Are Hornet, A-10C, F-16C from about 2005 too modern for the rest of DCS environment?

[bies]

FC3 is modeled as Cold War/90s technology, all aircrafts, SAMs, radars, weapons, ships etc. are from about late 80s early 90s.

 

Now we received greatly modeled full fidelity A-10C, F/A-18C, AV-8B, F-16C from about 2004-2009 but operating in 80s/90s enviroment and against 80s/90s enemies, other modules and weapons.

 

 

Nearly all other modules are modeled, at most, as late cold war/early 90s/Desert Storm timeframe:

F-14B, Viggen, F-5E, MiG-21bis, Mirage-2000C, Ka-50, Albatros, Aviojet, Gazelle, Huey, Mi-8 and the whole FC3 pack with Su-27/33, MiG-29s, A-10, F-15, Su-25s. The whole enviroment with weapon systems, AI planes, radars, ground forces, ships etc. are also 80s/90s.

 

What is more we -most likely- won't have any full fidelity REDFOR counterparts for 2004-2009 modules, Russian planes from 2004-2009 standard will not be possible to model in the future.

But 80s/90s MiG-23 or MiG29 could be possible and 70s/80s MiG-21bis is already here. And at least there are FC3 REDFOR counterparts from 80/90s.

 

 

Wouldn't be better to model somehow less capable A-10, F/A-18, F-16 and Harrier variants?

Like A-10A, F/A-18C Lot 10-14, AV-8B(NA), F-16C block 30. They would lack some features but they would be consistent with the rest of the whole environment of DCS and other modules and they would find some REDFOR counterparts.

All this planes and modules would be able to compete in realistic enviroment against each other in both Multiplayer and Singleplayer on somehow equal terms and close to real life scenarios.

 

 

Or maybe ED is doing right trying to model the most modern variant of each plane they are able to find enough data even if it wouldn't be compatible with the rest of the enviroment and they would like to just populate with modules and whole enviroment the 2000s era?

Or maybe ED would be able to model slightly older versions of i.e. F-16 block 30 and F/a-18 Lot10-14 when they finish them?

 

What do you think?

And BTW. Thanks for the whole ED team for coding the best military sim ever - have a wonderfull day!:thumbup:

cheers

Edited November 2, 2019 by bies

[Silver_Dragon]

- AV-8B (NA) has builded and release by RAZBAM

- A-10A was planned as module after the Ka-50 but "never" build.

- Mig-23MLA on progres by RAZBAM

 

Actually, DCS World go from 1942 (Spitfire MkIX) to 2009 (F-16CM block 50) aircrafts.

[bies]

- AV-8B (NA) has builded and release by RAZBAM

- A-10A was planned as module after the Ka-50 but "never" build.

- Mig-23MLA on progres by RAZBAM

 

Thx for the answer, yes MiG-23 will fill some gap for sure. I didn't know full fidelity A-10A was planned, would be great.

[Silver_Dragon]

Thx for the answer, yes MiG-23 will fill some gap for sure. I didn't know full fidelity A-10A was planned, would be great.

 

You can check the released, in progress and "planned" modules on my signatura on the "unofficial Roadmap".

 

About 80-2000 era, ED has actually a Mi-24P, and a K-50 upgrade in progress and have a future F-4E Block 43, AH-1S planned (some rummors have about "other" late cold war aircraft).

 

About 3rd parties Deka has working on a JF-17 (2000s) aircraft. Has some "rumors" about a A-6 will can build in a future by HeatBlur / ED.

[bies]

Mi-24, Cobra or F-4 Phantom are all great ideas. If i remember well Matt Wagner mentioned they will consider modeling some older F-16 variant like block 30 when they finish block 50. Is this still an option? I'm wondering how much work such changes require since their resources are finite.

[Rudel_chw]

Wouldn't be better to model somehow less capable A-10, F/A-18, F-16 and Harrier variants?

Like A-10A, F/A-18C Lot 10-14, AV-8B(NA), F-16C block 30.

 

All this planes and modules would be able to compete in realistic enviroment against each other in both Multiplayer and Singleplayer on somehow equal terms and close to real life scenarios.

 

What do you think?

 

While I understand that, for a part of the Community, DCS is a competitive Game and for them it is important to have equally capable aircrafts; for me DCS is mostly a simulator, where I can learn the nuances of flying very different helicopters and aircrafts, their systems and capabilities.

 

So, from my POV, I’m equally happy with a MiG-15 than with an F-16C .. I can appreciate a big helo like the Mi-8 or a tiny thirties plane like the I-16 .. so, the way that DCS currently evolves is fine to me.

 

However I do agree that there is a lack of AI units for periods other than the 80-90’s ... the ww2 assets pack has added some for the 40’s but it is still pretty small and biased towards the german side ... I’d love to have assets pack from more eras, like Korea and Vietnam, and dont mind paying for them, as I realize the man-hours that each unit requires to be created.

[Mr_sukebe]

Whilst not perfect, it’s easy to limit weapons to those appropriate for the time period, eg in the early 80s there’s no Mavs, GBUs, Aim120s or for that matter Su27s.

That’s how I deal with it in my own missions.

[bies]

However I do agree that there is a lack of AI units for periods other than the 80-90’s ... the ww2 assets pack has added some for the 40’s but it is still pretty small and biased towards the german side ... I’d love to have assets pack from more eras, like Korea and Vietnam, and dont mind paying for them, as I realize the man-hours that each unit requires to be created.

 

That's it but i'm afraid modeling assets from different eras would be too much when it comes to finite resources ED has. That's why i think it could be good to focus on one era. 3D models are one thing but algorithms, behaviour, AI, technical data etc. of few modern 2000s SAM systems could be very complicated if possible at all.

 

Simply imagine modeling fairly realistic Russian S-300 or Pancyr or Su-35 from about 2005. Only as AI. How you even obtain some approximate data, logic, systems, radars, links, efficiency etc..?

When it comes to 80/90s it may be possible to approximate but mid 2000?

Do we even know old school SEAD HARM tactics from Desert Storm is efficent against i.e. mid 2000s S-300? Or how this thing really operate? I dout if you dive to the ground modern SAM wold hit the ground because of approximate collision point is below the ground level :)

 

After all, from study sim point of view i'm equally happy learning quirks of i.e. F-16 block 30.

IDK but i would like to know what oter people think.

Edited October 30, 2019 by bies

[Guille H. Mono]

"Actually, DCS World go from 1942 (Spitfire MkIX) to 2009 (F-16CM block 50) aircrafts."

 

Sadly this is not true, In this Digital Combat Simulation there are some modules that are left in a gap due to the absence of era related contents.

 

i.e. I-16, wonderfull plane! What i'm suposed to do combat with? A 109K-4?In Normandy?

 

Mig-15, bought it years ago, a delight to fly but I don't touch it anymore beacause it's just fighting Sabres in 70's Caucasus Map.

 

 

I know the acces to technical info is what dictates what modules would be feasible and I can only wonder how difficult and costly a task like this would be. But lastly, We can see how 3rd partys are taking the step forward and delivering relevant context where we can enjoy their products. Mostly AI units.

 

i.e. Heatblur adding Carrier and Intruders for F-14 or the Draken for the AJS-37.

 

Razbam with the Tarawa and heavy tankers for the Harrier and M2K.

 

Deka has been releasing some of their work from the Chinese Asset Pack.

 

(note that all the examples I mentioned are free content)

 

 

As for ED, they have been announcing AI content for a while. It unexpectedly appears in the News those weeks when there is no much to tell. Then, they are not heard of again or are sent to the lowest priority pool.

 

The Persian Gulf Map is declared as finished and We do not know if these motionless ships spreaded arround the water are the only vessels We are getting.

 

 

I guess this is how we got to DCS World 2.5.5 with basically the same AI units We had in LockOn. Wich was just an 80/90's era sim.

[Exorcet]

Just one thing to consider with this, not every war is fought between technological equals. Having 2010 aircraft against 90's aircraft/SAM's isn't totally implausible. I feel that for post 1980, DCS isn't that bad. It's before then where things start to feel sparse.

[Harlikwin]

I totally agree there needs to be more "though" put into planeset selection. As well as maps for them to be used on.

 

To some extent you can model more basic variants of the "advanced" planes. I'm not sure if its possible to "damage" certain systems in the mission editor but if it is, then its even easier.

 

The AV8B is a good example. We have a very late model N/A model. But what you need to do a an earlier 90's era model, or even a iraq war1 model is to disable JDAM's and make the Tpod unavailable for it (no self lase). Of course then you still have the "fancy" GPS aided nav system and moving map functionality (TAMMAC), which the way its implemented makes CCIP too accurate. If you can selectively "damage" the GPS or TAMMAC map then its more accurate, i.e. you have to take nav fixes and so forth, and you actually have to consider your "data source" for accurate CCIP deliveries.

 

The F18, would be harder since it has an AESA radar (admittedly a mostly non working one today) and then link16 wasn't available until the mid90's IIRC. So to do a Cold war charlie hornet would be hard, maybe you could damage the link16, but I doubt you could damage radar modes. Sure you can take off the TPOD, but unless ED adds the earlier FLIR/LST pods then you have a day attack only hornet.

 

F16, same deal as the hornet for the most part. It will be hard to do "earlier" versions, even if you can disable some systems/weapons.

 

I actually asked how much harder it would be to have "earlier" variants of the F16/Harrier/hornet. Mostly the issues are in more primitive nav systems which adds some difficulty for weapons deliveries, and then more primitive sensors like radars/thermals, which I think should be way less of a problem. But you do have to generate new code to accurately depict their shortcomings. But I never did get an answer.

 

In terms of upcoming modules

JF-17 will be the primary "redfor" aircraft stand in until someone builds a mig29 or SU-27.

Mig-23 is great, but there is nothing really for it to fight until the F4E, maybe the Viggen works or the F14A which still greatly outclasses it.

 

The current plane set I'd say is blue heavy in the modern, and red-heavy in the older aircraft. And really there isn't much middle ground. So I'd personally like to see "older" blue air, and newer "red air".

 

I do agree with Bies about picking one era and trying to fill that out, be it 85-95 or whatever. Documentation and tactics knowledge is more available the older you go so it solves some problems there. And IMO it is modern enough, though I'll miss my JDAM's.

 

The other thing about AI and SAM's etc, I think this is going to be a potential issue for ED with the upcoming promised IADS/GCI/dynamic campaign model. Because an 80's era soviet run/staffed IADS network is going to look alot different than a western IADS net from the same era, or a 3rd world country using soviet equipment like Syria or even a mix of systems like Iraq.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Harlikwin

[QuiGon]

I feel that for post 1980, DCS isn't that bad. It's before then where things start to feel sparse.

Indeed :thumbup:

[Keks]

For me, the multiplayer part of this problem is on the server admins. And on people who still hand onto the completely outdated idea that aircraft x hast o be "blue" at all cost and aircraft "y" has to be red.

 

That bluefor redfor stuff is pretty much dead by now. We have nations operating both western and eastern aircraft, NATO migs, a very open export market on both sides and the chance for a great "red" vs "blue" war is basicly 0.

 

For pvp multiplayer there is nothing wrong to equal out the playing field by simply putting the same aircraft type on both sides.

 

Looking at the JF-17 for example, a lot of people are happy because it is a "red" aircraft. Thats just bs, because it is currently operated by a nation that also used the viper a "blue" aircraft. You see where I am going here....

 

For public pvp multiplayer, to make it balanced and fun for everyone just get rid of the red vs blue at all costs thinking.

That got really annoying before the viper came out, I still have nightmares from the usual 20+ hornets +3 F15s with 120cs vs 2 mirage a 29s and 2 SU-27 situations that resulted from the "red vs blue" mindset.

 

DCS is a sandbox and everyone is basicly free to do whatever he or she wants. There is nothing wrong with roleplaying "realistic" scenarios and nothing wrong with having fun blowing shit up. Thats the beauty of DCS, we are able to use the game however we want.

[Harlikwin]

I don't disagree on the Red V blue thing. But some people want to play a certain scenario that is a) competitive and b) has dissimilar air. Plus having all planes on all sides increases Blue on Blue kills in dogfights rather substantially is the other reason. And not having an idea if you are being buddy spiked by a friendly F14 or an enemy F14 is another reason for PVP stuff.

 

I do think server owners could do a bit better job in some cases. But I think its hard from a balance POV too.

 

I look at blueflag PG with iranian F16's and M2k's and have to shake my head a bit because IRL Dubai operates both types. But Then the "balance" is F14 and FC3 mig/su planes vs F18/16/harrier etc all on one side. In that specific case I hope they put the JF-17 on the iran side and move the other 2 to the dubai side. It will be unbalanced still, but perhaps less so.

[Mule]

I think it's a good idea. Perhaps have an option when you create a new scenario in the mission editor to have an "era" option but with more detail and depth than what's currently implemented?

[Harlikwin]

I think it's a good idea. Perhaps have an option when you create a new scenario in the mission editor to have an "era" option but with more detail and depth than what's currently implemented?

 

That could be cool in terms of trimming down certain assets. But I think you should still be able to make F16 vs P51 fights if that was your thing.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Harlikwin

[Mule]

That could be cool in terms of trimming down certain assets. But I think you should still be able to make F16 vs P51 fights if that was your thing.

 

Oh yeah of course. Should be really flexible.

[Baco]

I would love to see some cohesion too. And since we cant have XXI century Russian planes I would really loe to see more 70´s NATO airplanes.

 

And lets face it, in the XXI century the chance of an all out war between superpowers is getting slimmer and slimmer (thank god), even proxy wars are rare. Now its mostly big bullies against completely defenseless countries, or better said certain factions (insurgents, terrorist, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them) on third world countries... And even so, in the future we will see more drones than actual piloted planes in the front lines.

 

So the most prolific era regarding war and air power was definitely the 70s and 80s, maybe early 90's.

[Harlikwin]

I would love to see some cohesion too. And since we cant have XXI century Russian planes I would really loe to see more 70´s NATO airplanes.

 

And lets face it, in the XXI century the chance of an all out war between superpowers is getting slimmer and slimmer (thank god), even proxy wars are rare. Now its mostly big bullies against completely defenseless countries, or better said certain factions (insurgents, terrorist, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them) on third world countries... And even so, in the future we will see more drones than actual piloted planes in the front lines.

 

So the most prolific era regarding war and air power was definitely the 70s and 80s, maybe early 90's.

 

Totally agree. If we get more blufor planes I want the F4E (just deeelaaayed) since its easily the most iconic western cold war plane. The Vark would be cool, or the A6/7. Most US allies operated the Phantom too soo... On the brit side, the lightning would be cool, or a Harrier 1.

[nessuno0505]

I think dcs Is quite balanced: we have:

- ww2: all comparable aircrafts in performance, the only out of the game Is the i-16 but it's from a 3rd party.

- 50s: f-86 vs mig-15.

- 70s: f-5 vs mig-21.

- only most modern modules maybe lack a counterpart, a 3rd party should really do a mig-29, but anyway jf-17 Is coming and noone forbid to play 18 vs 16.

[Harlikwin]

I think dcs Is quite balanced: we have:

- ww2: all comparable aircrafts in performance, the only out of the game Is the i-16 but it's from a 3rd party.

- 50s: f-86 vs mig-15.

- 70s: f-5 vs mig-21.

- only most modern modules maybe lack a counterpart, a 3rd party should really do a mig-29, but anyway jf-17 Is coming and noone forbid to play 18 vs 16.

 

What do the mig23 and 19 fight? Plus an 80s or 90s era franken f5e vs a 70s era mig...

[Richard Dastardly]

Have thought from the beginning that there needs to be more cohesion in releases - and then we get things like late-block F-16s making it even worse by dragging the window even further open. Gameplay-wise the ( just ) pre GPS era forces much more to actually do - you still have precision guided weapons in the form of LGB and if you really wanted to go there, cruise missiles, but you also have the involvement of older nav systems, older radar, very basic if any SA via datalink so you have to actually keep track of the picture yourself, older radar, etc etc etc. In gameplay terms modern A-G ordinance might as well be orbital death rays - fly to point X, push button without seeing target, fly home., you don't actually need a human pilot for that. And look at what handling your own SA does to A2A engagement, as well as your BVR missiles being not very BVR.

 

3rd gen or even early 4th gen aircraft have far simpler systems than modern ones, they should be able to be finished far quicker & they still have much actual involvement to fly ( in a lot of cases quite a lot more involvement given you have to do so much yourself ). Generally they're out of service so hopefully easier to obtain documents on, given service life a broader selection of ex-users to question, possibly a selection in public ownership to study.

 

A bunch of aircraft on both sides with GW1-era systems seems a great idea, as does a bunch from say, 1970, or maybe pick points every 20 years, 1955, 1975, 1995. Noone will ever be satisfied with whatever meet-point you picked but at least having a focus point would help make the in-game experience more cohesive.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Richard Dastardly

[nessuno0505]

What do the mig23 and 19 fight? Plus an 80s or 90s era franken f5e vs a 70s era mig...

 

We do not have a mig-23 yet and mig-19 Is a 3rd party project; f-5e Tiger II Is from 1970s, about the same period of mig-21 bis.

 

We ask for vintage modules of the same era and I can agree, but online people do airquakes with amraams and bvr radars, and a new poll Is made every day asking for glass cockpit f-5 and such, maybe we are a niche in the niche...

Edited November 1, 2019 by nessuno0505

[Boris]

For me, the multiplayer part of this problem is on the server admins. And on people who still hand onto the completely outdated idea that aircraft x hast o be "blue" at all cost and aircraft "y" has to be red.

 

That bluefor redfor stuff is pretty much dead by now. We have nations operating both western and eastern aircraft, NATO migs, a very open export market on both sides and the chance for a great "red" vs "blue" war is basicly 0.

 

For pvp multiplayer there is nothing wrong to equal out the playing field by simply putting the same aircraft type on both sides.

 

Looking at the JF-17 for example, a lot of people are happy because it is a "red" aircraft. Thats just bs, because it is currently operated by a nation that also used the viper a "blue" aircraft. You see where I am going here....

 

For public pvp multiplayer, to make it balanced and fun for everyone just get rid of the red vs blue at all costs thinking.

That got really annoying before the viper came out, I still have nightmares from the usual 20+ hornets +3 F15s with 120cs vs 2 mirage a 29s and 2 SU-27 situations that resulted from the "red vs blue" mindset.

 

DCS is a sandbox and everyone is basicly free to do whatever he or she wants. There is nothing wrong with roleplaying "realistic" scenarios and nothing wrong with having fun blowing shit up. Thats the beauty of DCS, we are able to use the game however we want.

 

What are you talking about? Most of the more popular servers do just that and just put a bunch of the same aircraft on each side. And honestly, it's bland and boring as hell.

[Exorcet]

What do the mig23 and 19 fight? Plus an 80s or 90s era franken f5e vs a 70s era mig...

The MiG-19 is kind of an oddball. It's remembered mostly because of Vietnam, but it was already outdated then. What made it viable was poor training/tactics on the US side.

 

 

In this sense I think it's a good example of DCS mismatched airframes in reality. The MiG-23 is in a similar boat looking at its combat history, and I think it fits in well with the teen series in DCS, though probably more so the 14 and 15. Though this doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to see contemporary adversaries.