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

[Max1mus]

I dont think more cold war modules should be on the list at all until ED has given the sim at least one late 2000s redfor fighter, even if its just FC3 level. Make the modern arena viable first, right now its just NATO vs NATO.

 

After that, fill up the cold war era. Mig-23, F-4, F-5 and MiG-21 could overall provide a pretty diverse environment there. ME options to downgrade F-18, F-15 and so on to their A models, and stuff like a MiG-25 and an A-6 or F111 would be nice there too.

 

But first, fix the modern arena, both AG and AA. We need short range SAMs capable of shooting down masses of standoff weapons and we need a modern red fighter, FC3 level so that there is at least something.

[Baco]

fully agree! form the 60s to the 80s you flew combat jets, now you just manage systems...

[bies]

I dont think more cold war modules should be on the list at all until ED has given the sim at least one late 2000s redfor fighter, even if its just FC3 level. Make the modern arena viable first, right now its just NATO vs NATO.

 

Many ED members are stating time and time again in nearly every interview there will be no modern Russian plane in DCS. Period. Thery are testing the ground to make smething like Cold War 1980s MiG-29A as full fidelity plane as this is absolutely the most modern they can go. This would be fantastic as cold war boogeyman for NATO fighters and would revolutionise DCS symmetric enviroment but it will be close to 0 threat to 2005 Vipers and Hornets.

 

 

I don't think any of the planes you mentioned can sell as well as the Hornet and the Viper. Or even close.

 

I mentioned nothing different than that, i mentioned exactly Vipers, Hornets, Eagles, Fulcrums, Tomcats, Flankers - the best potental sellers - just in earlier variants when this planes were cutting edge technology - not ~2005 when this 1970s/1980s planes were already outdated, at the verge of being phased out, being low in high/low mix. And without any opposition in the sim not full fidelity, nor low fidelity, not AI, no ground forces or enviroment, nothing - just one sterile plane out of context. Like F-86 Sabre in WWII simulator.

Edited October 10, 2020 by bies

[Max1mus]

1980s MiG-29A as full fidelity plane as this is absolutely the most modern they can go. This would be fantastic as cold war boogeyman for NATO fighters and would revolutionise DCS symmetric enviroment

 

We already have MiG-29A in DCS, both AI and Flyable. Would revolutionize nothing, just eat up resources ED should use to fix the modern era.

[Mars Exulte]

For me, 1970s would be the sweet spot. The newer stuff we have, combined arms, IADS, EM, all are extremely crucial... these also happen to be the things DCS sucks hardest at, is hard/impossible to model accurately, etc. 60s-70s it's the best of both worlds, imo, with serviceable, though crude radar and bvr, high speed mach 2+ fighters, a strong presence of WVR and BFM combat, and national collapse had not yet rendered RedFor uncompetitive.

 

While the modern stuff is very cool, it really emphasises all the stuff we don't have, whereas even the simplistic ECM system we have currently is roughly appropriate for older eras.

 

It's all kinda moot though, this ship has very definitely set sail loooooong ago.

[Tippis]

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 sounds an awful lot like plain old confirmation bias. What “Russian aircraft” modules are they even basing that on? The MiG-21 — a famously complicated (as opposed to complex) and temperamental aircraft? Because that's exactly one data point, with almost as little representativeness as one would be able to come up with. No module exists that would allow them to draw that inference in comparison to stuff like the teen fighters so to suggest that this “consideration” is 99% hypothetical informed by some very unclear assumptions.

 

Or are they counting the I-16 (the whole point of which is that it's really annoying and underpowered compared to all the other aircraft it would go up against) or the Yak-52 (a plane that isn't compete enough to serve any purpose in SP, and with no function relevant to MP)?

 

I have a hard time believing that, say, the Ka-50 and Mi-8 sold significantly worse than the Huey and Gazelle — quite the opposite. So what on earth does that claim even come from?

[Northstar98]

Max1mus said:

I dont think more cold war modules should be on the list at all until ED has given the sim at least one late 2000s redfor fighter, even if its just FC3 level. Make the modern arena viable first, right now its just NATO vs NATO.

What are you talking about?

Basically every asset in DCS apart from our recent BLUFOR modules are Soviet-era. Out of all of them here are the ones that aren't:

• A-10C and A-10C II - mid 2000s - early 2010s respectively
• Arleigh-Burke-class Flt. IIA - early 2000s - 2010s 
• AV-8B - early 2010s
• F-16C - mid 2000s
• F/A-18C - mid 2000s
• JF-17 - mid-to-late 2010s
• Nimitz-Roosevelt subclass - mid-to-late 2000s (RIM-116)
• Oliver Hazzard Perry class - mid 2000s (no STIR and Phalanx Block 1B)
• T-72B3 obr.2016 - mid-2010s
• T-90A - late-90s/early 2000s
• Ticonderoga-class - 2000s/2010s (pretty sure we have a 2008 Baseline III vessel, given the Mk38 Mod. 2 w. C-Lite) 
• Type 054A FFG - late 2000s
• Type 052B DDG - mid 2000s
• Type 052C DDG - mid 2000s
• Type 071 LPD - mid 2000s
• Type 093 SSN - mid-2000s
• ZTZ96A - late 2000s

Literally everything else is Soviet era, latest is the early 90s. That's a lot of assets...

There are no air defences beyond the 90s, the Patriot, SA-10B, SA-15 and SA-19 are all pre-2000s and only the SA-15 (which I think is the Tor-M1 variant) is 1991, the rest are 80s.

REDFOR fixed-wing aircraft peak in the mid 1980s, and full fidelity stops at 1972, leaving at least a 30 year gap... And 30 years? That's the difference between the Me 262 and F-15A; it's the same difference between the Type VIIC u-boat and a Los-Angeles class SSN

It's more time between the T-34-85 and the M60A1...

Now, I don't know the reason why ED decided to go with the versions we got, as I said, apart from a small selection (half of it by 1 developer) they fit nothing, the only thing that you can do is have non-peer-to-peer missions.

AFAIK some were official contracts where there wasn't much choice (like the A-10Cs) but as zhukov said the ship has unfortunately sailed a long time ago, and there isn't an easy resolution.

Either we develop modern REDFOR aircraft (like for instance the Su-27SM+), which is mostly a no-go, at least from EDs perspective...

Or we go for older variants of our current aircraft, as well as others that fit the period. Things like the F-16A Block 15 up to the F-16C Block 40 w. LANTIRN to name one.

Modern aircraft are cool, I get that, I've bought most of them, but the problem is they are on their own.

Max1mus said:

But first, fix the modern arena, both AG and AA. We need short range SAMs capable of shooting down masses of standoff weapons and we need a modern red fighter, FC3 level so that there is at least something.

It's been said time and time again that modern REDFOR anything is a no-go, at least for ED. Maybe even at the FC3 level; those FC3 aircraft still need documentation for their PFMs, not to mention their weapons.

A 9-12 MiG-29 [Fulcrum A] or a Su-27S [Flanker B] is probably the most recent full-fidelity possible, and even that is hazy...

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[lmp]

@bies

 

I was responding to Harker and was referring to Rafale, EF-2000 and the JF-17. Sorry if I didn't make it obvious.

 

@Tippis

 

I believe they were talking about F-86F vs MiG-15bis and Huey vs Hip. In both cases those are aircraft of similar capabilities, role and notoriety. In both cases the American counterpart sold significantly better. Is this definitive proof that Russian planes will always sell worse? Probably not, but it's a lot better than "I have a hard time believing X sold worse than Y" coming from somebody who has no access to any sales figures.

[Dragon1-1]

About the Huey, I'm not surprised. I mean, it's the Huey. :) Plus, it's a sweet, gentle little helo, just the thing to start you off with. The Mi-8 is a quiet, old workhorse, and from what people say, it flies like an old workhorse, too. Generally, I found Russian aircraft to be harder, but more rewarding, to master.

 

I'd definitely want ED to focus on late Cold War more, specifically the 80s and early 90s. Right now, it seems like it's aiming more for 2000-2010 timeframe, and there simply aren't many decent Russian counterparts to Western aircraft from that time, because their aviation industry collapsed in the late 90s, along with the Soviet Union, and spent most of the aforementioned decade trying to get back on its feet. In the 80s and 90s, the Soviets still retained its own, unique approach to aircraft design, and the US jets didn't turn into flying computers yet.

[dawgie79]

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

 

Balance isn't a consideration for ED, they have stated this a few times lately.

[Northstar98]

dawgie79 said:

Balance isn't a consideration for ED, they have stated this a few times lately.

Not in the colloquial sense no, ED wants to go for as realistic as feasibly possible.

However, it's not even about 'balance' it's about being able to set-up peer-to-peer scenarios that are historically consistent. With the Cold War era, we can do that, with the post-2000s era of current BLUFOR modules, we can't.

We either have to employ some time travelling, artificially limit weapons or abandon peer-to-peer completely. Developing 60s, 70s, 80s aircraft or aircraft variants for BLUFOR will allow literally every other asset in the game (but a select handful) to much better keep their relevancy.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[SVgamer72]

Balance isn't a consideration for ED, they have stated this a few times lately.

 

 

“Balance” is not part of the equation when you focus only on US missiles and ignore their counterparts. People are asking for balance where it can be applied, not a 100% level playing field. Equal time/code-updates spent on all missiles is one way, and adding planes that are period correct for the MIGs and Sukhois already in the game is another.

 

ED’s goal as a business is to grow the player base (sales). It is fantastic how well the Hornet and Viper are doing, but short term wins with high volume Hornet and Viper sales, will result in long term losses after “X” number of played hours. Once a certain level of A2A mastery is attained in these modules, players quickly realize that the only real challenge is other human players in Hornets and Vipers. It gets stale/old after “Y” number of hours. It is a losing business proposition at some point in time for each player.

 

ED can’t make newer REDFOR, but they can bring what is in the game up to current levels (missile performance), and consider variants of the Hornet, and Viper as well as other high potential sellers (Phantom etc) that are period correct for the MiGs and Sukhois on the game. That would be a long-term win-win for everyone.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dragon1-1]

Yup, Phantom would be a big win. It's preposterous that we've got a MiG-21, but not its Western arch-rival. ED really shouldn't have shelved that one.

 

I'd love to see a full-blown Vietnam sim, but until someone makes that, DCS is the closest thing we can get, and the only Phantom we have is AI-only...

[Northstar98]

Dragon1-1 said:

Yup, Phantom would be a big win. It's preposterous that we've got a MiG-21, but not its Western arch-rival. ED really shouldn't have shelved that one.

 

I'd love to see a full-blown Vietnam sim, but until someone makes that, DCS is the closest thing we can get, and the only Phantom we have is AI-only...

Yep

As of right now there's only that lite sim for it...

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[dawgie79]

Well, I hope for you cold war types ED will add something for you lot. But I just think it's not going to happen, because it's not the most popular era (like I said before, developers forums are usually not a good representation of the majority of the playerbase). Same goes for balance.

 

I don't want to ruin your wish/hope. So, sorry. :)

[jasonbirder]

Once a certain level of A2A mastery is attained in these modules, players quickly realize that the only real challenge is other human players in Hornets and Vipers.

 

 

If that were even remotely the case...wouldn't a far higher proportion of the DCS Player Base have at least tried MP...

 

 

Surely from a business point of view...even thinking about MP balance/functionality should be a very low priority? As the overwhelming majority of players never even touch it...

[Max1mus]

it seems like it's aiming more for 2000-2010 timeframe, and there simply aren't many decent Russian counterparts to Western aircraft from that time, because their aviation industry collapsed in the late 90s, along with the Soviet Union, and spent most of the aforementioned decade trying to get back on its feet. In the 80s and 90s, the Soviets still retained its own, unique approach to aircraft design, and the US jets didn't turn into flying computers yet.

 

Su-30MKI, MiG-29K, MiG-31BM, Su-27SM are all from 2000-2010 (and missing in DCS). In terms of SAMs, we are missing the working horses that are S-300PMU1, TOR M1/M2, Pantsir.

 

Its not the nonexistance of these systems. Its that ED isnt making them, even in FC3.

[Dragon1-1]

Well, I hope for you cold war types ED will add something for you lot. But I just think it's not going to happen, because it's not the most popular era (like I said before, developers forums are usually not a good representation of the majority of the playerbase). Same goes for balance.

I think it's less about the era, and more about multiplayer. I see people requesting modules that are not necessarily the most interesting to fly, but that would give them an edge, or at least an even chance in MP against top US tech.

Su-30MKI, MiG-29K, MiG-31BM, Su-27SM are all from 2000-2010 (and missing in DCS). In terms of SAMs, we are missing the working horses that are S-300PMU1, TOR M1/M2, Pantsir.

For circa 2008, our lineup of aircraft is quite correct. MiG-29K is a carrier plane that, as of that time, was only in service with India. Su-30MKI, also India, not really a "red" country (though since we've got a Pakistani JF-17, a Su-30MKI and maybe a Kashmir map to go with them would be something I'd buy :) ). MiG-31BM modernization was actually carried out around 2011. Su-27SM was indeed from that period (although I can't find when exactly where they modified), but that's it. The US really did have a significant technological lead at the time, and if we're talking "period accurate", then for 'noughts, it's never going to resemble any sort of balance (agreed about the SAMs, but that aspect is rather lacking in general, we're missing even such staple systems as SA-5, and those that we have are not nearly as good as they should be).

 

TBH, it's never going to be truly "balanced", because Soviets made their aircraft completely differently, anyway. The only time you could achieve something to that end is the 80s/early 90s, when you could put a MiG-29A against an early block F-16A, or an F-15 against a Su-27. If you want historically accurate, but relatively fair PvP, then it's pretty much your only choice.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Dragon1-1

[Thor_H]

The newer the toy the bigger the sales it seems.

[SVgamer72]

If that were even remotely the case...wouldn't a far higher proportion of the DCS Player Base have at least tried MP...

 

 

Surely from a business point of view...even thinking about MP balance/functionality should be a very low priority? As the overwhelming majority of players never even touch it...

 

 

I often hear that SP numbers far outweigh MP, and if that is true that means there is a large untapped audience (eg potential new sales) that is either too intimidated by MP, or sees nothing worth exploring in MP. Lack of attention to MP from a development standpoint becomes a self fulfilling prophecy in many ways and only serves as confirmation bias for assumptions regarding what to prioritize.

 

This is puzzling as the lack of single player content; sterile/scripted and non-dynamic missions, campaigns often broken by patches, and AI that is anything but “intelligent” is said to draw the largest audience. It’s a real head scratcher.

 

The “Hoggit” and “Through the Inferno” PVE MP servers are arguably (and ironically) the best SP experiences due to the amazing community efforts to address the long standing issues with SP content. The fact that they are co-op MP is icing on the cake, and it is a shame more SP only DCS players either do not know about them, or do not understand what they offer.

 

From there it is a a much smaller step to enter competitive PvP...

 

But I digress....

 

Cheers

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bies]

That even hardly an issue of MP only. SP is unfortunately equally affected. It's impossible to make any realistic SP scenario for the Hornet, Viper or Warthog - there is no assets from their era, no AI opponent planes, no SAMs, ships, no environment etc.

 

It's just a time travel journey where year 2005 Hornet goes 25 years back in time to fight 1980s/1990s Soviet enemy. It's something like F-86 in WW2 scenario except F-86 is only 6 years newer than it's environment - not 20-25 years like Hornet.

[Northstar98]

Dragon1-1 said:

I think it's less about the era, and more about multiplayer. I see people requesting modules that are not necessarily the most interesting to fly, but that would give them an edge, or at least an even chance in MP against top US tech.

For me, it is very much the opposite, I find that older aircraft are more rewarding because they're more of a challenge to get results, so when you manage to achieve them it's more satifying.

Rather than just flying like I'm an airliner, designating something and pressing a button.

The US really did have a significant technological lead at the time, and if we're talking "period accurate", then for 'noughts, it's never going to resemble any sort of balance (agreed about the SAMs, but that aspect is rather lacking in general, we're missing even such staple systems as SA-5, and those that we have are not nearly as good as they should be).

Dragon1-1 said:

TBH, it's never going to be truly "balanced", because Soviets made their aircraft completely differently, anyway. The only time you could achieve something to that end is the 80s/early 90s, when you could put a MiG-29A against an early block F-16A, or an F-15 against a Su-27. If you want historically accurate, but relatively fair PvP, then it's pretty much your only choice.

Oh no, balance isn't really the crux of the issue for me, one side is always going to have at least a bit of an edge one way or the other, that's absolutely fine. The main issue for me is historically consistent assets. I either have to ditch peer-to-peer missions entirely, or artificially limit BLUFOR, or just accept time-travelling aircraft, there isn't another option.

Right now the Viggen and the Tomcats are perfect fits, as are the the upcoming A-6, as they are the perfect era for much of the assets. And fit the timeframe of our most modern (mid-80s) REDFOR aircraft like the MiG-29, MiG-29S, Su-27 and Su-33. They are early 90s upgrades of aircraft from the 70s, but aside from a few things, they are largely the same aircraft, which simply makes them fit better.

The MiG-21bis and the F-5E-3 perfectly fit each other (literally represent the same year), and there are a few REDFOR air-defences to fit.

The F-86F and the MiG-15bis also perfectly fit each other, just they're literally the only assets of that period. (There's like 1 tank, and 1 WIP AAA so far).

WWII assets obviously fit each other, and apart from the mid-to-late Cold War assets of the 60s, 70s and 80s, WWII has the most complementary assets that fit nicely together (+ 2 maps).

Right now the overwhelming majority of assets are Cold War/Soviet era stuff, topping out before the 90s. But much of our recent BLUFOR modules are mid-2000s and in some cases above, giving us at least 20 years of difference between a minority of assets and literally everything else.

bies said:

That even hardly an issue of MP only. SP is unfortunately equally affected. It's impossible to make any realistic SP scenario for the Hornet, Viper or Warthog - there is no assets from their era, no AI opponent planes, no SAMs, ships, no environment etc.

 

It's just a time travel journey where year 2005 Hornet goes 25 years back in time to fight 1980s/1990s Soviet enemy. It's something like F-86 in WW2 scenario except F-86 is only 6 years newer than it's environment - not 20-25 years like Hornet.

Exactly this.

And the assets we do have from that era are literally just the Supercarrier assets (BLUFOR) and a handful of Chinese ships (which for the most part have pretty questionable graphics compared to other assets, especially the Type 071 LPD).

I almost exclusively fly SP (mostly because I completely suck, though to be fair to myself I'm playing on a 15" laptop, with no head-tracking and just a stick), and in PvE we have exactly the same problem, only now we're limited by the AI...

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Dragon1-1]

It's just a time travel journey where year 2005 Hornet goes 25 years back in time to fight 1980s/1990s Soviet enemy.

...or a country which still flies 90s Soviet hand-me-downs. Which is, coincidentally, is exactly what all recent air conflicts have involved. Also, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, if Russia needed to defend from a NATO assault in 2005, it would have had to do so, for most part, with 1990s weaponry.

 

Military equipment is not bound to a year or even a decade. Soviet-era equipment is widespread around the world, Iran still operates the MiG-29A, and so does Poland. Those are, with very few changes, the same aircraft they were in the 80s. Iran also flies the F-14, F-5 and some F-4s. Unless you want a WWIII-type scenario (far better served by a Cold War lineup), then if you pick a realistic conflict involving the countries we have on available maps, in most cases it's going to be modern Western versus old Soviet hardware.

 

Oh, and BTW, Sabrejets mostly fought WWII hardware in Korea. Aside from the MiG-15, the Chinese had Yak-9s, Il-10s and so on. Likewise, the MiG-15s killed a lot of WWII-vintage Mustangs. War is never fought only with top-line equipment.

[Northstar98]

Dragon1-1 said:

...or a country which still flies 90s Soviet hand-me-downs. Which is, coincidentally, is exactly what all recent air conflicts have involved. Also, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, if Russia needed to defend from a NATO assault in 2005, it would have had to do so, for most part, with 1990s weaponry.

 

Military equipment is not bound to a year or even a decade. Soviet-era equipment is widespread around the world, Iran still operates the MiG-29A, and so does Poland. Those are, with very few changes, the same aircraft they were in the 80s. Iran also flies the F-14, F-5 and some F-4s. Unless you want a WWIII-type scenario (far better served by a Cold War lineup), then if you pick a realistic conflict involving the countries we have on available maps, in most cases it's going to be modern Western versus old Soviet hardware.

 

Oh, and BTW, Sabrejets mostly fought WWII hardware in Korea. Aside from the MiG-15, the Chinese had Yak-9s, Il-10s and so on. Likewise, the MiG-15s killed a lot of WWII-vintage Mustangs. War is never fought only with top-line equipment.

And none of these are peer-to-peer, which is the exact scenario I'm describing...

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Redfor isn't just Russia

 

What if some one does want to sim a near peer adversary like India or China and so on like a client state such as Algeria Indonesia in the 2000s or 2010s...

 

 

Not ever scenario needs to be Saddam's Iraq as there are other what if potential hotspots