Suggestion to emphasize the late Cold War more in DCS as long way goal for DCS

[bies]

The problem is, I suppose, that there's an era mismatch of sorts. There are no good opponents for the Viper and Hornet on the Russian side. Yes, there are older Russian birds, but on that side, there's nothing except the Saberjet and the F-5. I suppose you could do Tomcat vs. MiG-23, once the latter comes out.

 

That said, the US planes we have are early 2000s models, at which time Russia was only just starting to recover from the Yeltsin era economic slump. They would've been stuck with the majority of their planes being 90s era at that time. ED supposedly wants to do the MiG-29A at some point.

 

If ED stated very clearly many times there will be no modern era Russian plane in DCS - 1980s MiG-29A or Su-27S are absolutely the most modern they can go - why not make similar ~1980s/1990s F-16C, A-10A and F/A-18C instead of ~2005. When it's clear ~2005 Hornet or Viper will not have any enviroment of the period like enemy planes, SAM systems, assets etc. Just ~2005 Viper, Hornet or Warthog fighting 25 years older enemies out of context.

 

In FC3 there was cohesive 1980s/1990s environment with flayable planes, AI planes, SAM systems, ground assets, ships, map - everything period correct for 1980s/1990s timeframe. Why not to continue?

 

- Gameplay perspective and historical context:

 

That's why I think DCS should focus more on Cold War era like late 1980s / early 1990s Hornets, Vipers, Fulcrums, Flankers, Eagles, Tomcats. Not only combat would be more engaging without total reliance on BVR AMRAAMs (which overall guidance algorithms, EW rejection and kinematic performance has to be treated, at best, with a big pinch of salt anyway being classified IRL) and standoff GPS guided cruise missiles, but there could be some symmetrical Redford opponents. Like 1980s MiG-29A (which rumors says it considered as full fidelity for DCS) or Su-27S. Plus it would be far more realistic without classified systems of mid 2000s.

 

And US would still use the hottest airframes F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 - just with earlier, more maneuverable/higher performance variants designed to combat symmetrical opponent. This are all 1970s planes.

 

I.e. many folks complaint about our F-16 maneuverability, but we have ~2007 ground pounder SEAD variant which is simply overweight. In 1980s/1990s we would have a hot rod rocketship lightweight dogfighter Block 30 with GE engine and big intake but less electronic gizmos.

 

Plus it's impossible to realistically model environment of mid 2000s like SAMS, ships, opponent's planes, electronic warfare etc.

 

It's not a secret after fall of the Soviet Union and lost of symmetrical opponent US plane designs didn't pun emphasis on performance anymore. Instead they were adding more and more weight and drag to their planes to allow them to more efficiently bomb some helpless terrorists/insurgencies. That's why F-14 had been phased out, F-22 order number had been drastically reduced, F-16 grew overweight and slow'n draggy Superbug with pylons canted outward but sophisticated classified systems had been developed.

 

At the same time Russians has lost most of their ability to compete directly plus all their planes from mid 2000 are, and will remain, strictly classified and impossible to model as full fidelity models in DCS in the future. And symmetrical forces will be even more important with dynamic campaign ED is working on. So we are left with US Navy vs. US Air Force scenarios..

 

Today, with the grow of China, we see another round of high performance symmetrical race and another mobilisation of plane designers. To put it simply: from the late 1990 to some ~2015 could be the least interesting period in history of military aviation, without new designs and without ANY even semi symmetrical air war.

 

- And the business part:

 

Modeling 1980s plane like i.e. F-16 or MiG-29 would take incomparably less time without all the modern gizmos so modules would be completed after 1-2 years, instead of 3-4 years.

 

Being realistic - if ED would offer i.e. F/A-18C Lot 12 instead of 20 who would know the difference? 99% of the guys would buy it just like they did with Lot 20. And ED would spend some 2 years to model it instead of 3-4 for the same sales. So business part would be also covered. Saved time could be invested in making another complete module or dynamic campaign which would make the difference for sure.

 

Another topic is: how many 'modern' modules with dozens of DDI pages and dozens of different guided munitions can one person be able to memorize and utilise? Real life full time military pilot - just one or maybe two... Some folks from my squadron already refuse to buy another 'modern' module because they struggle to remember the ones they already have. With 1980/1990 avionics it's not the case. So ED may even limit themselves and long term - sell less for more effort.

 

 

- Plus some conclusion.

 

Late 1980s era DCS with symmetrical high performance F-14s, F-15s, Mig-29s, MiG-25s, Su-27s, F-16s, F/A-18s, Mirage 2000 - all reasonably declassified and realistically modelled with new plane every 1-2 years, dogfighting like in "Art of the Kill" over Europe, Middle East or Gulf, with reasonably realistic environment of SAMs, AI planes, ground assets, ships etc. in dynamic campaign. This could be the goal and recipe for cohesive DCS development plan. It seems to be the most logical way to go. Instead of one US plane from circa 2005 out of context after 3-4 years in 1990s environment and without any flyable or even AI opponents from the period, not in the air nor on the ground.

 

I have great respect for the whole ED team and their monumental work and passion, but maybe DCS still lacks some overal concept? How long can DCS be just a loose set of random - phenomenally modeled - planes, from random eras, fighting random era opponents, random era air defences and ships on random era maps with random era assets? There is still no single historical conflict covered in DCS correctly. Not even one. 1980s/1990s LOMAC was the closest. This randomness and ahistorical sets of planes, assets, maps are contrasting so sharply with overall realism of systems, flight models etc. and the concept of realistic flight sim.

 

I'm not trying to push any agenda or anything, just my slight suggestion with a perspective of few years of playing DCS.

Edited October 11, 2020 by bies

[silent one]

I agree completely with all your points.

Further. The obsession with the newest and best is a bit boring. Id rather see a Thud and Phantom. The planes that rolled during the cold war. Unfortunately there's a whole generation of gamers that were not born and dont care about the cold war. Even though it was one of the biggest things in the last century.

[TotenDead]

Crutial mistakes have already been made. Not that many people would buy older, less capable blue ff modules when they can buy modern-ish ones

[bies]

TotenDead said:

Crutial mistakes have already been made. Not that many people would buy older, less capable blue ff modules when they can buy modern-ish ones

 

Understand the argument very well but:

 

First, modeling F/A-18 Lot 12 from 1980/1990 (having already Lot 20 from 2005 completed) should be relatively easy. Similar situation with F-16C block 30 from 1980 having block 50 from 2007 should be even easier. IIRC Matt mentioned they consider making Block 30 after block 50 will be finished.

 

Second, F-14B from 1980/ early 1990 plus F-14A from 1970s seems to sell extremally well in DCS being one of the most liked DCS module ever.

Edited January 14, 2021 by bies

[norbot]

Understand the argument very well but:

 

First, modeling F/A-18 Lot 12 from 1980/1990 having Lot 20 from 2005 completed should be relatively easy. Similar situation with F-16C block 30 from 1980 having block 50 from 2007 should be even easier. IIRC Matt mentioned they consider making Block 30 after block 50 will be finished.

 

Second, F-14B from 1980/ early 1990 plus F-14A from 1970s seems to sell extremally well in DCS being one of the most liked DCS module ever.

 

I understand your arguments very well but:

 

We have an A-10C and we recently got the A-10C II. Why didn't ED release an A-10A with a clickable cockpit? Maybe not so many customers interested for the A version than for the most modern one with HMCS, AGM-65L, GBU-54, APKWS. Take a look at my thread from September 2016: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178575&highlight=A-10A

 

Only 10 answers to my request for a clickable A-10A. Why should ED or any 3rd party producer want to release older F/A-18 or F-16 versions than we have in DCS World today?

 

You say the F-14 versions seem to sell extremely well. Your source of information? :huh:

[bies]

I understand your arguments very well but:

 

We have an A-10C and we recently got the A-10C II. Why didn't ED release an A-10A with a clickable cockpit? Maybe not so many customers interested for the A version than for the most modern one with HMCS, AGM-65L, GBU-54, APKWS. Take a look at my thread from September 2016: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178575&highlight=A-10A

 

Only 10 answers to my request for a clickable A-10A. Why should ED or any 3rd party producer want to release older F/A-18 or F-16 versions than we have in DCS World today?

 

You say the F-14 versions seem to sell extremely well. Your source of information? :huh:

 

Matt or Nick was talking about that in one interview, Hornet and Tomcat changed DCS from niche to something widely recognisable, closer to mainstream.

 

And when it comes to A-10 I like the Warthog in any shape or form but A-10A has been designed to fly at the treetops, dodging SAMs and attack armored columns close and personal with it's gun, Mavericks and dumb cluster bombs in an AAA fire.

A-10C has been upgraded to loiter an hour or two, release some guided standoff weapon from the distance to destroy some mujahedeen cave with location transmitted via datalink and RTB.

Obviously it's only a great simplification.

 

And at the cost of one A-10C, flying in an out of context environment without enemies or ground assets from the era, they could make full fidelity A-10A, Su-25 and even something more.

But DCS A-10C is a military contract, it's a different case.

 

But all this is just a digression.

Edited October 8, 2020 by bies

[Mr_sukebe]

Whilst not fully accurate, it’s fairly easy in the ME to limit weapons to Cold War levels and is something I’ve done on several missions, ie remove availability of Fox3s, A2G guided missiles, targeting pods etc

[bies]

Whilst not fully accurate, it’s fairly easy in the ME to limit weapons to Cold War levels and is something I’ve done on several missions, ie remove availability of Fox3s, A2G guided missiles, targeting pods etc

 

There is still Link 16, HMCS, different digital FCS, more modern and capable radar, night vision etc.

On the other hand in this case the plane is on disadvantage kinematicaly - i.e. F-16CJ block 50, restricted to Cold War weapons, has to carry a huge half ton dead weight ballast of structural reinforcement and avionics - which is disabled.

 

But yes, I still fly like that on Blue Flag Cold War.

 

And the developer still needs to spend 3-4 years instead of just 1-2.

[draconus]

Second, F-14B from 1980/ early 1990 plus F-14A from 1970s seems to sell extremally well in DCS being one of the most liked DCS module ever.

Except the F-14A wil be late 80s to mid 90s model while B is really early 90s to early 2000s.

 

I very much welcome any late Cold War additions. Maybe we'll see some more and better AI on the red side since it's apparently big problem to model any flyable. And the Eagle still awaits its full fidelity :music_whistling:

[QuiGon]

I'm always for more Cold War stuff as it is my favorite period and DCS really lacks in that regard! :thumbup:

 

+1

[twistking]

i'd also appreciate more cold war era modules, not only late cold war, but proper 60/70s cold war. it's the era with the most iconic planes and especially with planes that i imagine are most fun in a simulator: more hands-on flying without FBW, while sometimes already offering complex electronic systems and giving a glimpse of BVR for those that want it.

[streakeagle]

The problem is that what I like and want is the opposite of what most people want. I prefer the 1950s to 1970s era aircraft and weapons by far, but most people with cash in hand always want the latest fighters. The F-16, F/A-18, and F-22 were in game after game for the past two decades. Only two games covered the F-4 Phantom, and then only at a survey sim level.

 

If I am going to fly the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18, I prefer to fly their earlies service variants with their original, least capable armament. F-14A, F-15A, F-16A, and F/A-18A with AIM-7E/F and AIM-9H/J/L, though I would prefer not to have the AIM-9L available. Early to mid 1980s would mean the F-4 was still flying in large numbers in the USAF, USMC, and USN. The A-10A was practically brand new. I much prefer this time frame to the 1990s/2000s era ED has been covering all these years from Flanker to LOMAC to Flaming Cliffs to DCS World.

[bies]

You are talking about preferences - newer, older, this period or another.

 

I try to be as objective as possible, I'm not promoting any particular period or conflict.

 

I'm talking only about objective limitations: mid 2000s means USAF vs US Navy because Redfor opponent are and will be impossible to model. Even AI opponents and ground assets like modern air defense systems with their logic, guidance, performance, radar capabilities etc. from mid 2000 are out of reach.

 

So I don't "prefer" one period or another but if something is impossible, like realistic or coherent mid 2000s, what is the point to beat the head against the wall. Especially if you can model F-ten serie fighters - just different variants with realistic environment and far less time intensive to model.

Edited October 8, 2020 by bies

[SovietAce]

+1

 

Now this is something that I would definitely like to see happening in DCS. This is era that could be much more autentic in current DCS enviroment, since we have very simplified EW. Its also much more interesting and chalengefull, since missiles in this era werent that great, and lots of fights would be resolved in WWR. This way we can have even more adversaries for older crafts like MiG-21Bis, F-5 or upcomming MiG-23 and Mirage F-1. I would also like to see even more western strike aircrafts like F-111, Jaguar, Mirage V etc

[Evoman]

I also agree that that this era would be the most ideal to have more realistic expectations towards a more balanced opposition forces. Plus having earlier aircraft like thee F-18A and F-16A would not only fill that era but would also attract more people to fly them. I have the F-18C but I have hardly flown it because I rather put my free time in keeping current in my favorite modules the F-14 and Viggen than learning another complex aircraft.

[Northstar98]

+9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

I'd say that the mid-to late 1960s/1970s up to the early 1990s are the perfect decades for DCS.

Firstly, the overwhelming majority of current assets are late Cold War/Soviet era stuff, the only real exceptions are the Chinese ships, and the ships in the Supercarrier module, that's it. Most aircraft we have are of the same era, the only ones that aren't is our current selection of BLUFOR aircraft (A-10C/C II, AV-8B NA, F-16C Block 50, F/A-18C Lot 20 and the Mirage 2000(?)) as well as the JF-17.

There are a coupe of sought after maps that are right at home in this era too, such as Germany/Fulda Gap and the Baltic.

Aircraft in theory should be easier to get documentation on and potentially easier to develop. The only thing where we would potentially run into difficulty however is the development of older RADARs - the F-14 and the Viggen both I think use raycasting to simulate their respective RADARs, seeing as it's more common to see raw RADAR video (like what we get with the Tomcat's DDD) instead of processed 'image'. I think Magnitude 3 is upgrading the MiG-21bis to also use raycasting to simulate it's RADAR but seems WIP at the moment.

For me, I personally love this era mostly because everything seems much more interesting, with equipment that are icons for me personally. And screaming down low, NOE to ripple off high drag bombs, definitely beats pressing a button and sending a JSOW its way.

For the aircraft there's plenty to choose from, here's just a selection (it's far from complete) that comes to mind that aren't so far being developed as full modules, of the correct era.

• A-6E TRAM/SWIP
• A-10A
• AH-1E/F/G
• AH-64A
• F-4E/J/S/K/M
• F-15A, earlier F-15C
• F-15E (an earlier one)
• F-16A Block 15 all the way up to the F-16CG Block 40 w. LANTIRN
• F/A-18A (any lot) -> F/A-18C (Lot 10?)
• F-104G
• F-111F
• Harrier GR.3/GR.5/AV-8B DA
• Jaguar GR.1/3
• SH-2F
• SH-3H
• SH-60B/F
• Su-17M3/M4
• Tornado IDS/GR.1/1A

There's also lots of other assets such as ground vehicles, ships, RADARs, SAMs, AAA that would fit, even if they were just upgrades of

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[dawgie79]

Understand the argument very well but:

 

First, modeling F/A-18 Lot 12 from 1980/1990 having Lot 20 from 2005 completed should be relatively easy. Similar situation with F-16C block 30 from 1980 having block 50 from 2007 should be even easier. IIRC Matt mentioned they consider making Block 30 after block 50 will be finished.

 

Second, F-14B from 1980/ early 1990 plus F-14A from 1970s seems to sell extremally well in DCS being one of the most liked DCS module ever.

 

You see the same problem in simracing. Most of the time the more passionate/die-hard people are the ones on forums, asking for old content (albeit cold war era planes or 70s 80s racecars) which they really want. But often they seem to forget that the largest playerbase usually isn't that die-hard, you won't see them (often) on forums, and most of them want modern stuff because modern is mainstream, every other sim has it too, etc.

 

And then there's the die-hards who also like the modern content, like myself. I'd expect you shouldn't get your hopes up, if ED would want older planes in their library, they wouldn't have produced a Hornet, Viper, Tank Killer, etc.

 

Older era content is just too niche in an already nice market, it's just not feasible. But hey, one can dream. ;)

[SVgamer72]

You see the same problem in simracing. Most of the time the more passionate/die-hard people are the ones on forums, asking for old content (albeit cold war era planes or 70s 80s racecars) which they really want. But often they seem to forget that the largest playerbase usually isn't that die-hard, you won't see them (often) on forums, and most of them want modern stuff because modern is mainstream, every other sim has it too, etc.

 

And then there's the die-hards who also like the modern content, like myself. I'd expect you shouldn't get your hopes up, if ED would want older planes in their library, they wouldn't have produced a Hornet, Viper, Tank Killer, etc.

 

Older era content is just too niche in an already nice market, it's just not feasible. But hey, one can dream. ;)

 

 

DCS MP is crippled currently by the lack of viable period REDFOR. Lack of progress updating the R-27/77 series (after several rounds of AIM-7 and AIM-120 updates/improvements) has only exacerbated the issue.

 

I love the new shiny toys, but if I am being honest it is boring mopping the floor with the REDFOR currently in the game, and fighting the same plane(s) I am flying with a different skin.

 

.02$

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northstar98]

The thing for me is, is that when it comes to current BLUFOR, I cannot set-up a peer-to-peer conflict of a consistent era. Not it's difficult, it's impossible.

We can't get peer REDFOR, so going earlier is the way to go (and more interesting IMO).

As it stands the A-10C, A-10C II, F-16C and F/A-18C represent aircraft from the mid-2000s to early-mid 2010s.

The most modern REDFOR fixed wing is the MiG-21bis, from 1972 - a 30-40 year gap. That's like a WWII u-boat going up against a 688, or a Fw 190 going up against an F-4E...

Sure scenarios are up to you, as they absolutely should be, but at the moment I can't set up a peer-to-peer scenario of a consistent era, with current BLUFOR.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[probad]

sod off i bought dcs modules because i liked what they do

 

not what you guys do

[Northstar98]

probad said:

sod off i bought dcs modules because i liked what they do

 

not what you guys do

We're not taking anything away from you...

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[lmp]

ED has been pretty upfront about profitability being one of the main, if not the main consideration when picking what to do next. They also said the Viper and Hornet sold very well, Russian aircraft don't sell nearly as well and that most of the playerbase focuses on SP (so having counterparts is less important). That's why we're seeing so many 2000+ multirole fighters.

 

That said, I think we're running out of sexy 4th gen JDAM trucks. After the F-15E there's no mainstream modern fighter left (other than the F-22 or F-35, which I'm pretty sure we're not getting anytime soon) that I can think of. ED will either have to start doing more obscure stuff or focus on iconic aircraft that aren't 4th gen JDAM trucks. Considering we're now getting the Hind and later possibly the AH-64 and F-4E, it looks like ED is taking the second route (IMHO for the better).

[Harker]

Don't forget the Eurofighter being developed by Truegrit. Similarly, a Rafale module isn't out of the question. And the JF-17 was a very interesting and modern addition (possibly Redfor) that is often omitted.

 

A lot of people want capability in their aircraft and the ability to experience the closest thing possible to military aviation today, (from the within DCS, of course, which has a lot of limitations). I belong in this group and although I appreciate legacy aircraft for the beautiful machines that they are, the modern ones are far more interesting to me. Not because of the aircraft itself, but because of what's in it, the systems. Instead of being limited to what you can see with your own basic radar and your eyes, you now have battlefield-wide awareness, target prioritization and sharing, helmet mounted displays that you can use to target and direct your weapons and sensors and the list goes on.

 

And there's apparently a radar simulation company interested in developing an IADS module and there was already talk about expanding the EW side of DCS. It won't be quick, but it's a step in the right direction and it'll hopefully bring much needed fidelity to this neglected area, which features prominently in a modern battlefield.

 

Plus, modern aircraft push DCS forward as a whole. The Hornet was/is difficult to develop? It is. But many APIs were developed for its systems and they can now be used for the next thing, much more easily.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[flanker1]

wow, finally. i am not alone. hopefully ED will understand now, that the most effective way to earn money and get incremental revenue will be a cold war scenario!!

[lmp]

I don't think any of the planes you mentioned can sell as well as the Hornet and the Viper. Or even close. On one hand, they don't offer much in terms of new capabilities to DCS players (and where they do, it's a quantitative improvement, not a qualitative one, as was the case with the Hornet), on the other they simply don't have the notoriety of the F-16 or F/A-18. Developers will see diminishing returns with each new 4th gen multirole jet. I'm sure they'll have their fans, but much fewer of them. I for one have enough JDAM trucks in my hangar

 

I do agree though that whenever ED will make some sort of major technological breakthrough, like all the new radar tech now, they will probably try to reuse it in a few modules. We're seeing this with the upcoming Hind and strongly suggested F-4E and AH-64 - each has a crew of two with a weapons operator needing new AI work.

 

Personally I'd love to see some of the lesser known Cold War machines but I don't think I ED is interested in those at all.