you know if Eurofighter's gun is tilted upward like in F-14 for A/A or downward like in JF-17 for A/G? This would reveal it's designed purpose. EF was overall mostly a fighter, only later receiving A/G capabilities. Especially in Germany.

Interesting info, thx, I didn't know about the frangible plate. Gero said 20mm Vulcan he has in Phantom was lot better for A/A than 27mm Mauser in Eurofighter. I guess pure rate of fire and some spread are the most important factors.

I would say, considering HB forum wishlist, there could be two of J35 Draken, F-111, Tornado IDS or F-4 Phantom II. Good thing is you can't go wrong with any of them.

Heatblur said they are working on TWO modules to be released before A-6E. Not just one I would say, considering HB forum wishlist, there could be two out of J35 Draken, F-111, Tornado, F-4 Phantom. But who knows? Maybe Tornado IDS could be the next project of TrueGrit and F-4 Phantom was reserved by ED and allowed to be made by 3rd party only recently. This would leave J35 and F-111 - for me both would be absolutely fantastic choices!

Thanks for the response, I'm glad everything is under control and a part of a bigger plan. I'll always remain a faithful fan of Heatblur's classic Cold War era steam gauges modules like Tomcat, Viggen, Intruder, Forrestal and I understand other guys concerns but I'm buying Eurofighter as well. I wish you all the best and thanks for your work!

Gero said in the interview British was debating about removing the gun, but finally they decided not to remove it and all Eurofighters have internal gun. According to Gero not as effective in A/A engagement as multi barrel Vulcan though.

To be honest I've seen a few interviews with TrueGrit and I would say something like: yes but also no. Yes, Gero was an instructor pilot and he knows Eurofighter very well, he knows exactly how different systems worked and how effective they were, at least when it comes to German Tranche 1 from ~ 2004-2006 when he was flying it. That's why they have chosen this variant, very good decision already, not going for different versions without throughout knowledge, at least not now. But also no. They said something like even though they know i.e. Eurofighter's EM charts precisely, they can't disclose them not to allow potential enemies to train how to exploit Eurofighter's weaknesses when avoiding it's advantages, and they will make the flight model according to publicly available non classified data and airshows But again, this can mean both, they are going to nail it anyway potentially disclosing sensitive data and simply not admitting it (i don't believe they would do that). Or they will be forced to change the flight model in sensitive parts not to disclose sensitive data. Or something in between. In Heatblur we trust, i doubt they will allow some completely unrealistic module to be released under their trademark so let's give TrueGrit a chance. Good thing is: considering how scarce publicly available Eurofighter documentation is - just like with JF-17 - nobody is going to know if it is close to the real aircraft or not. Or verify things anyway

I'm sure German military has its parameters. But one thing is what German military has in their document shelf another is what can be disclosed to public. If this system is declassified let's do it, I'm all in, I'm sure it very powerful. But it's always better to stick to what can be model reasonably realistically than to made up something in a fantasy way without data. Because that's what differs DCS, and make it a simulation, from toy sims like WT or AC7.

Thanks. That changes all. So Heatblur would really be perfect developer to make it after Tomcat. Considering how many guys are expecting an F-4 i think ED blocking it and opening it for the 3rd party only now is the sole reason there is no F-4 in DCS yet.