Aircraft before the 1993 tech explosion for DCS

[Munkwolf]

I totally agree it's great DCS has Gen 4 fighters, and I hope they add more. I hope they add all the planes. That said, to my noob brain it seems the more modern airframes are more complex, and occasionally have additional legal or documentation hurdles compared to older airframes. ED, like all companies, has limited resources. Just makes sense to focus more on a popular era, where more planes should theoretically be able to be developed further compared to Gen 4 airframes, with the same resource expenditure. More planes equals more revenue for ED, and more airframes for users to enjoy.

 

Plus it builds out an era, where, at least to me, it feels like DCS is kind of spread thin across the eras as far as what planes and other vehicles (asset packs) are available within any particular one. I'm definitely not advocating "drop everything and just do Cold War", but I think it'd be a smart move to be like an 80/20 ratio of <specific era> vs everything else, until popular eras are more built out. Out of WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, Modern... I would put Modern at the bottom of the list as far as priority level. Mainly because due to the legal/documentation issues it seems impossible to properly build out a Modern era compared to the others.

[Tippis]

…I guess it's worth pointing out that LGBs were around in the 1960s.

[Rick50]

Long time ago I had a conversation with a friend about simulation games vs actual results in afteraction reports. I think he was confused about how he had beaten every ace of WW2 in a single flight, in... uh, I think it was EAW or something. I pointed out a few differences just for starters.

 

 

First, real bullets cause very REAL fear. Fear that just simply doesn't exist in any game or sim. It's just non-existant when "restart mission" is 30 seconds away. The one time I actually got shot at, the trace probably went 100ft (or more) over my head, no chance of hitting me, but even then I ducked down into the APC, just in case the next burst was bang-on. I know my pucker factor would have shot up to 23 had rounds bounced off our armor! The point being, when the bullets are real, and dying instantly is actually probable, you behave different than when it's "just a game". Maybe you keep pressing the target instead of diving and extending away, to fly another day. Maybe you keep a third of your belts in reserve, in case you get bounced on the way home... while in a game maybe you go for the glory of racking multiple wins.

 

Movement and G's. It's easy lining up a shot when the reticle doesn't move on you. Just figure out what the enemy plane is doing, put the cross on the wings and pull. But in real life, the sudden G's will pull your head down a bit, and now the reticle seems to have moved a bit. Roll hard and you might need a moment before you can get that deflection shot. 

 

If you have played more than 100 hours of any flight sim, you are an expert compared to the very low hours of flight that most WW2 pilots got, before being thrown to the wolves of battle. They barely knew how to fly "ok" and were now fighting for their lives. 5000 hours of simulated combat? Unimaginable to the real aces.

 

And all that is with truly simple warbirds, for the flying CRAY platforms carrying everything including a few kitchen sinks, there will be SOOO many more factors between what is real and what gets simulated, what gets played in a retail-home sim-game. No matter how "real it feels".

[Harlikwin]

7 minutes ago, Tippis said:

…I guess it's worth pointing out that LGBs were around in the 1960s.

 

Yeah, but employing them then was harder too. old school TGP's were not "Good". But they were better than nothing. 

[Tippis]

Just now, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah, but employing them then was harder too. old school TGP's were not "Good". But they were better than nothing. 

True. My point is more of a nudge towards “don't worry, you probably wouldn't lose X — you just have to work harder for it”.

Once you start looking at the dates, it turns out that 1993 isn't much of a cut-off point for anything.

[Harlikwin]

42 minutes ago, Tippis said:

True. My point is more of a nudge towards “don't worry, you probably wouldn't lose X — you just have to work harder for it”.

Once you start looking at the dates, it turns out that 1993 isn't much of a cut-off point for anything.

 

No I agree. 

For example if we had an early 90's hornet, it would do almost everything the current one does aside from the GPS weps and the DL/HMCS, and those aspects are done poorly IMO. Sure the Nitehawk TGP would have sucked more, but you could laze-n-blaze to your hearts content. An F18A would have lacked most of the PGM's and some radar stuff, but really if you look at what ED could have done is do an A, with dumb bombs/walleyes/sparrows and an APG-65. I.e. what we basically got at release with our 18C. THEN they could have done like a mid90's C version alot faster since they already have a bunch of systems done. And then the 2000's version with even more systems. IDK how the price structure would work, maybe like the A10C-A10CII etc. And instead of 1 plane we have to try to "nerf" with BS workarounds, we would have 3 perfectly good planes to fit any number of scenarios/national customers.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Northstar98]

On 6/9/2021 at 8:56 PM, Furiz said:

You can always simulate your cold war by limiting the weapons and equipment or airframes to a specific era, why would you ask of ED to limit their development, or their income by focusing on that era? Not everyone likes cold war era.

Doesn't that argument hold true for every single era?

Same with:

Quote

I see DCS as a growing and learning sim that is embracing new tech, new weapons, new aircraft and new systems, how can they grow if they stick to the 80s, what when they make all the 80s planes?

Well, what happens when ED makes all of the modern planes they can feasibly make? How can they grow if they stick to mid 2000s US BLUFOR?

You keep mentioning the Rafale, which unless the AdA or Aéronavale get involved I don't see happening, on top of issues like phased array radars and their capabilities aren't a thing in DCS, on top of all the other things DCS falls over on with regards to RADARs.

Gripen, well HB were interested, but components of it were based on the JA 37 mod. D (which is an early-ish 2000s upgrade of the JA 37 Viggen (A/A version)), and that was classified to the point of unfeasibility.

And if coherency is any metric for focus - the era that's the most coherent is WWII...

On 6/9/2021 at 9:35 PM, Harlikwin said:

No I agree. 

For example if we had an early 90's hornet, it would do almost everything the current one does aside from the GPS weps and the DL/HMCS, and those aspects are done poorly IMO. Sure the Nitehawk TGP would have sucked more, but you could laze-n-blaze to your hearts content. An F18A would have lacked most of the PGM's and some radar stuff, but really if you look at what ED could have done is do an A, with dumb bombs/walleyes/sparrows and an APG-65. I.e. what we basically got at release with our 18C. THEN they could have done like a mid90's C version alot faster since they already have a bunch of systems done. And then the 2000's version with even more systems. IDK how the price structure would work, maybe like the A10C-A10CII etc. And instead of 1 plane we have to try to "nerf" with BS workarounds, we would have 3 perfectly good planes to fit any number of scenarios/national customers.

Absolutely agreed.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Northstar98]

On 6/9/2021 at 9:08 PM, Munkwolf said:

Plus it builds out an era, where, at least to me, it feels like DCS is kind of spread thin across the eras as far as what planes and other vehicles (asset packs) are available within any particular one. I'm definitely not advocating "drop everything and just do Cold War", but I think it'd be a smart move to be like an 80/20 ratio of <specific era> vs everything else, until popular eras are more built out. Out of WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, Modern... I would put Modern at the bottom of the list as far as priority level. Mainly because due to the legal/documentation issues it seems impossible to properly build out a Modern era compared to the others.

Exactly this too - it was part of a bigger issue described here.

I don't care which era gets focused, but I would've rather developers pick one, get it filled out (to at least the level of current WWII), before moving onto the next, rather than having a few assets from all over the place, loading them into a blunderbuss and firing them at the screen.

Only thing I will say, is that it would be better to pick an era where we can keep BLUFOR and REDFOR peer to peer, with aircraft that are more comparable and contemporaries of each other. And for that aspect, the Cold War certainly makes much more sense; given that modern peer REDFOR is basically a non-starter and is unlikely to turn up any time soon. 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Harlikwin]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Only thing I will say, is that it would be better to pick an era where we can keep BLUFOR and REDFOR peer to peer, with aircraft that are more comparable and contemporaries of each other. And for there, the Cold War certainly makes much more sense, given that modern peer REDFOR is basically a non-starter and is unlikely to turn up any time soon. 

 

So like the 70's or 80s? 

[Northstar98]

On 6/10/2021 at 1:20 AM, Harlikwin said:

So like the 70's or 80s? 

I mean, IMO, yes.

For me, I guess you could sum it up as me wanting essentially a full-fidelity version of the SF2 series.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Jethro11]

I would be happy if they started on the F-4 again.  That will be a great module whenever it comes.

[Harlikwin]

5 minutes ago, Jethro11 said:

I would be happy if they started on the F-4 again.  That will be a great module whenever it comes.

 

Heatblurs Sekrit module...

[Harker]

I think this'll happen naturally anyway, as ED and 3rd parties run out of modern aircraft that they can model. But I actually think that Cold War jets will be just as hard, if not harder, to develop at the fidelity level that people here are talking about.

ECM and ECCM, a proper, global radar API, and a correct RCS library, whether for newer or older radars, need to be developed from scratch, but that's true for every single radar system we could have in DCS and so it can benefit all modules. The implementation of ECM/ECCM for modern fighters will be simpler, with older techniques, but it'll be more than adequate for DCS, not to mention easier to program, since modern radars don't show any of the raw data to the pilot, only "hits" and "tracks", which is far easier to program in a video game (you don't have to show all the effects on the raw return itself, you can get away with using comprehensive probability matrices, which would be more in line with what ED is doing now and is far more performance friendly than raycasting - CPUs love matrices). In a way, modern fighter radars and systems can be easier to program, because the real interface became closer to that of a PC or a video game, over the years. And we, as the pilots/operators, care only about what we see on the displays.

Given enough time, the whole "digital battlefield" idea can be implemented by ED, since it's close in logic to a video game system anyway. They just have to include layers of limitations, errors, jamming etc, but it's doable.

It's certainly more doable than implementing a realistic AWACS/GCI operator that's supposed to talk to you in real time. You can get away with things like the SA page in the Horner, that provide you with the same info, while being ridiculously easier to program.

So, unless we stick to either WW2 or very early jets, the only thing that differs between the development of a modern aircraft and a Cold War one, is availability of information, which is not a big problem for quite a few semi-modern fighters, such as the post-MSI F/A-18C of the mid-2000's. Taking the Hornet as an example, there is enough public info out there for ED to properly simulate MSI, radar functions etc, they just have to do it. It's not an easy task, but they need to push themselves to develop what's needed for it, since they sold the Hornet as a mid-2000's configuration that includes MSI.

For me, studying and messing around with modern avionics is what's fun. I like the tech and the HMI. Not to say that Cold War stuff isn't fun, but it's not as complex to play as, doesn't have as many systems to use and manage and just flying and fighting, while fun for a time, will get old, for people like me. That's especially true for SP, where managing systems becomes an even bigger part of the core gameplay, since modern systems allow you to be more self-sufficient and less dependent on the AI of other aircraft or an AI like Jester. No matter how much that front is improved, it won't be as good as another human and that'll hurt the SP experience.

[bies]

I agree with nearly all of that, except for one detail:

 

2 hours ago, Harker said:

But I actually think that Cold War jets will be just as hard, if not harder, to develop at the fidelity level

I.e. F/A-18A or C form 1980s Cold War would be virtual the same as 2004 except the need to model the most complicated and work-hours heavy systems - some DDI pages, GPS weapon integration JDAM, JSOW, SLAM-ER, Link16, AMRAAM, JHMCS, AIM-9X, some radar submodes, guidance algorithms of most modern smart weapons, towed decoy etc. - half of the work.

Hornet with FM, graphics, Sparrows, Sidewinders, dumb bombs and unguided rockets, basic navigation etc. was basically ready in EA, some 2 years ago.

 

It would take some ~2 years less to model Cold War Hornet than 2004 variant. Today both Hornet and Viper would have been 100% complete since some time and some other module, like i.e. F-4 would be in EA.

 

And it would be more realistic and faithful simulation of reality since most modern classified parts of radar and EW suite - which has to be omitted or changed - didn't exist back then in 1980s or Desert Storm.

 

And it would be able to meet symmetrical historically accurate REDFOR opponent MiG-29 9.12, Su-27S, MiG-23MLA, MiG-21bis, Mirage F.1 from Cold War times and Desert Storm.

Edited June 10, 2021 by bies

[nessuno0505]

10 ore fa, Harlikwin ha scritto:

 

Heatblurs Sekrit module...

 

I believe it's the Intruder, F-4 being from ED.

It's true we lack a coherent environment, but that's because DCS at the moment is a sandbox, whose main aim is accurately simulate an airplane model, whatever it is. It is not a battlefield simulator, it's an airplane's one. Il-2 great battles, for example, is a battlefield simulator, but it is severely lacking in airplane simulation (no clickable cockpits, no accurate systems, very subtle differencies from a flight model to the other, and so on). But in there you have the right airplane models in the right map with the right assets in the right historical time. I think you can't have all in a single simulator. I hope one day DCS gets there, but it will take time. A lot of time.

[Harker]

I agree with nearly all of that, except for one detail:
 
I.e. F/A-18A or C form 1980s Cold War would be virtual the same as 2004 except the need to model the most complicated and work-hours heavy systems - some DDI pages, GPS weapon integration JDAM, JSOW, SLAM-ER, Link16, AMRAAM, JHMCS, AIM-9X, some radar submodes, guidance algorithms of most modern smart weapons, towed decoy etc. - half of the work.
Hornet with FM, graphics, Sparrows, Sidewinders, dumb bombs and unguided rockets, basic navigation etc. was basically ready in EA, some 2 years ago.
 
It would take some ~2 years less than 2004 variant like Hornet was some more than tear ago. Today both Hornet and Viper would have been 100% complete since some time and some other module, like i.e. F-4 would be in EA.
 
And it would be more realistic and faithful simulation of reality since most modern classified parts of radar and EW suite - which has to be omitted or changed - didn't exist back then in 1980s or Desert Storm.
 
And it would be able to meet symmetrical historically accurate REDFOR opponent MiG-29 9.12, Su-27S, MiG-23MLA, MiG-21bis.

The radar modes and functionality would be the same, with just details between modes being different. ECM and ECCM would still be there and there wouldn't be any difference, in terms of how DCS deals with them.

There only thing that would change in the A/A systems would be MSI, AMRAAM and AIM-9X. The latter is trivial in the context of how DCS is modeling weapons. The AMRAAM is not tied to the Hornet's development, it's only the interface and the radar-missile communication that needs to be developed, I can't imagine it's that time consuming. The big item is MSI, but even like that, we're halfway between having and not having MSI (leaning more towards not having it, the way it's modeled now), so even that wouldn't be drastically different. Indeed, the absence of MSI would likely necessitate the development of VS mode, in order to have some way of better SA, which AFAIK is skipped now, since it's very unlikely to be used with MSI anyway.

FOX3 logic and datalink logic would need to be developed by ED anyway, for aircraft like the F-14. If the code is robust, it should require just a plug and interface design for other aircraft.

The only extra MITL weapon is the SLAM-ER, if we're keeping the conversation to 1993 max. So the entire MITL logic would need to be developed anyway.

I'll give you the JDAM/JSOW, although they're essentially one item and the JDAM logic existed already for the A-10C.

The main reasons for the delays in the Hornet are the need to develop new DCS-wide systems (DL, MITL), the fact that the devs need to reinvent the wheel several times apparently, because of DCS's bad code structure (a lot of things are module-dependent, instead of universal, necessitating that the devs spend extra time implementing things that should be able to be plugged in - just look at how inconsistent the radar simulation is between modules, whereas the physics of a radar are obviously the same) and the fact that a lot of things were implemented wrongly in the Hornet from the start and need to be reworked now. All of these conditions would still be true for an older variant.

If DCS had an efficient code base and better literature review had been performed prior to working on the Hornet, it'd likely be done by now.

The point I do agree with is that we lack modern Redfor aircraft, but that's due to restrictions of their countries of origin and there's nothing to be done about that. We shouldn't limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator in terms of availability of data and deny ourselves modern Blufor aircraft, if we can have them. Their use case is realistic as well, since Blufor vs Redfor of the same tech level is a scenario that hasn't been seen in several decades.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, nessuno0505 said:

 

I believe it's the Intruder, F-4 being from ED.

It's true we lack a coherent environment, but that's because DCS at the moment is a sandbox, whose main aim is accurately simulate an airplane model, whatever it is. It is not a battlefield simulator, it's an airplane's one. Il-2 great battles, for example, is a battlefield simulator, but it is severely lacking in airplane simulation (no clickable cockpits, no accurate systems, very subtle differencies from a flight model to the other, and so on). But in there you have the right airplane models in the right map with the right assets in the right historical time. I think you can't have all in a single simulator. I hope one day DCS gets there, but it will take time. A lot of time.

 

Nah the A6 is next, then they have 2 sekrit modules planned, I'm betting one is an F4, the other maybe a draken/viggen/grippen. 

[bies]

So in this situation 1980s with declassified realistically modeled avionics and weapon systems and functionality, historical planeset for both sides and shorter developement time is the best.

 

And it looks like it's really the direction of the DCS. I've analyzed modules in developement and nearly all of them are 1970s / 1980s cold war.

Mi-24P Hind, Mirage F.1, A-7E Corsair II, A-6E Intruder, F-8J Crusader, MiG-17 Fresco, MiG-23MLA Flogger, MiG-29A Fulcrum, Bo-105, F-4E Phantom, Mirage III, EE Lighting, Sea Harrier, IA 58 Pucara, Fiat Go.91, Su-17 Fitter

Plus current F-14 Tomcat, Mirage 2000, Viggen, F-5E Tiger, MiG-21bis, Gazelle, Huey

 

Two types of missions / servers:

2000s USAF vs. USN fictional scenarios without context, with 1980/90 environment, AMRAAM/JSOW tossing from afar for newer players with low entry threshold, easier computer flight control and easy to employ standoff weapon

And Cold War with proper environment, symetrical historically accurate realistic planesets for both sides, historically acurate and reasonably declassified SAMs, radars, ships, ground units, AA/AG weapon systems with simple logic, many full blown real wars to recreate when both sides actually shoot to each other etc.

Edited June 10, 2021 by bies

[Harlikwin]

35 minutes ago, bies said:

So in this situation 1980s with declassified realistically modeled avionics and weapon systems and functionality, historical planeset for both sides and shorter development time is the best.

 

And it looks like it's really the direction of the DCS. I've analyzed modules in development and nearly all of them are 1970s / 1980s cold war.

Mi-24P Hind, Mirage F.1, A-7E Corsair II, A-6E Intruder, F-8J Crusader, MiG-17 Fresco, MiG-23MLA Flogger, MiG-29A Fulcrum, Bo-105, F-4E Phantom, Mirage III, EE Lighting, Sea Harrier, IA 58 Pucara

Plus current F-14 Tomcat, Mirage 2000, Viggen, F-5E Tiger, MiG-21bis, Gazelle, Huey

 

Two types of missions / servers:

2000s USAF vs. USN fictional scenarios without context, with 1980/90 environment, AMRAAM/JSOW tossing from afar for newer players with low entry threshold, easier computer flight control and easy to employ standoff weapon

And Cold War with proper environment, symmetrical historically accurate realistic planesets for both sides, historically accurate and reasonably declassified SAMs, radars, ships, ground units, AA/AG weapon systems with simple logic, many full blown real wars to recreate when both sides actually shoot to each other etc.

 

 

Yeah, it does look like that most new modules are more cold war. You forgot the Gina and the Su-17, the former is looking like it might actually be soon the latter is still draped in a tarp. And we also get the early -95 Tomcats for iran and USN, really looking forward to those. 

[Furiz]

7 hours ago, bies said:

So in this situation 1980s with declassified realistically modeled avionics and weapon systems and functionality, historical planeset for both sides and shorter developement time is the best.

 

And it looks like it's really the direction of the DCS. I've analyzed modules in developement and nearly all of them are 1970s / 1980s cold war.

Mi-24P Hind, Mirage F.1, A-7E Corsair II, A-6E Intruder, F-8J Crusader, MiG-17 Fresco, MiG-23MLA Flogger, MiG-29A Fulcrum, Bo-105, F-4E Phantom, Mirage III, EE Lighting, Sea Harrier, IA 58 Pucara, Fiat Go.91, Su-17 Fitter

Plus current F-14 Tomcat, Mirage 2000, Viggen, F-5E Tiger, MiG-21bis, Gazelle, Huey

 

Two types of missions / servers:

2000s USAF vs. USN fictional scenarios without context, with 1980/90 environment, AMRAAM/JSOW tossing from afar for newer players with low entry threshold, easier computer flight control and easy to employ standoff weapon

And Cold War with proper environment, symetrical historically accurate realistic planesets for both sides, historically acurate and reasonably declassified SAMs, radars, ships, ground units, AA/AG weapon systems with simple logic, many full blown real wars to recreate when both sides actually shoot to each other etc.

 

 

Oh riiiight, so the people that like modern jets are newbies and no skill people and the cold war crew are the pros ;D

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, Furiz said:

 

Oh riiiight, so the people that like modern jets are newbies and no skill people and the cold war crew are the pros ;D

 

Nah, its just how it tends to work out. Most folks buy the most multipurpose badass plane they can think of or research or get told to (the F18). Then they use that, eventually they migrate to older modules. Its kinda a funny thing, but most of the recommendations I see are for the hornet, which TBH is hard to learn vs like a F5.

 

[Furiz]

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Nah, its just how it tends to work out. Most folks buy the most multipurpose badass plane they can think of or research or get told to (the F18). Then they use that, eventually they migrate to older modules. Its kinda a funny thing, but most of the recommendations I see are for the hornet, which TBH is hard to learn vs like a F5.

 

 

I really don't see my self ever migrating to older module, I only have Viper and Hornet, its just not fun for me to fly an airplane with which I can only take off and fight, I like to play around with all those systems that modern jets have, plan a route for SLAMER or wild weasel in the Viper, cant wait for the Viper to get its systems done as well. Plan the routes in the Hornet, make my own waypoints etc etc, so much stuff to do and so much more to learn in modern jets (Hornet or Viper) than in and f-5 for example, that's whats fun for me.

I'm not the 8 JSOW guy tho, I find that boring, overloading the plane, it is much more challenging to carry 2 of those and make them count.

 

Most recommendations are for the Hornet cause the plane is very interesting, you can do land or carrier based ops, and there is tons of stuff to explore, tons of systems to study and tons of weapons to employ, it is basically all in one module, why wouldn't it be recommended?

Would you recommend F-5 over Hornet?

 

There is much more tactics involved in modern fighter operation than just tossing AMRAAMS or JSOWs, like bies thinks, it really isn't that boring.

Maybe its easier in DCS cause the modern SAM systems are not developed that much but ED is getting there and I believe they will get to the point where those systems will be very well developed, recently they improved SA10. More improvements are gonna come, same goes with modern jets, some systems my be lacking but they are gonna improve.

 

[kseremak]

It's obvious modern aircrafts are a lot easier to fly and use weapon. It's an opinion of every real life pilot. Flight computer will not allow you to make any seriuous mistake and kill yourself, pilots say "you don't fly, you vote on maneuver using the stick" , long range air and ground weapon is super easy to use and guide itself automatically to the target in the air or on the ground.

WW2 fighters were very hard to fly or fight, every air combat was close maneuver dogfight, every shoot was low powered machine gun aimed manually using whole plane without any aim assistance.

Cold War was in between, still mostly manual flight control and extreme Mach 2 performance to tame and high wing loading, still moslty manual aiming with dumb or early guided imperfect weapons, still mostly close range dogfight needed to achieve the kill.

 

Just compare aircraft destroyed per 1000 flight during in example carrier landings. F/A-18 with computer control close to zero. F-8 Crusader from Vietnam era, some significant number. F-4 Corsair during WW2, a butchery, more aircrafts lost during landings than from enemy fire.

That's how it was.

To vertically land a Harrier you needed some serious pilot skill. In F-35B computer landing perfectly even without pilot input at all, it's fascinating but it's like watching a movie, fun but only one time.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by kseremak

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, kseremak said:

Why to be salty? It's obvious modern aircrafts are a lot easier to fly and use weapon. It's an opinion of every real life pilot.

 

I mean I'm not salty about it, its just kinda boring for me. I tell my noobs to buy the jeff, its probably the easiest to learn, fly and employ IMO. But as I said, for me its all kinda boring. punch in coordinates, picke RTB. Hunt around with TGP find tgt, pickle, RTB. See blip at 30 miles, fire, RTB... I guess its cool to some people, just not me. I can do it all, I just find it tiresome after a while. Plus most of the planes are the same, use the same weapons, its boring frankly, no differentiation with airframes or capabilities. Sure I gotta push a few different buttons in a viper vs an F18 or a Jeff, but they all more or less do the same stuff. 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Furiz]

And what do you do in your cold war fighter when you deploy your ordinance, do you stick around or you RTB? You do the same,

Cold War: find your blip at 20 miles, target finds you too and fires, you fire, RTB

Modern: find your blip at 30 miles, target finds you too and fires, you fire, RTB

Whats the difference?

With AG same story, just different approach due to changes in tech.

 

We all do the same, the difference between modern and cold war fighters is that in cold war fighter you were more busy with flying the plane, and in modern fighter you are more busy with deploying weapons and managing systems rather than fighting with your plane to keep it in the air. It is easier to fly modern fighter ofc, cause of technology and development of avionics, its called progress.

 

Exploring new tech and developing and researching new radars and ECM systems, new missiles, guided weapons etc is very good for the sim, cause that new stuff will make us all prosper in the future, rather than sticking to old stuff that we already know, making no progress whatsoever.