No Newer Red Side Aircraft to compete with the advancing capabilities of the Blue Side Aircraft

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, killkenny1 said:

M (9.15) was before SMT. It was developed in 80ies and already had some MFDs. Its cockpit looks pretty cool - for me it is a perfect combination of digital and analogue instruments. OG K (9.31) was based on M. They were both single seaters and featured some cool weapons for the time.

 

I mean, if you can stick to what's accurate, then I'm down for a 9.15 MiG-29M, in general I prefer production aircraft (particularly those that are more prolific with large production runs), but I'm absolutly not against prototypes or tech demonstrators or aircraft with an otherwise limited production run - just so long as the systems and payloads stay as grounded in reality where possible.

 

But the SMT just makes my eyes bleed every time I look at one.

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi all,

 

we have said many times to get the clearance and detailed public information for Redfor jets is difficult, we are well aware of the desire and the need, sadly reality gets in the way. We have mentioned in the past we would like to do the Mig-29 but we can not confirm it yet, we remain hopeful.

 

Feel free to discuss, it has been done many times, but please keep the discussion of other sims out, their play styles and plane sets are no factor in our decision process. We want to be as realistic as possible and balance on the battlefield is not something we are working towards, producing the most realistic aircraft is what we aspire to. 

 

thanks

This is why I say that we need more older Blue For jets. We have the MiG-19 and MiG-19 so why not the F-100, F-4 Phantom II or F-105?

[Bloodlet]

12 hours ago, 5ephir0th said:

Let me tell you something: DCS has nothing to do with War Thunder. War Thunder is a multiplayer arcade game, DCS is a single player (or cooperative) focused flight simulator, theres no balance and theres no needed. The multiplayer on DCS is an AddOn, not the base of the game.

 

It will be great if theres more high fidelity russian planes? Of course! I´ll kill for a Flanker family module, i have the Black Shark II and i bought the Hind cause i want some "soviet like" cockpit.

 

In other hand, if you fly online on a Navy Hornet against an Iranian Tomcat, the time the 14 appears on RWR you know you will outranged insanely by radar and missile range but you cant call for balance, thats the way war works

Let me tell you something, they are both games and people play them to have FUN. Balance should always exist in games because of their nature. Maybe you're the kind of person who likes to play with cheat codes but I like a challenge and balance in my games. Even if the balance is asymetrical in nature (i.e. Starcraft). I am not saying that vehicle stats should be unhistorically altered as you attempted to strawman but as the other person who replied to you posted, planes should fly against their contemporaries, not vehicles a decade or more behind them.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Bloodlet

[upyr1]

16 minutes ago, Bloodlet said:

Let me tell you something, they are both games and people play them to have FUN. Balance should always exist in games because of their nature. Maybe you're the kind of person who likes to play with cheat codes but I like a challenge and balance in my games. Even if the balances is asymetrical in nature (i.e. Starcraft). I am not saying that vehicle stats should be unhistorically altered as you attempted to strawman but as the other person who replied to you posted, planes should fly against their contemporaries, not vehicles a decade or more behind them.

I get it you don't like beating up MiG-19s and 21s in an F-teen. Eagle says that the biggest obstacle to the Red For planes is Russian and Chinese law, so unless that changes we're stuck using flaming cliffs or older BlueFor aircraft. 

 

[Blackhawk NC]

I am not sure about the version of the viper, f-16c block 50, but i think it entered service  in the very early nineties. Our version of the Hornet, the f-18 lot 20, entered service in the late 1980's. The Aim-9 X and the AIM-120C entered service around 1996. In DCS World, we saw fit to advance the technology far enough so that we could use a very late model missile on two much older airframes. We also advanced them so that a helmet guided targeting system could be included, which I don't believe was originally part of these production runs (not sure though).  Some of the various hang on systems were also developed well after this version was built. But we are comfortable with including these very handy, very advanced options in DCS.  Shouldn't we limit the armaments to the weapons and systems available at the time of production instead of saying that "this aircraft got these improvements later anyway , we can pretty accurately simulate them and these Blue pilots will love this"? Perhaps we are simulating a "much later" production run of the f-16  and the f-18..... or perhaps the aircraft is after the air force wide modernization?

My point is an SU-27 or a J-11 might be a very effective opponent for a production 1996 F-16c or a 1987 F-18c.

I am not sure about the version of the viper, f-16c block 50, but i think it entered service  in the very early nineties. Our version of the Hornet, the f-18 lot 20, entered service in the late 1980's. The Aim-9 X and the AIM-120C entered service around 1996. In DCS World, we saw fit to advance the technology far enough so that we could use a very late model missile on two much older airframes. We also advanced them so that a helmet guided targeting system could be included, which I don't believe was originally part of these production runs (not sure though).  Some of the various hang on systems were also developed well after this version was built. But we are comfortable with including these very handy, very advanced options in DCS.  Shouldn't we limit the armaments to the weapons and systems available at the time of production instead of saying that "this aircraft got these improvements later anyway , we can pretty accurately simulate them and these Blue pilots will love this"? Perhaps we are simulating a "much later" production run of the f-16  and the f-18..... or perhaps the aircraft is after the air force wide modernization?

My point is an SU-27 or a J-11 might be a very effective opponent for a production 1996 F-16c or a 1987 F-18c.

I am not sure about the version of the viper, f-16c block 50, but i think it entered service  in the very early nineties. Our version of the Hornet, the f-18 lot 20, entered service in the late 1980's. The Aim-9 X and the AIM-120C entered service around 1996. In DCS World, we saw fit to advance the technology far enough so that we could use a very late model missile on two much older airframes. We also advanced them so that a helmet guided targeting system could be included, which I don't believe was originally part of these production runs (not sure though).  Some of the various hang on systems were also developed well after this version was built. But we are comfortable with including these very handy, very advanced options in DCS.  Shouldn't we limit the armaments to the weapons and systems available at the time of production instead of saying that "this aircraft got these improvements later anyway , we can pretty accurately simulate them and these Blue pilots will love this"? Perhaps we are simulating a "much later" production run of the f-16  and the f-18..... or perhaps the aircraft is after the air force wide modernization?

My point is an SU-27 or a J-11 might be a very effective opponent for a production 1996 F-16c or a 1987 F-18c.

sorry i didnt think it sent......LOL sent three times...

[5ephir0th]

2 hours ago, Bloodlet said:

Let me tell you something, they are both games and people play them to have FUN. Balance should always exist in games because of their nature. Maybe you're the kind of person who likes to play with cheat codes but I like a challenge and balance in my games. Even if the balance is asymetrical in nature (i.e. Starcraft). I am not saying that vehicle stats should be unhistorically altered as you attempted to strawman but as the other person who replied to you posted, planes should fly against their contemporaries, not vehicles a decade or more behind them.

 

 

Take care of calling me "cheater", you are taking your feet out of the pot.

As i said previously, i want a high fidelity Flanker, but not for balance reasons, just because i want to fly it. Starcraft has three different and BALANCED races, it´s a competitive game, cmon, it´s the game that started esports! Seriously you will use that game to compare with DCS?

And, for last (and most important) you may have not read what ED as stated MANY times, ED has no released ANY (relative modern) russian fighter because they dont want to, they cant cause Russia politics. Remember, is not what you want, it´s what ED can do on first

Edited July 31, 2021 by 5ephir0th

[nighthawk2174]

4 hours ago, Blackhawk NC said:

I am not sure about the version of the viper, f-16c block 50, but i think it entered service  in the very early nineties.

Yes for the blk50 but the CCIP upgrades which includes stuff like IFF and the sniper pod started being integrated in 2001.

4 hours ago, Blackhawk NC said:

Our version of the Hornet, the f-18 lot 20, entered service in the late 1980's.

Early 2000's was the lot-20 production years.

4 hours ago, Blackhawk NC said:

The Aim-9 X and the AIM-120C entered service around 1996. In DCS World, we saw fit to advance the technology far enough so that we could use a very late model missile on two much older airframes. We also advanced them so that a helmet guided targeting system could be included,

TBF DCS is supposed to be set around 2008, the same time as the Georgian war.

4 hours ago, Blackhawk NC said:

which I don't believe was originally part of these production runs (not sure though).  

They weren't came around the same time the 9x did.

4 hours ago, Blackhawk NC said:

Some of the various hang on systems were also developed well after this version was built. But we are comfortable with including these very handy, very advanced options in DCS.  Shouldn't we limit the armaments to the weapons and systems available at the time of production instead of saying that "this aircraft got these improvements later anyway , we can pretty accurately simulate them and these Blue pilots will love this"? Perhaps we are simulating a "much later" production run of the f-16  and the f-18..... or perhaps the aircraft is after the air force wide modernization?

We have latter production version and versions that were upgraded with new electronics.  They are really not the same aircraft as their original production models.

4 hours ago, Blackhawk NC said:

My point is an SU-27 or a J-11 might be a very effective opponent for a production 1996 F-16c or a 1987 F-18c.

Maybe but by the time they showed up in numbers, especially when the 27ER's showed up in numbers, AMRAAM was in service.  Really its only advantage would be the archer but it has limitations and the 9M is not a bad missile.

 

[bies]

6 hours ago, Blackhawk NC said:

I am not sure about the version of the viper, f-16c block 50, but i think it entered service  in the very early nineties. Our version of the Hornet, the f-18 lot 20, entered service in the late 1980's.

 

Just to clarify:

 

The first F-16 Block 50 entered production 1997 (very different than our DCS Block 50 CCIP, without Link16, without JHMCS, different IFF and many other pieces of avionics/weapon/pods integration) Our CCIP represents year 2007.

 

The first F/A-18C Lot 20 entered production 1998 (than our DCS configuration, without Link16, without JHMCS

and many other pieces of avionics/weapon integration) Our F/A-18C represents year ~2005.

 

AIM-9X entered service 2004.

[5ephir0th]

5 hours ago, Bloodlet said:

I didn't call you a cheater smooth brain, I said maybe you like using cheat codes in games. It was a metaphor to illustrate that maybe you don't like to be challenged.

 

And you basically said the same thing I did about Starcraft but judging by your responses so far I don't think you're smart enough to realize it.

 

For your last point, I don't care what they have said in the past. That doesn't mean we shouldn't voice our opinions on wanting balanced matchups in the future.

 

You may show some respect when talking, at least the same i use to you.

 

I said i want a modern, high fidelity, russian fighter, you say maybe i don’t want because i don’t want to be challenged, and i am the one not smart enough, well, enough talk with you

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

TBF DCS is supposed to be set around 2008, the same time as the Georgian war.

 

I guess you could that, it's what the base game kinda centres around, but the DCS Caucasus map represents the area that predates 2008, it's more somewhere around the 90s IIRC.

 

It also misses out a key airbase in the war, that being Marnueli.

 

At the moment the era that's most flushed out is WWII.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Northstar98

[Max1mus]

On 7/29/2021 at 5:29 PM, near_blind said:

Just out of curiosity, what are you expecting? Assuming 'balance', the Russian aircraft that would be in service against a 2005 Hornet and a 2007 F-16 would be a Su-27S. In fact it would be the same Su-27S we have in FC3. The upgraded Su-27SMs didn't exist in anything other than one or two off prototypes until 2010, and even then they were just entering squadron service in limited numbers. The Su-35S wouldn't be a deployable thing until around the Russian intervention in Syria around 2015. A handful of Su-30s existed in the 90s, but they were closer to a two seater Su-27S than the Indian and Chinese commercial variants and their derivatives. Russia itself wouldn't actually domestically acquire the fancy version until the 2010s. MiG-29 development also kind of cratered: the MiG-29M technically exists in 2005, but no one seems to want it, so do with that what you will. 

So if you want a contemporary fighter to the current western options, you can choose between: The Su-27 we have, the Su-33 we have, the MiG-29 we have, an export Su-30 (good luck getting the technical details), or an upgraded MiG-29. All of these except the export Su-30 will also be shooting Alamos, because Russia didn't think the R-77 was worth spending extra money on.

If I were you, I'd go ask China to bestow the blessings of J-10s and J-8IIs upon us. 

 

You are completely wrong. The Su-27SM is from 2003, with dozens produced until the 2010s and the Su-30MKI from 2001 was quoted to be superior to the american 4th gen planes during red flag. The Su-30MK2 from China carries russian missiles and the very capable PL-12. The J-11B is good, any exported Su-30 with N011 (MKA, MKM) is very good. The list goes on and on. MiG-29M and K from 2009 are good, especially when fitted with the slightly newer R-77-1.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Max1mus

[Max1mus]

8 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

Maybe but by the time they showed up in numbers, especially when the 27ER's showed up in numbers, AMRAAM was in service.  Really its only advantage would be the archer but it has limitations and the 9M is not a bad missile.

 

The ER is supposed to be very competitive with the early 120s. As stated by american red flag controllers, a real ex-F-14/15 pilot and by the russian Su-27/Su-35 pilot on these forums. The latter even said: "Plus minus parity" when asked about it.

 

Regardless, DCS has the Charlie AMRAAM, 9X and Link16 and is coming out with the 2019 Eurofighter with Meteors. Redfor needs at the very least an early 2000s Su-30 with N011 (or a Chinese one with PL-12). Against the Eurofighter, more like a Su-35 and a chinese one with PL-15.

 

If not in full fidelity, at least for the aggressors in FC3 and as AI.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Max1mus

[Blackhawk NC]

All of the above are very good points! However this begs the question, is DCS going to continue to update the Blue side aircraft with more and more modern equipment? As they gain enough data to do so and the information becomes available to a point where it is reasonably reliable, where reasonable performance assumptions can be made based on available data, will DCS update the viper and the hornet to those more modern standards? Would that be like moving the actual production date of the simulated aircraft to later version? If they do that, won't it completely destroy ANY real PVP play? That was the original point of this thread..... At what point will DCS say that Blue side is so technologically far ahead of any opposition aircraft that it is a moot point to even develop OPFOR aircraft? AND ARE WE ALREADY THERE?

[Max1mus]

On 7/30/2021 at 12:58 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Hi all,

 

we have said many times to get the clearance and detailed public information for Redfor jets is difficult, we are well aware of the desire and the need, sadly reality gets in the way. We have mentioned in the past we would like to do the Mig-29 but we can not confirm it yet, we remain hopeful.

 

Feel free to discuss, it has been done many times, but please keep the discussion of other sims out, their play styles and plane sets are no factor in our decision process. We want to be as realistic as possible and balance on the battlefield is not something we are working towards, producing the most realistic aircraft is what we aspire to. 

 

thanks

 

What about AI? What prevents you from increasing the radar gimbals of the Su-30 (to 100-115) and giving it the MiG-31 PESA code and TWS? You would be turning it into an MKI/MKM from the early 2000s without any classified info needed.

 

Add an AI Su-30MK2 for China with the PL-12.

 

Balance or imbalance is up to mission makers, right? In that case, if you really want to allow for challenging scenarios, add aircraft with the R-77-1 like an AI MiG-29K. The missile should be around an AIM-120C in terms of range and AIM-120D technologically, should not be too hard to add.

 

On a side note, please make sure multiple people in ED design these missile/aircraft capabilties and not just one person.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Max1mus

[Exorcet]

13 minutes ago, Blackhawk NC said:

At what point will DCS say that Blue side is so technologically far ahead of any opposition aircraft that it is a moot point to even develop OPFOR aircraft? AND ARE WE ALREADY THERE?

That point can never be reached. PvP doesn't have to use the most modern planes, and DCS has a single player side.

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

18 hours ago, Blackhawk NC said:

All of the above are very good points! However this begs the question, is DCS going to continue to update the Blue side aircraft with more and more modern equipment? As they gain enough data to do so and the information becomes available to a point where it is reasonably reliable, where reasonable performance assumptions can be made based on available data, will DCS update the viper and the hornet to those more modern standards? Would that be like moving the actual production date of the simulated aircraft to later version? If they do that, won't it completely destroy ANY real PVP play? That was the original point of this thread..... At what point will DCS say that Blue side is so technologically far ahead of any opposition aircraft that it is a moot point to even develop OPFOR aircraft? AND ARE WE ALREADY THERE?

When an opfor goverment gives/sells  them the documentation.

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by IkarusC42B Pilot

[Blackhawk NC]

But would you fly a sopwith camel against an f-22....  It would offer no fun value! and no fun, no reason to purchase new products from DCS.

Or perhaps DCS should limit the updates to these production blocks to conform to the time period that is being simulated.

I doubt and Viper would be a welcome addition in the channel map with the FW-190

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Blackhawk NC said:

But would you fly a sopwith camel against an f-22....  It would offer no fun value! and no fun, no reason to purchase new products from DCS.

 

At least for me, a big part of the fun that DCS offers me, is learning to fly a new aircraft and master its systems .. it doesn't matter if it is an F-18, a Mig-19 or a Mosquito ... the challenge and fun is still there.

 

But I can understand that for other people the fun is on competitive aspects ... those are the people that request better weapons, better sensors, complain that their favorite weapon was "nerfed", claim for "balance" on their multiplayer servers, etc.

 

So, I will keep purchasing whatever new aircraft enters the DCS market, and keep not caring for the MP aspects of the sim. 

[kseremak]

2 hours ago, Blackhawk NC said:

If they do that, won't it completely destroy ANY real PVP play?

 

No it will destroy ONLY post '80s PVP play. Everything since WW2, through Korea, Vietnam, Middle Eastern wars, Falklands, Afganistan up to 1991 Desert Storm is, and will remain, balanced and competitive.

Post Desert Storm already is, and will remain, one sideded due to Russian law. We are getting many '80s Soviet aircrafts in the near future to DCS.

 

 

 

Quote

Simple solution: add F-16A and F/A-18A - voilà!  Issue solved!

 

Then we would have Cold War NATO vs Warsaw Pact the same timeframe 1980s both REALISTIC and BALANCED at the same time: 

 

MiG-29A and F-16A/F-18A, 

Mi-24P and Gazelle M/Bolkov-105,

Su-25A and A-10A, 

MiG-21bis and F-5E,

Su-27S and F-15C,

Su-17M and A-6E/A-7E,

MiG-23MLA and Mirage F.1/F-14A

Mi-8 and UH-1,

L-39 and C-101,

MiG-19 and F-8J

and so on.

All reasonably realistic, declassified, possible to model for both sides (no US Navy vs. USAF spAMRAAM), with attractive close skill-based gameplay, mostly manual weapon employment and all the sexiest 4th generation airframes.

 

This.

[nighthawk2174]

2 hours ago, kseremak said:

 

No it will destroy ONLY post '80s PVP play. Everything since WW2, through Korea, Vietnam, Middle Eastern wars, Falklands, Afganistan up to 1991 Desert Storm is, and will remain, balanced and competitive.

Post Desert Storm already is, and will remain, one sideded due to Russian law. We are getting many '80s Soviet aircrafts in the near future to DCS.

 

 

 

 

This.

I mean its kind of one sided irl anyway (even at times in the past), it was just recently that over half of the Russian fleet was the flanker B.  And the 77-1 only started being acquired, having only just got a contract in the late 2010's, and is still in low numbers and even then performance wise it can't compete with the C7/D/Meteor.   And even with the modern PESA's their predicted detection range against the F22/F35 (and their predicted RCS values with RAM) puts their detection range on such targets below 40NMI.  A bit higher if the 35/22 is not facing the flanker within a 30-40 deg cone to its front where its stealth is maximized.  Getting something like the su30 would bring a much better radar and a glass cockpit but it would still have the 27ER's, a rather poor TGP, and a very limited selection of precision munitions compared to western jets.

[Exorcet]

4 hours ago, Blackhawk NC said:

But would you fly a sopwith camel against an f-22....  It would offer no fun value! and no fun, no reason to purchase new products from DCS.

Or perhaps DCS should limit the updates to these production blocks to conform to the time period that is being simulated.

I doubt and Viper would be a welcome addition in the channel map with the FW-190

I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

If the Sopwith Camel and F-22 were in DCS, it wouldn't be an issue. The Camel would be worth getting for flying in WWI scenarios where no F-22 would be present. The F-22 would be flown in more modern missions.

 

DCS shouldn't limit anything when it comes to modules. There is no reason to do this. The mission editor provides balance. No one flying the Fw-190 cares about the F-16 because they will never have to fight one.

 

I'd also very much like modern red aircraft to be featured in DCS, but it's difficult to do. DCS also isn't a strictly PvP, mirror matched teams, focused game, so I absolutely disagree with limiting blue modules just because the red side is limited. Eventually we'll have earlier 4th and 3rd gen blue fighters and the people interested in balanced PvP will have the opportunity to limit their servers to these planes.

[Xilon_x]

il caccia rosso competitivo è MIG31 MIG25 MIG23 (aggiornamento MIG-21) SU34, SU37, SU47 e aggiornamento MIG29).

 

 

in RED SIDE MISSING NEW CINESE FIGHTER in BLUE SIDE MISSING JAPPANESE TAIWANESE and important INDIAN FIGHTER. 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Xilon_x

[near_blind]

7 hours ago, Max1mus said:

The Su-27SM is from 2003 with dozens produced until the 2010s

Source? Best source I've found so far is Comrade Gordon who has the SM as a prototype in '05, entering initial squadron service in '08, and becoming widespread thereafter. The SM3 is post 2010. The point is that even if we take the '05 date, there are 10 Su-27SMs in service compared to 300 Su-27Ss. The -27S is far more representative of the RuAF at that time in the same way the F-16 and F/A-18 are for the US Air Force and Navy. There were F-22s around at that point then there were Su-27SMs. 

 

Quote

and the Su-30MKI from 2001 was quoted to be superior to the american 4th gen planes during red flag. The Su-30MK2 from China carries russian missiles and the very capable PL-12. The J-11B is good, any exported Su-30 with N011 (MKA, MKM) is very good. The list goes on and on. MiG-29M and K from 2009 are good, especially when fitted with the slightly newer R-77-1

Hey, if you can get documents on the Export Gucci Flankers, all the power to you, I don't think those countries are going to share. With the exception of the Chinese, you're still going to be stuck to the weapons you have currently. Chinese Flankers would be awesome, I don't think you'll ever see them outside of AI units. Judging by the export and domestic, err... success, of the MiG-29M... get it if you can, I guess? The R-77-1 doesn't exist until 2014 at the earliest, by that point AIM-120D is well into US frontline service and the -120C-7 is something akin to old news, much less the C-5.

tl;dr get Chinese or get tactical. 

[Brevillance]

A sim is a game, regardless of what anyone says. There are different levels to a game, such that a game like need for speed is easier than forza, but forza is easier than iracing or rfactor. They are all games though, just how much they strive to be realistic is different between then.

 

DCS is a game, it will always be a game. 

 

"video game - noun"

a game in which you press buttons to control and move images on a screen

[bies]

12 hours ago, nighthawk2174 said:

I mean its kind of one sided irl anyway (even at times in the past), it was just recently that over half of the Russian fleet was the flanker B.  And the 77-1 only started being acquired, having only just got a contract in the late 2010's, and is still in low numbers and even then performance wise it can't compete with the C7/D/Meteor. 

 

Yes. When the Soviet Union collapsed any kind of parity disappeared immediately. Soviet Union's military spending was comparable with the USA, with nominal US dollars! Russia spent about 9 times less than the USA in similar measures so any parity or balance never existed since the fall of the Soviet empire.

 

Not to mention the Soviet Union operated 11-12,000 combat aircrafts + about 3 thousands of the rest of WARPAC. Russia operates 1500-1600 combat aircrafts.