bies

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.

You've used wrong velocity for the GSh-30-2, probably just a mistake, it should be 870m/s. GSh-30-2 has 68% energy of GAU-8.

An ode to Warthog's low speed, low altitude manoeuvrability, and turning performance in its proper enviroment. The A-10A was designed for a high intensity war in Europe in 1970s/1980s where weather and terrain often means you have to fly low and slow to acquire battlefield targets. It would be great to have full fidelity pre-LASTE A-10A (or Su-25) in DCS. ssstwitter.com_1729425428542.mp4

A-10 GAU-8 fires much more powerfull AP cardridge 30x173 with 425 gram 1010m/s muzzle velocity when Su-25 GSh-30-2 uses far more moderate 30x165 with 390 gram 870m/s muzzle velocity.

I always felt like 1991 Desert Storm / 1980s Iraq-Iran war should be the first "desert" map in DCS. Nothing against "War on Terror" but such assymetrical warfare is neither particularly exciting nor possible to even simulate in DCS. When all out wars with both sides having tanks, artillery, aircrafts, helicopters, warships, SAMs etc. like 1980s Iraq-Iran war or 1991 Gulf War are perfectly suited for DCS. Thanks!

It belongs to "Maps Wishlist", not to "Core Wishlist" though.

Agree 100%. Cold War era assets would be fantastic. And AI ground, air and sea assets don't need to be of extremely high quality, just high quality. We won't see them from 10-20 meters anyway to be able to see any difference at all from the aircraft or even helicopter cockpit. It's especially true for the ground forces. With priority for the assets which actually are routinely visible from close distance, like the tankers, which currently are of, let's say, 'poor' quality. There is quite a massive difference in workhours and money needed to make extremely high quality model and just good enough one. Like many, many times more. You can often have like 10 decent quality models for just one single extremely high quality one.

Yes and no. Yes it can't be modeled using current, extremely simplified countermeasures model, probably not changed much since 1999 Flanker 2.0, developed to run on todays hand calculator CPU. On the other hand the whole countermeasures system should definitely be rewritten from scratch as even most bascic simulators nowadays use more complex model, it's high time. Flares, chaff, IRST, electronic warfare. I believe ED is working on it.

Yes. F-15A or F-16A would be great. F-15A was significantly earlier even compared to the first MiG-29. In mid 1970s F-15A were already fully operational and in numbers in Europe. F-15C were operational in Europe in 1979, also years before the MiG-29. In 1985 F-15C MSIP II became operational, with standard we ~have in DCS: TWS radar mode, NCTR IFF, MFD weapon control, new central computer etc.

It would be fair, as some additional e.g. "Semi-Historical or Relaxed Filter".

Well, "Historical Filter" being historically accurate have advantages as well. We can always turn it off. It will be increasingly important to make it right as many Cold War modules are being actively developed right now; MiG-17, A-1H, G.91, F-100D, F-104, A-7E, MiG-23, Kfir, A-6E, F-4B/J, Su-17M, Bo-105, Tornado IDS, MiG-29 etc. Original pre-LASTE A-10A (and Su-25) would fit perfectly.

Yes, embarking and disembarking infantry will add a lot of immersion and realism. It doesn't even have to be an ultra high quality models and animations. I remember an old Operation Flashpoint from 2001, 23 years ago, it worked just fine and it rquired today's calculator CPU to model the whole battlefield with hundreds of infantrymen fighting in a very realistic way, using covers, different postures, weapons with ballistic, tanks, APCs - again everything with calculator-like CPU and a small studio. Maybe relative simplicity is the best way to code it today, allowing hundreds of a bit simpler soldiers to fight in reasonably realistic way, big live battlefield, instead of just a few ones of very high quality we rarely ever see?