Fitting Eurofighter into 2003-2007 timeframe of modern DCS

[Kev2go]

Canards were deferred because they are detrimental to stealth.

 

Less than 10% of fights online end up in a merge. Even then it's typically not about how much ITR you have but rather who sees the other guy first.

 

In every other case it's all about sensors and energy capability. EF is a lot better in both. Especially in terms of performance when loaded with external fuel tanks.

 

Not that i doubt that fights arent often merged into BFM, but just where did you get the exact 10% statistic?

Edited April 3, 2020 by Kev2go

[TAW_Blaze]

Not that i doubt that fights arent often merged into BFM, but just where did you get the exact 10% statistic?

 

Flying thousands of hours exclusively online since 2013. :)

 

It's not an exact number but rather a reasonable ballpark. Of course if you fly to the merge on purpose it'll be different. But especially now in the age of Phoenixes and lofting 120C and everyone flying FF aircraft with datalink it's even less common to see merges.

 

It actually got much more difficult to kill players on average, they have far too much SA due to datalink without any effort if you ask me.

[Harlikwin]

Flying thousands of hours exclusively online since 2013. :)

 

It's not an exact number but rather a reasonable ballpark. Of course if you fly to the merge on purpose it'll be different. But especially now in the age of Phoenixes and lofting 120C and everyone flying FF aircraft with datalink it's even less common to see merges.

 

It actually got much more difficult to kill players on average, they have far too much SA due to datalink without any effort if you ask me.

 

I mean the real world experience of the recent shootdowns between the IAF and Pakistan would prove you wrong. But I guess DCS aces are Experten… Cuz you know DCS "accurately models "modern air combat""... Oh wait... LOL it doesn't even begin to...

[*Rage*]

I mean the real world experience of the recent shootdowns between the IAF and Pakistan would prove you wrong. But I guess DCS aces are Experten… Cuz you know DCS "accurately models "modern air combat""... Oh wait... LOL it doesn't even begin to...

 

Thats not really fair. DCS models the aircraft systems, flight models, missile dynamics etc well. What its not so good at (or mission makers choose to ignore) are the real life constraints of ROE, unreliable IFF, Civilian traffic and ECM.

[TLTeo]

Thats not really fair. DCS models the aircraft systems, flight models, missile dynamics etc well. What its not so good at (or mission makers choose to ignore) are the real life constraints of ROE, unreliable IFF, Civilian traffic and ECM.

 

 

And the non existent coordination between assets on their respective sides, especially on Airquake servers.

[Harker]

As we have stated, we are bringing the most modern version of the EF we can get published. We will see how far we can go.

 

Thanks,

Dash

Music to my ears. I'll echo the people that say we should get the most modern configuration you guys can reliably produce.

[lokodehortaleza]

Mission designer can take care of balance if he wants, by allowing certain weapons or not, by choosing how many Eurofighter slots are in the mission, by forcing the Eurofighter side to be outnumbered... There are endless possibilities there, and none of them require nerfing the module, which would affect everyone, including the many players who don't do airquake or even MP at all. Give us the most capable and modern aircraft possible, I say.

[Harlikwin]

Thats not really fair. DCS models the aircraft systems, flight models, missile dynamics etc well. What its not so good at (or mission makers choose to ignore) are the real life constraints of ROE, unreliable IFF, Civilian traffic and ECM.

 

DCS models "some" systems, with "some" accuracy while totally omitting others. And it sucks at the rest of the world that makes up "modern combat"

 

Lets start by talking about how Ahmazing the DCS model of EW is.... Oh wait, its not. Its terrible by even WW2 standards.

 

Which a big part of the reason that Indo/pak fight more or less got to WVR range when the huge balls bison pilot charged in out of nowhere. Modern air warfare is dominated by things like EW, modern networking etc etc. And has been for decades. DCS would have a hard time simulating 60's and 70's warfare as it stands today.

[Harlikwin]

And the non existent coordination between assets on their respective sides, especially on Airquake servers.

 

No argument there.

[Harlikwin]

Mission designer can take care of balance if he wants, by allowing certain weapons or not, by choosing how many Eurofighter slots are in the mission, by forcing the Eurofighter side to be outnumbered... There are endless possibilities there, and none of them require nerfing the module, which would affect everyone, including the many players who don't do airquake or even MP at all. Give us the most capable and modern aircraft possible, I say.

 

Yeah, but at the end of the day, everyone wants to fly the new "Shiny" and people will complain to no end about it. I remember when the F14 came out and it was pandelerium online. And it very rapidly turned into no one wanted to fly anything OTHER than the F14 because it just killed everything out there in DCS especially at that time.

 

But you are right, there can be disincentives applied to each plane beyond simply limiting numbers. I like that on bluflag the F14 takes like 10 minutes longer to fuel up/align/start compared to everything else. And then you can use it only from the bases furthest from the action. So then you have to fly for another X minutes to do anything.

 

And then the rage quits by f14 guys when they get shot down tend to be funny and gratifying.

[Tiger-II]

Not here as well!

 

"Balance"? You fly DCS then have the audacity to talk about balance?

 

As in life, war is not fair.

 

If it's a fair fight, you're doing it wrong.

 

Always be looking for ways to throw the fight in your favor.

 

Force your opponent to make an error if you're equal.

 

etc., etc.

 

This isn't a first-person shooter where you are at level 39 and they are at level 20 and you should "win" because you are a higher level.

 

This is supposed to be a sim where SKILL and TACTICS win the day, not because you *think* you should win because you are in the superior aircraft.

 

The Red Baron didn't have the best aircraft, but he knew how to fight. For some reason, he needed to land in a field. It was thought someone saw him, and landed and shot him with a revolver because they couldn't win the fight in the air.

 

I personally enjoy flying the inferior aircraft, and beating people with superior skill. I'll push to the merge if I'm able, because BVR is too easy.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Tiger-II

[*Rage*]

I think you are confusing real life, war and a sim.

 

If you are that desperate to conflate them there are plenty of real life conflicts with real life recruitment officers that would be happy to sign you up.

 

Here, you are playing a fun game/sim.

[QuiGon]

I think you are confusing real life, war and a sim.

 

If you are that desperate to conflate them there are plenty of real life conflicts with real life recruitment officers that would be happy to sign you up.

 

Here, you are playing a fun game/sim.

Unfortunately they don't take everyone and put them in a cockpit, so a computer SIMULATION is the closes we can get to, as this is what a simulation should try to achieve (hence the word simulation)...

[*Rage*]

Its silly to conflate it to a real conflict though.

 

If your talking about PVE, then sure, live out your wildest fantasies. But if you want a healthy PvP scene then all sides require a reasonable chance of success.

 

Im not for one second suggesting they don't model the EF to its fullest potential with all the latest and greatest Meteor, Asraam etc. Thats for the mission designers to balance, not the Devs. I just find the "This is WAR, WAR isnt fair" chest thumping stupid.

[TLTeo]

It doesn't matter whether DCS is a smulation or a game (or we could just call it our hobby and settle things, but hey, it's the Internet...). It's first and foremost a sandbox, meaning it's up to the end users to decide how the product is used. They have all the tools necessary to achieve "balance" if they so choose. Neither "balance" nor "realism" (whatever that means when said users are not military operators) is an invalid way of enjoying the hobby. There's no reason for the developers to take on a task that should be left to the community/end users.

Edited May 18, 2020 by TLTeo

[Fri13]

Then again Arab armies never did have a reputation for military competence.

 

Again, never say never.... As Arabs has had good success in the history in military point of view.

[Fri13]

It doesn't matter whether DCS is a smulation or a game (or we could just call it our hobby and settle things, but hey, it's the Internet...). It's first and foremost a sandbox, meaning it's up to the end users to decide how the product is used. They have all the tools necessary to achieve "balance" if they so choose. Neither "balance" nor "realism" (whatever that means when said users are not military operators) is an invalid way of enjoying the hobby. There's no reason for the developers to take on a task that should be left to the community/end users.

 

Exactly.

 

Why we should get as soon as possible all the possible weapons etc for the module if it is technically capable to use them. So if it is political or otherwise non-technical reason why something is not used, it should be left to the players decision to be used or not.

 

This is a sandbox, if someone wants to feel good in A-G tasking, they can leave enemy side without any Anti-Air capability and go there to trash them with full domination.

If someone wants to feel superior in BVR combat, they can enable labels.

If someone wants to feel superior pilot, they can go flying a F-14B against Bf 109's.

 

It is sad thing that we do not have half a dozen more studios in DCS World (yet?) that would be creating a new modules at rate of 1-2 per year. So we could fill a specific era with close enough units if so wanted.

 

But if that is likely up to the studio decide what they want to do, and ED can just suggest something to fill a specific cap etc, we can't do anything for it.

 

But again, huge compensation comes IMHO if ED would start allowing new studios to enter DCS World market without anything to do with the aircrafts, but making ground units. That would help a lot to generate a realistic kind missions when you have at least ground units matching the wanted era.

 

And there the physics modeling ain't so exact science as so many doesn't care if a vehicle accelerates little too slow or travels 3 km/h too fast or turns 50 cm too tight... As the important part is that it can be destroyed from the air and from the ground and it can fight proper manner.

 

I would even consider making a business to produce 20-30 new ground units for specific countries and eras, but when the ground units AI and maps are so unsuitable for it, there is no sense to do so.

[QuiGon]

It doesn't matter whether DCS is a smulation or a game (or we could just call it our hobby and settle things, but hey, it's the Internet...). It's first and foremost a sandbox, meaning it's up to the end users to decide how the product is used. They have all the tools necessary to achieve "balance" if they so choose. Neither "balance" nor "realism" (whatever that means when said users are not military operators) is an invalid way of enjoying the hobby. There's no reason for the developers to take on a task that should be left to the community/end users.

Well said :thumbup:

[umkhunto]

Most modern Eurofighter for me, too. There is no reason why the timeframe 2003-2007 can't be expanded to 2003-201x. If we would stick to 2007 as the most modern, our planes would get more outdated as real time progresses. By the way, because the JF-17 is geting block 2 upgrades it is a post 2007 plane as well (2013).

So what if the Jeff is the block 2. This isn't some f2p grinding game where the draw is competitive pvp, where you have to have balanced gameplay. Let the devs build what they want to build.

[TAW_Blaze]

I mean the real world experience of the recent shootdowns between the IAF and Pakistan would prove you wrong. But I guess DCS aces are Experten… Cuz you know DCS "accurately models "modern air combat""... Oh wait... LOL it doesn't even begin to...

 

I don't even know how you arrived at this since I'm clearly explaining how online gameplay works, not real life. I do not claim to be an expert of real world tactics, but anyway..

 

You just made a fool out of yourself by thinking real world tactics apply to DCS.

 

They do not. The only place where real world tactics dominate is BFM and it's not because they mimic reality but rather the experience and training of real fighter pilots compared to your average DCS user.

 

On the other hand the majority BVR tactics are somewhat based on real life phenomenons, but due to DCS mechanics they are developed in a totally different direction. I'm well aware of what is and isn't simulated in DCS and how it affects the "meta" in DCS. Real life issues have absolutely ****all impact on how people fight online, which is what I was describing.

 

 

Your average DCS user fires at practically 0 pK positions turning around to run away. Fairly low fraction of the online population will push a merge willingly simply because they are not confident in themselves and do not have the skill to control a merge. Once you throw in a lot of terrain people tend to merge more often not because they want to but because there's practically zero supporting infrastructure to help them build the kind of SA you'd have in real life and they fly without any real objective typically resulting in circling around in a valley.

 

In the end what makes a good pilot in real life (minus the physical ability) is basically the same that makes a good one in DCS. The ability to understand the driving factors of any fight and being able to adapt to them.

[QuiGon]

Your average DCS user fires at practically 0 pK positions turning around to run away. Fairly low fraction of the online population will push a merge willingly simply because they are not confident in themselves and do not have the skill to control a merge. Once you throw in a lot of terrain people tend to merge more often not because they want to but because there's practically zero supporting infrastructure to help them build the kind of SA you'd have in real life and they fly without any real objective typically resulting in circling around in a valley.

That's the gameplay on typical airquake servers like the 104th, where you just go fight each other for fun. There are other types of servers (yes, even public ones) that run actual objective based missions and there you find less of the gamey player tactics you just described and more real life oriented tactics.

[TAW_Blaze]

That's the gameplay on typical airquake servers like the 104th, where you just go fight each other for fun. There are other types of servers (yes, even public ones) that run actual objective based missions and there you find less of the gamey player tactics you just described and more real life oriented tactics.

 

I know, but unless you run cold war setups it's even less likely to have merges in that kind of scenario. I've also flown missions with 1,5h+ flight time doing point defense 200 nm from your airbase with no AAR where every pound of fuel matters and you have to think carefully when and how you want to use your weapons because wasting them puts you out of action for more or less the remainder of the fight. We also had some missions where in the initial phase you could CAP for 2-3 hours with AAR only which was quite fun aswell.

 

The trend is that the more serious the type of scenario you're running the much less likely random shit starts happening just like you described.

 

Airquake offers the best learning environment for pure fighting in a dense environment. Essentially there is nothing to worry about other than the fight itself, which gives you a very time efficient training area that has a lot of depth and randomness. It allows you to master the fighting techniques required to win duels and this is essential to all other type of combat flying. Once you understand how these things work you can expand on flight planning, resource management etc. that have more weight in a "realistic" scenario.

 

 

I might have been a little vague saying that real life tactics have little impact on DCS, what I meant is individual tactics. Group tactics probably have a lot more relevance.

[Airhunter]

That's the gameplay on typical airquake servers like the 104th, where you just go fight each other for fun. There are other types of servers (yes, even public ones) that run actual objective based missions and there you find less of the gamey player tactics you just described and more real life oriented tactics.

 

That. "Balance" should be the last concern in DCS. A faithful and realistic representation of the weapon platform and its capabiliies should be the #1 priority. If you want balance and "competitive" play, go play Rainbow Six, COD or any other game. DCS is also very limited in terms of ECM, missile and radar simulation.

 

I do find it quite amusing how all these SATAL guys go around crying about balance and the "fairness" for their sweaty competitive scene. Please show me where the AIM54 touched you. :lol:

[Harlikwin]

Its silly to conflate it to a real conflict though.

 

If your talking about PVE, then sure, live out your wildest fantasies. But if you want a healthy PvP scene then all sides require a reasonable chance of success.

 

Im not for one second suggesting they don't model the EF to its fullest potential with all the latest and greatest Meteor, Asraam etc. Thats for the mission designers to balance, not the Devs. I just find the "This is WAR, WAR isnt fair" chest thumping stupid.

 

Yup, I see this all the time online. Take down one sides awacs for example and most of the F18 guys log off within minutes of realizing it, because playing without that advantage is "no fun". Or the F14, which has to be balanced somehow, because if its not pretty soon your PVP server is a PVE server because almost no one wants to fly as manned drone target etc. etc. And there are many strategies for servers to achieve this.

 

Now I'm not saying don't model the typhoon realistically, but at the end of the day I can see it causing issues online that will have to be dealt with. But that will be up the server owners and mission designers. I mean if it only has AAMRAM's modeled, then I forsee it will be somewhat more effective than the current FC3 eagle for BVR. Which won't be that hard to balance.

 

And yeah, the chest thumping is dumb...

Edited May 19, 2020 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

Thats not really fair. DCS models the aircraft systems, flight models, missile dynamics etc well. What its not so good at (or mission makers choose to ignore) are the real life constraints of ROE, unreliable IFF, Civilian traffic and ECM.

 

Well, those are the things that DCS should get better at IMO. The more realistic the environment, the more realistic the scenarios.