Lace Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 Since there is not a day which goes by without some forumite lamenting the lack of 'modern' REDFOR aircraft and the resulting MP imbalance, perhaps one solution would be to add earlier versions of the BLUEFOR aircraft we have? 'A' model Viper, Hornet and (FF, not FC3) A-10 would be a great fit for the current REDFOR lineup. Flight models already exist and would just need tweaking, and there are fewer complex systems to create, so one would hope development time would be significantly shorter. They could also serve as a less intimidating option for new users, still realistic, but less complex in a similar way to the F-5. I know there is probably little financial incentive for ED, given most users will want the latest-and-greatest versions, but this is the wishlist thread, so I'm sticking with it. 12 Laptop Pilot. Alienware X17, i9 11980HK 5.0GHz, 16GB RTX 3080, 64GB DDR4 3200MHz, NVMe SSD. 2x TM Warthog, Hornet grip, Virpil CM2 & TPR pedals, FSSB-R3, Cougar throttle, Viper pit WIP (XBox360 when traveling). Rift S. NTTR, SoH, Syria, Sinai, Channel, South Atlantic, CA, Supercarrier, FC3, A-10CII, F-5, F-14, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Harrier, M2000, F1, Viggen, MiG-21, Yak-52, L-39, MB-339, CE2, Gazelle, Ka-50, Mi-8, Mi-24, Huey, Apache, Spitfire, Mossie. Wishlist: Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer, F-117 and F-111. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northstar98 Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Lace said: Since there is not a day which goes by without some forumite lamenting the lack of 'modern' REDFOR aircraft and the resulting MP imbalance, perhaps one solution would be to add earlier versions of the BLUEFOR aircraft we have? 'A' model Viper, Hornet and (FF, not FC3) A-10 would be a great fit for the current REDFOR lineup. Flight models already exist and would just need tweaking, and there are fewer complex systems to create, so one would hope development time would be significantly shorter. They could also serve as a less intimidating option for new users, still realistic, but less complex in a similar way to the F-5. I know there is probably little financial incentive for ED, given most users will want the latest-and-greatest versions, but this is the wishlist thread, so I'm sticking with it. I absolutely agree. Or even older variants of our current C models. And given the situation with modern REDFOR, the most feasible solution is to have older BLUFOR modules, that are contemporaries of REDFOR modules that are actually doable. An F-16A Block 15 is the perfect BLUFOR counterpart to the 9-12 MiG-29 [NATO: "Fulcrum A"] that ED are interested in doing. Personally, I think developers should have done these older modules in the first place, and then offer upgrade packs for newer variants once the older variants are close to completion, in exactly the same fashion as the A-10C. To me, it makes much more sense from just about every angle to do it that way, than to start with the latest and greatest and then work backwards. Edited August 1, 2021 by Northstar98 8 Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk. Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas. System: GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV. Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bies Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 (edited) Agree, as i wrote like 2 days ago in similar topic: Solution is simple: 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 currently ready in DCS or in development, 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. Edited August 2, 2021 by bies 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northstar98 Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 (edited) On 8/1/2021 at 7:58 PM, bies said: Agree, as i wrote like 2 days ago in similar topic: Solution is simple: 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. Agreed but I've noticed some heresy, there's no F-4 Phantom II on your list! Edited August 29, 2021 by Northstar98 2 Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk. Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas. System: GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV. Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upyr1 Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 4 hours ago, Northstar98 said: Agreed but I've noticed some heresey, there's no F-4 Phantom II on your list! That's the only problem with it. Otherwise its perfect 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucShep Posted August 1, 2021 Share Posted August 1, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Lace said: Since there is not a day which goes by without some forumite lamenting the lack of 'modern' REDFOR aircraft and the resulting MP imbalance, perhaps one solution would be to add earlier versions of the BLUEFOR aircraft we have? 'A' model Viper, Hornet and (FF, not FC3) A-10 would be a great fit for the current REDFOR lineup. Flight models already exist and would just need tweaking, and there are fewer complex systems to create, so one would hope development time would be significantly shorter. They could also serve as a less intimidating option for new users, still realistic, but less complex in a similar way to the F-5. I know there is probably little financial incentive for ED, given most users will want the latest-and-greatest versions, but this is the wishlist thread, so I'm sticking with it. +1 Absolutely! And also agree with others about the the lack of F-4 Phantom II on your list! Edited August 1, 2021 by LucShep 3 CGTC Caucasus retexture mod | A-10A cockpit retexture mod | Shadows reduced impact mod | DCS 2.5.6 (the best version for performance, VR or 2D) = aka Luke Marqs; call sign "Ducko" = Spoiler Win10 Pro x64 | Intel i7 12700K (@5.1/5.0p + 3.9e) | 64GB DDR4 @3466 CL16 (Crucial Ballistix) | RTX 3090 24GB EVGA FTW3 Ultra | 2TB NVMe (MP600 Pro XT) + 500GB SSD (WD Blue) + 3TB HDD (Toshiba P300) + 1TB HDD (WD Blue) | Corsair RMX 850W | Asus Z690 TUF+ D4 | TR PA120SE | Fractal Meshify C | M-Audio USB + Sennheiser HD-599SE | 7x USB 3.0 Hub | 50'' 4K Philips 7608/12 UHD TV (+Head Tracking) | HP Reverb G1 Pro (VR) | TM Warthog + Logitech X56 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upyr1 Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 We also need some century planes. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evoman Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, upyr1 said: That's the only problem with it. Otherwise its perfect I would agree but the list is mostly based on newer variant modules that are already available or in confirmed development like the F-8. It would be great to start off with the F-4A but we already know the big discontent that would cause. Edited August 2, 2021 by Evoman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upyr1 Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 13 minutes ago, Evoman said: would agree but the list is mostly based on newer variant modules that are already available or in confirmed development like the F-8. It would be great to start off with the F-4A but we already know the big discontent that would cause. We need as many Phantom variants as possible 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northstar98 Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 At least an E and a J/S is essential (S is probably the most appropriate for Heatblur's Forrestal). I would love a late 70s and beyond F-4K or preferably F-4M. Past that, the other variants, but I think at least an F-4E Block 58, an F-4J or F-4S is essential. 1 Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk. Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas. System: GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV. Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bies Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 I didn't include Phantom because I've listed only existing modules in DCS + the ones in development. Phantom would be great but I'm waiting for ED or some 3rd party to announce it. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank50us Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 6 hours ago, upyr1 said: We need as many Phantom variants as possible The same applies to all aircraft really, having multiple versions would allow for more accurate representations of certain time periods. But even with small changes, you can have drastically different outcomes when it comes to the flight model. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killshot0597 Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 I would love to have multiple variants of an airframe per module. It is unfortunately not very easy to pull off. Devs would need to develop then maintain what is essentially more than 1 module for what is effectively the price of one. It's hard enough to maintain a single airframe per module. When it comes to Heatblur with the F-14 and Aerges with the Mirage F-1, this is a good sign as it sets a precedent for other 3rd parties to follow. Having multiple variants would definitely flesh out DCS even more. With the F-14 and the Mirage F-1 being able to realistically depict certain points in time realistically. Meanwhile if I want to fly an F/A-18A, best I can do as a mission maker is removing data-link, JHMCS and equipping the plane with period accurate ordinance. It still looks like a C Lot 20 on the inside and outside. Would people be fine with modules becoming more expensive to cover the cost of developing variants? I certainly would. Some people might not like it though, it is already pretty costly at 79.99 USD. What about making it an optional purchase? Module development is expensive as it is. What if not enough people opt in for buying the other variants? That could cause ED to have a net loss. As much as it sucks, ED is still a company with employees that need salaries so they can put food on the table. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kseremak Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 (edited) General scheme (there are some exceptions) is: "A models" are the lightest, the most nimble and exciting to fly, have the best performance and maneuverability. When later models are gaining more and more weight, kinematic performance and maneuverability are gradually decreasing but avionics is more and more sophisticated and automated. I prefer early models in nearly every case, they are more entertaining and generally more realistic since developers don't have to exclude many classified sytems used by the real life later version of the aircraft. Edited August 2, 2021 by kseremak 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kseremak Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 26 minutes ago, KIllshot0597 said: I would love to have multiple variants of an airframe per module. It is unfortunately not very easy to pull off. Devs would need to develop then maintain what is essentially more than 1 module for what is effectively the price of one. It's hard enough to maintain a single airframe per module. When it comes to Heatblur with the F-14 and Aerges with the Mirage F-1, this is a good sign as it sets a precedent for other 3rd parties to follow. Having multiple variants would definitely flesh out DCS even more. With the F-14 and the Mirage F-1 being able to realistically depict certain points in time realistically. Meanwhile if I want to fly an F/A-18A, best I can do as a mission maker is removing data-link, JHMCS and equipping the plane with period accurate ordinance. It still looks like a C Lot 20 on the inside and outside. Would people be fine with modules becoming more expensive to cover the cost of developing variants? I certainly would. Some people might not like it though, it is already pretty costly at 79.99 USD. What about making it an optional purchase? Module development is expensive as it is. What if not enough people opt in for buying the other variants? That could cause ED to have a net loss. As much as it sucks, ED is still a company with employees that need salaries so they can put food on the table. I would definitely eagerly pay for i.e. F/A-18A add-on just like A-10C II or Black Shark 3, but i think starting from the early model and only then developing later will be even more consistent approach for the future. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchsl62 Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 There is also a Mig-17 Fresco in development, that will be interesting for the Straights of Taiwan scenario against F-86 and potentially against the F-8 and A-6 as well as the community A-4. The main killer of the Mig-17 in Vietnam was the F-105…… 2 1 PC: 9980XE @ 64GB RAM /2080Ti, Samsung C49RG90 Joystick bases: VKB GFIII, FSSB R3L, Brunner CLS-E, Virpil Mongoos CM2 Joystick grips: Realsimulator (F-18CGRH, F-16SGRH-CE), VKB (MCG Pro, F-14, KG-12), Virpil Warbrd Throttles: Virpil CM2, Kantorrin, Other: TrackIR, TM MFDx2 (Cubesim Screenx2), Virpil Control Panel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killshot0597 Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 6 minutes ago, kseremak said: General scheme (there are some exceptions) is: "A models" are the lightest, the most nimble and exciting to fly, have the best performance and maneuverability. When later models are gaining more and more weight, kinematic performance and maneuverability are gradually decreasing but avionics is more and more sophisticated and automated. I prefer early models in nearly every case, they are more entertaining and generally more realistic since developers don't have to exclude many classified sytems used by the real life later version of the aircraft. I might be wrong on this, but the F-18C we have actually has improved engines, so the "A" might not always be faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northstar98 Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, kseremak said: I would definitely eagerly pay for i.e. F/A-18A add-on just like A-10C II or Black Shark 3, but i think starting from the early model and only then developing later will be even more consistent approach for the future. This. It would be better to start with something older, and then work up (even the A-10C demonstrates that), than to go the other way around. 5 Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk. Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas. System: GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV. Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kseremak Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 (edited) 26 minutes ago, KIllshot0597 said: I might be wrong on this, but the F-18C we have actually has improved engines, so the "A" might not always be faster. As i said, there are exception. But i don't think this was the case since F/A-18A was lighter. According to pilot's interview Big Motor Charlie, so our version, just regained T/W ratio of the F/A-18A because Charlie was gaining more weight through the years together with additional equipement. But it didn't regain it's original F/A-18A nose authority and low wing loading which were even better in A model. Especially nose authority because the big part of Charlie additional mass was placed inside the nose, the worst place from nose authority point of view. It was even more pronounced with F-16A and C which gained A LOT more weight then the Hornet what significantly changed it's performance. Edited August 2, 2021 by kseremak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusC42B Pilot Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 (edited) Adding a versions of the modern day versions wont balance anything we just get more models and they just put more effort and resources on modules that at the end of the day most of us will end up using the modern iterations for the simple fact that it adds more content for the same price. Edited August 2, 2021 by IkarusC42B Pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kseremak Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 8 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said: Adding a versions of the modern day versions wont balance anything I don't know if ED plan to add other versions in the future but considering the most modern RED side aircrafts are '80s Su-27, MiG-29, Mi-24 (and ff MiG-29, MiG-23MLA and Su-17 in the future) adding F-16A or C Block 30 and F/A-18A or early C from '80s would most definitely "balance" things. They would't have Link16, JHMCS, SA page, AMRAAMS, GPS guided munitions, but they would have better maneuverability than later versions, it looks like perfect balance and realism at once. Tell me why did you say F-16A or F/A-18A "wont balance anything"? (I agree with the rest of your statement it would take resources to make them, but this is different topic) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusC42B Pilot Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, kseremak said: I don't know if ED plan to add other versions in the future but considering the most modern RED side aircrafts are '80s Su-27, MiG-29, Mi-24 (and ff MiG-29, MiG-23MLA and Su-17 in the future) adding F-16A or C Block 30 and F/A-18A or early C from '80s would most definitely "balance" things. They would't have Link16, JHMCS, SA page, AMRAAMS, GPS guided munitions, but they would have better maneuverability than later versions, it looks like perfect balance and realism at once. Tell me why did you say F-16A or F/A-18A "wont balance anything"? (I agree with the rest of your statement it would take resources to make them, but this is different topic) 26 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said: Adding a versions of the modern day versions wont balance anything we just get more models and they just put more effort and resources on modules that at the end of the day most of us will end up using the modern iterations for the simple fact that it adds more content for the same price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bies Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 They would obviously balance things, i.e. F/A-18A without datalink, helmet sight, with Sparrows and Sidewinders is a perfect match for the MiG-29A with R-27/R-73. MiG having somewhat better acceleration/climb and moderately off-bore missile, Horner better low speed handling nose authority and more head-up avionics and better radar control suite. Overall better pilot wins. F/A-18C from 2005 with datalink, AMRAAM, very high off bore 9X, Helmet HUD integrated with sensors, very modern digital avionics etc. is a totally different league. Heatblur added F-14A and in Cold War 1980s scenarios and servers this variant is being used balancing things in a natural way. There is going to be similar with Mirage F.1 where basic fighter F.1C will be used in 1970s scenarios together with F-5E, MiG-21bis, F-8J, MiG-19, Huey etc. Multirole F.1E for 1980s with F-14A, MiG-29A, F-15C, Su-27S, Gazelle, C-101, L-39, Mi-8, Mi-24, A-7E, A-6E, Su-17, A-10A, Su-25A, MiG-23MLA etc. Digital F.1E for later scenarios. I think it's the way to go and I appreciate they are making few variants increasing it's usability and stretching it to cover way bigger timeframe. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusC42B Pilot Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 It seems ppl keep skiping this part of my thread. Just because there will be A's dosent mean ppl are going to buy them. You can limit your server to A's but youre just going to have less population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bies Posted August 2, 2021 Share Posted August 2, 2021 (edited) People are smart. If they see i.e. 1980s server with coherent timeframe diverse aircrafts for BOTH sides (not USAF vs US Navy) like MiG-29A, Mi-24P, Gazelle M, Bolkov-105, Su-25A, A-10A, MiG-21bis, F-5E, Su-27S, F-15C, Su-17M, A-6E, A-7E, MiG-23MLA, Mirage F.1, F-14A, Mi-8, UH-1, L-39, C-101, MiG-19, F-8J etc. with interesting engaging more manual gameplay and other 2000s with USAF vs US Navy standoff datalink AMRAAM/JSOW fest - they would gladly jump in i.e. nimble lightweight F-16A and fly to meet the adventure and dogfight MiGs with Sidewinders and guns! It's simply a matter of time since big amount of this modules are during the development as we speak and they will be saturating late Cold War/Desert Storm timeframe which is "possible to model for BOTH sides, in a reasonably realistic way". Right now more guys are sandboxing playing with Hornets vs Vipers and it's ok as well. Edited August 2, 2021 by bies 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts