Would you like more modern weapons on russian 4th gen fighters even if its not realistic?

[Zebra1-1]

I'm all for keeping the weapons and frames proportionate to the timeframe. If xx weapon was never available for xx aircraft, then it shouldn't be modeled in DCS. This is a SIM. ED already said there will be no more FC3 aircraft, so drop it already. If you have nothing to contribute, then you shouldn't be here giving ED a hard time. Especially when (in most cases) it is the same people complaining about the cost of modules. 
Maybe War Thunder or something else is more up your alley if you want DCS to go the way of Ace Combat. 
 

[Nipil]

Officially allowing such deviations from reality in vanilla game seems contrary to the underlying idea of DCS. If you want to use something like R-77-1 or the likes, you can use mods. There are already some that offer both modern REDFOR airplanes and weapons. No need to mess with the vanilla game.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

And the Mirage F1. If you think about it the F-14A, F-4E, F-5E will be able to give a pretty good fight if they have the Numbers to the F-16 and F-18. 

With the theareters we have so far the mirage f-1 and MiG-21 will be hanger mates while the F-4, F-5 and F-14A will be the OP For. That will change when we get a post WWII European map. 

[okopanja]

On 9/20/2023 at 11:39 AM, Nickkerkwijk said:

I'm not 100% sure but it seems like this video here describes what you posted. 4:20 you'll see a pair of Ka50's with a Ka29. Also the rocket attacks + vikhr launches are visible

This is the first video in which I see real ABRIS working a bit later from 4:20

[Harlikwin]

7 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

That’s just it the mid 2000s we’re not “balanced.” You want that get an IADS module in game. It is frustrating for me that the FC birds that I used to love playing a stuck in the FC state. But that’s not because of a desire to balance the modern jets. The modern stuff is just so difficult to do as you pointed out. It’s getting better but it takes forever. Honestly I agree the Cold War is where it’s at. The late Cold War gives you enough sensors to find each other and a good mix of weapons when you do. Fox1 fighting leads to lots of merges and there are jets galore to model. Not to mention everything at some point did or could have fought everything. We need some more attackers on all sides. There already is good representation in DCS but the F-4E especially the newer one is going to kick that up a good bit allowing for the full range of mission sets to be flown. Hopefully we get a good Mig-23, and Su-17 at some point we have the Reds modeled pretty well. The A-7E will be great and give us the full range of missions off the boat. Then there are the one offs like the Kafir and the AJS37. Put all that together and you have a ton of different fights possible that are balanced and fun all without the need for fantasy load outs 

Yup I agree fully. Honestly the core game mechanics need some serious work too, the way SAMs work currently in DCS is just bad.

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

With the theareters we have so far the mirage f-1 and MiG-21 will be hanger mates while the F-4, F-5 and F-14A will be the OP For. That will change when we get a post WWII European map. 

Yeah, I mean if the PG map actually stretched to Iraq we would have a decent setup with the Mig21,23 and F1, add the 29 for an honorable mention at the end, vs the F4/5/14A-95.  In alot of ways Iran or Iraq as good/bad guy makes a decent sense from the plane mix.

 

[okopanja]

4 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yup I agree fully. Honestly the core game mechanics need some serious work too, the way SAMs work currently in DCS is just bad.

Yeah, I mean if the PG map actually stretched to Iraq we would have a decent setup with the Mig21,23 and F1, add the 29 for an honorable mention at the end, vs the F4/5/14A-95.  In alot of ways Iran or Iraq as good/bad guy makes a decent sense from the plane mix.

 

Actually extending Caucasus map east and down to the middle east would also make sense.

[Harlikwin]

6 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Actually extending Caucasus map east and down to the middle east would also make sense.

Yeah, but again, unlikely to happen. Best I would hope for would be a "kuwait" map, mostly on a N/S axis to cover iran/iraq border and ending E/W at the big cities so they wouldn't have to be modeled.

You could do iran/iraq, DS1, and DS2 in that area pretty well. I'm honestly both amazed and appalled that its not a map yet. 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Harlikwin

[upyr1]

11 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yup I agree fully. Honestly the core game mechanics need some serious work too, the way SAMs work currently in DCS is just bad.

Yeah, I mean if the PG map actually stretched to Iraq we would have a decent setup with the Mig21,23 and F1, add the 29 for an honorable mention at the end, vs the F4/5/14A-95.  In alot of ways Iran or Iraq as good/bad guy makes a decent sense from the plane mix.

 

 That's my biggest issue with the map itself. I would love to see it get expanded 

[okopanja]

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah, but again, unlikely to happen. Best I would hope for would be a "kuwait" map, mostly on a N/S axis to cover iran/iraq border and ending E/W at the big cities so they wouldn't have to be modeled.

You could do iran/iraq, DS1, and DS2 in that area pretty well. I'm honestly both amazed and appalled that its not a map yet. 

 

 

If I have to guess Wag's world map would start by bridging the gaps between Caucasus, Syria and PG.

[Harlikwin]

53 minutes ago, okopanja said:

If I have to guess Wag's world map would start by bridging the gaps between Caucasus, Syria and PG.

Pretty sure that was canceled, since they couldn't figure out how to make the current flat DCS maps curved. Or "its a thing we want to do"

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

If I have to guess Wag's world map would start by bridging the gaps between Caucasus, Syria and PG.

World map will be separate from our regional maps, it won't add the current maps to the World Map, they will be separate things. This at least was and is the most recent information we have been given. The map tech will be different from current regional maps to the World Map. 

[MAXsenna]

49 minutes ago, NineLine said:

World map will be separate from our regional maps, it won't add the current maps to the World Map, they will be separate things. This at least was and is the most recent information we have been given. The map tech will be different from current regional maps to the World Map. 

Won't stop us wishing and hoping they can be ported over in the future!

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

World map will be separate from our regional maps, it won't add the current maps to the World Map, they will be separate things. This at least was and is the most recent information we have been given. The map tech will be different from current regional maps to the World Map. 

One of my questions with the world map, is whether the plan is to do historical eras? 

[Harlikwin]

24 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

One of my questions with the world map, is whether the plan is to do historical eras? 

Its a good question, but I'm gonna be real doubtful.

 

[Smith]

At the moment 1 out of 4 people would like to have more advanced weapons on the Flankers and Fulcrums. It is the minority, but actually not very small. I at least hope ED is re-evaluating their decission and giving us the option to get some of the weapons of Flanker 2.5 back

Edited September 24, 2023 by Smith

[okopanja]

8 hours ago, Smith said:

At the moment 1 out of 4 people would like to have more advanced weapons on the Flankers and Fulcrums. It is the minority, but actually not very small. I at least hope ED is re-evaluating their decission and giving us the option to get some of the weapons of Flanker 2.5 back

 

The number of votes is rather small, so you can not make the conclusions.

In light of IRL events it seams plausable to add at least some of those modern weapons. By this I do not mean only a single side or country.

Have in mind that at the end it is the mission designer(with some effort) who decides to include them or not.

Edited September 24, 2023 by okopanja

[F-2]

Is it necessary to do fake loads? We have pictures of the J-11A carrying pl-12 on its centerline now.

[Silver_Dragon]

8 hours ago, Smith said:

At the moment 1 out of 4 people would like to have more advanced weapons on the Flankers and Fulcrums. It is the minority, but actually not very small. I at least hope ED is re-evaluating their decission and giving us the option to get some of the weapons of Flanker 2.5 back

 

Advances weapons was only a "fake" on the olf Flanker 2.5, that weapons was removed when ED get more realistic info about weapons loadouts on russia aircrafts. That weapons dont go to return on DCS World.

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, Smith said:

At the moment 1 out of 4 people would like to have more advanced weapons on the Flankers and Fulcrums. It is the minority, but actually not very small. I at least hope ED is re-evaluating their decission and giving us the option to get some of the weapons of Flanker 2.5 back

 

So 3/4 people don't want the weapons. That's a super majority. My question is which of these weapons might we see on a Fitter.

[Seaeagle]

9 hours ago, Smith said:

At the moment 1 out of 4 people would like to have more advanced weapons on the Flankers and Fulcrums. It is the minority, but actually not very small. I at least hope ED is re-evaluating their decission and giving us the option to get some of the weapons of Flanker 2.5 back

 

Yeah Flanker 2.5 - still my favourite for the planeset and the overall naval focus.

But remember we had the MiG-29K in that, for which the weapon types in question were realistic. We don't have that anymore and as Silver_Dragon pointed out, they weren't realistic for the Su-33.

 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

9 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Yeah Flanker 2.5 - still my favourite for the planeset and the overall naval focus.

But remember we had the MiG-29K in that, for which the weapon types in question were realistic. We don't have that anymore and as Silver_Dragon pointed out, they weren't realistic for the Su-33.

Flanker 2.5 was no Lomac... on fact FC-3 has only on Lomac aircrafts.

About MiG-29K [Fulcrum D], Model 9.31. ‘Korabelnyy’ or shipboard version of MiG-29M was canceled on 1992, meanwhile, MiG-29KR [Fulcrum D] Fighter, the Model 9.41R on 2015 has de actual "Mig-29K" on Russian and Inidia fleet.

[upyr1]

10 hours ago, Smith said:

At the moment 1 out of 4 people would like to have more advanced weapons on the Flankers and Fulcrums. It is the minority, but actually not very small. I at least hope ED is re-evaluating their decission and giving us the option to get some of the weapons of Flanker 2.5 back

 

So 3/4 people don't want the weapons. That's a super majority. My question is which of these weapons might we see on a Fitter.

[Silver_Dragon]

52 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

So 3/4 people don't want the weapons. That's a super majority. My question is which of these weapons might we see on a Fitter.

That depends on the version of the fitter you want to build.

 

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

So 3/4 people don't want the weapons. That's a super majority. My question is which of these weapons might we see on a Fitter.

I'll just say that a clearly defined option for this really should satisfy 100% of people. I can see why people would be opposed to just letting any plane load anything in the regular menu:

It makes it hard to determine what is historic in single player

It prevents control of the features in MP (well not really since we added loadout restrictions, but then you'd have to figure out what is historic or not, etc)

With a clearly labeled checkbox, everyone who wants a historic single player has it enforced. And I'd also say the checkbox should be disabled by default (ie all limits are in place without work on the part of users). This also means that MP servers are historic with weapons by default. Then anyone wanting to expand from there has the option to do so on their own in single player where no one else is effected or on their own MP server where joining is a consensual decision. I don't see the problem here, but if someone does have an issue maybe they can enlighten me.

People can vote however, but if a no vote just comes down not wanting other people to have something (and I'm not making statements on how the vote options were interpreted here, if), I think that devalues that vote a bit.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

That depends on the version of the fitter you want to build.

 

How about the Su-22 variant which I believe Octopus G is working on?