1985 vs 2005 - aka will the DCS: F-15C allow us to disable modern features?

[BIGNEWY]

Our FAQ has details 

Also we have tagged this thread mid - 2000s

thank you 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

22 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Also we have tagged this thread mid - 2000s

Yes, I already asked on the first page to fix that, as the tag has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

[BIGNEWY]

Maybe I miss understand then, but we are modelling based on what is in the FAQ not an alternate means to model an earlier version.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

but we are modelling based on what is in the FAQ not an alternate means to model an earlier version

Yes I read the FAQ so I am well aware which version ED is modelling. Again that's not what this thread is about.

1. I asked people in general how the cockpit/systems differ between mid-'80s and mid-'00s - that was answered by various people so I'm happy I got an answer.

2. I asked ED if there will be a way to disable modern features (through for example Special Options) so we can have a believable late-'80s  - early-'90s bird (basically akin to what RAZBAM was planning with their F-15E).

[BIGNEWY]

Understood, I have moved this to the aviation section for discussion

thank you 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 minute ago, BIGNEWY said:

Understood, I have moved this to the aviation section for discussion

I give up... 

[felixx75]

13 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I asked ED if there will be a way to disable modern features (through for example Special Options) so we can have a believable late-'80s  - early-'90s bird (basically akin to what RAZBAM was planning with their F-15E).

Obviously the answer is no.

As always, we want what we don't get and are never satisfied with what we get, every time, with every new module.

[Kev2go]

On 1/19/2025 at 8:01 AM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

No it’s due to RAZBAM’s decision to model an early iteration first and then slowly incorporate more functionality and more modern systems (digital UFC, newer TPOD etc) as they progress through early access. And it was that process that was indeed interrupted.

But I applaud the approach they took and I wish ED would follow suit: start with an early ‘90s version first and then add in the shiny toys while allowing people the choice which era they wish to represent through Special Options.

Yes, exactly. In the end that’s what a lot of people here care deeply about: proper context outweighs having the latest toys.

I get what your saying but F15e that razbam was modelling wasnt even all that early. Like day 1 ea. The f15e variant came with egi navigation suite. So that alone made it unsuitable for gulf era, unless you turned off the gps within the ufc functions, and then just kept in mind armament limitations for 1st gulf war.

 

 Suite 4 + was supposed to be the baseline. And this was a circa 2003-2005 era aircraft. At a time when it got datalink and jdam integration( with plus version) with features from later iterations that were planned to be added down the line. Of course not all baseline suite 4 features got a chance to be completed but that another topic.

 

But to get back to your point of course the ideal solution to make everyone happy is either having multiple iterations of the f15c ( eg msip 2 circa gw1 and a msip 2 late)  or having a checkbox what features are enabled or not 

Edited January 20 by Kev2go

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

of course the ideal solution to make everyone happy

Yes, but I understand resources are limited so that's why I asked what the cockpit differences are. The F-15E having EGI didn't bother me since you can set the mission date at a point where no GPS is available - perhaps I simply don't know enough about the real aircraft but I never noticed anything in the cockpit (panels etc) that looked out-of-place for an early-'90s bird - luckily we had the older UFC at launch.
So if the cockpit of the MSIP II F-15C was exactly the same between late '80s and mid-2000s (and that seems to be the case), simple checkboxes in Special Options can achieve something that would otherwise take a new cockpit with certain panels removed and/or moved around.

[Weta43]

13 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

(...)

2. I asked ED if there will be a way to disable modern features (through for example Special Options) so we can have a believable late-'80s  - early-'90s bird (basically akin to what RAZBAM was planning with their F-15E).

Business is business, and saddened as I am by it, maybe I can see E.D.'s choice.

Many, many people with no real exposure to DCS will see that there's a full fidelity model of the F-15 available and be disappointed - perhaps to the point of not buying it - if it's an "A", or an Iraq contemporary C rather than the most modern variant modellable - they'll find another game or buy the "E" module.

Many, many existing users want to shoot things down more than they want historical realism - some using the correct procedure because that's their bag, & some just because they want to dominate the skies - & both groups will scream blue murder that E.D. are 'nurfing' Blue / The US / the F-15 if it isn't the most up to date version they can model.

...And then there are the smaller group of existing users who want to be able to replicate realistic combat for a time period or conflict (rather than just a realistic procedure). Most of those will buy it anyway & either accept that it's the incorrect version for the conflict they're modelling & try to find a way to use it that isn't 'search, select a target, fire before you're within their range, rinse and repeat', or try to limit stores to something time specific. 

So I guess E.D. can:

1. Make more sales by selling a newer version
2. Make the same number of sales but spend more money by making both a new and an 'older' version
3. lose more sales than they gain by modelling an older variant

As an approach maximising short term returns might over time make DCS into something it hasn't been & that loses its appeal to some parts of the current user base, but it does seem the current understanding of fiduciary duty is "take the money now, worry about tomorrow tomorrow"

& of course -there's also 'pay the wages today, worry about tomorrow tomorrow'

[felixx75]

2 hours ago, Weta43 said:

As an approach maximising short term returns might over time make DCS into something it hasn't been & that loses its appeal to some parts of the current user base, but it does seem the current understanding of fiduciary duty is "take the money now, worry about tomorrow tomorrow"

& of course -there's also 'pay the wages today, worry about tomorrow tomorrow'

I don't see it that way. The newer F-15C certainly sells better in the long term than a single old F-15, so the expression “short terms return” is wrong. I also don't see that a large part of the DCS community would “break away” because of this, why should they? The possibilities that you have in the editor to create interesting scenarios are very large and it is up to the mission designer to create realistic and interesting missions (and that is definitely possible).

Btw., we would now be having a discussion here about how much better a more modern F-15C would be if ED had announced an old F-15C (perhaps with different people, but the discussion would still exist). You always want what you don't have.

[bies]

11 hours ago, Weta43 said:

So I guess E.D. can:

1. Make more sales by selling a newer version
2. Make the same number of sales but spend more money by making both a new and an 'older' version
3. lose more sales than they gain by modelling an older variant

4. Make a small additional number of sales with both variants - without investing more money, just disabling a few things in existing one.

To be fair sales will increase even if only a bit when both versions are present, and they won't spend any significant amount of money by just disabling few elements in earlier variant, not modeling anything new.

[MAXsenna]

4. Make a small additional number of sales with both variants - without investing more money, just disabling a few things in existing one.
To be fair sales will increase even if only a bit when both versions are present, and they won't spend any significant amount of money by just disabling few elements in earlier variant, not modeling anything new.

I'd be willing to pay 10 Dollars for a later downgrade.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[TotenDead]

3 часа назад, bies сказал:

4. Make a small additional number of sales with both variants - without investing more money, just disabling a few things in existing one.

To be fair sales will increase even if only a bit when both versions are present, and they won't spend any significant amount of money by just disabling few elements in earlier variant, not modeling anything new.

Next step would be a subscription model: you pay each month or your radar won't work XD

[TotenDead]

14 часов назад, Weta43 сказал:

So I guess E.D. can:

1. Make more sales by selling a newer version
2. Make the same number of sales but spend more money by making both a new and an 'older' version
3. lose more sales than they gain by modelling an older variant

 

There's another way. Just look at war thunder: they sold the MiG-17 as a top dog, then they added next gen fighters and started selling the yak-38. After that they added even newer planes and made some cash on the newer MiG-21. These days they're selling the MiG-23ML

How much would they earn if they started the other way around? Way less, I suppose

ED could've started with the F-18A, then - 16A, after that - 15A. If so, this year they could've started to make the first C version of any of those planes. For full price tag, just like we got Fw-190A8 after 190D (btw, another questionable decision, but, well, yep...)
 

[zerO_crash]

On 1/16/2025 at 11:38 PM, TotenDead said:

Mid 2000s tech against the 80s MiG-29 makes a limited amount of sense.

 

Actually, few seem to understand, or even properly use Russian aircraft, as opposed to western. Most often, red aircraft are flown like blue, that in the aspect of a tactical single entity. In reality, the whole situation is much more complicated. Looking aside of less equipped Iraq/Iran/etc..., the Russian (I know you are Russian and aware of it) aircraft were designed from the ground up for being used as an extension of a GCI/AWACS. For instance, a MiG-29A doesn´t need a good radar, or actually even a radar at all. Assuming that the aircraft is used as per USSR air doctrine, it is directed by a competent GCI/AWACS controller to the point where weapons are released, and can further be guided by either the plane or the controller. Should a dogfight occur, the pilot will obviously know how to handle themselves based on the visual situation and their level of training and experience.

 

The Soviet approach did, and does make much sense in a perfect/near perfect world. With good GCI/AWACS coverage, aircraft don´t have to be upgraded as often, instead, only the radar stations. This mitigates a magnificent part of the cost associated with running a competent air force. Furthermore, it allows to keep pilot training to a minimum level, as it introduces a very basic and methodical approach to air combat. A good example here would be the French Rafale detachment participating in Red Flag at Nevada 2018/2019. American F-22/-35 pilots were somewhat frustrated, as the French planes would get close enough to fire off their Fox1´s/3´s, followed by an RTB. Granted, there was suspicion that French weren´t overly interested in the exercise itself, rather to get the chance to test their aircraft and onboard radars against "stealth" aircraft. The point still stands, and in the case of USSR/Russia, any deficiency would generally be solved by introducing a improved radar station, as opposed to refurbishing a whole air force. Datalink is simply a means to an end here. The same goes for Su-27, although as an offensive platform meant to operate over enemy territory, it was equipped with a more capable radar as a backup in case of being out of coverage from a CGI/AWACS. 

 

Of course, in DCS, in order to replicate this, we would need a dedicated GCI/AWACS controller, and the full functionality associated with a particular datalink, including the ability to guide the missiles from a fighter. We have one, not the other. That´s why it also gives off a skewed idea of what aircraft can combat what. Another, very important, point here, would be the sheer amount of aircraft that USSR had, vs. the west. At the height of the Cold War, USSR outnumbered western aircraft some 9-1. A post Cold War analysis by certain western pilots has indicated that there worries whether the west would even have enough A-A missiles, provided they´d fare well. In modern times, there are even fewer aircraft than what Cold War presented. As such, it only makes sense to have a considerable amount of MiG-29As to each and every western aircraft. (In DCS, we know that isn´t the case on quake servers, yet again skewing the overall picture.)

 

The fact is that the Soviet air force has never been tested (past WWII) particularly in a equal adversary A-A scenario, and neither have US. It´s difficult to make a statement one way or another as to what´s more efficient (more autonomy to the pilot or not). Still, consider that US never operates its air force in a blind zone. There is always at least one AWACS on station. That does tell you something about how important it is backup a single entity (plane/flight), and that what is being played on quake servers, is very far from anything IRL.

Edited January 21 by zerO_crash

[TotenDead]

2 часа назад, zerO_crash сказал:

 

...

We're playing a game here. In this game main redfor aircraft (Su-27 and MiG-29) are competitive against any aircraft from the 80s with weapons from the same era, but not against guests from the future. That's it
 

[zerO_crash]

Just now, TotenDead said:

We're playing a game here. In this game main redfor aircraft (Su-27 and MiG-29) are competitive against any aircraft from the 80s with weapons from the same era, but not against guests from the future. That's it
 

*"You"

 

I run a simulation, hence the in-depth. At the end of the day, suit yourself. 

[TotenDead]

9 минут назад, zerO_crash сказал:

*"You"

 

I run a simulation, hence the in-depth.

 

And it's totally fine, one can simulate things in need for speed, call of duty, minecraft or here. I just keep in mind that
 

Спойлер

And while simulating something must be interesting why should it necesserily be a choice between it and fun? Imagine flying a P-51D against a MiG-15bis. That's historically accurate. But is it actually fun?

[Harlikwin]

On 1/20/2025 at 4:32 AM, bies said:

Yes, things were going fast during the Cold War. A cold, but still like a war. F-15A production started 1974, 1976 became fully operational and in strenght in Europe, 1979 production of both F-15C and F-16A started. F-15A went to second-grade units, air defence, National Air Guard.

Ehhh, the availability of the early F15A/C was absolutely abysmal. Like ~25% or so per the docs, the best squadron in 79 had a 50% availability rate. The APG-63 MTBF was measured in like double digit hours as well then. "in strength" in europe never exceeded 100 planes, with like less than half actually flying in the 70's. All that changed after Regan took office but it took a few years too.

On 1/20/2025 at 1:54 PM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Yes, but I understand resources are limited so that's why I asked what the cockpit differences are. The F-15E having EGI didn't bother me since you can set the mission date at a point where no GPS is available - perhaps I simply don't know enough about the real aircraft but I never noticed anything in the cockpit (panels etc) that looked out-of-place for an early-'90s bird - luckily we had the older UFC at launch.
So if the cockpit of the MSIP II F-15C was exactly the same between late '80s and mid-2000s (and that seems to be the case), simple checkboxes in Special Options can achieve something that would otherwise take a new cockpit with certain panels removed and/or moved around.

Yeah, it would be great if ED actually did that. But with their track record I'd basically expect, nope.

[bies]

9 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

The fact is that the Soviet air force has never been tested (past WWII) particularly in a equal adversary A-A scenario

The closest ever were was Syria-Israel 1982 Lebanon War, where Syrian Soviet-made integrated air defence coupled with GCI and Soviet-built interceptors fought US-made fighters used to defeat both ground air defence and military aviation.

Both sides used doctrine and tactics from respectively the USSR and the U.S. and older versions of their fighters; Israeli F-15A and F-16A when USAF used F-15C and F-16C, and Syrians MiG-23MF, Su-22M and MiG-21bis, when USST used MiG-23ML. Plus Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-8, Soviet radars and electronic warfare, Soviet training and Soviet advicers and technicians directly in Syrian military.

Western elastic doctrine and fighters with SA and electronic warfare prevailed in a spectacular way, despite Syrian Soviet fighters and ground air defence having numerical superiority.

 

[pjbunnyru]

13 часов назад, TotenDead сказал:

There's another way. Just look at war thunder: they sold the MiG-17 as a top dog, then they added next gen fighters and started selling the yak-38. After that they added even newer planes and made some cash on the newer MiG-21. These days they're selling the MiG-23ML

How much would they earn if they started the other way around? Way less, I suppose

ED could've started with the F-18A, then - 16A, after that - 15A. If so, this year they could've started to make the first C version of any of those planes. For full price tag, just like we got Fw-190A8 after 190D (btw, another questionable decision, but, well, yep...)
 

and there would be sales, and pvp fans would not expres so much negativite due to lack of balanc (yeah, trigger for some) in the 4th generation for diferent sides

[TotenDead]

2 часа назад, bies сказал:

The closest ever were was Syria-Israel 1982 Lebanon War, where Syrian Soviet-made integrated air defence coupled with GCI and Soviet-built interceptors fought US-made fighters used to defeat both ground air defence and military aviation.

Both sides used doctrine and tactics from respectively the USSR and the U.S. and older versions of their fighters; Israeli F-15A and F-16A when USAF used F-15C and F-16C, and Syrians MiG-23MF, Su-22M and MiG-21bis, when USST used MiG-23ML. Plus Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-8, Soviet radars and electronic warfare, Soviet training and Soviet advicers and technicians directly in Syrian military.

Western elastic doctrine and fighters with SA and electronic warfare prevailed in a spectacular way, despite Syrian Soviet fighters and ground air defence having numerical superiority.

 

Iirc, most of syrian MiG-23s were of MS modification, not mf And the USSR had the 23MLA. 

Don't know about sams Syrians had, but if they were as downgraded as Iraq ones in 1991, those would be similar to what the USSR had in the 1960 capability wise (for example, their resistance to ecm was worse dozens of times)

[bies]

52 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Iirc, most of syrian MiG-23s were of MS modification, not mf And the USSR had the 23MLA. 

Don't know about sams Syrians had, but if they were as downgraded as Iraq ones in 1991, those would be similar to what the USSR had in the 1960 capability wise (for example, their resistance to ecm was worse dozens of times)

MiG-23 in the USSR didn't have any capabilitities in 1960s. In summer of 1970 the first initial MiG-23S has started "state evaluation program" - still with tiny and dated MiG-21 radar and with severly limited maneuverability and insufficient structural integrity of wing sweep pivot and structural fuel tank nr.2  - causeng many fatal accidents and dozens of non-fatal crashes after which max G-loads have been reduced to 3,5G.

The first MiG-23 variant ready to combat was MiG-23M (23-11M) from 1974. It still had weaker engine, some structural problems, underwhelming radar and many other problems, but it could be used in combat.

During 1982 Lebanon War Syria had ~25 MiG-23MS and ~30 MiG-23MF.

MiG-23MF based on Soviet improved MiG-23M from 1977 (Israeli F-15A 1975), it already had RP-23 Sapfir 23D radar and weapon system, R-60 close range missiles and R-23R/T missiles.

[TotenDead]

4 минуты назад, bies сказал:

MiG-23 in the USSR didn't have any capabilitities in 1960s.

I wrote that about SAMs, not aircraft

4 минуты назад, bies сказал:

In summer of 1970 the first initial MiG-23S has started "state evaluation program" - still with tiny and dated MiG-21 radar and with severly limited maneuverability and insufficient structural integrity of wing sweep pivot and structural fuel tank nr.2  - causeng many fatal accidents and dozens of non-fatal crashes after which max G-loads have been reduced to 3,5G.

The first MiG-23 variant ready to combat was MiG-23M (23-11M) from 1974. It still had weaker engine, some structural problems, underwhelming radar and many other problems, but it could be used in combat.

During 1982 Lebanon War Syria had ~25 MiG-23MS and ~30 MiG-23MF.

MiG-23MF based on Soviet improved MiG-23M from 1977 (Israeli F-15A 1975), it already had RP-23 Sapfir 23D radar and weapon system, R-60 close range missiles and R-23R/T missiles.

When it comes to MiG-23, like I said, MiG-23MS was the main MiG-23 modification of the time to be in Syrian service. It had an airframe of 23M, but radar and weapons of MiG-21bis. The best a2a missiles it had were the R-3s and possibly some early R-13s