More early Cold War and the Hawker Hunter

[irisono]

From many discussions in forum posts one gets the impression that DCS should be more involved in the direction of the Cold War era. The reasons given are: Increasing difficulties in obtaining information on newer aircraft (because they are classified). Increasing disaffection of many users to constantly have to play BVR scenarios and last but not least a higher immersion when simulating ACM or classic dogfights in low altitude (especially for VR users). And that is exactly what I wish for: maps, planes and assets packs representing the period 1950-1980.

Maps:

- Korea 1950-1953, Vietnam 1961-1975

- Suez/Sinai, Middle East 1956-1973

- Baltic 1955-1980

 

Full fidelity planes:

- Mig-17F, F-84F, Mystère IVA, Mig-21F-13, Su-7M, Mirage III/5, F-104G

- And above all the icon of military aviation the Hawker Hunter

 

AI planes and Assets:

- IL-10, F-84E, IL-28, Camberra B.Mk2, Venom Mk.4, Vautour, IL-38, Br.1150 Atlantic, An-2

- IL-14M, An-12, Douglas C-118B, Noratlas, early helis Mi-4, S-58, Alouette III

[Furiz]

2 hours ago, irisono said:

From many discussions in forum posts one gets the impression that DCS should be more involved in the direction of the Cold War era.

And yet best selling aircraft are from the modern era.

2 hours ago, irisono said:

Increasing disaffection of many users to constantly have to play BVR scenarios and last but not least a higher immersion when simulating ACM or classic dogfights in low altitude (especially for VR users).

Where did you get that idea? many ppl love modern tactics, BVR and long range SAM engagements. JDAM, JSOW, LGBs working with TGP to find targets communicating with JTAC etc.

Many ppl are not voicing out on the forums.

Maybe you got the wrong impression of things.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Furiz

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, irisono said:

From many discussions in forum posts one gets the impression that DCS should be more involved in the direction of the Cold War era. The reasons given are: Increasing difficulties in obtaining information on newer aircraft (because they are classified). Increasing disaffection of many users to constantly have to play BVR scenarios and last but not least a higher immersion when simulating ACM or classic dogfights in low altitude (especially for VR users). And that is exactly what I wish for: maps, planes and assets packs representing the period 1950-1980.

I'm not sure how many of us are dissatisfied with BVR combat but looking at the forums I get the impression that a lot of people want cold war aircraft for the multiplayer aspect. Since unless things change I don't expect we'll get modern Russian or Chinese fighters. Though the combat style is still a factor. Someone who likes close in dog fighting in a warbird is going to be interested in the Korean war and then there are people who like the Vietnam era and the dawn of missiles. 

 

6 hours ago, Furiz said:

And yet best selling aircraft are from the modern era.

I'd assume the warbirds are right behind the modern aircraft. As for the cold war aircraft I'd like to see a poll of why people pass them by? Is it really lack of interest or is it a lack of development? I expect to see a big spike in cold war players when the Phantom comes out. 

6 hours ago, irisono said:

Maps:

- Korea 1950-1953, Vietnam 1961-1975

- Suez/Sinai, Middle East 1956-1973

- Baltic 1955-1980

I would also add the Fulda gap and GIUK gap

 

6 hours ago, irisono said:

Full fidelity planes:

- Mig-17F, F-84F, Mystère IVA, Mig-21F-13, Su-7M, Mirage III/5, F-104G

- And above all the icon of military aviation the Hawker Hunter

the F-105 if those are possible. Also the F-80, Fh2 or F9F Panther

 

6 hours ago, irisono said:

AI planes and Assets:

- IL-10, F-84E, IL-28, Camberra B.Mk2, Venom Mk.4, Vautour, IL-38, Br.1150 Atlantic, An-2

- IL-14M, An-12, Douglas C-118B, Noratlas, early helis Mi-4, S-58, Alouette III

The IL-10, F-84E, Canberra would be awesome modules. The real question with the Canberra which version(s). Ideally I'd like an American and a British version. I'd like to see the A-3 and B-66 added to the AI aircraft list. 

 

6 hours ago, Furiz said:

Where did you get that idea? many ppl love modern tactics, BVR and long range SAM engagements. JDAM, JSOW, LGBs working with TGP to find targets communicating with JTAC etc.

Many ppl are not voicing out on the forums.

Maybe you got the wrong impression of things.

The people who like the modern set up might be too busy playing DCS but there are people in the forum who want to take their thud downtown and there are MiG-21 pilots who want to shoot them down

Edited January 23, 2023 by upyr1

[bies]

DCS accommodates every timeframe. Currently there are some 15 additional Cold War era modules in developement F-4E Phantom II, MiG-23MLA, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, OH-58 Kiowa, Bolkov 105, Sea Harrier, MiG-29A?, Su-17, Fiat G.91, MiG-17, F-8 Crusader, F-100 Super Sabre, A-1 Skyraider, Tornado IDS and 3 post Cold War F-15E, EF and Kiowa Warrior.

What is needed is at least one proper Cold War map, with history of some real all out air campaign, like 1950 Korea, 1962 Cuba, 1960s Vietnam, 1970s Sinai, 1980s Syria, 1991 Kuwait etc.

For now we have some 18 Cold War modules + 15 in developement and 0 (zero) maps for them. Let's see what future brings.

 

i.e. Cuban Missile Crisis

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by bies

[Mars Exulte]

7 hours ago, Furiz said:

And yet best selling aircraft are from the modern era.

Where did you get that idea? many ppl love modern tactics, BVR and long range SAM engagements. JDAM, JSOW, LGBs working with TGP to find targets communicating with JTAC etc.

Many ppl are not voicing out on the forums.

Maybe you got the wrong impression of things.

 

Cause he made it up five seconds ago based on the reports of an extensive sample of the community consisting of him/herself and one or two friends from WWII sims.

 That aside, wasn't there somebody making a Hawker Hunter around here somewhere? I know there's a couple of early planes (MiG-17, G91, F-100) in the works, I thought the Hunter was, too, but I don't remember who had it.

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, bies said:

Currently there are some 15 additional Cold War era modules in developement F-4E Phantom II, MiG-23MLA, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, OH-58 Kiowa, Bolkov 105, Sea Harrier, MiG-29A?, Su-17, Fiat G.91, MiG-17, F-8 Crusader, F-100 Super Sabre, A-1 Skyraider, Tornado IDS

I'm happy about that.  

 

4 hours ago, bies said:

What is needed is at least one proper Cold War map, with history of some real all out air campaign, like 1950 Korea, 1962 Cuba, 1960s Vietnam, 1970s Sinai, 1980s Syria, 1991 Kuwait etc.

I'd rather not have another desert map, however if we get one with Iraq, Kuwait, and Iran since we have a good line up for ODS and the Iran/Iraq war. A Korean map would be awesome but I'd like to see some more assets for the era. 

[Bremspropeller]

14 hours ago, bies said:

For now we have some 18 Cold War modules + 15 in developement and 0 (zero) maps for them. Let's see what future brings.

 

i.e. Cuban Missile Crisis

Sinai can act well as a CW map. It won't be contemprary to the conflicts that raged, but at least it stands in for a conflict that was ongoing for 20 years.

Cuba, in contrast, was *hot* for thirteen days. And hot is quite a stretch, in that the only things shot were photos. For the most part anyway. It would be a beautiful place to fly over nonetheless.

A Hunter would work well on the Sinai and Syria maps - Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon being past users.

[Bananabrai]

29 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

in that the only things shot were photos

and 30mm Spatzen. (How is the quote in the original language, always watched in German)

[Bananabrai]

37 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

thirteen days.

Ah, found it, 20 or 40mm Sparrows? Time stamp around 5:10.

Don't forget a couple of SA-2 formed telephone boxes.

[bies]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Sinai can act well as a CW map. It won't be contemprary to the conflicts that raged, but at least it stands in for a conflict that was ongoing for 20 years.

Cuba, in contrast, was *hot* for thirteen days. And hot is quite a stretch, in that the only things shot were photos. For the most part anyway. It would be a beautiful place to fly over nonetheless.

True it was short and undecisive, i'm not pushing this idea very much, especially compared to full blown Korea, Vietnam, Six Day War, Lebanon War, Iraq-Iran war etc. - still even 1962 Cuba has seen more significant 2 weeks air campaign than Burj Khalifa and atrificial islands of 2020 Dubai which has seen 0 air combat and which can support only fictional air campaign scenarios. Technically this architecture is too modern even for our F/A-18C, F-16C, AH-64D from ~2006. Let alone 1980s when this place saw significant combat for the last time.

Theoretically man can fly 1950s MiG-19, F-100, A-1. Or 1970 F-4, F-5E, MiG-21 (hell even 1940s Spitfire) over modern day Beirut or Damascus illuminated blocks and modern skyscrapers, but it is only so-so experience obviously. And Syria is not that well developed so it is still not the worst case scenarion, you can i.e. purposely avoid cites etc.

But why there are WW2 Channel or Normandy map or WW2 Mariana map intentionally derived from 2020 Marianas map? Because flying over roughly proper timeframe map is far better, more atmospheric and realistic experience.

 

Could man fly 1950 MiG-15bis, A-1 Skyraider or F-86F Sabre over i.e. modern day Korean map? Theoretically yes,

dogfighting Sabres in between Haeundae Udong Hyundai I’Park skyscrapers,

 

trying to lose chasing MiG-15s flying below illuminated Saetgang Bridge,

 

or trying to pick up downed pilot in A-1, waiting below futuristic rainbow Busan Cinema Center, landing on six-line expressway nearby,

 

but it would be one time funny thing at best and poor experience with 0 realism or atmosphere at worst. Or something in between like meme time travel Tomcats vs Zeroes form The Final Countdown.

Edited January 24, 2023 by bies

[irisono]

Am 23.1.2023 um 16:33 schrieb Furiz:

And yet best selling aircraft are from the modern era.

Where did you get that idea? many ppl love modern tactics, BVR and long range SAM engagements. JDAM, JSOW, LGBs working with TGP to find targets communicating with JTAC etc.

Many ppl are not voicing out on the forums.

Maybe you got the wrong impression of things.

 

I respect this attitude and I can also imagine that a group of people like to do this. But BVR means watching at 2-dimensional screens and orienting yourself in a cockpit that has at most a focus distance of 3 feet. This is not exactly breathtaking for VR users. ACM, on the other hand, means searching the airspace, keeping visual contact with the opponent and fighting in a 3-dimensical space. Mudmovers want to put in at low altitude along deep canyons to their targets and combat them. They want to see their weapons effect in 3D and not over a screen. Apart from WW II, early Cold War scenarios can offer this. Whether we like it or not, the future in the sim genre is VR.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, bies said:

True it was short and undecisive, i'm not pushing this idea very much, especially compared to full blown Korea, Vietnam, Six Day War, Lebanon War, Iraq-Iran war etc. - still even 1962 Cuba has seen more significant 2 weeks air campaign than Burj Khalifa and atrificial islands of 2020 Dubai which has seen 0 air combat and which can support only fictional air campaign scenarios. Technically this architecture is too modern even for our F/A-18C, F-16C, AH-64D from ~2006. Let alone 1980s when this place saw significant combat for the last time.

Theoretically man can fly 1950s MiG-19, F-100, A-1. Or 1970 F-4, F-5E, MiG-21 (hell even 1940s Spitfire) over modern day Beirut or Damascus illuminated blocks and modern skyscrapers, but it is only so-so experience obviously. And Syria is not that well developed so it is still not the worst case scenarion, you can i.e. purposely avoid cites etc.

But why there are WW2 Channel or Normandy map or WW2 Mariana map intentionally derived from 2020 Marianas map? Because flying over roughly proper timeframe map is far better, more atmospheric and realistic experience.

 

Could man fly 1950 MiG-15bis, A-1 Skyraider or F-86F Sabre over i.e. modern day Korean map? Theoretically yes,

dogfighting Sabres in between Haeundae Udong Hyundai I’Park skyscrapers,

 

trying to lose chasing MiG-15s flying below illuminated Saetgang Bridge,

 

or trying to pick up downed pilot in A-1, waiting below futuristic rainbow Busan Cinema Center, landing on six-line expressway nearby,

 

but it would be one time funny thing at best and poor experience with 0 realism or atmosphere at worst. Or something in between like meme time travel Tomcats vs Zeroes form The Final Countdown.

 

While I consider assets to be more important than maps, I still consider maps to be vital. They are both components to an flight sim ecosystem. I believe one of the goals with the Marianas map is to configure it so that if you select the 1940s you get the World War II map and if you select some point after the 1940s you get the modern map. I would love it if Eagle makes this a feature in other maps as well. There are some regions that have been hot spots for decades, such as the Korean peninsula or the middle east. 

[bies]

41 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

While I consider assets to be more important than maps, I still consider maps to be vital. They are both components to an flight sim ecosystem. I believe one of the goals with the Marianas map is to configure it so that if you select the 1940s you get the World War II map and if you select some point after the 1940s you get the modern map. I would love it if Eagle makes this a feature in other maps as well. There are some regions that have been hot spots for decades, such as the Korean peninsula or the middle east. 

2 versions of the map is a good idea but i suppose making i.e. 1950 Korea and 2005 Korea would be more different than two Mariana islands. I would obviously like 1950s Korean map for MiG-15, F-86, A-1 etc. - but what conflicts took place after the war?

In 1950-1953 there was massive all out war directly involving North Korea, South Korea, USA, China, in smaller degree USSR, UK, Canada, Turkey, Australia, France and some 10 other countries, it was limited world war with some 5 million soldiers involved, 1 million military and 2-3 million of civilian casualties. When both sides performed some 800 000 sorties and lost around 4000 aircrafts. After 1953, until today, there were just small border skirmishes - not any air campaigns or any open war. Always less than 1% of the scale of 1950s war.

That's why i think if we take i.e. Korean map 1950s should have absolute priority. And you're right AI assets are crucial. In case of Korea big part of them would be straight WW2 ones though.

Edited January 24, 2023 by bies

[MAXsenna]

A U2 went down in the Cuban Crises. Did it not?

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

10 minutes ago, bies said:

2 versions of the map is a good idea but i suppose making i.e. 1950 Korea and 2005 Korea would be more different than two Mariana islands. I would obviously like 1950s Korean map for MiG-15, F-86, A-1 etc. - but what conflicts took place after the war?

A 1950s Korean map would have to be the priority. I just think the later eras would be nice to have, as the Koreas have had quite a few border clashes that could have turned into a war since 1953. I know it won't be as easy as the Marianas so it would make sense to sell them as seperate maps which get loaded based on the date.

 

28 minutes ago, bies said:

And you're right AI assets are crucial. In case of Korea big part of them would be straight WW2 ones though.

This is the reason I am constantly screaming about the lack of Red Army and air force assets in the World War II asset pack. Right now all we can really do is shoot down MiG-15s and strafe lend lease vehicles 

17 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

A U2 went down in the Cuban Crises. Did it not?

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

that happened. I could see a Cuba goes hot scenario, but we would need the Soviet Navy 

[Gunfreak]

4 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

A 1950s Korean map would have to be the priority. I just think the later eras would be nice to have, as the Koreas have had quite a few border clashes that could have turned into a war since 1953. I know it won't be as easy as the Marianas so it would make sense to sell them as seperate maps which get loaded based on the date.

 

This is the reason I am constantly screaming about the lack of Red Army and air force assets in the World War II asset pack. Right now all we can really do is shoot down MiG-15s and strafe lend lease vehicles 

that happened. I could see a Cuba goes hot scenario, but we would need the Soviet Navy 

Not even a T34.

I honestly don't know why there are so little ground assets. It mostly just model or. I mean in this game a T34 and Sherman are more or less the same thing.  You just need a T34 model and strap it on what ever Sherman script you have. I know the model work takes time. The new models are very nice (unlike the now ancient "modern" infantry models. I mean this is something that could be leased out. There's millions working on 3d model. They could even get the community to do it. They make the model and then ED adds the model to an existing ground asset framework. Add some numbers for armor thickness and done. I'm sure they could pay the modders in free moduals. Hell some would probably do it just for the credit and knowing they are helping a game they love.

The Swedish asset pack. Should be added as an official optional download if the creator would agree to it.

[upyr1]

25 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Not even a T34.

I honestly don't know why there are so little ground assets. It mostly just model or. I mean in this game a T34 and Sherman are more or less the same thing.  You just need a T34 model and strap it on what ever Sherman script you have. I know the model work takes time. The new models are very nice (unlike the now ancient "modern" infantry models. I mean this is something that could be leased out. There's millions working on 3d model. They could even get the community to do it.

ED will buy assets from the community, I just wish people would take them up on the offer. I know that if I had the talent, I would do that. 

[bies]

When it comes to assets: why DCS needs extremally high detail high quality 3d model AI assets? Wouldn't be better to make 100 medium quality i.e. tanks, AAA guns, artillery pieces etc. than 10 extremally high quality?

How close do i need to fly with i.e. Apache or Hing (let alone Hornet or Tomcat) to Leopard 2 to see ANY difference between medium and high quality model? Or Elephant SPG from Mosquito. 20 meters? 30? In practice it never happens. Sacrificing never visible AI assets quality we would fill DCS with all timeframes assets fast.

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, bies said:

When it comes to assets: why DCS needs extremally high detail high quality 3d model AI assets? Wouldn't be better to make 100 medium quality i.e. tanks, AAA guns, artillery pieces etc. than 10 extremally high quality?

How close do i need to fly with i.e. Apache or Hing (let alone Hornet or Tomcat) to Leopard 2 to see ANY difference between medium and high quality model? Or Elephant SPG from Mosquito. 20 meters? 30? In practice it never happens. Sacrificing never visible AI assets quality we would fill DCS with all timeframes assets fast.

A low quality asset is better than none at all. 

[draconus]

I also would like to see more medium-quality AI assets, since we already have a mix of low, medium and high quality ones but I get that ED wants to future-proof them and not have to go back to it once again in a few years when those of medium quality become low quality - now in need of urgent upgrade, not suitable for the new gfx engine. New models are done with consideration for IR and future damage modeling. Some need new weapons added. It's not only just a model.