Jump to content

WIP shots of the FRS1 SEA harrier


=DECOY=

Recommended Posts

So.. last thing I heard about the FRS1 on Razbams Discord (from a dev) was that it was... maybe not on hold... but there are challenges with getting information on the radar and
some other systems. So the GR3 would most likely be first and maybe the FRS1 when/if they can get proper documentation.

Would be awesome to get an FRS1, but I think it's good to manage expectations a bit.     

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mogster said:

All systems being scrapped once obsolete and drawings being burned seems a tad extreme… 

Certainly does - Makes you wonder how / if us Brits could get anything more modern than a Spitfire or Mosquito😟

I know I have gone on about a relative who was with 100 Group 214 Squadron. All of their activities were deeply classified until 20-30 years after he passed away. From what I’ve read I believe that the EW / RCM kit carried and the detail of their operations is still classified or sketchy at best (probably classified and then lost to the mists of time). I think the justification was that the ABC kit formed the basis of the V Bomber ECM suite…?

Sadly it seems like the same mentality prevails regarding obsolete equipment and I fear that details of Blue Fox may disappear with the folks who developed and operated it

From the info linked though, it seems like Blue Vixen was a really capable piece of kit - no chance of a FA.2….!


Edited by rkk01
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Certainly does - Makes you wonder how / if us Brits could get anything more modern than a Spitfire or Mosquito😟

I know I have gone on about a relative who was with 100 Group 214 Squadron. All of their activities were deeply classified until 20-30 years after he passed away. From what I’ve read I believe that the EW / RCM kit carried and the detail of their operations is still classified or sketchy at best (probably classified and then lost to the mists of time). I think the justification was that the ABC kit formed the basis of the V Bomber ECM suite…?

Sadly it seems like the same mentality prevails regarding obsolete equipment and I fear that details of Blue Fox may disappear with the folks who developed and operated it

From the info linked though, it seems like Blue Vixen was a really capable piece of kit - no chance of a FA.2….!

 


The drawings especially are part of history, they should be retained for future generations… but anyway… 🙄

Aye it does make you wonder if any UK stuff can be modelled to a reasonable level, even stuff from 40+ years ago. Razbam have said that the AV8 and Tarawara we have were supposed to be a GR7 and Illustrious iirc, but too much information on the GR7 was unavailable…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

We destroy stuff so others can't get their hands on it, copy it, and use it against us!

Ferranti as a company were excellent at what they did - that is why they were destroyed as a company. Read the history - there is no doubting it was intentional.

CAPTOR is an off-shoot, but because of what happened previously, it will either not be very good or will be of lesser capability due to the fact we need to share with others.

We may work with the Europeans on stuff, but we sure as hell don't trust them. The US is the only country we truly treat as an equal.

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 6/15/2022 at 4:49 PM, rkk01 said:

I know, bad form quoting my own post…

…but having just re-read the linked material I was wondering aloud whether Razbam have scoured / downloaded the various references cited?  Seems to be quite a store of info in various corners of the web…

@Raz_Specter any thoughts? Might not constitute DCS level source material, but some of the linked docs originated from Ferranti, others from Janes etc, with comparisons between Blue Fox, Blue Vixen and known US designs.  Must be enough for a good facsimile of the FRS.1 radar system…🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

This is what killed the Falkland map for me. No point in ever getting it now, even if one day we do get a Mirage III. 

On 8/25/2022 at 4:41 AM, Tiger-II said:

We destroy stuff so others can't get their hands on it, copy it, and use it against us!

Ferranti as a company were excellent at what they did - that is why they were destroyed as a company. Read the history - there is no doubting it was intentional.

CAPTOR is an off-shoot, but because of what happened previously, it will either not be very good or will be of lesser capability due to the fact we need to share with others.

We may work with the Europeans on stuff, but we sure as hell don't trust them. The US is the only country we truly treat as an equal.

Alas, if only the Brits were as good at making stuff as they were in destroying the documentation surrounding them 😕 

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been posting about this all over the forums 🙄. Making a proper nuisance of myself🤣

 

BUT, when you read on the HB Typhoon sub that folks are salivating over which version of Captor will be shipped with the TG Typhoon, or the ED Newsletters about F-16/18 radar improvements and non-ED forums about Blue Fox info…

… then you start to feel that the “can’t do” an FRS1 / Blue Fox starts to feel a bit lame😡

And Yes, the South Atlantic map is pointless without it….


…. e.g. why is there a HMS Invincible without the Sea Harrier???

 

F F S, based on Kill : Loss ratios the SHAR is the second most successful jet in historyEVER.   It absolutely deserves its place in the DCS digital aviation museum

 

(… and don’t even get me started on the success of the F-15’s non-peer combat stats - just look up the FAA’s training record of “embarrassing” the USAF’s Eagle jocks🤣)


Edited by rkk01
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2023 at 11:44 AM, captain_dalan said:

This is what killed the Falkland map for me. No point in ever getting it now, even if one day we do get a Mirage III. 

Alas, if only the Brits were as good at making stuff as they were in destroying the documentation surrounding them 😕 

 

Well... Its lame, but they don't have much to work with for the SHAR. However, neither the Gr.1 and Gr.3 had a radar, and Razbam has hinted the Gr.3 might be possible. And as I recall the sooper snoot did serve in the falklands. 

But, per their roadmap...
1. There is still a plenty of work to do on the F15E for all ze weaponz and all ze datalinkz, and all ze new TGPs (god I hope ED actually models FLIR/IR someday that isn't terrible). 

2. The Mig23 is next in the pipeline and I'm hoping its consuming lots of resources. 

3. They have heavily hinted they will do the AV8B+, which would be logical since they can heavily leverage their F15 radar model for that. (ironically so could ED, but for reasons of pride IMO, they are doubling down on FC3 2.0 level radar for their modules which is a shame).

4. The Pucara, Super Taco thing, are also gonna be done at some point. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So please someone explain to me who understands this better. There is a licensing issue to have a high fidelity module that resembles a sea harrier frs1 and it therefore is forbidden to release in dcs? 
 

Or it’s possible to release the sea harrier if systems such as the radar are not 100% authentic and accurate? 
 

I remember MicroProse releasing dogfight in the 90s and there was a sea harrier. Graphics were by today’s standards extremely primitive but it was clearly a sea harrier, for its time the graphics were good, it was a grey harrier with a black pointy end and roundels it was clearly a sea harrier so they were allowed to produce that in dogfight and It had a functional radar. 
 

Now I accept that whatever Razbam do is going to be far more accurate than the microprose frs1 from the mid 90s. I’m just asking why was it acceptable then but not now? And if it’s a case of lack of data would it not be acceptable for Razbam to use some creative license, I’m sure they have some extremely intelligent people working for them could they not fill in the missing gaps with creative license? 
 
I genuinely do not understand the situation fully as to why this module cannot be released so would welcome it if someone could explain clearly, if someone from Razbam could explain that would be fantastic. 

  • Like 1

harrier landing GIFRYZEN 7 3700X Running at 4.35 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080Ti

32gb DDR4 RAM @3200 MHz

Oculus CV1 NvME 970 EVO

TM Warthog Stick & Throttle plus 11" extension. VKB T-Rudder MKIV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, westr said:

I genuinely do not understand the situation fully as to why this module cannot be released so would welcome it if someone could explain clearly, if someone from Razbam could explain that would be fantastic. 

I kind of understand the difficulties / opposing viewpoints, but am struggling to understand the “total block” type outcome…

Razbam’s head honcho Ron / @Prowler111 explained in an interview that the Sea Harrier radar system was a major sticking point, but that the Harrier GR3 might be possible because its ground attack role meant no air to air radar.

So, OK, that’s got some logic to it… BUT there is a lot of written material and surviving SMEs for the FRS1.  A bit of searching suggests flight manuals and info on the Blue Fox radar should be available. I guess the problem for a dev / publisher may be that those aren’t available from “official” sources.  I certainly understand that the AMRAAM carrying follow up Sea Harrier FA2 / Blue Vixen radar was highly sensitive. Most info on this platform suggests documentation and physical radar sets were destroyed (for Blue Vixen)

BUT - the counter arguments… No DCS aircraft carry actual radar sets 🙄🤣 Every single DCS aircraft uses a simulation, a best estimate, etc, for every single system. Surely there must be sufficient info to model the FRS1 / Blue Fox to at least the level of the other “same era” jets…?  We only have to see the ED F-16, F-18 etc radar updates to realise that these were / are best estimates that continue to be improved.

To cap it all, if you head over to the Heatblur True Grit EF Typhoon sub, there’s a thread on which version of the generations later Captor radar the Typhoon will ship with (and presumably with Meteor and Iris-T…!)

let’s hope Raz get to return to the FRS1 - South Atlantic map desperately needs it and both the Sea Harrier and Cold War RN assets would also be a good fit for the Kola map👍


Edited by rkk01
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Johnny Dioxin said:

People do forget one important factor for the dev's - they have to want to do it 😉

I've considered that possibility, too, which makes the South Atlantic Map's development even more of a head-scratcher for me. Why invest the time, effort, and money in a map without a workable plane set? Right now we really have just two Argentine planes, namely the A-4 and MB-339. There is/was a freeware Pucara which seems to have been abandoned and is now bugged, but Razbam might still be working on a proper module of that; the Cuesta Brothers did a very basic rendition of the Super Etendard which hasn't been updated in 3 years; and someone (I think VSN) is working on a freeware Mirage III. Even so, that would still leave us with exactly zero British aircraft from the period. No Sea Harrier, no GR1, no GR3. Certainly no Vulcan, not that I'd actually want to simulate a Black Buck sortie. Unless somebody feels like making a completely off-the-wall alternate-history campaign in which we're flying Tomcat FG1s off the HMS Forrestal, then the whole thing seems fairly pointless.

This reminds me of a video posted by Enigma in the summer, in which he raised the point that the strict demand for full fidelity means that there are a slew of historically-significant planes which will never be modeled in DCS either because they're classified, documentation has been lost or destroyed, or simply because it takes way too long to develop modules. I, for one, would unhesitatingly buy a Sea Harrier knowing full well that the radar is Razbam's best guess rather than a perfectly accurate recreation, if the alternative is no Sea Harrier ever. It wasn't really discussed by Enigma, but it's clear to me that DCS also suffers from a scattershot approach to the development of modules and maps, of which the South Atlantic Map is just one example. There are also the F-86 and the MiG-15, which ED released ages ago, and followed with absolutely nothing else related to the Korean War. OctopusG made the I-16, although we have not one other interwar/early WW2 plane in existence or in development. Sure, it's nice to have a simulation of it, but since we can't simulate its use in combat, they might as well have made it for MSFS and sold more copies. Now they're working on the La-7, which can at least tangle with the available late-war German fighters, but we'll still have no other Eastern Front assets or map. Magnitude3 might actually release their Corsair sometime this decade, and ED is working on a Hellcat, but how long before we have any Japanese fighters? Enigma's proposed answer is to fill gaps in the sim with FC3-level planes, and I'm inclined to agree. Maybe a little upgrade from FC3, with clickable cockpits at least, but something along those lines. So long as aircraft performance is accurate, and weapons and sensors are accurately modeled in capability if not necessarily in every fine detail of function, then it should still provide a satisfying combat simulation of a given aircraft. I'll always prefer full fidelity, but also I'll settle for second-best when full fidelity isn't possible. It's sort of like when Confucius said, "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without," except that in this case, the alternative is probably no rock at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Johnny Dioxin said:

People do forget one important factor for the dev's - they have to want to do it 😉

That’s my concern 😢

1 hour ago, WWSmith said:

I've considered that possibility, too, which makes the South Atlantic Map's development even more of a head-scratcher for me. Why invest the time, effort, and money in a map without a workable plane set? Right now we really have just two Argentine planes, namely the A-4 and MB-339. There is/was a freeware Pucara which seems to have been abandoned and is now bugged, but Razbam might still be working on a proper module of that; the Cuesta Brothers did a very basic rendition of the Super Etendard which hasn't been updated in 3 years; and someone (I think VSN) is working on a freeware Mirage III. Even so, that would still leave us with exactly zero British aircraft from the period. No Sea Harrier, no GR1, no GR3. Certainly no Vulcan, not that I'd actually want to simulate a Black Buck sortie. Unless somebody feels like making a completely off-the-wall alternate-history campaign in which we're flying Tomcat FG1s off the HMS Forrestal, then the whole thing seems fairly pointless.

This reminds me of a video posted by Enigma in the summer, in which he raised the point that the strict demand for full fidelity means that there are a slew of historically-significant planes which will never be modeled in DCS either because they're classified, documentation has been lost or destroyed, or simply because it takes way too long to develop modules. I, for one, would unhesitatingly buy a Sea Harrier knowing full well that the radar is Razbam's best guess rather than a perfectly accurate recreation, if the alternative is no Sea Harrier ever. It wasn't really discussed by Enigma, but it's clear to me that DCS also suffers from a scattershot approach to the development of modules and maps, of which the South Atlantic Map is just one example. There are also the F-86 and the MiG-15, which ED released ages ago, and followed with absolutely nothing else related to the Korean War. OctopusG made the I-16, although we have not one other interwar/early WW2 plane in existence or in development. Sure, it's nice to have a simulation of it, but since we can't simulate its use in combat, they might as well have made it for MSFS and sold more copies. Now they're working on the La-7, which can at least tangle with the available late-war German fighters, but we'll still have no other Eastern Front assets or map. Magnitude3 might actually release their Corsair sometime this decade, and ED is working on a Hellcat, but how long before we have any Japanese fighters? Enigma's proposed answer is to fill gaps in the sim with FC3-level planes, and I'm inclined to agree. Maybe a little upgrade from FC3, with clickable cockpits at least, but something along those lines. So long as aircraft performance is accurate, and weapons and sensors are accurately modeled in capability if not necessarily in every fine detail of function, then it should still provide a satisfying combat simulation of a given aircraft. I'll always prefer full fidelity, but also I'll settle for second-best when full fidelity isn't possible. It's sort of like when Confucius said, "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without," except that in this case, the alternative is probably no rock at all.

Yep, exactly this

Completely bonkers - we even have the correct aircraft carrier for the Sea Harrier 🙄

but not a single suitable aircraft to fly from it - Gazelle at a push, I suppose

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WWSmith said:

 Right now we really have just two Argentine planes, namely the A-4 and MB-339.

Remember the A-4 has another mod making without the SKD, no a official module. On fact SA map was talk by RAZBAM to no recreate SAW, only a post cold war map conflict to DCS. The actual map has a modern day and some assets none release on SA Assets pack was Russian / US Navy / UK ships as the "ocean" LHD and others more modern.

Many SA assets pack ships has modern ships, no SAW era ships.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Remember the A-4 has another mod making without the SKD, no a official module.

I have the A-4 and it's great, especially considering that it was done without the official SDK for free. Is it exactly 100% accurate? I don't know, but it's good enough that I don't really care, since it's the closest simulation of an A-4 anybody's ever made, which is pretty much my point. This is the kind of content we need more of in order to flesh out the sim. After all, it's Digital Combat Simulator, and in a combat sim, context is critical, even if you're doing a hypothetical Cold War-gone-hot scenario. To simulate any particular conflict, you need the appropriate planes and map. In MSFS, it doesn't really matter that we have a 747 and an MD-11, but no Il-86 (although a hypothetical Cold War-gone-hot widebody dogfight would be cool). In DCS, it matters that we have a Falklands Map, an HMS Invincible, and a couple of Argentine planes, but no British planes, because we can't simulate the Falklands War without them. As for a fictional '90s or later war in the region, we still have the same problem of lacking planes which were flown by any plausible participants in such a war. The map includes Chile, Argentina, and the Falklands. We have no British planes, so that leaves Chile and Argentina. Chile flew the F-5, and later got F-16Cs in the 2000s, but we have no Argentine fighters. Same problem.


Edited by WWSmith
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WWSmith said:

I've considered that possibility, too, which makes the South Atlantic Map's development even more of a head-scratcher for me. Why invest the time, effort, and money in a map without a workable plane set? Right now we really have just two Argentine planes, namely the A-4 and MB-339. There is/was a freeware Pucara which seems to have been abandoned and is now bugged, but Razbam might still be working on a proper module of that; the Cuesta Brothers did a very basic rendition of the Super Etendard which hasn't been updated in 3 years; and someone (I think VSN) is working on a freeware Mirage III. Even so, that would still leave us with exactly zero British aircraft from the period. No Sea Harrier, no GR1, no GR3. Certainly no Vulcan, not that I'd actually want to simulate a Black Buck sortie. Unless somebody feels like making a completely off-the-wall alternate-history campaign in which we're flying Tomcat FG1s off the HMS Forrestal, then the whole thing seems fairly pointless.

This reminds me of a video posted by Enigma in the summer, in which he raised the point that the strict demand for full fidelity means that there are a slew of historically-significant planes which will never be modeled in DCS either because they're classified, documentation has been lost or destroyed, or simply because it takes way too long to develop modules. I, for one, would unhesitatingly buy a Sea Harrier knowing full well that the radar is Razbam's best guess rather than a perfectly accurate recreation, if the alternative is no Sea Harrier ever. It wasn't really discussed by Enigma, but it's clear to me that DCS also suffers from a scattershot approach to the development of modules and maps, of which the South Atlantic Map is just one example. There are also the F-86 and the MiG-15, which ED released ages ago, and followed with absolutely nothing else related to the Korean War. OctopusG made the I-16, although we have not one other interwar/early WW2 plane in existence or in development. Sure, it's nice to have a simulation of it, but since we can't simulate its use in combat, they might as well have made it for MSFS and sold more copies. Now they're working on the La-7, which can at least tangle with the available late-war German fighters, but we'll still have no other Eastern Front assets or map. Magnitude3 might actually release their Corsair sometime this decade, and ED is working on a Hellcat, but how long before we have any Japanese fighters? Enigma's proposed answer is to fill gaps in the sim with FC3-level planes, and I'm inclined to agree. Maybe a little upgrade from FC3, with clickable cockpits at least, but something along those lines. So long as aircraft performance is accurate, and weapons and sensors are accurately modeled in capability if not necessarily in every fine detail of function, then it should still provide a satisfying combat simulation of a given aircraft. I'll always prefer full fidelity, but also I'll settle for second-best when full fidelity isn't possible. It's sort of like when Confucius said, "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without," except that in this case, the alternative is probably no rock at all.

Enigma video intent a claim of "where are my planeset" as force to ED / 3rd Partie to follow a draw path.... and ED and 3rd parties never get a coordinate work to build a "dreamed planeset"... Remember all has your plans and never follow a main road or historical periods. And actual teams dont see what is the "competence" products is making, to build own modules or "fill" empthy sites, and ED dont go to "force them".

  • Remember F-86F and Mig-15bis was release by Belsimtek team 3rd party, and they never was a plan to build Korea map (none was a dedicated map team or a Assets pack). Has rumors about a "Korean map" on a future... ED or 3rd Party unkonow yet.
  • Octopus-G has specialized on east aircrafts (example some polish and the An-2 on MSFS), only follow the aircrafts preferences with the I-16 and La-7 and they has no plans to maps or assets, and some "rumors" about a Su-17, none confirmed.
  • Magnitude3 Corsair has arround the corner with a Pacific Assets Pack and M3 team members talk on a future, intent build a IJN aircrafts with some resources available, surely, after the F-8J. a "old" planned Iwo Jima map, on the Leatherneck times, but none yet.
  • F6F Hellcat was initialy a requirement by Nick Grey (he fly the Hellcat on the fighter colection), but on the last Wags interview, claim a pacific assets pack will coming with Marianas WW2 map (type unkonow yet). Meanwhile, FC-3 has dead by ED, dont expect more develops here. And missing the disapear MAC product. CH-47 on progress, Afganistan map "confirmed" and "rumors" about a land module.

About other 3rd parties (and sorry by the OT):

  • Aerges only centred on Spanish Air Force Aircrafts (F-104G/TF-104) (Official module) and future... Mirage III/Saeta/Buchon/CN-235/SCW Aircrafts?. A hipotetical map to a map team will be gibraltar Strait/Canary Islands/SCW Iberia and SF/SCW assets.
  • Airplane Simulator Company with the C-130J/MC-130J (Official module) and I suspect only centred on cargo stuff other Us cargo aircrafts/helos? and colaborate with ED to implement cargo funtionality (Official feature). A team without none plans to build maps or assets (yet).
  • AviaStorm with a UK Tornado GR.1 (Official Module)... I think they go to convert on a UK centred products aircrafts, WW2 bombers on a future?
  • Aviron has a complete unkonow... no updates about the Kfir C2/C5 (Official Module), a "Israel" centred 3rd party?
  • Check Six Simulation... Australian Trainer Centred, with all arms, North Australian Map (Official Module), Australian Assets Pack (official addon) and P-8/C Pilatus (Official Module). Future Australian Combat/WW2 content? Unkonow.
  • Crosstail Studios. Only the iconic A-1H Skyrider (Official Module), no map or assets planned, but has rummors from a Vietnam map. 3rd party centred on Vietnam / Us Cold War aircrafts?
  • Dekka... Chinese made aircraft (J-8PP) (Official Module)  with assets pack, no plans yet to maps... discarted Taiwan Strait by Sensible.
  • FlyingIron Simulation, A-7E Corsair II (Official Module), no assets or maps planned. By your MSFS/X-P products, centred on WW2 USAF/LWF Aircrafts as Bf-109G/P-38L Plausible modules to WW2.
  • Grinnelly Designs with F-100D Super sabre (Official Module)... other Vietnam/Early cold war specialized 3rd Party. No assets of Maps yet.
  • Heatblur... USAF/USN/Europe aircraft... (F-4E / A-6E) (Official Module) / (EuroFighter) (Official Module). No maps or assets yet but some claims plans about a Baltic/North Aplantic map, no started yet.
  • India Foxt Echo has centred on Italian aircraft as the MB-339 and now the G.91 Gina (Official Module), and I think future WW2 or cargo italian aircraft. If them build a map team, surely coming North Africa WW2 and a Adriatic Map).
  • Miltech5 European Helos with Bo-105 PAH and other versions (Official Module), a little assets pack, and no maps.
  • Onretech... Maps only, and a "no sand module" on progress (Official module confirmed), and no assets
  • Orbx, othe only Maps with North Cape (Official Module) on progress and no assets
  • Polichop centred on Europe/US Army Helos, OH-58D (Official Module)no assets or Maps.
  • RAZBAM continue centred on "Latin" Aircraft (Mig-23MLA (Official Module), Super Tucano (Official Module), Pucará, and rumors about Mirage III/5). the old english aircrafts has actualy very complex to build (FS1/Lightning), A future map will be the Caribean and Peruan/Ecuator Frontier.
  • Red Start Simulation with Mig-17F (Official Module), Soviet aircraf centred, no assets or maps.
  • Ugra-Media only Maps, no assets, New map on develop (Official Module).

Edited by Silver_Dragon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:


Many SA assets pack ships has modern ships, no SAW era ships.

 

Sorry, but that is incorrect 

(although I agree there are a number of inconsistencies, especially RAF Mount Pleasant)

Anyway, back to assets, and whether there was any intention to offer a Falklands conflict timescale.  There’s

“what we have”

and

”what was teased”

… both of which were mostly fixed around 1982… NOT MODERN

 

So, what we do have:

HMS Invincible - deffo there in 1982

Three RN Leander class frigates - all with the twin 4.5” gun, so roughly ok (except Andromeda had been refitted for Sea Wolf, so is actually pre-Falklands condition)

Castle Class - era appropriate for 82

Chilean Leanders - not considering those

ARA Santa Fe - era-appropriate for Falklands Conflict… definitely didn’t do much after 82

ARA 25 Mayo - era appropriate for Falklands Conflict in 82, largely laid up after 86

What was teased

Well, I might have forgotten a few bits (Tactical Pascale vid lists), but:

Type 21 Frigate, Type 22 Frigate, Rothesay Frigate, Type 42 Destroyer, County Class Destroyer, Oberon Class Submarine, HMS Hermes (a must), RFAs, including the LSL, ARA General Belgrano, various merchant ships incl Canberra and Atlantic Conveyor… 

So, pretty much 1982 🙄

Which is all pretty much relevant to having a Sea Harrier…

I get it that there are difficulties with the SHAR, but IMHO, all of those missing assets is why the map seems to be a bit of an unloved orphan child

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of that Silver_Dragon post seems to be just a list of projects in development, stuff that we might not see for 10 years, and flat-out rumors, but this

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED and 3rd parties never get a coordinate work to build a "dreamed planeset"... Remember all has your plans and never follow a main road or historical periods.

is exactly what I was referring to as a "scattershot development approach." This is a bad thing. Okay, if you're into DCS just for 1v1 online dogfights, then it's not really an issue (except for the I-16, which literally has no feasible opponents), but if you're like me and want to simulate historical or historically-plausible combat, then you want to see coordination, plans, and a roadmap. Now, I'm not saying that DCS overall is broken or anything, because we can do pretty darn well with Middle Eastern conflicts from the 80s to 2000s, as well as stuff in the Caucasus from that time period, including the aforementioned Cold War-gone-hot US vs Russia/USSR matchups. The issue is that we've also seen work invested in random directions which could have been better used elsewhere. For instance, I've flown the MiG-19 a couple of times on free trial, and I think it's a fun plane with a lot of potential, but I can't bring myself to buy it for the simple reason that there's nothing very interesting for me to do with it. It's kind of like having a snowmobile in Hawaii: yeah, it might be fun to tear up the lawn, but that gets old fast. The same goes for the SA map. (By the way, if they meant for this to be a modern map, why? That's like doing modern Vietnam or 1950s Afghanistan, thereby deliberately ignoring the iconic conflict in the region.) I'm not saying any of this out of spite or anything like that. Are there other planes which I wish were developed instead? Sure, but I'm not sore about it. I don't expect people I've never met to invest their time and money on something just because one guy thinks it's cool. I'm personally not very interested in the F-15E (might still buy it some day, just not at the top of my list), but I agree that creating it made perfect sense because it fits in well with the overall sim and people can get a lot of use out of it. I guess my point is that DCS could be so much better if there was coordination and an overall development plan, but that's probably too much to hope for.


Edited by WWSmith
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, WWSmith said:

Most of that Silver_Dragon post seems to be just a list of projects in development, stuff that we might not see for 10 years, and flat-out rumors, but this

Thanks for making fun, and the teasing and laughter., but remember, that much of  what I have posted is that list, it is official confirmed product by ED.... (Editing the post)....

54 minutes ago, WWSmith said:

is exactly what I was referring to as a "scattershot development approach." This is a bad thing. Okay, if you're into DCS just for 1v1 online dogfights, then it's not really an issue (except for the I-16, which literally has no feasible opponents), but if you're like me and want to simulate historical or historically-plausible combat, then you want to see coordination, plans, and a roadmap. I guess my point is that DCS could be so much better if there was coordination and an overall development plan, but that's probably too much to hope for.

 

I repeat it again, ED is the publicist, it is not a producer, as Ubi Soft or EA, which controls the studios of what is done, how and when, nor does it finance them. They are independent companies, with their own agendas and interests. And about a "Roadmap" has one... from 10 years ago, I updating weeks to weeks...


Edited by Silver_Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had no intention of making fun. I was frankly confused about what you were trying to communicate by listing a slew of diverse projects, and I only said that you were referring to rumors because you actually used the word "rumor" multiple times. Examples:

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Has rumors about a "Korean map" on a future... ED or 3rd Party unkonow yet.

 

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

some "rumors" about a Su-17, none confirmed.

 

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

rummors from a Vietnam map

I am also well aware that ED does not directly control nor finance the development studios, nor did I ever suggest that they do, although they absolutely do control what is licensed for inclusion in DCS, so there is that. If I was to make any practical suggestion on the matter, it would be that everybody would benefit from some voluntary coordination of overall development. I think that this would not only benefit players, but the developers themselves, as I would expect stronger sales from complementary products than from maps and planes which just sort of exist as outliers. For instance, if someone (I don't know who, I'm just saying) were to release a mid-war Zero or a J2M or something, that would help drive sales of the Corsair and Hellcat. I expect that, if Razbam's MiG-23 sells well, it will be at least in part because we now have the Mirage F1 and (soon) the Phantom, without which it really wouldn't have any contemporaries, outclassing the MiG-21 and the F-5 (except in a turning fight), while in turn being thoroughly outclassed by the newer American fighters. Is this just a happy coincidence, are developers consciously looking to fill a late '70s/early '80s gap, I don't know, but it's a good thing and we need more of it. Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.

As for the Sea Harrier FRS1, I'll preorder it on day 1 if that day ever comes.


Edited by WWSmith
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WWSmith said:

I had no intention of making fun. I was frankly confused about what you were trying to communicate by listing a slew of diverse projects, and I only said that you were referring to rumors because you actually used the word "rumor" multiple times. Examples:

The rumors about Vietnam and Korea, coming from Wags/ED members on last interviews, only wait a confirmation... about Fitters... has two 3rd parties with "claim" some Su-17/22 projects on the last years, and actualy no confirmed as a "official module".

1 hour ago, WWSmith said:

I am also well aware that ED does not directly control nor finance the development studios, nor did I ever suggest that they do, although they absolutely do control what is licensed for inclusion in DCS, so there is that. If I was to make any practical suggestion on the matter, it would be that everybody would benefit from some voluntary coordination of overall development. I think that this would not only benefit players, but the developers themselves, as I would expect stronger sales from complementary products than from maps and planes which just sort of exist as outliers. For instance, if someone (I don't know who, I'm just saying) were to release a mid-war Zero or a J2M or something, that would help drive sales of the Corsair and Hellcat. I expect that, if Razbam's MiG-23 sells well, it will be at least in part because we now have the Mirage F1 and (soon) the Phantom, without which it really wouldn't have any contemporaries, outclassing the MiG-21 and the F-5 (except in a turning fight), while in turn being thoroughly outclassed by the newer American fighters. Is this just a happy coincidence, are developers consciously looking to fill a late '70s/early '80s gap, I don't know, but it's a good thing and we need more of it. Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.

As for the Sea Harrier FRS1, I'll preorder it on day 1 if that day ever comes.

Coordination in products and development would be fine if all the 3rd parties had the same capabilities, but we have the problem that possibly only Heatblur and RAZBAM could cooperate... and their lists of products in plans, development and production are different . Not to mention that let's see who has a "joint" development at stake.

The rest of the 3rd parties have their own projects and let's keep in mind that most of them are from different countries, and it's not that they are big teams, but on the contrary, small development teams, with very limited funds and that they don't work either 24/7 like RAZBAM and Heatblur.

Regarding the F4U Corsair and the F6F, sales are going to influence the release of an IJN/IJA module...one could come out this Christmas and the other possibly on 2025 perfectly, so there is little coordination, except the theater of operations that is not a priority now. It is as has happened lately, Aerges' Mirage F-1 is not going to affect Heatblur's F-4E, nor a future late Cold War device. The "balances" are simply things that will arrive or not, money is not the most important thing currently, it is open sources and licenses... let's remember that A-4 has been trying to make a module for 6 years ? and it has always been hit with a wall of licenses, and no, it is not ED that is to blame.

DCS has a ecosystem are on their way to being a combat MSF/XP, where each 3rd party can publish their products (under certain rules), but otherwise, it is simply that, a "world" where you can fight, in multiple eras and with multiple modules and in the future, if there is luck at sea and on land, but for the rest, "filling gaps" and so on will simply be something generic, because sooner or later it will self-regulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, rkk01 said:

I kind of understand the difficulties / opposing viewpoints, but am struggling to understand the “total block” type outcome…

Razbam’s head honcho Ron / @Prowler111 explained in an interview that the Sea Harrier radar system was a major sticking point, but that the Harrier GR3 might be possible because its ground attack role meant no air to air radar.

So, OK, that’s got some logic to it… BUT there is a lot of written material and surviving SMEs for the FRS1.  A bit of searching suggests flight manuals and info on the Blue Fox radar should be available. I guess the problem for a dev / publisher may be that those aren’t available from “official” sources.  I certainly understand that the AMRAAM carrying follow up Sea Harrier FA2 / Blue Vixen radar was highly sensitive. Most info on this platform suggests documentation and physical radar sets were destroyed (for Blue Vixen)

BUT - the counter arguments… No DCS aircraft carry actual radar sets 🙄🤣 Every single DCS aircraft uses a simulation, a best estimate, etc, for every single system. Surely there must be sufficient info to model the FRS1 / Blue Fox to at least the level of the other “same era” jets…?  We only have to see the ED F-16, F-18 etc radar updates to realise that these were / are best estimates that continue to be improved.

To cap it all, if you head over to the Heatblur True Grit EF Typhoon sub, there’s a thread on which version of the generations later Captor radar the Typhoon will ship with (and presumably with Meteor and Iris-T…!)

let’s hope Raz get to return to the FRS1 - South Atlantic map desperately needs it and both the Sea Harrier and Cold War RN assets would also be a good fit for the Kola map👍

 

I agree, when the falklands map as I’m pretty sure it was described as was first being developed, we all had falklands war scenarios in our minds, and why wouldn’t we. It’s one of the most recent air wars resulting in a number of air to air engagements and a large number of shoot downs involving both air to air and surface to air weapons. I thought that was the whole point of it. So to hear that the FRS1 wasn’t being developed puts a kind of what’s the point sort of feeling on this map, particularly after developing all the naval assets invincible class etc.

Maybe I’m speaking a bit out of turn, it could be many people that live in that region are really enjoying this map and if that’s the case good for them, I do have a particular love for the Sea Harrier FRS1 so maybe there is a little bias there, but it was the most significant aircraft of the Falklands war shot down over 20 aircraft and I just think surely they should have researched this more to ensure they could develop it before creating this map. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

harrier landing GIFRYZEN 7 3700X Running at 4.35 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080Ti

32gb DDR4 RAM @3200 MHz

Oculus CV1 NvME 970 EVO

TM Warthog Stick & Throttle plus 11" extension. VKB T-Rudder MKIV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...