More 'A' models

[Dragon1-1]

Modern modules have more options for moving mud, and usually better BVR, but if AMRAAMs and -9Xes were restricted, the AA balance would actually be in favor of the As. Being lighter and cleaner than the later models, they're generally better dogfighters, the early Vipers were less draggy due to smaller tail fin and lower wing loading, in addition to being lighter. Likewise, A model Hornet. You basically trade air to ground capability for an advantage in the air. Plus, steam cockpits FTW.

[Munkwolf]

1 hour ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

 

 

Seems like an opinion stated as fact. I'd personally rather fly the early models over the versions we have. I would fly the A-10A over the C if it was full-fidelity and clickable.

 

The content-to-price ratio also really has close-to-zero influence over what airframes I would purchase. Seems like an odd decision point.. like, you get more "systems", so you view it as a better value?

Edited August 2, 2021 by Munkwolf

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

19 minutes ago, Munkwolf said:

 

Seems like an opinion stated as fact. I'd personally rather fly the early models over the versions we have. I would fly the A-10A over the C if it was full-fidelity and clickable.

 

The content-to-price ratio also really has close-to-zero influence over what airframes I would purchase. Seems like an odd decision point.. like, you get more "systems", so you view it as a better value?

 

Ah yes. The classic: Ill prove that the majority wants this by presenting my feelings followed up by :im going to reduce your facts to an opinion cause thats the only way i can counter them.

[Munkwolf]

Just now, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Ah yes. The classic: Ill prove that the majority wants this by presenting my feelings followed up by :im going to reduce your facts to an opinion cause thats the only way i can counter them.

 

You said "end of the day most of us"... the "most of us" part is purely speculative. You stated it like a fact.

 

Then I wasn't trying to counter your opinion, I was stating my own opinion in support of the OP's thread. I also don't need to "reduce your facts to an opinion", because it's an opinion to begin with. I have no clue what the majority wants, and neither do you.

[Dragon1-1]

Oh, I know what the majority wants: a fun singleplayer experience.  Most DCS players are SP, after all, and there are stats to back that up (although it's ED that has them). For that, it doesn't matter if they're flying the A or C Hog, though admittedly, the C offers a bit more mission variety (though not that much, its main advantage is that guided munitions make it easier to use). 

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

3 minutes ago, Munkwolf said:

 

purely speculative. 

 

 

 

[bies]

F-16 or F-18 (any variant Cold War A, later C, super E, just absolutely any) will always have higher sales than MiG or Mil, any variant. They are part of American pop culture exported all around the world.

 

If ED would make i.e. F/A-18C Lot 10 instead of Lot 20 the sales would be exactly the same. More that 90% of the people didn't even know what "Lot 20" means, let alone what is the difference between "Lot 10" and "Lot 20". They see a Hornet from the "independence day" or Desert Storm photo - they buy.

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

4 minutes ago, bies said:

F-16 or F-18 (any variant Cold War A, later C, super E, just absolutely any) will always have higher sales than MiG or Mil, any variant. They are part of American pop culture exported all around the world.

 

 

Now thats a hot take lmfao

 

No dude,this is BEYOND wrong.

Its really simple. Both of those modules are MODERN and they offer the most content.

[Killshot0597]

3 hours ago, bies said:

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.

Honestly, you are looking in the wrong place if you want balance in DCS. The only reason why I even want an F-18A is so my PVE and SP missions have period accurate aircraft. This is why I originally said:

 

7 hours ago, KIllshot0597 said:

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.

You can already achieve the balance that you want by simply restricting weapons that can be used. All of this is done by the mission maker. If you didn't know, all of the servers you play on was made using the mission editor. So the "balance" is decided by that mission designer.

My argument for having F-18A and the like is so we can have period accurate aircraft, simple as that. Unfortunately and like I said earlier. People might not want to pay for that and it might not be worth it for ED as developing a variant still costs them money. Money they might not earn a profit from.

Edit: It would be nice if ED restricted loadouts automaitcally be setting a mission date, expanding on the historical mode of the Mission Editor.

Edited August 2, 2021 by KIllshot0597

[bies]

40 minutes ago, KIllshot0597 said:

Honestly, you are looking in the wrong place if you want balance in DCS. The only reason why I even want an F-18A is so my PVE and SP missions have period accurate aircraft.

 

So it's just like me: i don't want any artificial balance in DCS. The only balance i like is historically accurate proper timeframe. I don't care at all if i.e. 1980s MiG-29A is better in combat or worse that the same timeframe 1980s F-14A.

 

But i kind if care if my 2007 F-16 would be fighting against 1980s Su-27 and attacking 1980s S-300 site covering a naval base with 1980s Soviet cruiser. Not because of balance but because of historical timeframe accuracy. It's like MiG-15 in WW2 (except for the fact MiG-15 in WW2 is only 10 years more modern than it's environment when 2007 F-16 is 20 years more modern).

 

But it's all going to change since DCS is being saturated with more and more modules and 1980s/Desert Storm timeframe will have 2 symmetrical sides NATO and WARPAC modeled soon. And I don't care if i.e. 1980s MiG-23MLA will be stronger in combat than 1980s Mirage F.1E. I just care for them to represent roughly the same period in history or real military conflict.

 

 

BTW: I would buy any 1980s/Desert Storm period Viper or Hornet add-on in a blink of an eye.

Edited August 2, 2021 by bies

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Oh, I know what the majority wants: a fun singleplayer experience.  Most DCS players are SP, after all, and there are stats to back that up (although it's ED that has them). For that, it doesn't matter if they're flying the A or C Hog, though admittedly, the C offers a bit more mission variety (though not that much, its main advantage is that guided munitions make it easier to use). 

As a single player flyer myself, the version does matter to me. I'd actually want both because I enjoy flying in different eras. As much variety as late variant plane gives, you get even more with the full lineage.

[kseremak]

1 hour ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Now thats a hot take lmfao

 

No dude,this is BEYOND wrong.

Its really simple. Both of those modules are MODERN and they offer the most content.

 

"MODERN" ? There are no modern things in DCS, only historicall stuff, because modern things are strictly classified and imposible/illegal to disclose.

I.e. Hornet has been retired by US Navy many years ago. In practice it has been replaced/supplemented by more modern Super Hornet some 15 years ago and next directly replaced by F-35C few years ago.

Hornet stands in US aviation museums.

 

Hornet is a historical aircraft with historical context AND I LOVE IT but i'm not trying (or need) to pretend it's modern:

'80s Hornet being modern top dog

'90s still capable aircraft

'00s older less capable supplement of Superhornets

'10s practically retired from carriers and the Navy, replaced by the F-35C

'20s museum exponate

Edited August 2, 2021 by kseremak

[Northstar98]

On 8/2/2021 at 6:36 PM, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Adding a versions of the modern day versions wont balance anything

Erm, what?

The main reason (for me at least), isn't even balance, it's about having a coherent experience with stuff fighting their counterparts and contemporaries, instead of the mile-wide, each deep thing we've got going on now.

On 8/2/2021 at 6:36 PM, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

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.

Welp, thank you for justifying why starting off with older stuff and working up is a better approach, and it allows developers to make more money. As demonstrated by the A-10C and A-10C II.

Also these super modern aircraft? The seemingly universal constant with them is that they seem to be perpetually in development, and that's with axing features (even stuff that actually is realistic) down the line, and even that, you're still largely missing 'the rest of the picture'.

Compare the Hind to the Apache:

The Hind released basically feature complete - all the major systems are working, of course there's stuff missing but its mostly minor, there's a couple of weapons missing, the sight could do with a lot of work, as can Petrovich, as well improvements to the map system, but apart from that, basically everything works.

All in all, one of the best and most feature complete releases they've had so far.

Compare that to the Apache, which will be entering EA without its RADAR, y'know the RADAR that gives it its name. By ED's own admission it'll be more like an AH-64A at the start of early access and it will probably take years to get it feature complete.

On 8/2/2021 at 8:10 PM, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

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.

Again, exactly why you should start off with old and work up, not the other way around.

As for servers? Not really relevant.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Northstar98]

On 8/2/2021 at 9:35 PM, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Ah yes. The classic: Ill prove that the majority wants this by presenting my feelings followed up by :im going to reduce your facts to an opinion cause thats the only way i can counter them.

What you wrote IS your opinion.

It's fine to have opinions, it's fine to have feelings, it's okay to disagree.

And calling what your saying what it is, isn't a fallacy.

On 8/2/2021 at 9:49 PM, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

 

Ahh yes, Steam reviews, they sound relevant

• Not everyone who buys a module writes a review about it - it's not necessarily indicative of how many people bought what.
• It's reviews on one platform.
• It's not even the main place people buy modules.
• The release date of the modules are all over the place.
• The reviews for all of the older aircraft, the F-5E, the MiG-21bis and the Mi-24P are all better than the F-16C, which is the most modern aircraft on the list. And it's not by an insignificant margin either, So while it has more reviews, it was more poorly received.

In any case though these aren't good metrics for basically anything.

On 8/2/2021 at 10:08 PM, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Now thats a hot take lmfao

 

No dude,this is BEYOND wrong.

Its really simple. Both of those modules are MODERN and they offer the most content.

If they were 90s variants, they probably would've done just as well.

But no, both aircraft were heavily sought out for, for ages. People just wanted an F/A-18 and they just wanted an F-16.

Sure people like JDAMs, but I doubt there would've been a massive drop in sales if it was an 80s/90s F-16C or F/A-18C, they could've got them finished faster, then offered an upgrade pack (like the later A-10C), and made more money.

And if you're obssessed with modern and don't care too much for Cold War, that's fine, just I hope perpetually playing the DCS edition of the Final Countdown (irony being that the age gap is about right, though it'll get worse with the Eurofighter, if it gets Meteor) never gets old, because good luck getting contemporary REDFOR.

If that's what you want, or alternatively BLUFOR vs BLUFOR or BLUFOR vs GREENFOR is your thing, that's absolutely fine, but for some it does get quite hollow pretty easily.

And as someone exclusively in SP PvE, flying the Hornet is like flying around in a faster, smaller airliner, hitting the push-to-win button and flying back - I have more flight hours on my current pilot (made a new one when 2.7 first hit), in the Hind, followed by the Yak-52, in fact I have more flight hours in the Yak-52 than all of the modern modules combined.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Northstar98]

On 8/2/2021 at 11:00 PM, KIllshot0597 said:

Honestly, you are looking in the wrong place if you want balance in DCS. The only reason why I even want an F-18A is so my PVE and SP missions have period accurate aircraft. This is why I originally said.

Same, the main reason for me is a more coherent experience, that is less 'mile-wide, inch deep', and I am very much on board with stuff fighting their peer contemporaries.

It's just that 'balance' is a side-effect somewhat. But there are places where that isn't the case:

• Air defences (typically REDFOR beats BLUFOR)
• In terms of ship based aircraft, the Cold War contemporary to the F-14A/B is the Yak-38M, which is completely outclassed by even the earliest F-14A in basically every respect.

On 8/2/2021 at 11:00 PM, KIllshot0597 said:

You can already achieve the balance that you want by simply restricting weapons that can be used. All of this is done by the mission maker. If you didn't know, all of the servers you play on was made using the mission editor. So the "balance" is decided by that mission designer.

True, but there are things you can't change - you can't enforce JHMCS off to my knowledge, and you can't do anything about newer sensors etc.

For instance, we currently have late 90s F-14s, which can go down to the mid 90s without LANTIRN, before that they had a drastically different (and less capable) RWR, and there isn't anything a mission editor can do about that.

Fortunately Heatblur are doing a fairly comprehensive set of F-14s anyway, they're just going backwards,

On 8/2/2021 at 11:00 PM, KIllshot0597 said:

My argument for having F-18A and the like is so we can have period accurate aircraft, simple as that. Unfortunately and like I said earlier. People might not want to pay for that and it might not be worth it for ED as developing a variant still costs them money. Money they might not earn a profit from.

Which IMO, is why we should've started with older variants (even earlier versions of the Cs we have now).

Aerges are currently taking this approach with the Mirage F1 (starting off with the CE, BE and EE, then the more modern M), ED did do this with the A-10C, Heatblur however started off with the B and are now going backwards. Though here, after the release of the A, that's the F-14 I fly now, even if its less capable engine wise.

On 8/2/2021 at 11:00 PM, KIllshot0597 said:

Edit: It would be nice if ED restricted loadouts automaitcally be setting a mission date, expanding on the historical mode of the Mission Editor.

This is actually already a thing, I'm sure there's stuff that isn't quite right, but it does work.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Killshot0597]

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

This is actually already a thing, I'm sure there's stuff that isn't quite right, but it does work.

Historical mode currently only works to restrict vehicles, not aircraft loadouts. I believe ED has this planned at the moment. Would also be nice if historical mode covered things like JHMCS. 

Lastly, as for the F-14A, just wait for Heatblur to release their last US variant with the old RWR. Speaking of Heatblur, notice they are doing it in from new to old as well?

 

 

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Which IMO, is why we should've started with older variants (even earlier versions of the Cs we have now).

We "can't cry over spilled milk" as the saying goes. It's done unfortunately. Hopefully if we ask ED and there is enough interest, they could make a flyable F-18A and other "A"s out there. As it is, honestly, I think it'd be more likely we'll see a F-18E module appear before we see an A.

[Northstar98]

On 8/3/2021 at 12:11 AM, KIllshot0597 said:

Historical mode currently only works to restrict vehicles, not aircraft loadouts. I believe ED has this planned at the moment. Would also be nice if historical mode covered things like JHMCS. 

It does indeed restrict loadouts too on my end.

Some aren't, but some definitely are.

On 8/3/2021 at 12:11 AM, KIllshot0597 said:

Lastly, as for the F-14A, just wait for Heatblur to release their last US variant with the old RWR. Speaking of Heatblur, notice they are doing it in from new to old as well?

They're the only ones going from new to old AFAIK.

Aerges is going early to new. The A-10C was old to new (but not by much).

Edited January 24, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[upyr1]

10 hours 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.

Anyone who does multiple versions are awesome. The chances I'll buy something at full price increase with the number of modules. On other threads a lot of people including myself would like to see discounts based on different the models are. 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, KIllshot0597 said:

You can already achieve the balance that you want by simply restricting weapons that can be used. All of this is done by the mission maker. If you didn't know, all of the servers you play on was made using the mission editor. So the "balance" is decided by that mission designer.

My argument for having F-18A and the like is so we can have period accurate aircraft, simple as that. Unfortunately and like I said earlier. People might not want to pay for that and it might not be worth it for ED as developing a variant still costs them money. Money they might not earn a profit from.

Edit: It would be nice if ED restricted loadouts automaitcally be setting a mission date, expanding on the historical mode of the Mission Editor.

I agree with you about restricting load outs via historical mode. I know the biggest obstacle to historcal aircraft models is clearly the cost of producing them. Some times I wonder, if it wouldn't make sense for Eagle to use Kickstarter to gauge the interest in a particular module

[randomTOTEN]

My personal opinion is that "A models" would make fantastic candidates for SSM jets. While I like the current study level standard, I think there's plenty of benefits for the continuation of SSM.

 

1. They're hopefully easier to make, which means the production rate will be quicker.

2. They're easier to learn, which means hopefully less time needed to become proficient.

3. Hopefully they will allow for variants and aircraft that are not reasonable due to either insufficient ASM market demand, or lack of ASM standards documentation. (F-16A, F/A-18A)

4. They meet the needs of users that don't want study aircraft, but want a realistic high performance fighter jet.

5. They're fun!

 

SSM= Simple Systems Model (a.k.a.  Flaming Cliffs series/Su-25T a.k.a. no clickable cockpits). ASM = Advanced Systems Model (i.e. everything not SSM.)

Edited August 3, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[Evoman]

1 hour ago, randomTOTEN said:

My personal opinion is that "A models" would make fantastic candidates for SSM jets. While I like the current study level standard, I think there's plenty of benefits for the continuation of SSM.

 

1. They're hopefully easier to make, which means the production rate will be quicker.

2. They're easier to learn, which means hopefully less time needed to become proficient.

3. Hopefully they will allow for variants and aircraft that are not reasonable due to either insufficient ASM market demand, or lack of ASM standards documentation. (F-16A, F/A-18A)

4. They meet the needs of users that don't want study aircraft, but want a realistic high performance fighter jet.

5. They're fun!

 

SSM= Simple Systems Model (a.k.a.  Flaming Cliffs series/Su-25T a.k.a. no clickable cockpits). ASM = Advanced Systems Model (i.e. everything not SSM.)

 

It does not even have to be simplified to that extent. Most early jets like the F-86 Sabre are already simple to operate as a full fidelity module. The Saber is so simple to learn that once you learn how to operate it you can pretty much figure it out after not flying it in a long time.

[randomTOTEN]

29 minutes ago, Evoman said:

Most early jets like the F-86 Sabre are already simple to operate as a full fidelity module. The Saber is so simple to learn that once you learn how to operate it you can pretty much figure it out after not flying it in a long time.

You perhaps vastly underestimate the complexity of the humble Sabre.

Edited August 3, 2021 by randomTOTEN

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

Lmao the amount of butthurt.

 

[bies]

4 hours ago, Evoman said:

It does not even have to be simplified to that extent. Most early jets like the F-86 Sabre are already simple to operate as a full fidelity module. The Saber is so simple to learn that once you learn how to operate it you can pretty much figure it out after not flying it in a long time.

 

Exactly. Analog 1970s A-10A modeled as full fidelity would be still incomparably easier to learn and to operate than digital A-10C from 2010.

 

The true difference is A-10A was useful in high intensity conflict in 1970s-1980s against capable enemy - like Soviets in Europe. When A-10C in 2010 was possible to use only in low intensity conflict against handicapped enemy, so called mud hut bombing.

 

They were very different, A-10A in 1970s/1980s was flying at the tree tops level, manually attacking targets at close range using dumb bombs, unguided rockets, short range Mavericks and internal gun, maneuvering at very low altitude dodging AAA fire.

 

A-10C in 2010 was supposed to fly at moderate altitude in practically save environment, drop some self-guided GPS munitions from the distance, maybe fire a gun if the enemy was completely helpless.

For me personally A-10A looks like more exciting and engaging to use, full fidelity would be fantastic, but ED had to make C because it was a military contractor demanding it.

[Northstar98]

On 8/3/2021 at 5:33 AM, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Lmao the amount of butthurt.

Pffft!

Is that what you call butthurt? I mean dude, you're just digging yourself into a hole here...

I take it that once again you're lost for words, have nothing else to say and now you're just trolling to save face, again

Heck, I even said it was okay to disagree with me! But apparently that's me being 'butthurt'? Because that definitely makes sense...

Edited January 24, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting