Aircraft before the 1993 tech explosion for DCS

[FlankerKiller]

Honestly the release of the MI-24P has made realize just how much I agree with the OP. It's just such a cool jet. In like five years the late cold war looks like it'll be looking pretty good. A-6, A-7, F-8, F-14, Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-29. Sombody really needs to do an SU-22/17, and or a Mig-27. I would love to see an SU-24, but know that its unlikely. I love actually having to drive the weapons to the target. And the SLAM, and Walleye are just so cool to use. 

[bies]

On 7/12/2021 at 2:51 PM, FlankerKiller said:

Honestly the release of the MI-24P has made realize just how much I agree with the OP. It's just such a cool jet. In like five years the late cold war looks like it'll be looking pretty good. A-6, A-7, F-8, F-14, Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-29. Sombody really needs to do an SU-22/17, and or a Mig-27. I would love to see an SU-24, but know that its unlikely. I love actually having to drive the weapons to the target. And the SLAM, and Walleye are just so cool to use. 

 

Don't forget about Mirage F.1, looks like it will be released this year. Mirages F.1 fought in 1980s Iraq Iran war (and Desert Storm few years later) and and shoot down three Iranian fighters, two Phantoms and even one Tomcat. How certain this kills are is another topic, but nevertheless it was significant asset of Iraq air force.

Iranians used many F-5E as well, IIRC Gazelle helicopters, Hueys etc.

Edited July 13, 2021 by bies

[FlankerKiller]

Shit, I accidentally ment to include it. Its a day one buy for me. I love the C-101, and can't wait to see what they do with somthing that's got more teeth. 

[Pikey]

People are starting to cotton on to this idea and its developed a stronger online movement since the original posting, with some really good servers.
 

Reminder that the sentiment of my post was not about exclusivity, just where the benefits lie, especially in multiplayer adversarial gaming with a flight simulator.
The same goes for the WW2 arena, except the jet era allows 'more and faster'.
There's a lot to be said for "games and contests" where you see your opponent and dance with him a bit.
Fox3 and lots of avionics have their place, I've enjoyed them, but it didnt sustain me, there is no way, most of the time, to know if your missile hit which is not satisfying. Imagine taking a football penalty and just as the ball is kicked you switch off the camera...
Dogfights in the modern post 00's are also fun, but HOBS kindda ruins the point so they are restricted to 'contests'. If you have to restrict the weapon, other restrictions apply that are less understandable, like guns vs guns. It's in a bubble and unnatural.
Fly By Wire in a computer simulation is like an spiritual opposite, they aren't immersing flight models, the Hornet is like driving a mouse across your screen. Flying the big F-14 and landing that, well the flying is fun because its quite tricky. Controlling your plane could be more challenging.
Suppression of Air Defence only exists via scripting and I've persoinally taken that as far as it can go before a human is involved, its completely artificial. Destruction of air defence is another version of BVR combat. FIre, RTB, maybe not even any BDA. If the script is a radar shutdown, you will likely miss and repeat.
Jdams are so boring people wrote songs about that.
Bomb fuse delay is coming (imminently according to ED video)... lower, more dangerous and ridiculous feats with dumb bombs = more fun, more visceral, more talent, more fireballs, more giggles.

One of the issues that prevent more widescale adoption of the older planes, in my opinion, is the multiplayer premise that anything other than the percieved 'best' is not worth playing. This comes from when people look at every module and pick in a bubble, it actually makes sense to be fair to them.
First module? Pick a Hornet.
Second module... erm, so you are telling me I have to pick something that can't do anything that this module can do?
I get it. But no one seems to understand each module doesn't live in a world where all of them exist at one time and this is because many multiplayer servers are terrified of removing the modern airframes because they lose traffic. Suddenly your F-5 is looking hot versus the C101 when you realise you are the faster and safer one...

We (the entire community) need to be comfortable with server restrictions

We already had Fox2 nights for many years, a simple restriction we played for a long time, but we are artificially creating that and not limiting the airframes on servers to make it feel right. What we need are servers that exclude the popular modern modules to allow Cold War to really come alive with people using a thematic world that makes sense. Everything has it's place, modern, has it's place, WW2, has its place, but lets embrace servers who make authentic restrictions by supporting them.

[dawgie79]

Well. Not a popular opinion but please no. There are many different kinds of people who like DCS, so more spread in the eras is better. Also, multiplayer is a relative small niche in DCS. I have the impression that the vocal majority on these forums seem to forget that. 
 

I’m into DCS to learn how a fighter works, just out of curiosity. With old planes there’s not much to learn to be honest. Just my opinion.  

[Rudel_chw]

47 minutes ago, dawgie79 said:

With old planes there’s not much to learn to be honest. Just my opinion.  

 

I don't share your opinion, I find that I learn things from every Module .. even the i-16 or the CE-2 .. so, I will keep purchasing (and flying) any module that strikes my interest. I'm so glad to be out of the MP scene, it is so freeing to be able to use DCS wichever way I want. MP felt so limited and constrained, not to mention the rude people that one can met online.

[Rick50]

Pikey, thanks for posting that youtube!  It encapsulates how sometimes a great dogfight can be more fun than the flying computer/ordnance trains like the modern "Swiss Army fighters", the ones that do EVERYTHING because they can carry EVERYTHING.  Hornets and Vipers are cool, no doubt, but maybe sometimes the massive variety of magic ordnance that acts like it's magic... keeps the player from experiencing cool events.

I'm not knocking the modern uber planes, and they certainly have their place in DCS, I'm just saying that every now and then, leave the ViperNet in the hangar and go hunt Fishbeds in Tigers, or intercept something with a Mig-19... just you, a couple crappy short range missiles that probably won't work, a few cannon rounds, and whatever skill and experience you can bring to the fight.  

I love the eurofighter ever since that mid-90's simulation defending Norway... but while I'll get that module, I also look forward to The Phantom, The Mirage F.1, and others that may come. I would love to see the Mirage III in future. Other future possibilities could include the F-101 Voodoo (maybe both the recon photo bird, and the twin seat interceptor that Canada used), Thunderchief, and maybe get a full fidelity Skyhawk module? How about the Mig-27 ground attack version?  I've also just recently learned that the F-5 and Mig-21 modules are both getting an update or facelift, meaning I think they'll get new artwork... the Mig I know is getting a totally new 3-d model, both exterior AND the cockpit 3d model, along with textures, as they have been doing some very detailed 3d mapping of a real example. I think they might also get some new sounds too. 

 

[Furiz]

You guys are talking about magic ordnance and how boring that is and how you don't get to experience the cool stuff... but you are forgetting that those modern planes can deliver that ordnance the same way your cool cold war planes can and then 4 or 5 other ways to add to that one same way your cool cold war planes can deliver.

There is many people that love and enjoy modern fighters, cause of their capabilities, for me it is much more fun to be focusing on Situational Awareness and sensors, and approach heading etc... rather than focusing on holding the stick, with modern planes there is many tactics involved as with cold war planes, cause there is lots of different weapons and every weapon has its way of employment.

@Pikey is saying "we (the community)"... well you are not the community, and not everyone feels the same, I'm really disappointed that some one with beta tester label has so narrow minded opinions, but those are your opinions not from the whole community.

22 hours ago, Pikey said:

Jdams are so boring people wrote songs about that

 

This line... what do you want to say?

This how it is in real life, boring to you, fun to me. Technology progressed and evolved to keep the pilots safe and do the job with precision.

From what I'm reading between the lines in your post is that your mind is set in Topgun movie, explosions and dogfights... but that not real life, even real life pilots are saying that, not realistic. Hollywood...

 

[cfrag]

On 7/9/2022 at 1:30 PM, Pikey said:

Fly By Wire in a computer simulation is like an spiritual opposite, they aren't immersing flight models, the Hornet is like driving a mouse across your screen

Hmmm. Aren't you faulting ED/DCS for succeeding at their mission?

In the real world, military development strives to increase probability and precision of delivery, while minimizing an operator's exposure to threat. That is why it's so much easier to fly the Hornet and deliver ordnance on-target compared to doing the same in, say, a Sabre or Mossie. In other words, the armed forces try to limit the amount of danger that they expose their operators to. That's the most sane approach to an inherently violent occupation that one can take. It's also diametrically opposed to thrill-seeking, which is the hallmark of games which we are playing and talking about here. 

DCS is a game that strives to re-create real-world objects as exacting as possible. And that trend to reduce "thrill" (danger) in favor of reliability in the real world comes through in the transition from reality to game.

So it would make sense that trying to accomplish something with the Hornet is much easier than doing the same with an older, less evolved airframe. Some players like that, others don't. You appear to be part of the latter group that loves the challenges older airframes present that are no longer that pronounced in newer aircraft. It's a play style that is as valid as any other as long as you are having fun. And even I attest that yes, it's a boatload of fun even though I'm a bug driver when not pushing a whirlybnird through the mud. All playstyles are valid, none is superior to another, and usually not all are attractive to you, the individual. 

 

On 7/9/2022 at 1:30 PM, Pikey said:

Jdams are so boring people wrote songs about that.

Ask real-world military aviators, and they will write entire Anthems about how much safer they are for them, and how they enable them to return to their husbands and children. I personally like that JDAMs are available, even if I seldom use them. Boring? Perhaps to some, not to me. And should they bore me, I won't use them.

It's a matter of playstyle, and I love DCS's (increasing) ability to curtail missions/games to certain parameters so that they can re-create a specific playstyle - be that through server-imposed rules, or scripts (I wrote a mission once that prevented aircraft from getting very far if they - against the agreed rules - carried certain weapons).

In my mind that indeed seems the future of MP gaming, making it so much richer: servers that can faithfully re-create an era (e.g. the early 1970s)

On 7/9/2022 at 1:30 PM, Pikey said:

We (the entire community) need to be comfortable with server restrictions

TBH, I don't give a rat's behind about what 'the community' needs to be comfortable with. Who I care about are the people who frequent my server, and who enjoy playing with whatever I can offer. If they don't like it, they are free to leave. Server owners may be despots ("my house, my rules"), but they do pay the bill. If nobody shows up to their server, that too is their problem, so they usually work out a compromise. I'm looking forward to see if and how rule-based server restrictions can enrich the MP scene. Because I think that it's going to be a great, varied future. 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by cfrag

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, nukeproof said:

Except that both devs and the crowdbase have a kind of mindset that limits what can be had and be done to the planes' very specific point in time.

As is meant to be:)

20 hours ago, dawgie79 said:

With old planes there’s not much to learn to be honest. Just my wrong opinion.  

There, fixed it for you :))

Both sides have their tastes of course. And both can be blind to arguments from the side. They're both right in their own ways. I can enjoy modern aircraft in short bursts, before getting utterly bored of the experience. And still find enjoyment in MiG-21 8 years into its release. Apache is cool and neat, I guess, but it doesn't thrill me like trying to overcome challenging environments in Hind.

Truth is, the more modern a module, the more likely for it to have a bunch of guesstimations thrown here and there. Not saying older aircraft are immune to it, we know they're not. But there's still a difference in the likelihood of that occurring betithem and their younger successors.

For some that is completely ok if it's the price to experience that airframe or at least a semblance of it, for others less so. And that's fine. The more diverse stuff DCS can come up with, the people it can attract. And also, the more diverse, the more retention of users and their interest in the platform. While I prefer my 60s-80s aircraft by far the most in DCS, sometimes I do take a break from my favorites and enjoy WW2 or modern stuff for example.

With all that said however, I do strongly believe 60s-80s is really the best period to represent in DCS. Not nearly as done to death in sims as the other two extremes, a lot more likely to be made to the level of authenticity expected of DCS due to likelihood of getting access to documentation, and a lot more likely to have a complete and competitive blue vs red and/or historical matchup.

That doesn't mean it should be the only period in DCS of course. But for a while, more modern stuff was all we were getting announced/released so some of us got a little restless because of it But now we have more oldies coming up. Thus, I don't know if there's as much ground to be worried about for us Cold War line up lovers. More modern stuff are coming too like Eurofighter, Strike Eagle. And often they come before the stuff we Cold War folks want, because at the end of the day they'll sell more copies quicker so devs sometimes prioritize them.

70s-80s fighters and strikers filling up from both sides in DCS is just the objective best outcome and the dream though, so it's nice to see it happening

2 hours ago, Furiz said:

but you are forgetting that those modern planes can deliver that ordnance the same way your cool cold war planes can

Yeah, not nearly the same thing/experience in any way shape or form though. So much so, I'm not even sure if there's a point in mentioning it.

[WinterH]

2 hours ago, Furiz said:

This line... what do you want to say?

This how it is in real life, boring to you, fun to me.

Means it's so boring actual fighter pilots using it wrote and performed a song about how sad it is, "Dos Gringos - JDAM Blues" now, don't get me wrong, I do think there's cool tricks to learn, and perform a few times without getting bored with them. And you may not ever get bored with them, which is awesome , but just thought it's funny that it IS and actual song by actual fighter pilots who say that it is actually boring as hell

[WinterH]

2 hours ago, Furiz said:

From what I'm reading between the lines in your post is that your mind is set in Topgun movie, explosions and dogfights...

I don't know about Pikey, but I myself am, definitely, firmly in "modern boring, olds'cool fun" camp, and I neither like nor liken to reality Hollywood stuff like Topgun. And I'm not even halfway as much into dogfighting as I'm into ground attack side of things.

Some if the reasons our camp like the things we like are that you have to find out the intricacies of the way an aircraft flies, work with it/fight against it to get the best out of it when dogfighting, as opposed to learn the speed range to stay in and let the FBW take care of the rest approach in modern birds. Where they sanitize things to stop us from doo-dooing. We like it because we either like to get accurate enough with unguided weapon volleys, find the best approach angle to lay down as much damage as possible, working with our "accurate enough" level of precision. Or, alternatively, learn perfect parameters of dove angles, speeds, altitudes to actually be pretty damn accurate with them and fly those attack runs with the necessary discipline. We even like that some older but then whiz-bang tech makes us work with/around them to squeeze out some semi modern capabilities out of those early, funky, sometimes even adorably janky systems. Or alternatively we just chase after that wide grin which comes with taking on a 90s or even 2000s+ threat environment and succeeding with aircraft/weapons/systems from yester-century. We like how the flight models feel a lot more alive and a lot less sanitized, despite obviously being less capable.

We can't experience most of these just because we can sorta deliver ordnance the same way in modern birds.

Edit: also sorry for 3 consecutive posts instead of editing the first one, on the road, holiday, browsing on phone etc.

Edited July 10, 2022 by WinterH

[QuiGon]

On 7/9/2022 at 1:30 PM, Pikey said:

We (the entire community) need to be comfortable with server restrictions

This so much! I hate those MP environments, where everything is open and every aircraft is available to everyone. It makes all the lower tier aircraft pretty useless and missions quite boring.

I'm happy to see that this situation got better over recent years, with more specialized settings which provide different challenges and environments

Edited July 10, 2022 by QuiGon

[CarbonFox]

Personally I would love more balance among the modern era aircraft by seeing more Redfor platforms but RL politics just aren't going to allow for it and that will probably remain the status quo for quite some time.

I do love the Cold War era and hope to still see some more platforms jump in. The MiG-27 and or Su-17/22. Possibly the early version of the Su-24 Fencer.

[upyr1]

I strongly agree with everyone we need more cold war aircraft. I also think we need more AI assets as well.

Right now we have a nice carrier air wing taking shape. All we are really missing from a good 1970s to 1980s American fixed wing line up are the following

• A-1
• A-3
• A-5
• F-4
• AV-8A

Out of that I only expect the A-1 and F-4 would be flyable.

I'd love to see the Super Etendard and Buccaneer so we can have the French and Royal Navy fleet air arms. 

We're missing ships from the era, right now the forestal class is in the worls along with the late 1970s/early 1980s Royal Navy. I'd like the French carrier battlegroups as well as some American cruisers, destroyers and of course the battleships. 

 

Then we have the Western air forces  If we just focus on the late 1960s-mid 1980s we have the F-5, Flaming cliffs A-10A, F-15C and the F-4 and Mirage f1 are on the way. We're missing all the century fighters. As well as the older Mirages and anything British.

Now the USS/Warsaw pact

things are shaping up nicely here. We have the following MIG-21 Bis, MiG-19, the following on the way MiG-23, Su-22 (could be wrong on the fitter) there might be a MiG-17. Flaming cliffs Su-25, 27, MiG-29

Now we go to the Korean war era.

For the blue we have the following

F-86, F-51, and the Corsair is on the way

all the WWII left overs from the asset pack

Red MiG-15

ground forces - nothing 

 

I've said it before Eagle needs to work on AI assets for the 1950s and 1960s. as well as naval assets for all eras. 

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

ground forces - nothing 

To be fair, we do have T-55, M-60, SA-2, SA-3, ZSU-57, S-60, ZU-23, BMP-1, M-113, Chieftain, M-163 Vulcan, Shilka, SA-8, SA-6, Some older trucks and utility vehicles like Range Rover and Land Rover 101, and probably a few more I can't recall right away.

But there is a difference in available assets for the period between the sides indeed.

My personal peeve, I really think we need old MANPADS. Stuff like Redeye, Strela-2/3, Blowpipe etc. We have lots of flyable oldies, but not period shoulder fired missile threats. Stinger and Igla-S are a bit too spicy for them, but I'd still like to add MANPADS threats to missions with them to force me to fly more carefully. I'm working on a script to give trucks/APCs/IFVs dismount squads, and I know of at least two more different scripts doing the same. But oddly, I like flying older stuff more, yet if I incorporate my script into those missions, I will very likely come across later Stingers and Iglas, possibly in large numbers even. 

That said, it'd also be nice to get things like M-48s, T-62s, early T-72s, older blue AAA etc.

Edit: a T-34/85 wouldn't be amiss either, considering it's been in WW2, Korea, even Vietnam, and remained active in odd little conflicts or ver long lasting ones worldwide for up to later parts of 20th century.

Edited July 10, 2022 by WinterH

[upyr1]

49 minutes ago, WinterH said:

To be fair, we do have T-55, M-60, SA-2, SA-3, ZSU-57, S-60, ZU-23, BMP-1, M-113, Chieftain, M-163 Vulcan, Shilka, SA-8, SA-6, Some older trucks and utility vehicles like Range Rover and Land Rover 101, and probably a few more I can't recall right away.

But there is a difference in available assets for the period between the sides indeed.

I was talking about the Korean war period specfically since I think the disparity is the greatest. 

49 minutes ago, WinterH said:

My personal peeve, I really think we need old MANPADS. Stuff like Redeye, Strela-2/3, Blowpipe etc. We have lots of flyable oldies, but not period shoulder fired missile threats. Stinger and Igla-S are a bit too spicy for them, but I'd still like to add MANPADS threats to missions with them to force me to fly more carefully. I'm working on a script to give trucks/APCs/IFVs dismount squads, and I know of at least two more different scripts doing the same. But oddly, I like flying older stuff more, yet if I incorporate my script into those missions, I will very likely come across later Stingers and Iglas, possibly in large numbers even. 

That said, it'd also be nice to get things like M-48s, T-62s, early T-72s, older blue AAA etc.

I would agree with this as well

49 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Edit: a T-34/85 wouldn't be amiss either, considering it's been in WW2, Korea, even Vietnam, and remained active in odd little conflicts or ver long lasting ones worldwide for up to later parts of 20th century.

 

As I said earlier anything the Red Army that saw action in WW II and Korea would be welcome. I've said it before one of DCS' problem is that Eagle and the developers need to focus on building what I termed an eco system for their modules. This would conissit of at least two fighters (ideally multi-role) one red and one blue, a verity of ai assets and a map. They have a decent eccosystem for World War II, the 1970s through the early 2ks are shaping up nicely. The real blanks though are the 1950s and 1960s. 

[Silver_Dragon]

By ED has none plans about Korea, Vietnam assets, only continue expand WW2 assets. About east assets only make something, if they move to that front. .

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[dawgie79]

23 hours ago, WinterH said:

 

There, fixed it for you :))

Both sides have their tastes of course. And both can be blind to arguments from the side. They're both right in their own ways. I can enjoy modern aircraft in short bursts, before getting utterly bored of the experience. And still find enjoyment in MiG-21 8 years into its release. Apache is cool and neat, I guess, but it doesn't thrill me like trying to overcome challenging environments in Hind.

Truth is, the more modern a module, the more likely for it to have a bunch of guesstimations thrown here and there. Not saying older aircraft are immune to it, we know they're not. But there's still a difference in the likelihood of that occurring betithem and their younger successors.

For some that is completely ok if it's the price to experience that airframe or at least a semblance of it, for others less so. And that's fine. The more diverse stuff DCS can come up with, the people it can attract. And also, the more diverse, the more retention of users and their interest in the platform. While I prefer my 60s-80s aircraft by far the most in DCS, sometimes I do take a break from my favorites and enjoy WW2 or modern stuff for example.

With all that said however, I do strongly believe 60s-80s is really the best period to represent in DCS. Not nearly as done to death in sims as the other two extremes, a lot more likely to be made to the level of authenticity expected of DCS due to likelihood of getting access to documentation, and a lot more likely to have a complete and competitive blue vs red and/or historical matchup.

That doesn't mean it should be the only period in DCS of course. But for a while, more modern stuff was all we were getting announced/released so some of us got a little restless because of it But now we have more oldies coming up. Thus, I don't know if there's as much ground to be worried about for us Cold War line up lovers. More modern stuff are coming too like Eurofighter, Strike Eagle. And often they come before the stuff we Cold War folks want, because at the end of the day they'll sell more copies quicker so devs sometimes prioritize them.

70s-80s fighters and strikers filling up from both sides in DCS is just the objective best outcome and the dream though, so it's nice to see it happening

Yeah, not nearly the same thing/experience in any way shape or form though. So much so, I'm not even sure if there's a point in mentioning it.

Please don't force your opinion on others by "fixing" their posts, don't be that arrogant. What you believe isn't necessarily what I believe.

And I also can't hear that crap about the new jets flying on rails as some have argued. Newsflash: since one is sitting in a chair flying DCS every plane is "on rails", since one can't feel sideslip or adverse/proverse yaw or whatever. And to further extend that: yes, surely more modern planes are prone to more features which are unknown, or maybe classified. But they are still the closest one can come to flying modern jets. Don't like them? Don't fly them. Just as others don't like cold war, hence don't fly cold war. 

The vocal majority should accept that there are a lot of people who aren't as vocal, who aren't flying multiplayer, and who may have other interests as you. There's a lot more than cold war. 

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by dawgie79

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

By ED has none plans about Korea, Vietnam assets, only continue expand WW2 assets.

Late WWII US and Soviet assets are Korea assets. Very little latest tech was used in Korea, it was actually a lot like a low budget sequel to WWII. 

If someone (a 3rd party, most likely) makes a proper Korea map, they can fill in everything that's not already in the WWII asset pack.

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

By ED has none plans about Korea, Vietnam assets, only continue expand WW2 assets.

Late WWII US and Soviet assets are Korea assets. Very little latest tech was used in Korea, it was actually a lot like a low budget sequel to WWII. 

If someone (a 3rd party, most likely) makes a proper Korea map, they can fill in everything that's not already in the WWII asset pack.

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, dawgie79 said:

Please don't force your opinion on others by "fixing" their posts, don't be that arrogant.

 

Fully agree ... editing someone else's word is the lowest a Forum can drop .. let's hope the Moderators give this person a warning 

[Hiob]

What about a little love for vintage Helicopters?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_H-34

[CarbonFox]

The F-111F Aardvark would be the absolute GOAT for 80s era Cold war aircraft.

I think we could also use more variants of other Redfor birds. (the Fishbed C and D; the MiG-23M/MF, etc.)

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Late WWII US and Soviet assets are Korea assets. Very little latest tech was used in Korea, it was actually a lot like a low budget sequel to WWII. 

If someone (a 3rd party, most likely) makes a proper Korea map, they can fill in everything that's not already in the WWII asset pack.

Late WWII US and Soviet assets are Korea assets. Very little latest tech was used in Korea, it was actually a lot like a low budget sequel to WWII. 

If someone (a 3rd party, most likely) makes a proper Korea map, they can fill in everything that's not already in the WWII asset pack.

First, you don need duplicate answers, the reality has still here.

Second, the "only" late WW2 assets availables to a Korea conflict as:

Flyable:
- F-86F
- Mig-15Bis
- P-51D

Assets pack:
- B-17
- C-47
- Cromwell tank
- Churchil tank
- M4 Sherman
- 105mm M2A1 towed field howitzer

And that was only marginal equipment on land environment, some of them supresed by new equipment. Has a very big quantity of NATO / Soviet assets missing on a 50s conflict era assets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_used_in_the_Korean_War

A 3rd party need build a assets team (as Deka, RAZBAM and M3) to make them. A map team, has nothing to build assets, has diferent SDKs (SDK vs TDK). As Ugra Media.

Edited July 11, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[Evoman]

2 hours ago, dawgie79 said:

 Just as others don't like cold war, hence don't fly cold war. 

The vocal majority should accept that there are a lot of people who aren't as vocal, who aren't flying multiplayer, and who may have other interests as you. There's a lot more than cold war. 

 

 

I totally agree that there will always be different people with different preferences. However it always makes me roll my eyes when ever I see some new newish person to DCS demanding there be more modern jets or redfore counterparts that have not quite understood the difficulties of developing a modern FF module.

Cold war aircraft might not be everyones cup of tea but they are the most realistic era of aircraft to fully fledge out as FF of a somewhat modern era.