announced DCS MiG-29A

[GGTharos]

I think even if Su-35 was not possible, a Su-27SMx would have worked out quite nicely.  Or even if it was a non-Russian flanker like a Su-30MKI or a Chinese flanker.

Sadly there's not much data for any of those, but I expect the Su-27SMx would fit in well as an SSM bird like FC3 for air to air ... you'd be missing a lot of advanced air to ground stuff though, IMHO.

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by GGTharos

[Gierasimov]

I think I am the only one we will buy MiG-29A because IT IS Fulcrum and not anything else. 

What are those AMRAAM this AMRAAM that... I don't get it. 16, 18, what?  Why here? This is about Fulcrum, it's all that matters.

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

 

Balance is not the main reason when asking for older F-16/18 variants. Some people would enjoy late Cold War scenarios where the airplanes were not that multi-role (so, single-role aircraft still existed), the weapons were less smart and missions were probably more adrenaline inducing.

 

Thus, IMHO, it would be great if ED would offer some older variants of Falcon and/or Hornet (kind of like A-10C II or the now defunct Ka-50 BS3).

 

 

I mean for me it's just the coherency, a Cold War mission should ideally have Cold War aircraft, Cold War maps and Cold War assets.

[bies]

1 hour ago, dundun92 said:

Granted you wouldnt, and thats fine. To each their own. But im not sure the majority of DCS players would say the same.

I agree i would never try to push something like "my taste is everyone's", i will always underline everyone is different, but there is definitely some boundary for everyone, just in slightly different place:

• 1980s - 4th gen fighters brand new, dogfighting in close air combat with guns and heatseakers with some rudimentary and very limited BVR. Two symmetrical opponents WARPAC and NATO. Dozens of different but simple weapon systems are useful. Outcome is decided by cutting edge pilot skills, tactics, maneuverability, kinematic performance, unique handling qualities and aerodynamic of the airplanes.
• 2000s - last oldest 4th gen aircrafts fight BVR AMRAAM(ski)+datalink against identically armed enemy they don't see. The pilot becomes the systems manager. No symmetrical opponents - US hegemony. Only one weapon system is useful - AMRAAM(ski). Outcome is decided by better ECM suite, radar and missile ECCM algorithms and tactics - things in a big part beyond pilot's influence.
• 2020s - 5th gen aircrafts fight very long range BVR with ramjet Meteor class missiles, never allowed to go closer than 30nm NEZ to the enemy because it's an instant suicide. Everything is close to fully automated. Only AI is able to process huge amount of information and select what to even present to the pilot - human pilot the weakest link in a chain. Outcome is decided by better AI algorithms, stealth, better ECM suite, radar and missile ECCM algorithms - things nearly completely beyond any pilot's influence.
• 2040s - pilot completely removed from the cockpit, unmanned drones fire extremely long range ramjet/hypersonic missiles, only AI able to process and understand gigantic amount of information in a fraction of a second from hundreds of sensors in different platforms and makes instant perfect decisions.

There is some point where anyone say: - "Enough. This stopped to be interesting or entertaining to me at all. I have to go back to enjoy."

Edited February 14, 2021 by bies

[Kev2go]

1 hour ago, bies said:

1. Because it would sell exactly the same. 99% of the people don't have even slightest idea what is the difference between "F/A-18C Lot 20" and "F/A-18C Lot 10". They simply buy Hornet. Lot 10 and Lot 20 would sell the same.
2. Because to model Lot 20 ED needs ~4 years of development and to model Lot 10 some ~2 years of development.

 

actually they would, in the same way that a most would be able to tell 1980s F16C block 25 from a F16C Block 50

 

FIrst step even in someone relatively unaware google searchs f18 cockpits " huh why when i google F18C cockpit most images i see has fancier screens?" then theyl look a bit more deeply and realize Lot 10 isnt merely an earlier production, but pre Night attack version. Even when comparing a pre 2000s  JHMCS/ Link 16 era Lots. The Lot 10  would not have  MPCD ,  a non NVG  compatible cockpit, weaker engines, older radar, older ALE39 countermeasure suite. the "night attack" series lot 12 and upwards are the definitive  legacy Hornet productions.

 

Lot 10's werent brought up to Lot 20s. Pre night attack hornets faded into obscurity judging by the T.0's as only lot 12 and upwards had continual upgrades.

 

On the other hand  it would be very true Lot 18-19 would in fact be virtually indistinguishable from a Lot 20, especially a circa mid 2000s, except to the most well read rivet counters which i think  would probably get duped without a BUNO # reference of these lots.

 

IN the case of the Hornet though F/A18C lot 10  than a F16 would still require more development time purely because Hornets had larger weapon variety then vipers of the time frame , and a targeting pod, and a more advanced navigation suite. ( still have MM) 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

On 2/14/2021 at 4:59 PM, bies said:

I agree i would never try to push something like "my taste is everybody's taste", i will always underline everyone is different, but there is definitely some boundary for everyone, just in slightly different place:

• 1980s - 4th gen fighters brand new, dogfighting in close air combat with guns and heatseakers with some rudimentary and very limited BVR. Two symmetrical opponent WARPAC and NATO. Outcome is decided by cutting edge pilot skills, tactics, maneuverability, kinematic performance, unique handling qualities and aerodynamic of the airplanes.
• 2000s - last oldest 4th gen aircrafts fight BVR AMRAAM(ski)+datalink against the enemy they don't see. The pilot becomes the systems manager. Outcome is decided by better ECM suite, radar and missile ECCM algorithms and tactics.
• 2020s - 5th gen aircrafts fight very long range BVR with ramjet Meteor class missiles, never allowed to go closer than 30nm NEZ to the enemy because it's a suicide. Everything is close to fully automated. Only AI is able to process huge amount of information and select what to even present to the pilot - human pilot the weakest link in a chain. Outcome is decided by better AI algorithms, stealth, better ECM suite, radar and missile ECCM algorithms.
• 2040s - pilot completely removed from the cockpit, unmanned drones fire extremely long range ramjet/hypersonic missiles, only AI able to process and understand gigantic amount of information in a fraction of a second from hundreds of sensors in different platforms and makes instant perfect decisions.

There is some point where anyone say: - "Enough. This stopped to be interesting or entertaining to me at all. I have to go back to enjoy."

 

 

The pilot won't be removed from the cockpit by the 2040s. Gen 6 aircraft fighter concepts are still being designed around having a human manned aircraft.

 

never mind what wealthy industrialists like Musk say who have a vested interest in pushing for AI purely to make $$$ and would want nothing more than to get juicy defense contract, their predictions are too premature and optimistic even for 20 years from now to entirely remove human pilots from the next generation of aircraft.

 

 

Although I think people focus too much on a2a combat when comparing the generations. The developments of generation 5 are also quite exciting for  those who like surface strike. AESA radars which also have much higher resolution and magnification levels for A/G mapping,  the type classification of detected vehicles, and a new helmet sights that show video feed through the HMD so your not obstructed by your cockpit when looking under, to name a few.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Kev2go

[bies]

24 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

The pilot won't e removed from the cockpit by the 2040s. Gen 6 aircraft fighter concepts are still being designed around having manned aircraft.

 

never mind what wealthy industrialists like Musk say who have a vested interest in pushing for AI, they predictions are too premature and optimistic even for 20 years from now to remove human pilots from next generation of aircraft.

 

I don't want to argue about some strictly classified systems we both obviously know nothing about and go off topic, but according to "Tempest Team" their 6th gen aircraft is going to be "optionally manned" and use wingman drones to attack the enemy.

 

If in 2000s we had JSOW GPS guided stealth low level cruise missiles Hornet released 50nm from the target not putting the plane on any danger and RTB when they were finding their way to the target without any pilot's input - i don't even want to guess what US or China would use in symmetrical warfare in some 5 years.

Edited February 14, 2021 by bies

[bies]

55 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

Although I think people focus too much on a2a combat when comparing the generations.

 

I would argue A/G department had been hit even harder.

 

1980s means one of two:

Exciting low level strike of specialized attack planes like F-111, Tornado IDS, A-6 Intruder, Su-24, AJS-37 with engaging penetration of enemy defence at extremely low altitude with a terrain profile flight.

Or equally exciting manual skill based dumb-bombing with CCIP, rockets, guns maneuvering in AAA fire.

 

2000s means pickle at 30.000ft self guided GPS stealth JSOWs cruise missiles from 50nm way outside enemy defence and return to base - missiles will find their way without any pilot's input.

Not seeing any enemy, not seeing any explosions, not even knowing if i hit something except for checking scoreboard... JDAM Blues.

 

 

Fortunately MiG-29A will represent the first one and WARPAC/Soviet frontal aviation pilots trained also ground attacks.

Edited February 14, 2021 by bies

[Dragon1-1]

They're not going to remove pilots from aircraft because they need someone to throw under the bus when things go to crapper. You can't drag an AI in front of an international tribunal, after all, which would mean the general in charge of all these drones would instead have to answer for any war crimes committed by the algorithm. No way this is gonna be popular with the brass.  

 

OTOH, making a drone smarter than an average wingman wouldn't be all that hard...  

 

 

[bies]

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

OTOH, making a drone smarter than an average wingman wouldn't be all that hard... 

Lol, good one.

And yes, "loyal wingman drone" Boeing Airpower Teaming System is already close to being employed. 

 

Pilot will be cruising outside enemy defence without risking manned plane and commanding wingman drones when drones will do all the dangerous job.

 

This will be obviously extremely effective but also ultimately boring from simulator pilot perspective.

Edited February 14, 2021 by bies

[Kev2go]

2 hours ago, bies said:

 

I would argue A/G department had been hit even harder.

 

1980s means one of two:

Exciting low level strike of specialized attack planes like F-111, Tornado IDS, A-6 Intruder, Su-24, AJS-37 with engaging penetration of enemy defence at extremely low altitude with a terrain profile flight.

Or equally exciting manual skill based dumb-bombing with CCIP, rockets, guns maneuvering in AAA fire.

 

2000s means pickle at 30.000ft self guided GPS stealth JSOWs cruise missiles from 50nm way outside enemy defence and return to base - missiles will find their way without any pilot's input.

Not seeing any enemy, not seeing any explosions, not even knowing if i hit something except for checking scoreboard... JDAM Blues.

 

 

Fortunately MiG-29A will represent the first one and WARPAC/Soviet frontal aviation pilots trained also ground attacks.

 

 

just becuase its the 2000's doesn't mean gps based munitions are the end all weapon in every scenario. GPS exclusive based munitions for example are not suitable for attacking targets capable of moving. 

 

 

GPS guided muntions you still need to know where your target is, if you dont know exact coordinates beforehand, than its up to the pilot play around with a targeting pod to search and destroy. This is only seems boring because people only consider real life scenarios where for over a decade pilots have been operating in non contested environments, in low intensity warfare rather than a conventional war with neer peer adversaries.. Even as such gen 4 aren't stealth planes, they have lots of fancy standoff weapons , but they are still detectable at range, are still vulnerable against multilayered Air defense systems , and can still  have enemy interceptors scrambled against them.

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Kev2go

[bies]

15 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

just becuase its the 2000's doesnt mean gps based monition are the end all weapon in every scenario, GPS only  based muntions are not suitable for attacking a target capable of moving. 

 

 

GPS guided muntions you still need to know where your target is. This is only seems boring because pilots have bene operating in non contested enviornments. Even as such gen 4 aren't stealth planes, then have standoff, but they are still detectable at range, can be engaged, and can still  have enemy interceptors scrambled againt them.

 

 

Hornet will soon receive AGM-84 SLAM-ER with 150-170nm standoff range and GPS/IR guidance to hit both moving and stationary targets.

Without any risk ... and skill or excitement.

 

On DCS size maps it's going to mean: takeoff to climb, press the pickle, land. Mission complete.

Edited February 14, 2021 by bies

[Kev2go]

1 hour ago, bies said:

 

Hornet will soon receive AGM-84 SLAM-ER with 150-170nm standoff range and GPS/IR guidance to hit both moving and stationary targets.

Without any risk ... or excitement.

 

 

A) You arent forced to use these. This isn't the only weapon. Mission editors can still restrict these.

 

B) these weapons are only really used against high value targets.  At best a Hornet will carry what? 4? Even then Hornet wont get far without EFT's  so realistically that only means 3 or  only 2 SLAMS  if one wants symmetrical loadout( centerline EFT not an option due to datalink pod). a;sp they are heavy and very draggy. Such standoff weapons would be more useful if we had a  much better A/G radar to work with ( or  better yet real time updates from JSTARS), because to maximize said range, and seeing  smaller specific targets you would like to engage like say a individual Tank or SAM system its well beyond how far a targeting pod can see. ANd not every targets exact location is known.

 

C)A launched weapon doesn't guarantee mission success. These sort of standoff missiles can still be downed by SAMS. In a multi layered air defences, No risk sure, but a single hornet wont end the entire  M/P A/G mission in a single sorties. 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Kev2go

[HWasp]

1980s is the most colorful decade, with the most diverse possiblities in my opinion.

 

You can have 4th gens with powerful radars and BVR but it is mostly fox-1 fights, so it might get very interesting when a swarm of GCI guided MiG-21s go against a couple of F-15s. In the 2000s? It is fox-3x8 rtb, not that interesting.

 

For AG there are lots of precision weapons, but most are a but limited, so unguided weapons still have their time and place. 

 

Best scenario could have been to release early 80ies versions of the 4th gens first, and then sell upgrades for some money. 

 

Doing it the other way around will produce less income as less of the general crowd will pay for a downgrade.

Edited February 14, 2021 by HWasp

[bies]

3 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

A) You arent forced to use these. This isn't the only weapon. Mission editors can still restrict these.

 

B) these weapons are only really used against high value targets.  At best a Hornet will carry what? 4. they are heavy and very draggy.

 

C) These sort of missiles can still be downed by SAMS. In a multi layered air defences, No risk sure, but a single hornet wont end the entire  M/P A/G mission in a single sorties.

That's my whole point: people simply start to artificially restrict themselves to Cold War system just to feel they have to do something, that something actually depends on them, that they can possibly screw something. Anything, except pressing the pickle, RTB.

[bies]

17 minutes ago, HWasp said:

1980s is the most colorful decade, with the most diverse possiblities in my opinion.

 

You can have 4th gens with powerful radars and BVR but it is mostly fox-1 fights, so it might get very interesting when a swarm of GCI guided MiG-21s go against a couple of F-15s. In the 2000s? It is fox-3x8 rtb, not that interesting.

 

For AG there are lots of precision weapons, but most are a but limited, so unguided weapons still have their time and place. 

 

Best scenario could have been to release early 80ies versions of the 4th gens first, and then sell upgrades for some money. 

Exactly the reason why I'm hyped for 1980s planes being developed MiG-29A, A-7E Corsair, MiG-23MLA, A-6E Intruder, Mirage F.1, Sea Harrier FRS.1, Bo-105, Mi-24P 

 

To operate any of them I will need to be skilful and do things manually, maneuver, see my enemy, my missile hitting, my bombs exploding etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by bies

[Kev2go]

12 minutes ago, bies said:

That's my whole point: people simply start to artificially restrict themselves to Cold War system just to feel they have to do something, that something actually depends on them, that they can possibly screw something. Anything, except pressing the pickle, RTB.

 

not using said weapons doesn't mean having to turn the clock to the cold war,  the Slam ER for example didnt enter service until the 2000's.

 

Not every squadron gets issued said weapons, or if they do  get a limited quantity of them. Slams are not the bread and butter of A/G, even in a precision guided era, they are very expensive.

 

And some nations that use said airframe do not necessarily own the same weapons

 

Take for example RCAF CF18's. We only started to aquire AIm9X' block 2 and JSOWS just recently, even though  with Canada had the onboard capabilities to employ the same weapon for long time, and those weapons have already been produced since many years earlier. Or that swiss and Finish F18's had a focus of air defence.

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Kev2go

[HWasp]

21 minutes ago, bies said:

Exactly the reason why I'm hyped for 1980s planes being developed MiG-29A, A-7E Corsair, MiG-23MLA, A-6E Intruder, Mirage F.1, Sea Harrier FRS.1, Bo-105, Mi-24P 

 

To operate any of them I will need to be skilful and do things manually, maneuver, see my enemy, my missile hitting, my bombs exploding etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F-14A + Mirage F-1 vs MiG-29 + 23 sounds like a fun 80s server to me already. 

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, bies said:

 

Hornet will soon receive AGM-84 SLAM-ER with 150-170nm standoff range and GPS/IR guidance to hit both moving and stationary targets.

Without any risk ... and skill or excitement.

 

On DCS size maps it's going to mean: takeoff to climb, press the pickle, land. Mission complete.

 

bies, I understand that you like the 80's the most and I don't blame you, I enjoy flying the F-14 with Sparrows and I was one of the people looking forward to the E and F versions of the missile being useable, but I think you do downplay the complexity and engagement of modern combat. We have long range stand off weapons in part because SAM's and interceptors can go farther today than they used to. Also, like other people mentioned, you don't always know exactly where the target is nor can you consider a launched weapon a successful attack.

 

Even under the best circumstances, you can still have a risky and exciting mission with SLAM-ER type weapons in DCS. I put together some rough maps in the ME to show examples:

 

 

 

I placed the 170 nmi rings on existing objects on both maps, and you can see they're both defensible.

 

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, bies said:

That's my whole point: people simply start to artificially restrict themselves to Cold War system just to feel they have to do something, that something actually depends on them, that they can possibly screw something. Anything, except pressing the pickle, RTB.

 

So like, what, your opposition doesn't want to come out to say hi?

Even with ridiculously ranged weapons, scenarios that will have you getting close and even forcing a dogfight aren't hard to come up with regardless of technology base.

 

[Harker]

Some people here have a weird dislike of modern aircraft. DCS is a sandbox and it caters to the tastes of different people. Some people enjoy doing CCIP while dodging AAA, some others enjoy punching in coordinates, firing a SLAM-ER and providing terminal guidance, which will be a very uncommon occurrence, for anyone playing realistically.

Dumb bombs and gun runs are used today as well and pilots train for them. Anyone is free to take Mk-82s instead of JDAMs (I do, for undefended or low value targets). It's up to the mission creator to provide an environment where stand-off weapons make sense. It's not ED's fault if someone loads 6 Mavericks (OK, that one is ED's fault) on the F-16 and goes to town on an unarmed truck convoy, or uses a SLAM-ER to take out a tank. If you play missions realistically, you'll implement realistic loadouts, limitations and challenges.

Similarly for A2A, if something like VID is required, you won't fire your AMRAAM from 40NM and call it a day. Which, BTW, is what a lot of F-14 players do.

The modern multirole aircraft attracted thousands to DCS and they add an extra layer of systems management on top of flying, that can be very effective and satisfying if used correctly.

The 80s are fine, but let's not pretend that any time after that is boring. The MiG-29A has its place in DCS, for its own scenarios, as do other aircraft. And if servers are so inclined, they'll implement restrictions to force a more even fight, assuming that this is what the fuss is all about.

[Northstar98]

On 2/15/2021 at 12:55 AM, GGTharos said:

So like, what, your opposition doesn't want to come out to say hi?

Well, the AI isn't going to do much, even when set to ace and in the JF-17, besides a strike mission with these long-range stand-off weapons isn't going to be all by itself...

If an attack is set-up properly, as a coordinated flight, it shouldn't be hard to have a clear path for your strike aircraft.

Quote

Even with ridiculously ranged weapons, scenarios that will have you getting close and even forcing a dogfight aren't hard to come up with regardless of technology base.

Nor is it particularly hard to avoid this, especially in SP/PvE.

On 2/15/2021 at 5:48 AM, Harker said:

Some people here have a weird dislike of modern aircraft.

It's hardly weird, just different tastes, I prefer operating aircraft like the Tomcat - I don't know how to describe it, but it's more 'involved' and demands more of your attention.

The sensors make it more difficult and they're more complicated on the user side - you're kept busy even doing the most simple of missions.

Quote

Dumb bombs and gun runs are used today as well and pilots train for them. Anyone is free to take Mk-82s instead of JDAMs (I do, for undefended or low value targets).

Here's the thing though, if I take the modern weapons off a Hornet, and turn the data-link off and then turn JHMCS off, then everything that made the aircraft more modern day is basically gone. I might as well be flying the Cold War era aircraft, which would fit better for doing these kinds of missions with more limited stores.

Quote

It's up to the mission creator to provide an environment where stand-off weapons make sense. It's not ED's fault if someone loads 6 Mavericks (OK, that one is ED's fault) on the F-16 and goes to town on an unarmed truck convoy, or uses a SLAM-ER to take out a tank. If you play missions realistically, you'll implement realistic loadouts, limitations and challenges.

Well, so long as I'm able to; DCS air defences are at best 15 years out of date compared to the F-16 and F/A-18, but even if we did (Pantsir S1 is coming), it's not like the AI uses them effectively - something we're going to have to wait for DCS IADS for, which no idea when that's coming - there are a couple of posts checking interest on a third party addition but as for ED, no idea when and no idea what features are going to be present.

Quote

Similarly for A2A, if something like VID is required, you won't fire your AMRAAM from 40NM and call it a day. Which, BTW, is what a lot of F-14 players do.

Outside of MP however, unless you're by yourself you probably won't be, you can be directed off of AEW aircraft which always knows who is hostile and who is not.

Quote

The modern multirole aircraft attracted thousands to DCS and they add an extra layer of systems management on top of flying, that can be very effective and satisfying if used correctly.

If they had been a late 80s/early 90s version, would they really done significantly worse? Most of the hype (at least from what I gathered) was it's an F-16 or its a Hornet.

And you absolutely get systems management on top of flying in earlier aircraft - an early F-16C or F/A-18 have basically identical systems aside from link 16 D/L and JHMCS; at worst they're merely more pilot intensive or less user friendly - that's it.

I mean, look at the Tomcat for systems management, it has an extra layer of systems management to the point of requiring a second person to do it, same goes for the F-111 or A-6 etc.

As for flying they do it basically for you (apart from carrier landings, formation flying or AAR), I never have to worry about departing in the F/A-18C unless I stall it or do something really ridiculous and most of the set-up can either be done on the ground (and will be once we get full DTC/mission planner capability) or in transit.

I don't even have a throttle, nor do I have a rudder, nor do I have any form of head tracking; playing on a 15.6" laptop without a full keyboard, with a set-up that makes it near impossible to perform simultaneous throttle and stick movements, and when I do move the throttle, I can't feel where it is, so I can't use muscle memory at all - I'm also resolution limited (it's pretty difficult to do less than a 5-10% RPM power change). Apart from helicopters the rudder is either all the way or nothing at all, or you can try feathering it - making coordinating turns very difficult.

On 2/15/2021 at 5:48 AM, Harker said:

The 80s are fine, but let's not pretend that any time after that is boring. The MiG-29A has its place in DCS, for its own scenarios, as do other aircraft. And if servers are so inclined, they'll implement restrictions to force a more even fight, assuming that this is what the fuss is all about.

Well, people seem to keep ignoring SP, where it seems the more modern you get the worse the AI is, and let's not forget about EW - a major facet of modern anything, but is not much better than being totally absent in DCS. 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, corrections

[Harker]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Nor is it particularly hard to avoid this, especially in SP/PvE.

 

Assuming you want to end up in a certain scenario, why avoid it? It's up to the user and the mission maker to make the most of the aircraft at hand. If you insist on ignoring VID or at least NCTR (which brings you close enough for a FOX1 shot) and launching an AMRAAM from 40 NM, then it makes sense that you won't end up in a dogfight. Remember that Super Hornet that launched an AIM-9X that missed and then used an AMRAAM? Why not try to bring yourself into more realistic situations like that, that bring you closer to the enemy, if this is what you want?

 

Quote

It's hardly weird, just different tastes, I prefer operating aircraft like the Tomcat - I don't know how to describe it, but it's more 'involved' and demands more of your attention.

The sensors make it more difficult and they're more complicated on the user side - you're kept busy even doing the most simple of missions.

Ask any real pilot and they're going to choose a modern glass cockpit 10/10 times. The interface is much more intuitive and it's far easier to navigate through a few menus, than it is to flip 5 switches and turn 3 dials. The display of information is vastly improved. As for the complicated sensors, you only need to deal with them if you want to use them. Don't want to use the A/G radar or the TPOD? Good news, you don't have to, you can go for a manual bombing. You can create the kinds of missions that you want, without having to use any of the modern stuff.

 

Quote

Here's the thing though, if I take the modern weapons off a Hornet, and turn the data-link off and then turn JHMCS off, then everything that made the aircraft more modern day is basically gone. I might as well be flying the Cold War era aircraft, which would fit better for doing these kinds of missions with more limited stores.

Then do that, play the way you want. That's what I've been trying to say. Set the date to 1982 and you don't have GPS at all, remove the JHMCS in the Editor and don't turn on the D/L. There you go. And at the same time, people who want to fly a 2005-ish Hornet, for example, can do so, with the same product.

 

Quote

Well, so long as I'm able to; DCS air defences are at best 15 years out of date compared to the F-16 and F/A-18, but even if we did (Pantsir S1 is coming), it's not like the AI uses them effectively - something we're going to have to wait for DCS IADS for, which no idea when that's coming - there are a couple of posts checking interest on a third party addition but as for ED, no idea when and no idea what features are going to be present.

Agreed on that, we need more modern air defenses on both sides and that IADS module cannot come fast enough. But you can create very challenging scenarios already, by using triggers, limiting max engagement range in the unit tab and setting up a serious layered network. I see a lot of people talking about just launching a couple of HARMs and JSOWs against an SA-10 and calling it a day and an equal amount of people who like to go low and fast with Snakeyes. What both groups forget is that if there's a serious network in place, with supporting multiple supporting SHORAD units and scores of AAA units, which is currently achievable, the first approach will likely do nothing unless you increase the number of HARMs significantly and the second approach will see you shot down before you even see that SA-10.

 

Quote

If they had been a late 80s/early 90s version, would they really done significantly worse? Most of the hype (at least from what I gathered) was it's an F-16 or its a Hornet.
 

Maybe not significantly worse, but they'd have definitely done worse. Also, a lot of people, myself included, are attracted to modern systems, because it's the closest thing we get to the real thing, as it is now and because avionics is an interesting part of military aviation.

 

Quote

And you absolutely get systems management on top of flying in earlier aircraft - an early F-16C or F/A-18 have basically identical systems aside from link 16 D/L and JHMCS; at worst they're merely more pilot intensive or less user friendly - that's it.

The aircraft would probably fly very similarly to how they fly now - these were FBW birds from the beginning. And you get systems management for sure, but you get fewer systems. Why would someone who enjoys system management say no to more complicated and modern systems?

 

Quote

I mean, look at the Tomcat for systems management, it has an extra layer of systems management to the point of requiring a second person to do it, same goes for the F-111 or A-6 etc.

[...]
Well, people seem to keep ignoring SP, where it seems the more modern you get the worse the AI is, and let's not forget about EW - a major facet of modern anything, but is not much better than being totally absent in DCS. 

Exactly, a second person. Not you. It's funny that you mention SP, because the F-14 specifically is a pain in SP. You just fly, press the trigger and interact with an awkward wheel interface to micromanage Jester, who is a borderline incompetent RIO. I was actually excited about the F-14 and was prepared to focus on a Cold War aircraft in SP, until Jester turned me completely off. You can't even fly as RIO, because the Iceman AI can only fly straight and in MP, you can't even switch seats or be RIO by yourself. You need to choose to either fly or do systems and you rely on someone else if you want to do the latter. At least you can experience the full aircraft yourself in the F-18 and F-16.

Anyway, I'm going way off topic here, but TBH, I enjoy the conversation and debate. IMO, the MiG-29A will be welcomed by the DCS community, simply because it's a MiG-29. Some people are disappointed that it's not going to be a contemporary match for the modern BLUEFOR jets, but that's that. I don't get the unnecessary comparison of Cold War vs Modern, DCS is a sandbox and as such, can and should accommodate different playstyles, with the limiting factor being an uncompromising approach to realism. I fly modern BLUEFOR jets and I'll probably pick up the MiG-29 (once it's completed), simply because it's an iconic aircraft.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Harker

[Gierasimov]

4 hours ago, Harker said:

Some people here have a weird dislike of modern aircraft. 

 

One would think, by a slightest remote possibility, that perhaps this is just a tiny bit connected to the fact that this thread title is....

 

... ta-dam...

 

DCS MiG-29A

[Lurker]

On 2/13/2021 at 6:16 PM, Pilot Ike said:

Look at the smooth rotation on take-off, the stable approach and the general stability and smoothness in the pitch axis... and then compare that with the much-appraised flight characteristics of the current DCS Mig-29. 

 

I'm sorry but thats complete BS. Watch the video again. Look at how many small corrective movements the pilot is making virtually every single second, even in stable flight.