bies

Many myths and stereotypes here. F/A-18 ceased to be anemic when it received the new engines. F-16 ceased to be a Cold War lightweight nimble hotrod with extreme T/W since it grew tons of additional empty mass. T/W of very late Hornet and Viper variants we have in DCS is actually very comparable. Both received mostly the same weapon systems, both are very close in capabilities. F-16 will always have somewhat better supersonic acceleration, F/A-18 low speed nose authority, but this is not a make or break anymore, especially due to standoff weapon systems, like it was during 1980s when the differences were much more apparent.

Mirage F.1 is probably the closest one to release.

East German painting would be great. USSR from Europe and from Afghanistan as well.

Don't forget about Mirage F.1, looks like it will be released this year. Mirages F.1 fought in 1980s Iraq Iran war (and Desert Storm few years later) and and shoot down three Iranian fighters, two Phantoms and even one Tomcat. How certain this kills are is another topic, but nevertheless it was significant asset of Iraq air force. Iranians used many F-5E as well, IIRC Gazelle helicopters, Hueys etc.

What timeframe represents DCS Mirage 2000? IIRC Mirage 2000 is from 1983, but we have 1987 upgrade with Thales RDI doppler radar and 530D missiles, digital radio and SNECMA M53-5 P2 engine, but before 1999 -5F upgrade F-15C from FC3 is from 1979 but we have MSIP II upgrade used from 1985 to 1998 with new computer, NCTR and TWS, but before 1998- 2000s upgrade with Link16, AESA, JHMCS.

Agree, but we may be far from the fully functional Dynamic Camping as well, so it will be the future anyway. Cold War Su-27, F-15, A-10 and Su-25 will be FC3 for the foreseeable future. True to timeframe FC3 are still ok, better than nothing i guess considering limited number of platforms in DCS. And MiG-29A is planned as full fidelity. It would be ~20 modules, most of them full fidelity, modeled as one coherent 1980s timeframe set, with both sides having comparable amount of flyable platforms.

It sounds like a perfect choice for symmetrical histologically balanced plane set for the new Dynamic Camping with both sides flyable aircraft from the same timeframe.

Yes but I wasn't talking about preferences, obviously there are people who buy Warbirds, there are others who buy Cold Wars aircrafts, there are guys who buy 2000s modules. I was talking about limitations of human brain to remember and be efficient using more than 2-3 extremely complicated modules with 2000s timeframe. Talking with many guys I woul argue only a small fraction of DCS community having A-10C, F/A-18C, F-16C can remember all the systems and procedures in all three of them. With Hornet and especially Viper not even finished with many more systems incoming. And there are also VTOL AV-8B and totally different avionics JF-17. So who will be able to use even more complicated Apache without sacrificing previous ones? Then sophisticated two seater multirole F-15E. Then totally different EF2000 on the horizon etc. I can jump to any Warbird or Cold Wars aircraft and be ready for action right now. But 2000s modules i'm already forced to choose half of them at most. (except for buying everything for the sake of supporting companies but I can't expect everyone to be so generous) BTW. It's interesting discussion but I feel we drifted too far from the topic. This deserves another one.

On the other hand cold war aircrafts had very unitary avionics so if i lear i.e. MiG-21 i can jump right into new MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-15, Su-27, Su-25, Su-17 etc. and after just some short training I'm combat ready. This was the philosophy at that times since Soviet air force was ~10 times bigger than today's Russian Air Force so pilots had to be very fast and easy to retrain to another type. I'm case of more modern aircrafts i need long and throughout training and constant practice to stay "combat ready". I.e. i can barely stay trained and efficient remember all the systems in A-10C, F/A-18 and F-16 (and they are not even finished avionics and systems wise) and learning new 2000s sophisticated module because it is beyond statistical human capability. And there is also a life outside the computer. Even real pilot learn only one type, learn it for months if not years, practice daily and doesn't have any other job except for this one. So there are two options: forgetting and abandoning some modules only to be able and have a time to learn some new one or not to buy the new one knowing it's beyond my perception. Except for buying everything to support the company. That's why "modern" modules complication restrict potential sales.

Still good to remember AH-64D with digital avionics, datalink, next generation FLIR, CMWS etc. - just without FCR - will not be even close in capabilities to original Fulda Gap/Desert Storm analog AH-64A.

It's not like that. First current FC3 aircrafts are not totally unrealistic made up fiction, they have lot in similarities with the real aircrafts, including some documentation, but they are significantly simplified and simply way older than any DCS module. Second MiG-31 is an AI aircraft and to model AI aircraft you don't need really any documentation, the systems are even way, way more simplified than FC3 and FM is not meant to be even close - look at AI MiG-15 defeating energetically MiG-29 in a dogfight with ease. Third Russian equipment is strictly classified but Soviet aircrafts from 1980s like Mi-24P, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Su-25A, Su-17M, Su-24M, MiG-23MLA and similar are probably possible to be modeled faithfully with documentation and it looks like ED and 3rd parties are going this way already with Mi-24P released, MiG-23MLA being developed and MiG-29A and Su-17M already planned. (Even 1980s MiG-31 and Su-27 may be on the harder end being PVO fighters which were always absurdly classified)

This, and making some truly "modern" aircraft for the DCS with any level of realism is impossible for obvious reasons, ED stated that many times. If someone want to accept module having nothing in common with the real aircraft except for the 3D model there are always fan MODs. PS: MAC may be a "relief valve" for guys preferring less realistic approach. It may be even easier to modify for some of the wildest B-21, NGAD, Tempest etc.

+1, very interesting aircraft. It was similar to Su-25A in performance, capabilities and it carried practically the same weapons (250 and 500 kg bombs, S-5, S-8, S-24 rockets, 23mm gunpods, Ch-23M and Ch-25MR guided missiles etc.) just lower overall weapon mass, but with vertical takeoff and landing and a bit faster. It was first and foremost an attack/CAS aircraft, it wasn't much of a fighter obviously but it could take R-60/R-60M missiles to shoot down some some slower targets like helicopters or marine recon aircrafts. BTW. Soviet Union had an impressive marine landing forces with dedicated Naval Infantry forces (and additional 3 divisions and three artillery brigades hidden as "costal defense divisions") with their own amphibious AFV and tanks, more than 80 landing crafts, some 75 air-cushion landing crafts - the biggest fleet of this type in the world, big civilian fleet to be used as transport vessels etc. Yet the bulk of invasion forces consisted of Red Army units.

Great find. This are Soviet materials from 1980s.

Both TrueGrit (EF creator) and ED stated very clearly in many interviews they will absolutely not artificially balance Eurofighter or any other aircraft in DCS for competitiveness. Our FC3 F-15C doesn't have datalink because it is F-15C MSIP II (digital weapon control MFD, TWS, NCTR radar IFF) introduced in 1985, took part in Desert Storm and later it has been integrated with AMRAAM in early 1990s. It's counterpart of FC3 Su-27S introduced in 1985, MiG-29A from 1983, A-10A in late 1980s/Desert Storm standard and Su-25A from 1981. (F-15C has been modernized later on in 2000s receiving Link16 datalink, JHMCS, new computer, AESA radar etc. but this was different variant with different capabilities which doesn't exist in DCS.)

(1) According to ED "competitive PvP" is only a tiny fraction of the DCS consumers, less than 10%. So it will not make any noticable difference when it comes to sales. (2) Tell all other teams making A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair II, Mirage F.1, MiG-23MLA, Mi-24 Hind, F-8J Crusader, MiG-17, Fiat G.91, Bölkow-105, Su-17M, EE lighting etc. - to scrap their work because their modules would lose against F/A-18C if teleported 20-30 years in time to year 2005. (3) F-16 and F/A-18 will stop being "competitive PvP" the moment Eurofighter coming out. EF supercruising at 50,000ft, with phenomenal acceleration will butcher F/A-18 and F-16 with ease having big kinematic advantage, even when restricted to AMRAAM. With 2017 classified Meteor missile it won't be any fight at all against F-16/18 just deleting some F blips on radar. So ED should abandon them when EF will come out? It's ridiculous...

Su-27S is better than Su-33 (except for being carrier capable) with better T/W, lower wing loading, better acceleration, sustained turn, climb rate. And yes, full fidelity original Su-27S would be my most anticipated module together with MiG-29A. Who knows, it may be possible to model in the future. It's a Soviet technology. About 1980s servers - for me they are way more satisfying and enjoyable experience, with both symmetrical sides flyable aircrafts of the era and close dogfights instead of Fox3 AMRAAM spam on datalink.

Considering what you wrote, WT or even better Ace Combat 7 is the game you are looking for, there you can fly a modern MiG or F-22 at a "speed of Ma = 4.2" without any data, documentation, weapon systems data, SME input etc. - for fun. The whole hallmark of DCS is its strive for realism. Modeling a plane without documentation, without data, without a license, without the cooperation of any SME revealing aircraft data, avionics, performance in different flight states etc. would be absolutely a disaster for DCS opening Pandora's box to made up evening - thus losing DCS signature. Such a plane would have fictional avionics, MFD pages, totally fictitious radar and other sensors modes and parameters with made up performance, fictional flight parameters without any EM charts, climb profiles, accelerations charts in certain configurations, FBW flight control with completely made up logic etc. In short, it would be as (un)realistic as free-to-play fan made MOD is. How professional company could demand money for such thing and how much? 10$? It would be zero satisfaction to shoot down an enemy in such a totally unrealistic and made up MiG or other aircraft - knowing the enemy machine is on a completely different level of realism, documentation, simulation, SME input, real data etc. And i'm saying this when Soviet MiG-29 9.12 is my most anticipated aircraft in DCS. (PS: The victory or defeat of such a plane in the fight against the current Hornet or Viper would depend almost exclusively on what fictional data the creator would arbitrarily made up and enter into his strictly classified missile and sensors.)

ED has made tremendous progress from "Flanker" to today's DCS World and is constantly gaining momentum adding new elements and concepts, expanding environment. ED should be extremely proud of what they have achieved so far.

I would kill for AH-64A. It may be more suited for simulator gameplay when gunner had his hand full with searching targets using FLIR and cameras without the radar, going closer to the enemy, guiding laser Hellfires. Decimating hundreds of Saddam's tanks or repelling Soviet invasion in Europe. Maybe some day.

I agree GCI was extremely important factor since 1950s up until today. I hope ED making 9.12 will improve GCI API to be used for all MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29 as well as NATO aircrafts like Mirages and others. Hornet - carrier operations overhaul, Viper - air defense overhaul, MiG-29 9.12 - why not GCI overhaul. And I agree AMRAAM in not "real" and it will never be in DCS since it's strictly classified system, crucial for security of many countries, especially it's guidance algorithms, ECCM logic, real active radar modes and capabilities etc. will remain undisclosed and closely guarded secret.

Exactly. Just F-16C block 50 CCIP, F/A-18C lot 20 and JF-17 from 2005-2010 are "unbalanced" timeframe and capability wise. All other seems to be balanced very well timeline and capabilities wise. I've checked when specific variants of some aircrafts in DCS became operational in combat units: Su-27S - 1985 (when we add R-27ER/ET - 1991) F-15C MSIPII - 1985 (when we add AMRAAM - 1991) Mirage 2000 RDI - 1987 MiG-29A - 1983 F-14A - 1972 (when add AIM-54C - 1987) F-14B - 1987 (when we add LANTIRN - 1996) MiG-21bis - 1972 (with R-60M - 1982) F-5E - 1979 A-10A - 1972 Su-25A - 1981 AJS-37 - 1996 C-101EB -1983 Mi-24P - 1981 (with Ataka - 1987) L-39C - 1971 L-29ZA -1976 Gazelle M - 1985 Mi-8MTV2 - 1990 UH-1H - 1981 Modules in developement from the same 1970s/1980s timeframe Mirage F.1, A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair, MiG-23MLA, Bolkov-105, F-8J Crusader, EE Lighting, IA-58 Pucara, F-4 Phantom, Su-17M, Mirage III. SAMs, Ground assets, ships, early warning radars - nearly all of that is 1980s timeframe. Looks like fair balance to me, mid 1970 to late 1980s timeframe, Fox 1 and Fox 2 code missiles, short range A/G unguided weapon and some rudimentary simple short range guided A/G weapon. Analog or very early digital avionics. --------------------------- What is unbalanced is fighting all this cohesive 1970s/1980s timeframe aircrafts with 2007 Viper, Hornet, 2010 A-10C and JF-17. Man technically can put MiG-15 to WW2 mission, but why? MiG-29 9.12 will fit perfectly some ~20 flyable DCS modules + ~10 modules in development + whole DCS environment and nearly all assets, SAMs, radars, ships - and not to fit just ~4-6 modules. It seems like a great choice to me.

I have my theory why things went this way. ED probably understand sticking to some cohesive realistic timeframe like i.e. operation Desert Storm or late 1980s NATO vs. WARPAC with fairly declassified aircrafts and technology, somewhat symmetrical warfare with F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, A-10A, MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-25, Tornado IDS, Mirage 2000, Viggen etc. would be way more entertaining (and realistic) and faster to make than 2000s mud hut JDAM bombing without any credible opposition. But the reason they made "War on terror" A-10C, F-16C and F/A-18C variants, knowing there will be no realistic environment, some necessary systems simplifications, no timeframe Russian or Chinese opposition aircrafts or SAMs - is their military contract. First USAF pilots needed some affordable training equipment to convert from analog "Desert Storm" A-10A to digital "Afghanistan" A-10C, it was mostly about memorizing HOTAS functions and basic procedures. Then, even if 1980s F-16, MiG-29 or F/A-18 would be much more "enjoyable" for the statistical simulator consumer fighting symmetrical opponents in close maneuver air combat, USAF pilots prefered to have later semi-outdated ~2005 Hornet or Viper variants to train some basic stuff since it still has something in common with what they have in units.

Agree, FC3 1980s Cold War and Desert Storm era was very well balanced naturally just because the aircraft represents the same timeframe. I was really surprised when ED announced Hornet will be some 15 years later 2005 variant, not fitting anything in DCS/FC3, without any proper timeframe opponents. First i was sure it's going to be a Desert Storm variant like Lot 10. (I wouldn't say FC3 was totally unrealistic, yes it's heavily simplified compared to DCS but not plain made up fiction without data. It was good for it's time.)

Instead of proposing to make some totally unrealistic Frankenstein modern Russian classified FC3 low fidelity aircrafts with fictional avionics and made up systems it would be incomparably easier to simply make 1980s/Desert Storm variants of F-16A or C block 30 and F/A-18A or C Lot 10. With one move F-16 and F-18 would fit perfectly whole DCS environment, same timeframe flyable REDFOR Soviet opponents we have like Su-27S, MiG-29A, MiG-21bis, soon MiG-23MLA, Su-25A, soon Su-17M, Mi-24P, Mi-8 + all DCS AI REDFOR aircrafts MiG-25PD, MiG-31, Su-24M etc. With more maneuverable F-16 and F-18 variants with engaging and exciting close combat and natural realistic balance due to aircrafts being from the same timeframe.