More 'A' models

[MAXsenna]

Lmao the amount of butthurt.
 

What happened to you? Why so grumpy? Because everybody disagrees with you with better arguments?
Now that is MY opinion.
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[LucShep]

Some very interesting points noted here.

 

Personally, I think the problem with the preference for modern tech appeal in DCS has more to do with the environment(s) currently presented in DCS, more than anything.
 

The lack of "A" versions may be related with the fact that the few older 50s/60s/70s jets that we currently have, did not gather same appeal as modern jets.

But I think it has been so because of the scenarios and assets that we have available at the moment (and lack of propper ones for such periods), as it's all mostly based on early 2000s.

WWII piston engines fighters in DCS have had maps and assets for the time period (it's all a bit barebones but, well, there are some), but there is the fact that some other developer does aproach this time-period environments/maps/scenarios with far more in-depth. Which also partially explains why modern jet fighters have far more success in DCS than WWII piston engines fighters. 

But there's no Korea or Vietnam maps or assets, or of other war scenarios of XX century.  ....if there were... I really think it would have wings to fly.

 

We can all future guess (positive and negative) but, with propper maps and assets for their era, I really think "A" versions of modern and semi-modern jets, as well as 50s/60s/70s jets (older and not directly related), would be far more popular than WWII piston fighters, and probably as much as the currently popular modern jet fighters, in DCS.

Be it because of nostalgia, the extremely interesting era it was for aviation, and the fact that no other simulation/game developer has aproached these XX century time-periods in depth. So, IMO, it has been a lost chance for ED.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by LucShep

[MAXsenna]

Some very interesting points noted here.
 
Personally, I think the problem with the preference for modern tech appeal in DCS has more to do with the environment(s) currently presented in DCS, more than anything.
 
The lack of "A" versions may be related with the fact that the few older 50s/60s/70s jets that we currently have, did not gather same appeal as modern jets.
But I think it has been so because of the scenarios and assets that we have available at the moment (and lack of propper ones for such periods), as it's all mostly based on early 2000s.

WWII piston engines in DCS have had maps and assets for the time period (it's all a bit barebones but, well, there are some), but there is the fact that some other developer does aproach this time-period environments/maps/scenarios with far more in-depth. Which also partially explains why modern-fighters have far more success in DCS than WWII piston engines. 

But there's no Korea or Vietnam maps or assets, or of other war scenarios of XX century.  ....if there were... I really think it would have wings to fly.
 
We can all future guess (positive and negative) but, with propper maps and assets for their era, I really think "A" versions of modern and semi-modern jets, as well as 50s/60s/70s jets, would be far more popular than WWII piston fighters, and probably as much as the currently popular modern fighters, in DCS.
Be it because of nostalgia, the extremely interesting era it was for aviation, and the fact that no other simulation/game developer has aproached these XX century time-periods in depth. So, IMO, it has been a lost chance for ED.
 

Well spoken!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[bies]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

Some very interesting points noted here.

 

Personally, I think the problem with the preference for modern tech appeal in DCS has more to do with the environment(s) currently presented in DCS, more than anything.
 

The lack of "A" versions may be related with the fact that the few older 50s/60s/70s jets that we currently have, did not gather same appeal as modern jets.

But I think it has been so because of the scenarios and assets that we have available at the moment (and lack of propper ones for such periods), as it's all mostly based on early 2000s.

WWII piston engines in DCS have had maps and assets for the time period (it's all a bit barebones but, well, there are some), but there is the fact that some other developer does aproach this time-period environments/maps/scenarios with far more in-depth. Which also partially explains why modern-fighters have far more success in DCS than WWII piston engines. 

But there's no Korea or Vietnam maps or assets, or of other war scenarios of XX century.  ....if there were... I really think it would have wings to fly.

 

We can all future guess (positive and negative) but, with propper maps and assets for their era, I really think "A" versions of modern and semi-modern jets, as well as 50s/60s/70s jets, would be far more popular than WWII piston fighters, and probably as much as the currently popular modern fighters, in DCS.

Be it because of nostalgia, the extremely interesting era it was for aviation, and the fact that no other simulation/game developer has aproached these XX century time-periods in depth. So, IMO, it has been a lost chance for ED.

 

Agree with most points. One think i would add is "A" variants mentioned here means mostly 1980s and late 1970s at most. Like F-14A, F-15A, F-16A, F/A-18A, MiG-29A, Su-25A, A-10A, F-117A, first Su-27S etc. - classic 1980s menagerie.

 

At the same time nearly all DCS assets, which are inherited from FC, represent exactly this 1980s/Desert Storm standard.

All SAMs like Patriot, S-300, Shilka, Tunguska, Hawk, Kub, Buk, M163, all EW radars, most ships especially Soviet ones, nearly all AI aircraft etc.

Nearly all of that is simply 1980s late Cold War/Desert Storm era technology in DCS.

 

 

And i agree completely with you when it comes to maps.

 

 

I.e. Persian Gulf - we don't have Kuwait/Iraq true Gulf War 1991 map to recreate the last real life big scale air land battle and air camping with hundreds of aircrafts engaged, thousands of tanks and AFV destroyed. Or all out high intensity Iran-Iraq 1980s war with big air and land battles.

Instead we have some ~2020 Hormuz Strait map which practically didn't see any combat at this time. Only some fictional/hypothetical scenarios.

 

 

Similar with Syria - we don't have Cold War Syria map to recreate real life all out wars and big symmetrical land and air combat campaigns like 1973 Yom Kippur war, 1982 Lebanon war etc.

Instead we have ~ 2020 Syria map which saw only one, completely asymmetrical skirmish/civil war with minimal air action and zero air combat, typical one sided mud hut bombing against helpless partisans/terrorists.

Edited August 3, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

On 8/3/2021 at 12:00 PM, LucShep said:

Some very interesting points noted here.

 

Personally, I think the problem with the preference for modern tech appeal in DCS has more to do with the environment(s) currently presented in DCS, more than anything.
 

The lack of "A" versions may be related with the fact that the few older 50s/60s/70s jets that we currently have, did not gather same appeal as modern jets.

The thing is though, it's kinda difficult to see the appeal of early Cold War stuff, when there's basically nothing else. You've got a tiny amount of aircraft, 1 tank, 1 APC, 2 air-defence units and that's absolutely it.

At the moment, what's easily the most fleshed out era by far is WWII, with roughly equal numbers of BLUFOR and REDFOR aircraft, that are roughly the same quality as each other, 2 dedicated maps (with a 3rd in development) and a dedicated asset pack, as well as being the era where numerous new technologies and improvements came to first (flak, torpedoes, submerging submarines, searchlights, damage model).

On 8/3/2021 at 12:00 PM, LucShep said:

But I think it has been so because of the scenarios and assets that we have available at the moment (and lack of propper ones for such periods), as it's all mostly based on early 2000s.

Well, apart from NASAMS and the 9K338, all of the air defences top out at the early-ish 90s at best.

On 8/3/2021 at 12:00 PM, LucShep said:

WWII piston engines in DCS have had maps and assets for the time period (it's all a bit barebones but, well, there are some), but there is the fact that some other developer does aproach this time-period environments/maps/scenarios with far more in-depth. Which also partially explains why modern-fighters have far more success in DCS than WWII piston engines. 

As I said above, if you think about it, it's actually the most fleshed out and comprehensive era in DCS so far, there's plenty missing, but that just goes to highlight the mile-wide inch deep thing DCS has going on, which is further, perfectly highlighted by your next point.

On 8/3/2021 at 12:00 PM, LucShep said:

But there's no Korea or Vietnam maps or assets, or of other war scenarios of XX century.  ....if there were... I really think it would have wings to fly.

Exactly.

The problem as I see it, is that DCS offers aircraft spanning nearly 80 years (from 1939 with the I-16, to 2017 with the A-10C II), but pick any one decade and you'll only find a small handful of stuff.

• Early WWII is completely absent save for the I-16
• Late WWII is probably the most fleshed out, with roughly equal numbers of BLUFOR and REDFOR modules, 2 dedicated maps (with a third in development), a dedicated asset pack, and more modules on the way. As well as being the first place to trial and receive several new technologies as mentioned above.
• 50s has barely anything on any side, the only thing being present is just a small number of aircraft (F-86F, MiG-15bis, MiG-19P, with a G.91R in the works) and a tiny amount of vehicles, all of them REDFOR. You'd have to recycle stuff from WWII.
• 60s is basically completely absent apart from reusing stuff from the 50s, though there are a few more vehicles (ZSU-23-4, SA-9).
• 70s only has 1 BLUFOR (F-5E-3) and 1 REDFOR (MiG-21bis) aircraft, a fair number of air defence units (SA-2, SA-3 and if it ever gets released SA-5, as well as a few others), maybe a few more ground vehicles though mostly REDFOR. There is also the La Combatantte IIa, though is firing the wrong (and an 80s) missile.
• The 80s has the overwhelming majority of REDFOR vehicles, as well as a couple more air defences, plenty of REDFOR ships fit in here too. You've also got the majority of FC3, with an early F-14A in the works.
• The 90s has everything from the 80s, plus both our Tomcats, AJS 37, a couple more vehicles and air defences.
• Then 2000s and beyond, where basically the only thing going is BLUFOR, with 1 GREENFOR aircraft, only a couple of modern air defences (and the only one that's REDFOR is a single MANPAD), you've got all of the BLUFOR ships (apart from the La Combattante IIa). Most maps also fit around here. You do have the CAP with some pretty graphically questionable ships, though you have also got the ZTZ-96B and ZTZ-04A (though none of the CAP assets really fit anywhere, and the closest is the Marianas).

What I wish would've happened at some point is early on in the game is for developers to gather together and just pick a decade or a particular era (I don't really mind which, though my preference is the mid-to-late Cold War circa mid 70s to late 80s), and stick with it, getting it more fleshed out, before moving onto the next thing.

I am going to maintain that doing super modern stuff might've been short sighted when you consider that getting peer REDFOR is a complete non-starter.

On 8/3/2021 at 12:00 PM, LucShep said:

We can all future guess (positive and negative) but, with propper maps and assets for their era, I really think "A" versions of modern and semi-modern jets, as well as 50s/60s/70s jets, would be far more popular than WWII piston fighters, and probably as much as the currently popular modern fighters, in DCS.

Agreed.

Personally, if we did As or even just earlier Cs, I doubt they would've been significantly less successful, and there's the opportunity to offer paid upgrade packs that provides a more modern variant.

It seems like it would be much more difficult to start off with modern and then work backwards rather than start with the earlier stuff and then move forwards.

On 8/3/2021 at 12:00 PM, LucShep said:

Be it because of nostalgia, the extremely interesting era it was for aviation, and the fact that no other simulation/game developer has aproached these XX century time-periods in depth. So, IMO, it has been a lost chance for ED.

Exactly, though there is SF2, though it's more sim-lite.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Lace]

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

What I wish would've happened at some point is for developers to gather together and just pick a decade or a particular era (I don't really mind whic, though my preference is the mid-to-late Cold War circa mid 70s to late 80s), and stick with it, getting it more flushed out, before moving onto the next thing.

 

 

Very much this.  The idea of a sandbox  covering a time period of circa 80 years is ambitious as a 2D strategy game.  For a high quality, full fidelity combat flight simulator it is just crazy. 

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

Be it because of nostalgia, the extremely interesting era it was for aviation, and the fact that no other simulation/game developer has aproached these XX century time-periods in depth. So, IMO, it has been a lost chance for ED.

 

Exactly, though there is SF2, though it's more sim-lite.

 

 

Oh, I forgot about Strike Fighters 2!  

And how could I, it's one of my guilty pleasures  (alll expansions and utterly modded). 

Yes! And actually I really think ED should take some notes from Thirdwire's book of tricks, to inspire a little on how content of different eras and scenarios can be put togheter.

While very fantasy, old and sim-lite as it is, SF2 covered pretty much everything from 1950s to 1990s.

Edited August 3, 2021 by LucShep

[bies]

49 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Oh, I forgot about Strike Fighters 2!  

And how could I, it's one of my guilty pleasures  (alll expansions and utterly modded). 

Yes! And actually I really think ED should take some notes from Thirdwire's book of tricks, to inspire a little on how content of different eras and scenarios can be put togheter.

While very fantasy, old and sim-lite as it is, SF2 covered pretty much everything from 1950s to 1990s.

 

IIRC it had 4 different games to cover the timeframe; late 1960s Vietnam, Europe Fulda late 1960s/early 1970s, North Europe GIUK 1970s, Israeli-Arab wars 1960s/1970s.

 

Every part had proper timeframe map and proper timeframe realistic aircraft set + ground assets.

 

It had nice timeframe inspired GUI, music and atmosphere as well.

Edited August 3, 2021 by bies

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, apart from NASAMS and the 9K338, all of the air defences top out at the early-ish 90s at best.

Nuh-uh! You forgot about the HQ-9, HQ-16 and all the Chinese ships form the mid-to-late '00s and all the other stuff in the Chinese Asset Pack (same as everyone else, really which is why they so rarely show up anywhere)! Therefore you are wrong about everything, so there! Nyah!

 

Never mind that, game-mechanically at the moment, they're just the S-300 and Buk systems with slightly bumped up values, and that they only appear on ships and therefore don't really offer any air defence assets to speak of. Then again, with the work Deka is putting in, it wouldn't be surprising to see them show up as their own ground systems eventually, which would be a nice addition to the roster.

 

More to the point, though, it's kind of interesting(? sad? worrying?) to see that there is this one developer actually doing some work to put in a peer opponent of sort to all the ever-more-modern stuff everyone is creating (or suddenly changing old modules to “always have been”… looking at you RAZBAM), but when they do, their work immediately gets subverted by ED and by players crying that it's too high-performing and offer too much of a threat to the modern bluefor stuff. It certainly highlights the whole problem with doing modern stuff at all: it immediately becomes political and a matter of national posturing since none of it has actually been combat-tested in any meaningful way. Dropping PGMs on tin sheds and Toyotas doesn't really count…

Edited August 3, 2021 by Tippis

[Northstar98]

On 8/3/2021 at 3:17 PM, Tippis said:

Nuh-uh! You forgot about the HQ-9, HQ-16 and all the Chinese ships form the mid-to-late '00s and all the other stuff in the Chinese Asset Pack (same as everyone else, really which is why they so rarely show up anywhere)! Therefore you are wrong about everything, so there! Nyah!

Knew I forgot something! You could also say the same about just vehicles as I missed the T-72B3, BTR-82A, ZTZ96B and ZBD-04A which are also post 2000s assets.

Even so, the modern era is definitely in a minority here, in comparison to the 80s/90s and WWII (well, apart from ships, seeing as all of BLUFOR apart from the La Combattante IIa (which is still firing the wrong missile) are post 2000s).

Though I'm not counting those as air defence units because they are:

On 8/3/2021 at 3:17 PM, Tippis said:

Never mind that, game-mechanically at the moment, they're just the S-300 and Buk systems with slightly bumped up values, and that they only appear on ships and therefore don't really offer any air defence assets to speak of.

And even so, the ships of the CAP do have some quite significant issues, I'm digressing here, but on top of the all the other things wrong/missing with naval, they're also pretty graphically questionable IMO, even in comparison to free assets added more than half a decade ago.

On 8/3/2021 at 3:17 PM, Tippis said:

Then again, with the work Deka is putting in, it wouldn't be surprising to see them show up as their own ground systems eventually, which would be a nice addition to the roster.

Agreed.

On 8/3/2021 at 3:17 PM, Tippis said:

(or suddenly changing old modules to “always have been”… looking at you RAZBAM)

Yeah, that was just a super bad move by them, I'm all for depicting stuff realistically to something specific, if that's what you want to go for (I'm sure you're well aware of that) but what I am absolutely not for, is having an aircraft that's was kinda hazy, but sorta fitting mid 2000s, keeping it in that state for years on end, releasing it (as kinda laughable as the term 'release state' has become) and after all of that, deciding that they actually want it to be a post 2010s variant, but only as far as the removal of the AGM-65F and nothing else (though it does have GBU-54, APKWS, and LITENING G4).

Personally, either pick something specific from the get go and stick with it, or in RAZBAM's case they should've just copied and pasted the aircraft they had, and done the modern stuff for a more modern mid 2010s aircraft (with LITENING G4, APKWS, GBU-54 etc), but keep the old one as a separate variant, without those things, but retaining older weapons. You could keep both accurate, and players can decide which one they want to use, without compromise.

On 8/3/2021 at 3:17 PM, Tippis said:

More to the point, though, it's kind of interesting (? sad? worrying?) to see that there is this one developer actually doing some work to put in a peer opponent of sort to all the ever-more-modern stuff everyone is creating, but when they do, their work immediately gets subverted by ED and by players crying that it's too high-performing and offer too much of a threat to the modern bluefor stuff. It certainly highlights the whole problem with doing modern stuff at all: it immediately becomes political and a matter of national posturing since none of it has actually been combat-tested in any meaningful way. Dropping PGMs on tin sheds and Toyotas doesn't really count…

Yeah, that's the other issue.

At least with older stuff you can see the IRL use cases and there are more relevant and concrete metrics to go on.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Munkwolf]

Some really good points being made. I don't have much to add except for one small thing regarding:

 

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I am going to maintain that doing super modern stuff might've been short sighted when you consider that getting peer REDFOR is a complete non-starter.

 

Afaik, wasn't the russian law that made modern redfor a non-starter enacted rather recently (last year year or two)? Ie, when ED began developing the 16 and 18, there was still the possibility of doing more modern redfor? If that's right, maybe not fair to call it short-sighted.

[Northstar98]

On 8/3/2021 at 4:24 PM, Munkwolf said:

Afaik, wasn't the russian law that made modern redfor a non-starter enacted rather recently (last year year or two)? Ie, when ED began developing the 16 and 18, there was still the possibility of doing more modern redfor? If that's right, maybe not fair to call it short-sighted.

Hmm, that's a good point.

However, even without it's pretty doubtful that they would've been able to have been done regardless, owing to the lack of unclassified sources and the willingness of operators and manufacturers to cooperate (hell even the Mirage 2000C is only in the state it is now due to direct involvement by the AdA, Dassault are certainly notrious about this kinda thing).

I might be misremembering or pulling stuff out of my backside, but I can't remember them ever being a possibility outside of it potentially being open to 3rd parties being able to try, the new law was more of a nail in the coffin so to speak.

I'd advise against taking my word for it though, as I'm probably getting muddled up.

So far the only full-fidelity, fixed-wing REDFOR that's ever been on the list is the 9-12 MiG-29, the initial production variant circa early 80s, and even that is a 'hope to' at this stage.
Meanwhile our Eurofighter (which is supposedly a German Luftwaffe variant) is being heavily teased with MBDA Meteor; a missile that the Luftwaffe only just finished flight testing a few days ago at time of writing (15th Aug 2021).

So that's a 40 year age gap, the same age gap between the Su-27 and the Bf-109 K4, or the F-4C/D and the F-22A...

Edited January 24, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Dudikoff]

I wouldn't expect that the potential for modelling a Su-27SM influenced ED's decision on the Hornet's variant. I'd presume they'd simply chosen the latest they could get the docs for as they seem to be catering for the crowd which wants to recreate the current conflicts rather than fight some Cold War hypotheticals as presumably the former are more numerous (unfortunately).

 

To be fair, the later Hornet variants are certainly much more capable in both A2A and A2G, but my heart would always go for the times of less multi-role where numerous airframes optimized for certain missions were the standard of the day.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Dudikoff

[Northstar98]

On 8/3/2021 at 4:40 PM, Dudikoff said:

I wouldn't expect that the potential for modelling a Su-27SM influenced ED's decision on the Hornet's variant. I'd presume they'd simply chosen the latest they could get the docs for as they seem to be catering for the crowd which wants to recreate the current conflicts rather than fight some Cold War hypotheticals as presumably the former are more numerous (unfortunately).

Personally, it sounds to me like what they chose was just latest and greatest as possible (though in development screenshots it was an older variant).

I don't really think recreating modern scenarios had much to do with it, because we only got that thanks to Ugra with the Syria map. But even so, that's just the map, you're still missing a whole load of stuff that still means we've got the 'inch-deep' thing, it's better than nothing sure, but there's plenty still missing. And to make matters worse, the current crude coalition system is really quite poor, and doesn't nearly offer the flexibility for a conflict as complicated as that one.

But moving forward (though this should've been the case from the start IMO), is to pick a decade (I don't really mind which, though as I've said, the mid-to-late Cold War circa mid 70s - late 80s is my preference), I wish we could pick a particular era, commit to it, get it fleshed out with modules, assets and maps (at least to the level of current WWII), then move on. Instead of being kinda all over the place.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
spelling

[Tippis]

17 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I don't really think recreating modern scenarios had much to do with it, because we only got that thanks to Ugra with the Syria map.

Quite. The problem with “modern scenarios” is that none of the modern aircraft represented by our modules take part in those. The moment anyone brings up system or capability X, Y or Z to be added (or removed) from the Viper, Hornet or Hog, it is immediately met with the counter-argument that, nu-uh, it's very specifically the ANG viper or block 20 or [whatever version] A-10 that are being represented in those modules, and they didn't have X, Y or Z. But out of those, only the A-10 has even the possibility of having flown in that conflict. And chances are that it was some other variant even in that case.

 

If we were to assume that a will to create a modern scenario was what drove the selection of aircraft versions, those aircraft versions could not have been picked to begin with. The selection process would defeat itself. Indeed, if we wanted to explicitly recreate a modern conflict, we'd have to get those FF redfor aircraft that everyone is clamouring for that we also can't have. So modern conflicts are just out of the picture, full stop — it has to be imaginary.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Tippis

[LucShep]

58 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Quite. The problem with “modern scenarios” is that none of the modern aircraft represented by our modules take part in those. The moment anyone brings up system or capability X, Y or Z to be added (or removed) from the Viper, Hornet or Hog, it is immediately met with the counter-argument that, nu-uh, it's very specifically the ANG viper or block 20 or [whatever version] A-10 that are being represented in those modules, and they didn't have X, Y or Z. But out of those, only the A-10 has even the possibility of having flown in that conflict. And chances are that it was some other variant even in that case.

 

If we were to assume that a will to create a modern scenario was what drove the selection of aircraft versions, those aircraft versions could not have been picked to begin with. The selection process would defeat itself. Indeed, if we wanted to explicitly recreate a modern conflict, we'd have to get those FF redfor aircraft that everyone is clamouring for that we also can't have. So modern conflicts are just out of the picture, full stop — it has to be imaginary.

 

 

Yep, exactly.

And that goes into another topic partially related to the one in the OT here, that has been well argumented in these forums other times -  which is the fact that DCS is "kinda all over the place" (like Northstar98 said so well).

 

Honestly, that's the part that still disapoints mostly with DCS... it's not the graphics (they're great!), or lack of airplanes/helicopters (more than enough to entertain me for years - and still more to get), and it's not even the fact that it is unoptimized (which it certainly is).

We've had LOMAC, FC1 and FC2 (before BS1 and A-10C separate game titles), and it all made sense as a total package.

Well over a decade later, having DCS and such good content (it really is) for us to use, but all so mixed up context wise, and historically wise very questionable, sometimes leaves me scratching my head thinking "how am I going to make sense out of this".

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by LucShep

[Northstar98]

On 8/3/2021 at 5:21 PM, LucShep said:

Yep, exactly.

And that goes into another topic partially related to the one in the OT here, that has been well argumented in these forums other times -  which is the fact that DCS is "kinda all over the place" (like Northstar98 said so well).

 

Honestly, that's the part that still disapoints mostly with DCS... it's not the graphics (they're great!), or lack of airplanes/helicopters (more than enough to entertain me for years - and still more to get), and it's not even the fact that is is unoptimized (which it certainly is).

We've had LOMAC, FC1 and FC2, and it all made sense as a total package.

Well over a decade later, having such good content (it really is) to use now in DCS but all mixed up, context wise, sometimes leaves me scratching my head thinking "how am I going to make sense out of this".

I absolutely agree, and aside from AI, damage modelling, and lack of fidelity in a few areas, the 'mile-wide, but inch-deep' thing is by far one of the biggest issues for me, and it lends to DCS ending up quite hollow after a while.

Which is why I wish that what we did from the start was pick an era, or decade or conflict or whatever, commit to it, get it fleshed out (at minimum to the level of what WWII currently is) then move onto the next.

Here was a thread which went into more detail about the subject, and I highly recommend participating if this is an issue for anyone else.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[MAXsenna]

What they really should is stop modelling individual airframes as a package.
They should go all in Lego style.
Simulate/model airframe/parts/engine/avionics etc. And "lock" them in the ME.
Flight model could be an issue though...

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[wilbur81]

On 8/2/2021 at 9:07 AM, KIllshot0597 said:

 It's hard enough to maintain a single airframe per module.
 

This ^^^

 

Come back asking for "A" models of current modules when they're all out of early access, oben beta, 90% bug free, full-featured, etc.

Edited August 3, 2021 by wilbur81

[Northstar98]

Welp, there's certainly Aerges (granted not released yet), and HB...

But a good way to create modules that seem to be endlessly in development is to go for the latest and greatest, as evidenced by basically each and every one of them apart from the JF-17...

And it'll probably be the case for the AH-64D too, which IIRC ED said themselves it'll be more like an A at EA.

The thing is, they should've probably the ones to do from the get go, easier to start off a bit more basic and work up (exactly what ED did with MITL weapons), plus there's greater financial incentive to go that way around rather than the other way around.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[DaWu]

God beware. Leave the old stuff in the museum 

[Lace]

10 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And it'll probably be the case for the AH-64D too, which IIRC ED said themselves it'll be more like an A at EA.

 

 

I'll bet if they'd done an AH-1 Cobra it would be finished by now...

[killkenny1]

Maybe a good solution would have been to sell a base A model for $50 + upgrade to modern variant for additional $30.

Although there would have been more work, so not sure how financially it would be viable for ED to do such thing.