Aircraft before the 1993 tech explosion for DCS

[Harlikwin]

23 hours ago, upyr1 said:

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. 

 

Yeah honestly the asset situation for CW stuff is pretty grim. Especially for older SAM systems. And it would IMO be pretty trivial to do. Currently for example we have the Chap, Mim72G (basically a 3rd gen IR seeker) I mean it would be trivial to change the lua for the missiles etc for just older 70's or 80's version i.e. gen1/2 seekrs. The 3d model is the same. And the lua for the missiles is pretty minimal as they are already based on existing sidewinder variants and if those are missing they should be added anyway. Similar arguments can be made for older versions of the Hawk, Rapier, roland etc and the various russian misisles though those tend to fit CW better than modern anyway.

Similar story for older manpads, again we only have 3rd gen manpads for the most part. Adding an Sa7, redeye and maybe like an early gen stinger would again be pretty trivial lua wise. I know ED would use the standard excuse it needs its own hand crafted 3d model, but seriously, no one is gonna care, a man with a tube on his shoulder from 3000ft is a man with a tube on his shoulder. 

And yeah the whole DCS naval/damage/sam etc model is in dire need of an upgrade. Its really bad right now. 

 

I know raz has further plans for a CW asset pack, and we did just get some nice free assets from them, but lord we need way more assets. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Harlikwin

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

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.

 

I'd just add the F4U is in the works, as for the land equipment, at the minimum I am asking to add Red Army assets to the WWII asset pack that could be used to populate missions for the I-16 and MiG-15. 

[Silver_Dragon]

11 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I'd just add the F4U is in the works, as for the land equipment, at the minimum I am asking to add Red Army assets to the WWII asset pack that could be used to populate missions for the I-16 and MiG-15. 

Meanwhile the F4U was used on Korea as the carrier on progress by M3, ED has none plans to build any WW2 east front equipment (talked on the russian forums), centred actually on the west front. The only incoming east cold war equipment has some large AAAs Ks-30/19, planned to the core.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

know raz has further plans for a CW asset pack, and we did just get some nice free assets from them, but lord we need way more assets. 

I hope we can see the asset pack soon. I'm thinking it is a 1960s asset pack. If they plan to release said asset pack with a map like they have done with the South Atlantic, then there is really only one theater that I think would fit with that particular decade. 

 

[Northstar98]

23 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Similar arguments can be made for older versions of the Hawk, Rapier, roland

Meh, all of those in DCS are depicted as Cold War variants (even if late Cold War) covering the late 70s/early 80s onwards.

• HAWK is the I-HAWK PIP Phase I, which is late 70s/early 80s (only wrong thing about it is they've modelled the AN/MPQ-46 as a German HEOS equipped AN/MPQ-57). Going earlier to the baseline I-HAWK means changing the ICWAR for the CWAR but that's it. Going to the original HAWK system though means changing all the radars and the missile.
• Rapier is the FSA variant, which again is from 1979. However, to change it to the baseline system from the early 70s just means removing Blindfire FSA from the group - all other components are the same (only thing missing is the missile support trailer and sector engagement zone controller, which is common to the baseline and FSA system). From testing the Rapier does work with just the optical tracker so we're pretty much set for baseline and FSA systems.
• Roland is the FlaRakPz 1 (Roland 2), again from the late 70s/early 80s. Changing it to a Roland 1 (mid 70s), is a minor .lua change for the missile (radar ACLOS to day-only optical SACLOS) but involves changing the chassis to an AMX-30R and deleting the Domino target-tracking/fire-control radar. Would be good to get the towed Roland 2 for the Falklands War though.

23 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

I know raz has further plans for a CW asset pack, and we did just get some nice free assets from them, but lord we need way more assets.

Yeah, but even then out of the ships included, only the Invincible, Santa Fe and Andromeda were present in the Falklands War and Andromeda was in a drastically different configuration compared to what we have now. All the assets suffer the same issues as the rest of DCS, plus some of their own.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Northstar98

[_Hoss]

4 hours ago, CarbonFox said:

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.)

You can bomb Libya with it................... do we have that map? But you would have to fly from England around France, because they would not let us over fly their country. Of course you would need multiple refuel events. Sounds like fun...

 

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Meanwhile the F4U was used on Korea as the carrier on progress by M3, ED has none plans to build any WW2 east front equipment (talked on the russian forums), centred actually on the west front. The only incoming east cold war equipment has some large AAAs Ks-30/19, planned to the core.

It's sad ed isn't doing more 50s and 60s assets. 

[Pikey]

On 7/10/2022 at 11:29 AM, Furiz said:

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.

 

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...

 

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. < This was the first line, but you missed it, presumably because you were trying to read between it and the next one for something that wasnt there.

What that means for the people that took it absolutley the wrong way, is that there are advantages to this other era. Of course, people have to take it that someone of a different opinion has to be attacked. Bless you people. And your JDAMs.

I did enjoy the defence of the JDAM. I don't agree that the JDAM is exciting or interesting and it was many years ago the excitement of being in a secure airspace, with no air defences at 25,000ft pressing one button and then going home, got boring for me. I guess you are somewhere back there, marvelling at the compexity of entering a coordinate.

Quote

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.

You misunderstand (many times in a short period of time). I'm not representing the communitys opinions, you and I are part of it. I am saying people of this community need to accept more variations instead of having "all planes in one mission to satisfy everyone". However, then you say I am narrow minded for wanting something we don't have much of. Then you attack something you don't know about my gift of my time to Eagle Dynamics. OK. I guess it must be a language thing. Please try to be nicer and a better human. Also don't try to read between my lines, you need to actually read my lines because there is nothing in between them, I am a very basic kind of person.

Back on topic though, its good to see there is a firm interest with the cold war still, whether its specifically for 'multiplayer adversarial', or offline 'player versus environment'. And for those that like JDAMs, please, it's OK, no one will steal them. Speak to you next year and see how you feel then, ok?

Edited July 12, 2022 by Pikey

[Pikey]

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Meh, all of those in DCS are depicted as Cold War variants (even if late Cold War) covering the late 70s/early 80s onwards.

• HAWK is the I-HAWK PIP Phase I, which is late 70s/early 80s (only wrong thing about it is they've modelled the AN/MPQ-46 as a German HEOS equipped AN/MPQ-57). Going earlier to the baseline I-HAWK means changing the ICWAR for the CWAR but that's it. Going to the original HAWK system though means changing all the radars and the missile.
• Rapier is the FSA variant, which again is from 1979. However, to change it to the baseline system from the early 70s just means removing Blindfire FSA from the group - all other components are the same (only thing missing is the missile support trailer, which is common to the baseline and FSA system).
• Roland is the FlaRakPz 1 (Roland 2), again from the late 70s/early 80s. Changing it to a Roland 1 (mid 70s), is a minor .lua change for the missile (radar ACLOS to day-only optical SACLOS) but involves changing the chassis to an AMX-30R and deleting the Domino target-tracking/fire-control radar. Would be good to get the towed Roland 2 for the Falklands War though.

Yeah, but even then out of the ships included, only the Invincible, Santa Fe and Andromeda were present in the Falklands War and Andromeda was in a drastically different configuration compared to what we have now. All the assets suffer the same issues as the rest of DCS, plus some of their own.

Exactly. The assets in the sim are old versions in the most part, no modern air defences, there is so much out of place but depending on context. With the incoming F1, A6, A7, Mig-23, F-5/Mig21 repolish, F-4 Phantom, possibly Mirage 3 from RB, Kfir and so on, the assets lend themselves to Cold War periods and at least people playing these will be able to recreate more of a correctly "assetted" ecosystem, whereas the modern jets are kindda standing out on their own being stuck as study sims for the offline crowd with no natural adversaries. We even suffer from this in WW2 with the 1942 Allied and 1945 Axis birds and a map that neither of them used, its crazy. Instead what we do have seems overlooked in favour of new shiny things for the younger crowd who want to fight in a bubble. Use what we have or hopes and prayers for what we don't, I'd rather play is some kind of cold war era against similar combatants than the desert meme in uncontested air space, others may vary of course and they do.

[dawgie79]

@Pikey it’s not surprising most people on these forums agree with you, because it’s the vocal majority. We already know most people playing DCS are single players. 

I’m willing to bet ED’s most successful modules are the F/A-18C, the F-16C and the A-10C. 

 

 

[upyr1]

20 minutes ago, dawgie79 said:

@Pikey it’s not surprising most people on these forums agree with you, because it’s the vocal majority. We already know most people playing DCS are single players. 

I’m willing to bet ED’s most successful modules are the F/A-18C, the F-16C and the A-10C. 

 

 

I expect that's probably correct, though I expect F-14 and the warbirds are right behind them.  I expect the F-5 and MiG-21 to increase in popularity when the Phantom gets relesed. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by upyr1

[Furiz]

Yea you started with:

4 hours ago, Pikey said:

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.

And you spoke about modern era in very disparaging way. Nothing you said there was about benefits, it was just how boring modern era was. I find that narrow minded.

In the end you mention how we need to be comfortable with restrictions and that was it. And I agree with that.

Look at the difference in your post and in the Video you posted, the video did say why they think cold war is better, you just bashed on the modern era... that's the whole reason I reacted as I did.

 

4 hours ago, Pikey said:

Then you attack something you don't know about my gift of my time to Eagle Dynamics.

I wouldn't go down that road,

everyone has his own amount of free time, it differs from person to person, everyone here expressing their opinion, and spending time on forum or discord etc... is gifting something to ED and is helping ED in one way or another.

You testing for ED doesn't make you better person then anyone else, you just have more free time.

Your free time is your own free time and you are free to use it as you please.

 

4 hours ago, Pikey said:

Please try to be nicer and a better human.

Then this...

you really don't know me, and you don't know what kind of person I am and what do I do in my life.

4 hours ago, Pikey said:

Also don't try to read between my lines,

There is always something between the lines. And there is quite something to read here.

4 hours ago, Pikey said:

Back on topic though, its good to see there is a firm interest with the cold war still, whether its specifically for 'multiplayer adversarial', or offline 'player versus environment'. And for those that like JDAMs, please, it's OK, no one will steal them. Speak to you next year and see how you feel then, ok?

This sounds very insulting.

5 hours ago, Pikey said:

I guess you are somewhere back there, marvelling at the compexity of entering a coordinate.

And here you are insulting my intelligence.

I never talked to you with this kind of disrespect, so please don't talk to me or others like that.

 

Modern era is not as boring as you guys are presenting it here. In fact it is quite entertaining, lots of different tactics and lots of different weapons and modes to use those weapons, and then you can do all that the Cold War way. + the Avionics and system and ... 700+ pages in those manuals, that is really not boring to me.

And if you go against well defended targets you will notice that it gets quite fun and tense. Bombing tanks that don't move with no defense is boring even in Cold War era.

There are problems with modern era I agree there, like the video suggested, almost no Redfor, only Jeff, planes and basically only US planes with EF coming on Blue side, problems with getting enough info to create more modules, better IADS needed etc...,

but I wouldn't say its boring.

 

 

 

 

[Pikey]

2 hours ago, Furiz said:

Yea you started with:

And you spoke about modern era in very disparaging way. Nothing you said there was about benefits, it was just how boring modern era was. I find that narrow minded.

In the end you mention how we need to be comfortable with restrictions and that was it. And I agree with that.

Look at the difference in your post and in the Video you posted, the video did say why they think cold war is better, you just bashed on the modern era... that's the whole reason I reacted as I did.

 

I wouldn't go down that road,

everyone has his own amount of free time, it differs from person to person, everyone here expressing their opinion, and spending time on forum or discord etc... is gifting something to ED and is helping ED in one way or another.

You testing for ED doesn't make you better person then anyone else, you just have more free time.

Your free time is your own free time and you are free to use it as you please.

 

Then this...

you really don't know me, and you don't know what kind of person I am and what do I do in my life.

There is always something between the lines. And there is quite something to read here.

This sounds very insulting.

And here you are insulting my intelligence.

I never talked to you with this kind of disrespect, so please don't talk to me or others like that.

 

Modern era is not as boring as you guys are presenting it here. In fact it is quite entertaining, lots of different tactics and lots of different weapons and modes to use those weapons, and then you can do all that the Cold War way. + the Avionics and system and ... 700+ pages in those manuals, that is really not boring to me.

And if you go against well defended targets you will notice that it gets quite fun and tense. Bombing tanks that don't move with no defense is boring even in Cold War era.

There are problems with modern era I agree there, like the video suggested, almost no Redfor, only Jeff, planes and basically only US planes with EF coming on Blue side, problems with getting enough info to create more modules, better IADS needed etc...,

but I wouldn't say its boring.

 

 

 

 

I hope you find peace in your life and wish you cheer and happiness and whatever it is that you need to fix the pain with which you are in.

[Exorcet]

8 hours ago, Pikey said:

I did enjoy the defence of the JDAM. I don't agree that the JDAM is exciting or interesting and it was many years ago the excitement of being in a secure airspace, with no air defences at 25,000ft pressing one button and then going home, got boring for me. I guess you are somewhere back there, marvelling at the compexity of entering a coordinate.

 

The issue Furiz is pointing out isn't that JDAM's and modern whatever are being attacked. It's that they're being misrepresented. I tend to agree, usually when someone says X is boring they make up some crazy simple scenario that no one would come up outside of maybe a training mission, and that scenario 99% of the time can be applied just as easily to their favorite weapon or aircraft. What does flying around without any opposing air defense and pressing a button have to do with JDAM? Absolutely nothing. You can make just as boring a mission with Mk82's.

If you want fun with JDAM's, try flying with them against a hidden SA-10 that you need to pinpoint via HTS and then check your kneepad map to see if you find a valley to fly through that will let you pop up, acquire the SAM in TGP, and loft the JDAM on the TR specifically, all before the missile has time to shoot back and kill you. It's a thrill you can't get with older aircraft because half the technology doesn't exist.

Now that doesn't mean older planes are boring, they have their fun parts. They don't need to be compared to made up misrepresentations of competing eras or whatever just to attract players.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Exorcet

[Pikey]

3 hours ago, dawgie79 said:

@Pikey it’s not surprising most people on these forums agree with you, because it’s the vocal majority. We already know most people playing DCS are single players. 

I’m willing to bet ED’s most successful modules are the F/A-18C, the F-16C and the A-10C. 

 

 

I think it's a different reason. I think if you linger around a few years, maybe more, you start to look for different things. The entry point would be A-10C, more recently Hornet, maybe F-16. The actual stats on who plays online was revealed fairly recently to be a very high proportion of players. These are the first findings and there is a sharp drop off on module uptake after those big ones. The sticky customers are trying different things, trying different servers, having done what these modules offer, but in a minority and yes perhaps vocal. I don't think its any more complex than that. Of course once new customers grow bored of the avionics videos every month, they leave the forums and whoever is left is hanging around looking for somehting new/different. The customers looking for the popular modern mods don't feel the need to look.
But it doesn't matter what makes people tick, the idea of something new, is not a new idea.

[Pikey]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

The issue isn't Furiz is pointing out isn't that JDAM's and modern whatever are being attacked. It's that they're being misrepresented. I tend to agree, usually when someone says X is boring they make up some crazy simple scenario that no one would come up outside of maybe a training mission, and that just as easily applies to their favorite weapon or aircraft. What does flying around without any opposing air defense and pressing a button have to do with JDAM? Absolutely nothing. You can make just as boring a mission with Mk82's.

If you want fun with JDAM's, try flying with them against a hidden SA-10 that you need to pinpoint a HTS and then check your kneepad map to see if you find a valley to fly through that will let you pop up, acquire the SAM in TGP, and loft the JDAM on the TR specifically, all before the missile has time to shoot back and kill you. It's a thrill you can't get with older aircraft because half the technology doesn't exist.

Now that doesn't mean older planes are boring, they have their fun parts. They don't need to be compared to made up misrepresentations of competing eras or whatever just to attract players.

Just to be clear whilst we are going down the JDAM example, people are still entitled to find these fun. Now, I don't get it, because there is an art in putting the "thing on the thing" that is engaging and visual. I'd challenge anyone to level drop your Mk82's from medium altitude level release - so that's not going to be a boring mission with a Mk82. Performing a perfect heart split attack with a friend and high fiving on the crossover before the rejoin is really cool fun! https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3989643/pop-up-pattern
what we don't have is a reasonably immersive reason to do this in the kind of conflicts you generally see which are with total air superiority, no air defenses above manpad engagement (if at all) and versus some tinpot dictatorship or 3rd world. Getting a bombing run close to target is a stick and rudder challenge and its fun (well it is when you don't have FBW or need a rudder). Level JDAM release at medium/high altitude is not an interesting challenge after you learned how to do it once.

The JDAM is a just a metaphor.

I want people to get online, play together, have fun, chuck bombs, blow stuff up and see the guy that shot them back. I want them to appreciate that you can enjoy the stick and rudder aspect, not that it's just a study sim where you learn the fascinating processes of modern warfare. I see that a lot of folks take the sim as a study sim, bury themselves in academic study offline and just say they don't have time to really get into it and we lose them whilst they really only had the AI and its shortfalls to measure their skills against. I don't think the modern planes are the vehicle that transitions people to fun - I don't know for sure, but i suspect it, because I have seen so many people get worn out of the modern jets and the months latest video on X system. Then having that system change later and have to go relearn it. I think the Hornet and A-10C offline players are the huge massive mountain of people to be tapped into that need to find their fun online or with stick and rudder play at least to fill out the servers and get sticky customers. The post isn't about me talking about what i want at heart, its talking about the difference between the way people percieve the sim and the game.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Pikey
tpyo

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, Pikey said:

Just to be clear whilst we are going down the JDAM example, people are still entitled to find these fun. Now, I don't get it, because there is an art in putting the "thing on the thing" that is engaging and visual.

It depends. Challenge is two sided, it's not just about your capability, it's about your capability vs the enemy capability. Dropping Mk82's against a huge undefended airfield is easier than dropping JDAM's under a SA-10 umbrella.

2 hours ago, Pikey said:

I'd challenge anyone to level drop your Mk82's from medium altitude level release - so that's not going to be a boring mission with a Mk82. Performing a perfect heart split attack with a friend and high fiving on the crossover before the rejoin is really cool fun! https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3989643/pop-up-pattern
what we don't have is a reasonably immersive reason to do this in the kind of conflicts you generally see which are with total air superiority, no air defenses above manpad engagement (if at all) and versus some tinpot dictatorship or 3rd world. Getting a bombing run close to target is a stick and rudder challenge and its fun (well it is when you don't have FBW or need a rudder). Level JDAM release at medium/high altitude is not an interesting challenge after you learned how to do it once.

Then the problem is the situation isn't it? If you don't have threats you don't need the popup even if you're flying a F-105. Add the proper adversaries and you'll be forced to fly and think a little bit whether you have FBW or not. You can release JDAM's while flying level, but you don't have to, and in some situations it's not going to be enough to succeed in your mission.

2 hours ago, Pikey said:

The JDAM is a just a metaphor.

I want people to get online, play together, have fun, chuck bombs, blow stuff up and see the guy that shot them back. I want them to appreciate that you can enjoy the stick and rudder aspect, not that it's just a study sim where you learn the fascinating processes of modern warfare. I see that a lot of folks take the sim as a study sim, bury themselves in academic study offline and just say they don't have time to really get into it and we lose them whilst they really only had the AI and its shortfalls to measure their skills against. I don't think the modern planes are the vehicle that transitions people to fun - I don't know for sure, but i suspect it, because I have seen so many people get worn out of the modern jets and the months latest video on X system. Then having that system change later and have to go relearn it. I think the Hornet and A-10C offline players are the huge massive mountain of people to be tapped into that need to find their fun online or with stick and rudder play at least to fill out the servers and get sticky customers. The post isn't about me talking about what i want at heart, its talking about the difference between the way people percieve the sim and the game.

 

Well this helps in understanding your motivation, but less so your choice of metaphor. I'll go back to my opening, challenge and fun is about matching your capability to your enemies. Both sides need to be taken into account. I don't really see issues with the A-10 and F-18 that Cold War planes will fix. They'll just turn out the same way. These planes may be simpler (in some ways) but they're not necessarily simple. There is a reason why the F-4 is two seat and the F-15 isn't. In terms of module development both the F-5 and MiG-21 have been around a long time and yet are still being worked on. Both are now scheduled for pretty significant overhauls. There will probably be quite a bit of relearning when these changes are added. That's OK though because like modern airframes, the old aircraft have their own unique traits and attractive qualities. I guess from my perspective I don't see why there are two sides here at all. I think the things modern players want are also the things cold war players want, and not only that but there are probably many people in both groups at once.

 

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, Exorcet said:

It depends. Challenge is two sided, it's not just about your capability, it's about your capability vs the enemy capability. Dropping Mk82's against a huge undefended airfield is easier than dropping JDAM's under a SA-10 umbrella.

Then the problem is the situation isn't it? If you don't have threats you don't need the popup even if you're flying a F-105. Add the proper adversaries and you'll be forced to fly and think a little bit whether you have FBW or not. You can release JDAM's while flying level, but you don't have to, and in some situations it's not going to be enough to succeed in your mission.

Well this helps in understanding your motivation, but less so your choice of metaphor. I'll go back to my opening, challenge and fun is about matching your capability to your enemies. Both sides need to be taken into account. I don't really see issues with the A-10 and F-18 that Cold War planes will fix. They'll just turn out the same way. These planes may be simpler (in some ways) but they're not necessarily simple. There is a reason why the F-4 is two seat and the F-15 isn't. In terms of module development both the F-5 and MiG-21 have been around a long time and yet are still being worked on. Both are now scheduled for pretty significant overhauls. There will probably be quite a bit of relearning when these changes are added. That's OK though because like modern airframes, the old aircraft have their own unique traits and attractive qualities. I guess from my perspective I don't see why there are two sides here at all. I think the things modern players want are also the things cold war players want, and not only that but there are probably many people in both groups at once.

 

I expect more cold war, aircraft will help improve online games and the PVP enviroment. I've mentioned what I would term a PVP ecosystem. Which is at least two opposing aircraft, enough AI assets to make a mission interesting and a map. The most developed ecosystem is WWII. The modern era has a lot of assets but we are limited on possible RedFor, so the best path for PvP is the cold war era. Even if you play offline only like I do, the PVP isn't that important but we do have our favorite aircraft and a desire to fly a mission so AI assets and planes are important 

Edited July 13, 2022 by upyr1

[cfrag]

9 hours ago, Pikey said:

I don't get it

I believe that sums up your point nicely, and in a relevant way. I wish you'd also had explicitly added "and that's fair", because you seem to imply that you regard other modes of play as valid as your own, and I have to somewhat read between the lines of what you write to make that divination ("people are still entitled to find these fun"). And I agree: different play styles for different people, all equally valid. That why I love DCS, it means different things to different people, they all are relevant, and none is superior. Should we have the option to create era-accurate mission theaters, that would be awesome too. People can - and will - self-select and can blissfully ignore those playstyles that don't rock their boats.  

19 hours ago, Pikey said:

Please try to be nicer and a better human.

I'm sure that is something we all strive to, especially me. I'm not saying that I'm already succeeding, but I'm trying

19 hours ago, Pikey said:

You misunderstand (many times in a short period of time).

If I may, since you brought up the issue of trying to be nicer: I try to never say 'you misunderstand'. IMHO, communication is the responsibility of the sender. Instead, I nowadays say 'apologies, I phrased that unclear'. It's my challenge, and my responsibility, to get my point across to you. If I don't succeed, that's not anyone's fault but mine. I think that approach helps me becoming better at conversing with others. Doubly so in an international forum where English isn't my mother's tongue (I'm a Kraut).

19 hours ago, Pikey said:

I am saying people of this community need to accept more variations

I think trying to force your opinion (you do flat out say that people need to, without qualifying that with 'in my opinion', which may be the reason some people react negatively) on others is a road best abandoned early. In games, people vote with their wallet and time. I think that DCS's approach of providing something for everyone is good. Let people decide what they want. Allowing "Game Masters" (server admins) to curtail the experience is even better, as it allows players the option to agree. I've been with DCS for some time. My first purchase was the Hawk. I'm still here . Although I own them all, warbirds right now simply aren't my forte. Nowadays I mostly fly whirlybirds. I would hate it if someone told me: you need to accept more variations while hammering a warbirds mission down my throat. No, I love the fact that I can, on my own accord, go to a server, and sign up, willingly, to a WWII warbirds mission. Or I click on the next server hosting a fine SAR scenario in present-day Syria. Perfect!  No need for me to accept variation, but I have the option. If a server admin serves up all planes available to players, that was their conscious decision when they designed the mission. As a player, It's mine to not go there. Darwin will settle this. Currently, the servers are where the players are. And that's how it should be. Yes, right now that means Hornets, Tomcats, Eagles. If we want to change that, it's by providing compelling better experiences that people love and flock to. In other words, it's on me, the mission designer and server owner to make people want to try something new. 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by cfrag

[Hiob]

14 hours ago, Furiz said:

There is always something between the lines.

Just objecting to this very statement. No, there is not. Sometimes people just write (or say) what they mean.

Personally I think, the assumption of what is "between the lines" says more about the interpreter than the author of a statement.

And remember: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

[Pikey]

Hi @cfrag I could have explained this better but let me try again

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

I wish you'd also had explicitly added "and that's fair", because you seem to imply that you regard other modes of play as valid as your own, and I have to somewhat read between the lines of what you write to make that divination

 

21 hours ago, Pikey said:

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. < This was the first line, but you missed it, presumably because you were trying to read between it and the next one for something that wasnt there.

What that means for the people that took it absolutley the wrong way, is that there are advantages to this other era. Of course, people have to take it that someone of a different opinion has to be attacked. Bless you people. And your JDAMs.

There's no implications, I am explicit and whilst I could use smaller words, I did try two different ways to say the same thing twice each, even to the point of quoting myself, now, for the third time. But I've apologised for not being clear. And I hope at least you can find it clear.

I never attacked anyone else's play. I said that I find modern standoff boring and gave many reasons why. If something is boring, its always subjective, things cannot by definition be objectively boring! Because I have an opinion on the matter I was attacked and called narrow minded and then more, personally. And that was via "reading between the lines".

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

I think trying to force your opinion (you do flat out say that people need to, without qualifying that with 'in my opinion', which may be the reason some people react negatively) on others is a road best abandoned early. In games, people vote with their wallet and time.

This is an important advisory - to be open minded about all things. I qualified it by providing the advantages that older short ranged weapons provide in gameplay and I listed them out in great depth, specifically multiplayer, but there's an offline element too. I qualified it by saying that I have found people that don't engage in gameplay elements have shorter interests in the sim as they miss out on so many gameplay elements. I will not abandon a decade of multiplayer, running squadrons, taking part in events and these forums and investing heavily in the success of this software, quietly. It is the success and uptake of the multiplayer scene and diversifying on module purchases that are critical to initial purchases of players getting over the hump of 'study sim slump', anmd taking up a hobby for more years, as I have witnessed.

Of course, everyone is welcome to take the advice they prefer, although;
“Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself.”
Comes to mind. However, if someone is providing their experience, shooting them down for having one, is at best ludicrous and at worst you might call them "narrow minded"

Edited July 13, 2022 by Pikey
full stops and clarifications

[dawgie79]

17 hours ago, Pikey said:

I think it's a different reason. I think if you linger around a few years, maybe more, you start to look for different things. The entry point would be A-10C, more recently Hornet, maybe F-16. The actual stats on who plays online was revealed fairly recently to be a very high proportion of players. These are the first findings and there is a sharp drop off on module uptake after those big ones. The sticky customers are trying different things, trying different servers, having done what these modules offer, but in a minority and yes perhaps vocal. I don't think its any more complex than that. Of course once new customers grow bored of the avionics videos every month, they leave the forums and whoever is left is hanging around looking for somehting new/different. The customers looking for the popular modern mods don't feel the need to look.
But it doesn't matter what makes people tick, the idea of something new, is not a new idea.

I think you can categorize people how play simulations in three different categories:

1. Purists
2. Hardcore
3. Gamer

The first is the category (I'm guessing) you fit in, along with the most vocal lot on these forums requesting <stuff>. Eating and sleeping while thinking and dreaming about aircraft.
The hardcore group is also on these forums, and mostly consist of people like me, above average interest in fighter jets, more specifically interest in one or two aircraft which they want to learn.
Gamers are people who like to go online, PvP not too serious, not too realistic, only for fun and how the aircraft exactly works is not that important as long as they can fire missiles to one another. 

There's a parallel with simracing. With simracing there's also a vocal minority who often asks for oldies to race, and "not the boring and easy-to-drive GT3's". But that will never happen because it's a niche within a niche.

[Harlikwin]

On 7/11/2022 at 12:18 PM, upyr1 said:

I hope we can see the asset pack soon. I'm thinking it is a 1960s asset pack. If they plan to release said asset pack with a map like they have done with the South Atlantic, then there is really only one theater that I think would fit with that particular decade. 

 

IDK, The ships/units they released so far are mostly from the 70's or fit the 82 conflict. IDK exactly what else they have planned. Aside from absurd reload times I really find the seacat a really fun looking missile which dunks itself into the water a fair amount, which might actually not too far off from reality. 

[upyr1]

15 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

IDK, The ships/units they released so far are mostly from the 70's or fit the 82 conflict. IDK exactly what else they have planned. Aside from absurd reload times I really find the seacat a really fun looking missile which dunks itself into the water a fair amount, which might actually not too far off from reality. 

The South Atlantic and the 1960s asset packs are two different things. I've read the 1960s asset pack would is probably better described as a cold war asset pack as it would cover both the 1950s and 1960s, focused in the years 1955-1965. Any way Razabam posted this F-105G on their facebook page, so I am thinking something extending a little later than 1965

 

I think I can smell them cooking something up at Razbam, I'm not sure if they are fixing brats and saurkraut or banh mi and pho. 

 

[Callsign112]

Very interesting read, and I have to say I agree completely with the OP. The Cold War era would hold more interest for me in terms of learning jet aircraft if and when I start. And while this thread is centered mostly on the flight aspects of DCS, it would be fair to say that a more lively ground war is missing from all time periods being represented. More Ai assets, especially more capable Ai assets are needed.

9 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The South Atlantic and the 1960s asset packs are two different things. I've read the 1960s asset pack would is probably better described as a cold war asset pack as it would cover both the 1950s and 1960s, focused in the years 1955-1965. Any way Razabam posted this F-105G on their facebook page, so I am thinking something extending a little later than 1965

 

I think I can smell them cooking something up at Razbam, I'm not sure if they are fixing brats and saurkraut or banh mi and pho. 

 

Maybe a little of both, but something tells me you should maybe brush up on your chopstix eating skills.