bies

Most definitely past conflicts. All DCS modules are modeled as historical. Even our relatively recent Viper, Apache, Chinook, Hornet are ~2007 standard variants of deep Cold War machines. It would be great to have maps like 1950s Korea, 1960s Vietnam, 1970s Middle East, 1980s Iraq or Fulda etc. We don't have and will never have even remotely realistic "modern day" assets, aircrafts, systems, sensors etc. in DCS because they are strictly classified. It would be total fiction or some completely assymetrical scenarios. "Modern Day" maps lack realism, purpose, atmosphere and completely lack proper timeframe enviroment and assets.

This is legitimate concern, though still it's equally (un)realistic to mount FCR with rotor turning as to replace/repair the whole airftame, without a wing and dozens of holes everywhere, in a minute. But it will all be WAY more important with Dynamic Campaig when repair times will be significant part of the whole campaign.

MiG-29 9.12 didn't have internal ECM. 9.13 had Gardenia ECM but it was considered useless by the Soviet military and in practice it was replaced by additional fuel tank.

FC3-like simplified F-15C would be pointless and zero revenue for the developer. But just like full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 - full fidelity either 1980s/Desert Storm F-15C MISPII, especially now with so many 1980s era modules coming to DCS and Iraq map or mid-2000s F-15C with JHMCS, Link 16, AESA APG-63(V)2 radar as mid-2000s F-16 and F/A-18 we have - would be great. Or maybe both.

Great update. Thanks and Happy New Year!

Both AMRAAM and R-27ER/ET were already integrated and used on F-15C MISPII and Su-27P/S it late 1980s and both would be used in all out conflict, but only in the very late 1980s, 2-3 years before USSR collapse. But in typical mid-1980s DCS enviroment both R-27ER and AIM-120A would be absent/fictional. First test flights: AMRAAM 1981 - R-27ER 1982. First test firings: AMRAAM 1982 - R-27ER 1983. First full integration with fighters: AMRAAM 1984 - R-27ER 1984. Full evaluation program: AMRAAM 1987 - R-27ER 1985. First delivery to the military and combat units: AMRAAM 1989 - R-27ER 1987. Production scale untill the end of 1991: AMRAAM ~3000 - R-27ER ~4000.

That's true. Both AIM-120A AMRAAM and R-27ER/ET were tested in evaluation programs since 1988 in very small test batches, but both AMRAAM and R-27ER/ET entered service only in late 1991. After the Desert storm and Cold War ended. In 1980s scenarios AIM-120A and R-27ER/ET would be a fiction.

Original Soviet Su-27S from late 1980s is impossible to model right now. Maybe some time in the future? Only time will tell. Su-30 or Su-34 are absolutely beyound any reach for DCS, even in the future. Except for amateur-made MODs with fictional avionics, flight model, systems, weapons etc. - made just for fun.

Gazelle or Viggen-like real time periscope implementatnion should be a global API, to be used by all ED and 3rd parties.

Why even considering F-2 when there is no enviroment for it? Better chose some aircraft actually fitting what already is in DCS.

1) F-15 MSIP II with all technology used in 1991 Gulf War (NCTR, MFD, TWS, AMRAAM integration, MIL-STD-1553, ALR-56C etc.), entered combat units in 1985. 2) Very fIrst Su-27SM started to enter service in 2004-2005. 20 yers later. With very limited numbers. Up to 2010 only 55-60 airframes have been modernized. 3) F-15C fleet started to receive significant upgrades (Link 16, GPS nav, JHMCS, AESA radars etc.) only in mid 2000s. (saving F-22 program against post-Cold War reduction was eating up all the resources for F-15 modernization) 4) R-77 officially entered service in Russian Air Forece only in 2015. Before that Russians just tested different prototypes and produced limited numbers for export to India and China. Overall, the 1990s were a relatively stagnant period for military aviation. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a much smaller Russia led to massive reductions in military capabilities, number of aircrafs, active airfields and spending in Russia. Meanwhile, the United States, lacking a symmetrical opponent after the end of the Cold War, also scaled back its defense financing.

Agree. Maps being modeled as "present day" (instead of actual warzones from specific period) - when we have no present day modules or AI assets is the biggest atmosphere killer in DCS. And the reason why DCS sometimes feels more like a laboratory and not like combat simulators from the past. Present day will never be possible to model in commercial simulation without omitting nearly all real life systems, avionics, assets, weapons etc. which are strictly classified.

And turret gun control would be engaging and interesting for the gunner.

Plus an original low drag late 1950s air superiority variant from the era when the F-104's kinematic performance still it an edge in air combat, and it was something special in the air.

As usually - yes and no. Quality MODs like A-4 or OH-6 or AI asset packs usually don't require anything to work so they are 'one time ON and leave it like that', no need to disable them so they wouldn't particularly benefit from the launcher. What would benefit from such launcher are mostly 'try and forget' lowest quality, most bugged, least maintained 'FC3 F-15 retextured as XXX superfighter' MODs - and branding such lowest quality, often broken, completely unrealistic and game-crashing MODs through the official launcher would be a shot in the foot for ED. I think this few small additional steps required for the MOD to work right now, is a great natural filter, preventing the most inexperienced guys from breaking their DCS, often beyound repair, without complete reinstall, all the time.

My overall sentiment is the opposite - literally hundreds of thousands of people all around the world, not knowing DCS at all (including a few of my friends), are watching all these "Rafale vs. Su-57" videos, attracted by the titles. They have no idea that these are not the part of DCS, but amateur made MODs of very different quality (generally the more 'modern' the more fictional and 'patriotic') because usually content creators deliberately don't indicate this to attract more viewers. Unconsciously these masses of potential future playerbase are developing the false impression that DCS is a totally unrealistic airquake not different than Ace Combat, with fictional systems, generic FC3 F-15 avionics everywhere, 1990s-era cockpit textures with like 5 switches, going Mach=3 and spinning like your first Kerbal prototype, with unlimited engine power and zero damage model. If anything, I would say MODs should be separated more clearly, not less, from the quality controlled DCS, but this is mostly for the content creators decency. On ED side it's ok as it is right now - all the MODs are ok, but clearly separated and on your own risk. PS. Absolutely not mocking non-modern declassified fantastic MODs like A-4 Skyhawk or OH-6. Or many AI assets and other things made by talented guys. And quality of these has been verified by the reality - they are included in many popular MP servers, because people find them very well made, fun, fitting and realistic.)

Just two things to add: F-14 is full fidelity module and it has various real life limitations modeled in DCS. Su-27 is low fidelity simplified module and it's real life limitations aren't modeled, it's a big advantage in itself as this 1980s Su-27S avionics was full of restrictions; radar needed some time to lock, it had tracking limits during maneuvering, it had lower detection ranges in "independant mode" without GCI steering the antenna from the ground, it wasn't that reliable at low altitude look down, many functions were not as automatic as they are in FC3 Su-27, datalink was easy to jam, has limited number of doners, IRST was described as nearly useless in tactical air combat, but good enough and usefull for high alt interceptions and it was very weather dependant etc. All of that would be modeled in full fidelity Su-27S some day. Second thing is F-14 was carrier based, it required heavier undercarriage, hook, more corrosion resistant skin, whole lot of low speed lift etc. Naval Su-33 has significantly worse kinematic performance than Su-27.

It would be nice, though AIM-120B replaced AIM-120A on production lines already in 1994. And AIM-120C entered production in 1996. Considering haw simplified AIM-120 is in DCS (due to classification) i doubt there would be any differecnes between A and B as modeled in the sim, except for the name.

Remember 90% of previous simulators have only ONE single platform. And they were very much enjoyable, because the enviroment (proper era map, dynamic campaign, engaging air/ground/sea units AI, ATC and GCI interaction etc.) is what makes everything fun and engaging. Not yet another platform, when we already have more than any other simulator had before. A-7E will be great, but there is no point to 'actively' wait.

Agree. Everything which adds a purpose to play, like Dynamic Campaign, is the most important missing part of the experience. Core developement is the most important thing; like performance improvements (Vulcan, MT, VR). And even more immersion and atmosphere with proper era/timeframe maps, even better weather, ATC, air, sea and ground AI etc. Modules are in most cases extremely well modeled and we already have more full fidelity aircrafts to fly than we had in any combat flight sim ever. When often just ONE module offered great experience in many sims, having proper enviroment (time correct warzone map, dynamic campaign, correct air, sea, ground asets from theproper era, ATC). ED already did the most difficult 70%, now they only need to fill the missing easy 30%, which influences the whole experience by a lot.

I guess the whole repair mechanics will have a crucial impact when Dynamic Campaign become available. Current 2-3 min repair is gamey/WT-ish placeholder. It will take hours or days in game time - when player will immediately jump in another operational aircraft and scramble - or take off in lightly shoot A-10 or Su-25. Not magically "repaired" in 2-3 minutes.

Hahaha, you've overestimated me, i didn't joshing. I'll delete my previous post not to confuse other guys (or maybe myself

I will ask if i'm allowed to share. What does it mean? What is the point here?

One important thing to add: Fulcrum detection ranges are most often cited for a mode in which radar is being steered for the ground/GCI. If pilot uses Fulcrum's radar independently, by himself, steering it manually, detection ranges are significanly smaller. But i hope such details will be really well modeled in full fidelity module, as FC3 Fulcrum omitted them completely.

Agree, Cold War era Soviet and NATO warships would be great. Especially considering how many additional modules from the era is coming. I'm not a fan of fictional ones though. There are dozens real ones to model first. And some day operating from the ships in SH-3, Lynx, Seahawk, Ka-25 or Ka-27 with anti-submarine-warfare modeled.