Early models of the 4th gen jets we already have.

[FlankerKiller]

Like the title states. Having different models of the same airframes is becoming a thing in DCS. I would love to see some Desert Storm era Hornets, Vipers, and Hawgs. They would fit much better with other assets, and modules that we already have, or are getting. 

[falcon_120]

I think we need to have our models finished before that could be even considered a thing. In any case they would be new modules that would need to be charged for.

 

These early models aircraft would in many cases: have different systems, different symbology, reduced weapons, it might even have different engines which would change their flight model.

 

As a lower fidelity workaround, you could define missions with specific weapons restrictions, remove GPS from the mission and play yourself without link 16 and JHMCS to feel closer to what it would be to operate those airframes, and play in a squadron that respect those rules...

 

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

+99999999999999999999999999999

 

They probably should've been so from the get go - they better fit the overwhelming majority of current assets and contemporary, peer REDFOR modules are probably not going to happen for the forseeable future (the best we're likely to get is a 9.12 Fulcrum A from the early 80s).

 

Though I will agree with falcon_120 that they'll essentially be a completely new module (though there should be way more similarities than differences, and a lot of the work has already been done).

Edited December 16, 2020 by Northstar98

[FlankerKiller]

His point is kinda my point. You can't just restrict weapons and be back in the 90's. There not exactly that same jet anymore. I do agree that the Hornet and viper should get completed. Honestly I believe they should have done earlier versions, then offer the upgrade, similar to the A-10. But that isn't how it happened. And the Hornet at least is getting close. And yes there should be a ton of work already done. The Hornet might need new engines, I was looking at it and couldn't tell. The Viper I believe would need new, or old lol, avionics. However I do believe there is enough interest from the community to make doing them worthwhile from a business standpoint. They could increase the cost of the module for new buyers to include the multiple variants, and offer a significant discount to owners of the current modules since they have already paid for a portion of the work. 

[Mr_sukebe]

In a perfect world, I agree.

It would be brill to be able choose a specific version of an aircraft.  The key issue is where to stop?

For example, the F16 has multiple blocks, but is that where it stops?  I’m not familiar enough to comment, but do purchasing countries then further modify?

Do you eventually get to a point of a player looking for an August 2001 version of a Singaporean F16 that has been outfitted for ground attack?

 

If DCS had simplistic modelling, maybe that might be viable.  However, if that made up example required a specific new gauge or set of controls, then DCS would be trying to model it.

 

So right now, ED have taken the route of putting a stake in the ground for what appears to be a good option.  That means that ED can confirm a definitive scope and also plan the budget and expected price for a player.  We know that there’s bound to be some variances against what some players want.

 

Maybe the right question would be whether players would be willing to pay for the development costs for the variant being suggested, as that is really what it comes down to.

 

[Dragon1-1]

I wouldn't mind an F-18A, with mechanical fuel display, mechanical HSI, no HMCS and somewhat more primitive avionics. Wouldn't be that different, and it would go well with the Tomcat. F-16A, while awesome, would have to be a new module. Its avionics resemble the Mirage 2000C more than what we currently have.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Dragon1-1

[Northstar98]

6 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I wouldn't mind an F-18A, with mechanical fuel display, mechanical HSI, no HMCS and somewhat more primitive avionics. Wouldn't be that different, and it would go well with the Tomcat. F-16A, while awesome, would have to be a new module. Its avionics resemble the Mirage 2000C more than what we currently have.

 

 

Agreed on the F-16A front, given that it is more on the extreme end of the scale, but what about variants like a late 80s/early 90s F-16CG Block 40? An aircraft that would fit the vast majority of current assets in DCS, and would fit handsomely with a Balklans theatre. 

 

Personally I think what Aerges is doing with the Spanish Mirage F1 variants is fantastic, providing aircraft with multiple roles and of different eras. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Northstar98

[Dragon1-1]

I think you could even get down to block 32, it already had MFDs and most of the other things. Block 40 would work well, too.

[FlankerKiller]

4 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

In a perfect world, I agree.

It would be brill to be able choose a specific version of an aircraft.  The key issue is where to stop?

For example, the F16 has multiple blocks, but is that where it stops?  I’m not familiar enough to comment, but do purchasing countries then further modify?

Do you eventually get to a point of a player looking for an August 2001 version of a Singaporean F16 that has been outfitted for ground attack?

 

If DCS had simplistic modelling, maybe that might be viable.  However, if that made up example required a specific new gauge or set of controls, then DCS would be trying to model it.

 

So right now, ED have taken the route of putting a stake in the ground for what appears to be a good option.  That means that ED can confirm a definitive scope and also plan the budget and expected price for a player.  We know that there’s bound to be some variances against what some players want.

 

Maybe the right question would be whether players would be willing to pay for the development costs for the variant being suggested, as that is really what it comes down to.

 

That is a good point. Heatblur has 4 versions of the Tomcat that they are doing, and I agree that isn't entirely feasible. So to be clear, I'm not asking for an F/A-18A, or an F-16A. I'm asking, or wishing, for earlier versions of the C models we have. I would like to see a full fidelity A-10A though. As for what models, that does get complicated. But I would suggest pick out notable historical conflicts that the airframe in question participated in. Gulf war, the Yugoslavian intervention, ect for example. Or just do an early, middle, and late block to keep it simple. As for is there interest? There seems to be. Maybe myself and a few others are a vocal minority. But the late cold war is a really interesting time. There are plenty of different airframes ether in game, or coming that fit the time period. Also there seems to be a 4th gen fatigue setting in. Add to that the old weapons for the Hornet are cool a hell, and a ton of fun to figure out how to utilize. Plus the shear challenge that is dumb bombing, and I think there will be plenty enough intest from the community to make it worthwhile. 

[Mars Exulte]

@sukebe

Yeah, each country is apt to further modify. That's why the DCS F-16 is a certain block, certain year, certain country, certain branch. And even then there's a bit of adlibing. Imo, earlier gen stuff would have been better across the board for production and gameplay purposes, but while restrictions do not an older aircraft make, no matter how they go about it, there's unavoidable adlibing required if you take the aircraft out of the EXACT scenario it was designed around. So whether your improvising a later block as an earlier one, a USAF F-16 as an Israeli one, etc etc etc, it never ends.

 

It's easier to simply not use AMRAAMS and Link-16 than it is to have an earlier aircraft lacking those systems and being completely restricted, which is I imagine why they went with the current system. People are going to have to improvise either way, expecting multiple versions of the same plane to be the norm is unrealistic for a profit making business.

[Northstar98]

 

Quote

 

It's easier to simply not use AMRAAMS and Link-16 than it is to have an earlier aircraft lacking those systems and being completely restricted, which is I imagine why they went with the current system. People are going to have to improvise either way, expecting multiple versions of the same plane to be the norm is unrealistic for a profit making business.

 

True, but it depends on the differences between the variants, and I don't expect a single module to contain multiple variants for the price of 1, I'm more expecting something like the A-10C and A-10C II upgrade. Though there is Aerges, giving us 4 variants of the Mirage F1, with some pretty significant differences.

 

Personally, I think developing modern variants was a move that while very popular, was kinda shot to the foot, especially since contemporary REDFOR is basically a no go - I think it would've been better to do an older aircraft, and then maybe offer payware variants that aren't too dissimilar - in exact fashion to the A-10C II.

 

There are products that will give you much more comprehensive variants; though of course we can dive into whatever reasons that better allow it for one platform, but not DCS owing to simplifications or whatever.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Northstar98

[FlankerKiller]

I would agree, hopefully you could ether pay a larger price for the pack, or a base price for the module you want, then a discounted price for earlier blocks. 

[bies]

MiG-29 9.12 is coming!

In it's first best performance variant from 1980s, without any humpback, modern gizmos and spAMRAAMs.

 

Some F-16C block 30 as a counterpart later on?

Edited December 21, 2020 by bies

[Northstar98]

Awesome news!

 

Personally any 80s F-16 would do, from the F-16A Block 15 right up to the F-16CG Block 40. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Northstar98

[wilbur81]

On 12/16/2020 at 9:38 AM, FlankerKiller said:

Like the title states. Having different models of the same airframes is becoming a thing in DCS. I would love to see some Desert Storm era Hornets, Vipers, and Hawgs. They would fit much better with other assets, and modules that we already have, or are getting. 

Want Desert Storm era? Leave Datalink off and only carry Sparrows and Dumb Munitions. I have ZERO interest in ED spending precious time and resources on nuanced old-models. I think many (Most?) of us are ready to move on to completion of what we already have and continued focus on what will make this a great(er) game/sim: i.e. Weather, ATC, and the Dynamic Campaign.

 

People bring up Heatblur all the time with their B and A model Tomcats... forgetting that they had ONE job: and they did a BRILLIANT one at that! ED has so much more on their plate than wasted ((in my opinion) time on 90s vs 2000s models of the aircraft we already have.

Edited December 21, 2020 by wilbur81

[Northstar98]

17 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

Want Desert Storm era? Leave Datalink off and only carry Sparrows and Dumb Munitions.

 

And have the wrong RADAR, HUD, RWR, and no TGP?

 

Quote

I have ZERO interest in ED spending precious time and resources on nuanced old-models.

 

If you're not interested, that's absolutely fine.

 

The only thing I will say is that these 'nuanced old-models' should probably have been the ones to go with from the get go; purely because the vast majority of assets in DCS are mid-to-late Cold War era stuff, plus for the foreseeable future, the latest REDFOR we're going to get, out of ED at least, is an 80s MiG-29, which better fits older variants much better than our current, modern ones. 

 

Quote

I think many (Most?) of us are ready to move on to completion of what we already have and continued focus on what will make this a great(er) game/sim: i.e. Weather, ATC, and the Dynamic Campaign.

 

Absolutely, I'd much rather the current set get completed or upgraded to a common standard, where possible, before adding completely new stuff. But then, this is more a question of priorities. And here I'll completely agree that overhauling the weather, ATC, damage models, AI etc should take precedence over adding a new variant of an existing module, as those things will markedly improve the experience for everyone.  

 

Quote

People bring up Heatblur all the time with their B and A model Tomcats... forgetting that they had ONE job: and they did a BRILLIANT one at that! ED has so much more on their plate than wasted ((in my opinion) time on 90s vs 2000s models of the aircraft we already have.

 

I'll disagree on the wasted, but that's just opinion talking. I will concede with Heatblur's Tomcat though, amazing as it is. Personally, I can't wait for the Aerges Mirage F1 as we'll be getting 3 legacy versions, including a 2 seater, plus a modernised one, which I think is fantastic.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Northstar98

[FlankerKiller]

While I respect you opinion, and agree that ED needs to finish what they started, particularly in regards to the Viper, and that wether, ATC, and a dynamic campaign are seriously needed. However already sold modules, and core features do not make a profit. A profit that can then be applied to core features. There is at least a vocal minority that wants late cold war content. Also the Best we are gonna get on the Russian/USSR side of things is late cold war content. I can't imagine that it takes anywhere near the effort to modify an existing module as it dose to create on from scratch, and even at a discount it could be sold at a profit. So more sales, means more programmers and more resources for more products and features. It isn't really a choice between one or the other. It's more like more of one allows the other. 

 

Although if ED wants to let a third party make older, or multiple versions of there 4th gen jets I'm fine with that. 

 

On top of all that, I'm an aviation enthusiast, and I'm more then a little interested in flying different versions of the same jets. 

 

As for just carrying sparrows, and no data link. Well one, how do I carry sparrows on my F-16 as it is? Two, as was discussed earlier just turning off the data link, and carrying older weapons isn't the same as having the older blocks. The gulf war was as a major event that the Hornet, Viper, and Hawg took part in. And the Yugoslavian intervention was another. This is what these jets did in there prime. If the cold war had gone hot at the end, it would be the jets that I'm wishing for battling the jets from flaming cliffs that would have fought it. 

[wilbur81]

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

While I respect you opinion...

And I yours. We'll agree to disagree. 

[TotenDead]

10 hours ago, bies said:

MiG-29 9.12 is coming!

In it's first best performance variant from 1980s, without any humpback, modern gizmos and spAMRAAMs.

 

Some F-16C block 30 as a counterpart later on?

 

Do you really need another amraam carrier to counter a 9.12? 16A block 15 would be just ok 

[Dragon1-1]

The F-16A would be a completely different aircraft, though, needing a completely new cockpit. Block 20 is an interesting option, since they could get away with reusing many of the current Viper's assets. It has a similar avionics, but performance is still that of an A variant. Alternatively, block 25 didn't yet have the Slammer capability, but it did have the fancy cockpit.

 

If they were going to do the A model, I'd rather see a block 10, with the small fin and no chin hardpoints. That would be the closest MiG-29A 9.12 equivalent, a heaters-only lightweight dogfighter.

[bies]

A block 5, 10 and C block 30 were the best dogfighters.

 

"A" was the lightest with best instantaneous turn rate and having more analog cockpit.

 

C block 30 was the most produced variant, it was half ton lighter than our block 50, didn't have chin hardpoints and it was the first with GE 30,000 pounds class thrust - it had the best kinematic performance like acceleration, climb rate, sustained turn rate. It came service in mid 1980s.

Edited December 22, 2020 by bies

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Do you really need another amraam carrier to counter a 9.12? 16A block 15 would be just ok 

 

If it was an 80s variant it wouldn't have AMRAAM capability, AMRAAM came in the early 90s.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Northstar98

[Dragon1-1]

Block 30 was the first one to have AMRAAM capability. It was introduced in 1987, AIM-120 was in advanced development then, and they incorporated the capability to carry it. When people think "Gulf War F-16", it's this one they're referring to. 

[FlankerKiller]

My understanding is all the 4th gens, caveat I don't consider the 4th gen to have started until the introduction of relaxed static stability and FBW, were designed to carry the AMRAAMs. Even the F-20 was planning to use them. The C block 30 would be awsome. If after 91 it could carry the AIM-120A which would be pretty cool. And could still carry the B and C depending on time. I think it would also cure some of the dissatisfaction with the Vipers BFM capabilities. Also being the most produced variant it could be adlibed as an export version in the modern era. It could carry the Srike, as well as the HARM, and so its load out could be tailored to the year, and county using it. It would be a really cool variant, I hope ED is reading and agrees. I'd buy it, and might even fly it. 

Edited December 22, 2020 by FlankerKiller

[henshao]

14 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

My understanding is all the 4th gens, caveat I don't consider the 4th gen to have started until the introduction of relaxed static stability and FBW, were designed to carry the AMRAAMs. Even the F-20 was planning to use them. The C block 30 would be awsome. If after 91 it could carry the AIM-120A which would be pretty cool. And could still carry the B and C depending on time. I think it would also cure some of the dissatisfaction with the Vipers BFM capabilities. Also being the most produced variant it could be adlibed as an export version in the modern era. It could carry the Srike, as well as the HARM, and so its load out could be tailored to the year, and county using it. It would be a really cool variant, I hope ED is reading and agrees. I'd buy it, and might even fly it. 

 

Pretty interesting you don't consider the Tomcat, F-15, or Mig-29 4th gen by those combined criteria