DCS: F-15C

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

The issue is they can be a bit hard to learn. And they are very hard to make. So if a new jet doesn't bring something new with it people might just not buy it, as it doesn't bring any new capabilities. 

 

Some times, the aircraft alone results in sales 

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

5 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

The issue is they can be a bit hard to learn

 

Then dont.

[FlankerKiller]

Sometimes it dose. Sometimes not. It's a gamble for ED. I fear there logic is that people won't buy it if they can already get the same capabilities in something else. I would buy it in an instant. But others may say I've got enough. Or what dose it do that the F-16 doesn't. Plus some people only have so much money. 

14 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Then dont.

Sure, but why pat $60-$80 for a jet that you don't use? 

[Exorcet]

6 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

The issue is they can be a bit hard to learn. And they are very hard to make. So if a new jet doesn't bring something new with it people might just not buy it, as it doesn't bring any new capabilities. 

 

As of now the F-15 (if it were FF) is the only aircraft capable of M2.5, with AMRAAM (and the second largest AMRAAM loadout), with a full sized radar, and built in ECM. If we got CFT's with it it would also have the highest fuel fraction of any fighter. There were also proposed specialized CFT's for a bunch of different missions, but I don't know if any of those were actually built. The F-15 also can carry quite a few more bombs than the F-16/F-18 (though no smart weapons) while hauling a full AA loadout. There is also the possibility of anti satellite weaponry, which is unique to the F-15.

 

For the "competitive" crowd it sounds like an easy sell. For the historical crowd, it's the F-15, and for the unique features crowd it's not lacking. I guess ED have their research, but it's really difficult to see the Eagle as a risky plane.

[Tippis]

11 hours ago, draconus said:

First time I hear more modules to choose from is problematic

Good thing, then, that nothing of the kind was said.

It wasn't the first time you saw the exact thing I said being expressed. It's a pretty common complaint these days…

 

Oh, and we both know that you've heard what you said on multiple occasions. Just visit any thread on the buff (or indeed any heavy), or recon or ewar or civilian aircraft. There's a solid contingent of forum goer that make that very argument in relation to just about any suggested module.

 

11 hours ago, draconus said:

 

 FF F-15 would change nothing in mission design.

The reason it wouldn't change anything in mission design is that mission design is already broken by the Viper and Hornet, but that's not a good reason to just pile on the brokenness. Quite the opposite. There's every reason to stop adding things that don't fit with what the game can deliver and still maintain a modicum of realism and instead spend that time and effort on units and decorations that let more planes be more relevant.

 

11 hours ago, draconus said:

It's about modeling specific airframe to fly and operate fully not about someone's dream of DCS balance.

No, it's about realism and flying and operating a specific airframe in a sensible environment, not about someone's dream of the ultimate DCS power fantasy. Modelling a specific airframe to fly and operate fully can be done with anything — it is not contingent on the airframe being completely out of place. Quite the opposite.

 

11 hours ago, draconus said:

EF is in the works - you can't stop this.

Good thing, then, that nothing of the kind was said.

 

9 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

The issue is they can be a bit hard to learn. And they are very hard to make. So if a new jet doesn't bring something new with it people might just not buy it, as it doesn't bring any new capabilities. 

No, the issue is that they don't fit in. They don't work on any of the maps we have (except maybe NTTR). They don't work with any of the decorations and other units available to populate a map. And they do all that while taking resources away that could be used for fixing those issues rather than making them worse.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Tippis

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

14 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Sometimes it dose. Sometimes not. It's a gamble for ED. I fear there logic is that people won't buy it if they can already get the same capabilities in something else. I would buy it in an instant. But others may say I've got enough. Or what dose it do that the F-16 doesn't. Plus some people only have so much money. 

Sure, but why pat $60-$80 for a jet that you don't use? 

You dont

[draconus]

20 hours ago, Tippis said:

And they do all that while taking resources away that could be used for fixing those issues rather than making them worse.

There is nothing broken that needs fixing. DCS is constantly growing WIP project. It may not have gone where you like it but newer aircraft and assets will still be added. ED will not suddenly stop development of anything from 21st century just because someone don't find it fits the game.

This thread is a wish for development of full fidelity air superiority fighter - the Eagle that we lack and we miss it. It does not have to fit more than 16 or 18. It doesn't have to bring something new or better that those. But yet it does all that.

[Tippis]

29 minutes ago, draconus said:

There is nothing broken that needs fixing.

…aside from a systemic inability to build sensible scenarios due to a far too disparate set of assets.

 

29 minutes ago, draconus said:

This thread is a wish for development of full fidelity air superiority fighter

And no-one is saying that shouldn't happen. So what's your point?

 

29 minutes ago, draconus said:

It does not have to fit more than 16 or 18.

It does not have to, no, but it would be a vastly more intelligent choice to make it fit.

[Wizard_03]

IMHO FF F-15C is the opposite of risky, we know people are interested in it, because they'll already buying and flying the FC3 version. 

 

ED has already done most of if not all of the research required, and the FM (the most complex and difficult aspect of DCS development) is complete and certified by Eagle SMEs. 

 

So you could create a full priced module with known interest, and half or more of the work already done. Far far less risky then starting from scratch IMO. 

 

[Wizard_03]

On 8/9/2021 at 12:53 PM, Tippis said:

…aside from a systemic inability to build sensible scenarios due to a far too disparate set of assets.

You can re-create almost every 21st century war too date using assets in game. Thing is that's all asymmetric, then again so is modern conventional conflict. Go figure.

 

We don't have enough blue side cold war assets to do near peer stuff from that time period nor do we have modern red stuff from 21st century to do near peer now. 

 

So in that sense your right, but too say that current assets don't allow sensible scenarios is a big overstatement. The problem is the scenarios are TOO sensible. Lots of people want the cold war gone hot situation, as unreasonable as that might have been IRL. The real wars that break out are too boring.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Tippis]

6 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

We don't have enough blue side cold war assets to do near peer stuff from that time period nor do we have modern red stuff from 21st century to do near peer now.

We also don't have enough non-peer stuff from the modern era to properly represent an asymmetric conflict. We also don't have any maps that would fit the modern blue stuff (aside from NTTR) in any sensible scenario. That's kind of the whole point: we have a handful of modern western planes and nothing to put them up against that makes sense (and is even remotely interesting). You can populate an entire map with insurgent infantry, and that's about it, and it would all be on maps where those planes aren't used. And if that's your opponent, you might as well just dump BDUs on NTTR conex boxes for all the opposition they offer.

 

6 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

So in that sense your right, but too say that current assets don't allow sensible scenarios is a big overstatement.

That's not quite what I was saying, though.

There are indeed assets that allow the construction of sensible scenarios. None of those scenarios include any modern western aircraft. Thus the conclusion that adding even more modern western aircraft that also can't be included in sensible scenarios is not a constructive or beneficial use of available resources.

 

The Chinese asset pack offers some hope, but needs a lot of expansion before it becomes worth-while. And more maps. So if resources are to be put into modern stuff, that's where it should go, not into anything western. Or possibly into some kind of “insurgent asset pack”, but again, that would be instead of modern western planes, so it's the same logic and the same conclusion.

[Wizard_03]

38 minutes ago, Tippis said:

We also don't have enough non-peer stuff from the modern era to properly represent an asymmetric conflict. We also don't have any maps that would fit the modern blue stuff (aside from NTTR) in any sensible scenario. That's kind of the whole point: we have a handful of modern western planes and nothing to put them up against that makes sense (and is even remotely interesting). You can populate an entire map with insurgent infantry, and that's about it, and it would all be on maps where those planes aren't used. And if that's your opponent, you might as well just dump BDUs on NTTR conex boxes for all the opposition they offer.

 

We sure do, assets are not just flyable units btw, but in any case you have almost every piece of equipment from the Georgian war, and we have most of the stuff from gulf war 2, and you have many of Syrian assets from that conflict as well. Including ground vehicles, Air defense systems, and aircraft of course, all of which are mostly contemporary with the hornet, viper, and tomcat that we have in game with a little stretching. I agree that It doesn't really make sense to put MiG-29As up against F-15Cs or MiG-21s against F/A-18Cs but that's exactly what the Iraqi AF did.

 

The problem is you typically have too play on the blue side if you want FF. Never the less you can make pretty realistic and historic scenarios with what we have now.

 

NTTR is the sight of Red flag the Largest modern air combat exercise. Its about the closest thing to actual conflict many of the aircrew there get, and one of the only glimpses of what that might actually look like. Its a huge part of modern air combat.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Tippis]

7 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

We sure do, assets are not just flyable units btw, but in any case you have almost every piece of equipment from the Georgian war, and we have most of the stuff from gulf war 2, and you have many of Syrian assets from that conflict as well. Including ground vehicles, Air defense systems, and aircraft of course, all of which are mostly contemporary with the hornet, viper, and tomcat that we have in game with a little stretching.

…and none of which are on the opposing side. So what are you going to build in terms of a sensible scenario? And that's before we even get into the issue where none of those aircraft would even take part of those conflicts — only FC3 aircraft would.

 

20 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Never the less you can make pretty realistic and historic scenarios with what we have now.

Yes, but that just further reinforces the point: that more modern western aircraft would not improve things. Historical models and older variants would, since there are already a reasonably good set of assets to build sensible (and accurately contemporary) scenarios for them. Doubling down on adding more modern ones does not solve the problem that the ones we already have lack proper opposition. It just doubles the problem.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

You can re-create almost every 21st century war too date using assets in game. Thing is that's all asymmetric, then again so is modern conventional conflict. Go figure.

 

We don't have enough blue side cold war assets to do near peer stuff from that time period nor do we have modern red stuff from 21st century to do near peer now. 

 

So in that sense your right, but too say that current assets don't allow sensible scenarios is a big overstatement. The problem is the scenarios are TOO sensible. Lots of people want the cold war gone hot situation, as unreasonable as that might have been IRL. The real wars that break out are too boring.

 

I know I'm one of the folks that want a cold war gone hot as well as the Vietnam and Korean wars. Right now we don't have enough assets for good historical scenarios or interesting modern ones- without using mods. We know we aren't getting modern Redfor

[Wizard_03]

18 minutes ago, Tippis said:

…and none of which are on the opposing side. So what are you going to build in terms of a sensible scenario? And that's before we even get into the issue where none of those aircraft would even take part of those conflicts — only FC3 aircraft would.

 

Yes, but that just further reinforces the point: that more modern western aircraft would not improve things. Historical models and older variants would, since there are already a reasonably good set of assets to build sensible (and accurately contemporary) scenarios for them. Doubling down on adding more modern ones does not solve the problem that the ones we already have lack proper opposition. It just doubles the problem.

 

Many of those are on the opposing side, for Iraq you have MiG-21/29 and you have their entire suite of Air defenses. As well as all their tanks, APCs. We even have working SCUDs. Which were really important in the war.

 

Same story with Georgia. Including most of their helicopters too.

 

You can and people have, created entire campaigns using those assets, that follow historical and or realistic scenarios. That are indeed fun and challenging to say that you can't, is again just not true.

 

Now Is the exact the hornet we have, one that participated in the Gulf war no, but its pretty dang close. Within a decade, same thing with the viper and Tomcat. We can't reasonably ask ED to replicate every single version of the hornet that ever flew. It would be great but it would also bankrupt them. So I think its very reasonable for them to choose the most advanced version THEY can do and provide legacy weapons so that we can stretch the hornet into lots of scenarios around the same time. Which is exactly what they did.

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Wizard_03]

1 minute ago, upyr1 said:

I know I'm one of the folks that want a cold war gone hot as well as the Vietnam and Korean wars. Right now we don't have enough assets for good historical scenarios or interesting modern ones- without using mods. We know we aren't getting modern Redfor

There are a bunch of cold war assets being added to the game, like MiG-29/23 on the red side and some for blue too. No reason we can't also get an F-15. Besides there is not a huge difference between cold war versions and modern ones. Even if they choose a super advanced one, put sparrows on it and all of a sudden its cold war. ECM suite changes are not going to get modeled, the data link/GPS can be turned off. It would fit in fine.

[Gambit21]

Let me put it this way.

I wish the current F-15 was already full-fidelity - but it's not. 

 

So then given the development cycle, going forward there are other things I'd rather see over the next handful of years...like an AH-1, or an F-4, or Skyraider, or an Akagi carrier, a Zero, a Wildcat....or a UH-60...and on and on. 

 

 

[upyr1]

Just now, Wizard_03 said:

There are a bunch of cold war assets being added to the game, like MiG-29/23 on the red side and some for blue too. No reason we can't also get an F-15. Besides there is not a huge difference between cold war versions and modern ones. Even if they choose a super advanced one, put sparrows on it and all of a sudden its cold war. ECM suite changes are not going to get modeled, the data link/GPS can be turned off. It would fit in fine.

I've said it, I want the cold war F-15C but if there is a noticeable difference and we have to have it then do both,

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Many of those are on the opposing side, for Iraq you have MiG-21/29 and you have their entire suite of Air defenses. As well as all their tanks, APCs. We even have working SCUDs.

Iraq is not represented on any available map and cannot sensibly be added to any mission featuring modern western aircraft.

 

2 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Same story with Georgia. Including most of their helicopters too.

Any conflict in or around Georgia cannot sensibly feature modern western aircraft, and if they did, they would need modern Russian aircraft (and ground systems) to oppose them. We don't have those, which is kind of the whole problem. It's an even worse variant of “cold war gone hot”, since it would require a massive expansion of what's available on the red side. So this is becomes the exact opposite of arguing for more modern western aircraft.

 

2 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

You can and people have, created entire campaigns using those assets, that follow historical and or realistic scenarios.

A historical scenario cannot sensibly use modern western aircraft. That's a contradiction in terms. So again, this becomes a further argument against adding even more modern western aircraft and instead focus on the historically accurate airframes and variants.

 

2 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

We can't reasonably ask ED to replicate every single version of the hornet that ever flew.

No, but we can reasonably ask ED to not waste time on versions that cannot sensibly be included in any kind of scenario that actually takes place on the maps we have, and featuring the opposing units we have at our disposal. We can reasonably ask them to strive towards a realistic mix of units, which means a focus on historical western units to match the historical (predominantly Russian) ones that already exist, or focus on further fleshing out the opposition with historical non-western units brought to the same level of detail as their western counterparts. We could even ask ED to spend time on creating contemporary units to match the modern westerns stuff, except that we already know the answer will be “no” so that's not sensible by default. No matter what, through, more modern western aircraft ends up not making the list. And that is the whole point.

 

2 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

So I think its very reasonable for them to choose the most advanced version THEY can do and provide legacy weapons so that we can stretch the hornet into lots of scenarios around the same time.

It's only reasonable if they can provide an accurate representation of the environment in which those “most advanced” versions exist. And they can't. So it's not particularly reasonable, especially not compared to instead choosing versions that can be given a realistic environment in which to fly. It would also be (slightly less, but still) reasonable not to do them at all and instead focus on broadening that environment so as to allow more units to be more useful.

[Wizard_03]

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

 

Well I disagree, I hope they make the F-15 FF, its why I made this thread.

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Well I disagree, I hope they make the F-15 FF, its why I made this thread.

Then you have completely missed the point I'm making and don't actually disagree with me.

 

At no point have I argued against making a full-fidelity F-15.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Tippis

[Wizard_03]

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

Then you have completely missed the point I'm making and don't actually disagree with me.

No I just like the F-15, I currently enjoy the FC3 one and have played many sensible missions in it. Just wish it was FF

[Tippis]

6 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

No I just like the F-15, I currently enjoy the FC3 one and have played many sensible missions in it. Just wish it was FF

And again, I'm not arguing against that.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Tippis

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, Tippis said:

No, but we can reasonably ask ED to not waste time on versions that cannot sensibly be included in any kind of scenario that actually takes place on the maps we have, and featuring the opposing units we have at our disposal. We can reasonably ask them to strive towards a realistic mix of units, which means a focus on historical western units to match the historical (predominantly Russian) ones that already exist, or focus on further fleshing out the opposition with historical non-western units brought to the same level of detail as their western counterparts. We could even ask ED to spend time on creating contemporary units to match the modern westerns stuff, except that we already know the answer will be “no” so that's not sensible by default. No matter what, through, more modern western aircraft ends up not making the list. And that is the whole point.

 

I know if I had my way on the F-16 and F-18 we would have a gulf war variant. We have the latest versions now, so we're left with the question would it be a good idea to have multiple F-teens. I figure if so then may be we could go with an A and Early C. Though I would like to see ED focus on the Century fighters and their contemporaries but Eagle rolled out an F-teenA or F-teenC Gulf war block I'd buy it

Edited August 11, 2021 by upyr1

[draconus]

17 hours ago, Tippis said:

Yes, but that just further reinforces the point: that more modern western aircraft would not improve things. Historical models and older variants would, since there are already a reasonably good set of assets to build sensible (and accurately contemporary) scenarios for them. Doubling down on adding more modern ones does not solve the problem that the ones we already have lack proper opposition. It just doubles the problem.

Again, it's not about solving any non-existent problem. It's about adding an aircraft. ED's jet team will not suddenly jump to making some new modern red assets anyway. And how do you even define sensible mission design that you say is impossible rn for modern blue fighters?

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by draconus