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

[okopanja]

On 1/19/2025 at 10:56 AM, bies said:

1985 to 2004: F-15C MSIP II, added new F100-PW-220 engines, PACS armament control, MPCD display, AN-ALR-56C RWR, AN/ARL-47 flare/chaff, improved AN/ALQ-135 band 4 ECM, NCTR IFF, PSP processor, ACSG HOTAS, pugraded HUD, partial NVG integration, AMRAAM integration and wiring. This variant achieved nearly all F-15C air kills, it was used in late Cold War in Europe, 1991 Gulf War operation Desert Storm with 36 air kills, 1993-1995 Balkan War operation Deny Flight, 1999 operation Allied Force with 2 air kills MiG-29.

4 confirmed kills, and yes this was the version used in 1999.

However it should be noted that these kills except in one case involved firing at minimum 2 missiles per aircraft.

Regarding the NVGs, Mike "Dozer" Shower stated no NVGs during the fight he had, and this was on the first evening of the aggression.

Also Cesar "Rico" Rodriguez, also stated no NVGs...

Edited January 22 by okopanja

[bies]

26 minutes ago, okopanja said:

4 confirmed kills, and yes this was the version used in 1999.

4 confirmed kills over Balkans? I knew about two MiG-29 from 24 March 1999.

[okopanja]

2 minutes ago, bies said:

4 confirmed kills over Balkans? I knew about two MiG-29 from 24 March 1999.

There were 2 more on March 26th. Go to FF Mig-29 forum section and you will find 4 stories I published so far.

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1217-dcs-mig-29a-fulcrum/

I think ED should allow at least for mission maker/server to enforce missing features.

Edited January 22 by okopanja

[bies]

2 minutes ago, okopanja said:

There were 2 more on March 26th. Go to FF Mig-29 forum section and you will find 4 stories I published so far.

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1217-dcs-mig-29a-fulcrum/

I think ED should allow at least for mission maker/server to enforce missing features.

Yes, having ONLY 2005+ variant would be a gatekeeping 20 years of F-15C service. With all the real life fighting.

[zerO_crash]

12 hours ago, TotenDead said:

 

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
 

  Reveal hidden contents

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?

 

Well, look. It is a individual thing for what purposes someone buys into a product for. You can equally be unserious about actual military simulators and treat them like toys. That´s not an argument. I personally have an experience in the field of professional simulators, which often, visually are far worse, but then they retain the proper systems simulation. The difference between whether it teach you something or not, is the attitude with which you approach it. In professional spheres, you don´t get to approach it as a toy, hence why there is a valuable exchange in knowledge. Red Flag might not be as realistic as real war, but if treated with respect and utmost seriousness, it does prove good enough, to warrant its continued reappearance.

 

ED uses the game/simulation inconsistently. Actually, it is a smart move, as labelling a product as a "game", draws less unwanted attention. The truth is, if you´ve ever seen (even modern) professional simulators, you´d realize the value of DCS. For the money they cost, they really are far worse in many respects. Point is, in the latest Q&A, Wags being asked the question about which way they lean with their software, has very clearly stated that ED´s position is towards that of a simulation. For the other products (mainstream) that you mentioned above, there is very little "simulate" in an environment without correct metrics or even reference ones. Ultimately, I´m not saying that you are less of a customer (money is money), but rather that you missuse the product, leading to a headache with regards to current/future aircraft lineup. Poor approach/mission design, will yield such results.

Edited January 22 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

6 hours ago, bies said:

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.

 

 

That´s a very poor comparison, hence why I refer to super powers and a major conflict, albeit with competent parties. First and foremost, tier 2 exports (outside 3rd world countries) from U.S.S.R., were very dumbed down machines. They had less, often lacking, capability, worse sensors, worse equipment, and most importantly, worse training. A Soviet SA-2 =/= export (tier 1/2) hardware. Even US, provides less dumbed down hardware outside, hence why they have been getting more popular over in Asia, vs. what Soviets/Russians are willing to export. As such, already there, the Syrians were at a disadvantage. Also, regardless of how many Soviet advisors you´d send, you cannot possibly compare a pilot from 1st and 3rd world on average (there will always be a chance for one Zaytsev). Not to take away from anyone, but if you have truly studied war, then you ought to have serious reservations with regards to military capability and middle east. Whether you want to or not; there is a reason why "the white man was able to colonise the world". It has to do with focus on schooling, learning from past mistakes (history) and generally having a methodical approach to warfare. There are a few groups in history from Middle East that have shown such ambitions, but they were still very much limited to their own potential. Understand that a Syrian soldier and US soldier might look similar, if both are in a uniform holding a M4, but their qualities are very different. When US went to Afghanistan, in order to attempt raising a national afghani army, they had to write manuals which were at the level of a 2nd class elementary school, with stickmen. Soviet memorandums from Afghanistan, describe the willingness of Afghans to fight as such that they´d be three kilometers behind the frontline, as soon as a shot was heard. Again, this is hardly comparable.

 

Want to read about training vs. actual performance? Have a look at Afghan (I mention them often, but it goes for pretty much the entire culture in the middle east) Air Force and their amount of incidents on airfields and such. Do research this, it´s more funny than you´d think. Trained military pilots disobeying ATC instruction becasue "No one is going to tell me what I can or cannot. I´m a pilot!" type of attitudes is what these guys are breaking up on. They make it too personal. The cultural inhibitors over there, are the single biggest enemy and counter to understanding how to wage a war with decent level of professionalism.

 

On the other side, you chose one of the most proficient armies in the world, and actually, among the most experienced in modern times (constant conflict). Much can be written here, but the comparison is ludicrus. This really isn´t a peer-peer level comparison. Again, we have not had any such conflicts yet, and thankfully. It would be a conflict of attrition at minnimum.

[TotenDead]

23 минуты назад, zerO_crash сказал:

 

Well, look. It is a individual thing for what purposes someone buys into a product for. You can equally be unserious about actual military simulators and treat them like toys. That´s not an argument. I personally have an experience in the field of professional simulators, which often, visually are far worse, but then they retain the proper systems simulation. The difference between whether it teach you something or not, is the attitude with which you approach it. 

Like you said, it's an individual thing. American (or British) tankers use war thunder for training, so... Well, good for them, I suppose. They use it for serious stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that WT is just a toy. Same goes to DCS

 

23 минуты назад, zerO_crash сказал:

Point is, in the latest Q&A, Wags being asked the question about which way they lean with their software, has very clearly stated that ED´s position is towards that of a simulation.

It's their niche, that's it

23 минуты назад, zerO_crash сказал:

For the other products (mainstream) that you mentioned above, there is very little "simulate" in an environment without correct metrics or even reference ones. Ultimately, I´m not saying that you are less of a customer (money is money), but rather that you missuse the product, leading to a headache with regards to current/future aircraft lineup. Poor approach/mission design, will yield such results.

Misuse, eh? Well, I suppose all those people misuse it either then

 

Спойлер

 

[zerO_crash]

14 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Like you said, it's an individual thing. American (or British) tankers use war thunder for training, so... Well, good for them, I suppose. They use it for serious stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that WT is just a toy. Same goes to DCS

 

 

I would verify my sources more strictly. The article from Business Insider, 2020, does hint that "this is better than nothing". However, one can argue how important it is for a loader to drive his own tank. Second thought is that there are far more advanced and appropriate simulators for armor - Steel Beasts, even CO in DCS. There is very little "simulator" in WT when you look golden shells and what not. Cheap marketing. Still, better than nothing, I guess...

 

19 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Misuse, eh? Well, I suppose all those people misuse it either then

 

Well, I never said that the majority in DCS likes to simulate everything from A-Z. When was the last time you properly spoke with an ATC (online/clan)? Enjoy the product as you like, but not-intented use will rearrange the geometry of warfare (e.g. making a MiG-29A feel useless).

[Kev2go]

On 1/20/2025 at 3:54 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.

with the exception of the flight stick yea. looks about the same.

[Harlikwin]

On 1/22/2025 at 5:54 AM, okopanja said:

There were 2 more on March 26th. Go to FF Mig-29 forum section and you will find 4 stories I published so far.

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1217-dcs-mig-29a-fulcrum/

I think ED should allow at least for mission maker/server to enforce missing features.

 

LOL this thread is now in "discussion" which basically means ED doesn't care, this is where threads goto die basically. Based on previous ED decisions, we will get the 2005 whether we like it or not, with no provisions for a downgrade, just like the F16/18.

[okopanja]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

LOL this thread is now in "discussion" which basically means ED doesn't care, this is where threads goto die basically. Based on previous ED decisions, we will get the 2005 whether we like it or not, with no provisions for a downgrade, just like the F16/18.

Well it clear this is already decided, yet being ablr to disable e.g. DL would be good for servers which try to match airframes with historic capabilities.

Something similar was done with BS3, you can force an older version. Why not with an eagle?

[Dragon1-1]

On 1/22/2025 at 3:34 PM, TotenDead said:

Like you said, it's an individual thing. American (or British) tankers use war thunder for training, so... Well, good for them, I suppose.

That may be because exact simulation of your vehicle's systems is not necessary when you're training in tactics. Tank tactics are similar enough regardless of whether you're playing WT, ArmA, or DCS:CA. The same concepts apply. There's actually professional software, that is VBS, which is developed by the same company ArmA was and which can be used to set up elaborate training scenarios with combined arms and highly accurate weapon performance.

The reason to use WT is probably more prosaic: it's free to play. That means you don't have to deal with procurement. Those who ever tried to procure something via official channels in any big organization will appreciate how much of an advantage it is. If the soldiers are already WT players (and many will be, soldiers love those games), setting up a dedicated session for the platoon is as easy as ordering them all to boot up WT and join the server at a specified time. Procuring a VBS license is... less straightforward, even if you technically have the budget for that (itself not a given). Assuming that a given tanker even knows about VBS and that it's an option, everyone knows about WT, but actual training tools have a much smaller audience.

Many of us use DCS to experience aircraft and situations which are simply no longer a thing IRL. The F-14 no longer flies in the US, and even Iran is phasing them out. The F-15 is still around, but in a very different form from what it was during the Gulf War. That means our standards are higher than required for many forms of training. Not for the sort of sim training that's meant to stand in for actually flying the jet, but rather for training in general tactics used (though its worth noting that games using realistic BVR and energy tactics are very scarce). The point there is to make you understand a tactic and its use cases, once you do, adapting it to different hardware and circumstances is much easier.

On 1/22/2025 at 3:32 PM, zerO_crash said:

When US went to Afghanistan, in order to attempt raising a national afghani army, they had to write manuals which were at the level of a 2nd class elementary school, with stickmen.

I think this is very much underappreciated. In fact, it's the Israelis who are more comparable to the Soviet/Russian military, with their widespread use of conscription and certain parts of their mindset (in fact, US observers a while ago said more or less exactly that, contrary to their expectations). Content of the training programs are one thing, but culture, education level and the troops' mindset greatly influence any given military's effectiveness and level of professionalism. Many people in the West forget that between countries, people are neither born or raised equal, especially not to people with access to Western education and nutrition levels. This directly affects what a military can or cannot do, and modern battlefield in particular is extremely unforgiving to a poorly educated soldier.

[zerO_crash]

@Dragon1-1 Precisely! 

 

We cannot forget that F-35 is what really paves the way in the west with using simulators to train and practice tactical engagements and operations. F-35 is so expensive to fly per flight hour, that even JSF-office promotes the use of simulators (to substitute a percentage of the total flight time) as a means to mitigate the evergrowing costs. While a pilot will prefer actual flight (no doubt), we are entering the era with "digital warrior" being denominator. 

 

Even though ED hasn`t given any details here, TBH., any module will, as always, be a welcome addition. There are limited ways to simulate older aircraft within the same airframe. That aside, all the middle eastern maps open up for a theatre where less than peer-to-peer opponents can meet. With some alterations, Gulf War can be simulated with a more capable and coordinated red force than was was historically encountered.

[Dragon1-1]

On 1/26/2025 at 2:04 AM, zerO_crash said:

We cannot forget that F-35 is what really paves the way in the west with using simulators to train and practice tactical engagements and operations. F-35 is so expensive to fly per flight hour, that even JSF-office promotes the use of simulators (to substitute a percentage of the total flight time) as a means to mitigate the evergrowing costs. While a pilot will prefer actual flight (no doubt), we are entering the era with "digital warrior" being denominator. 

With more emphasis on "digital" and less on "warrior" as the era goes on, too. In fact, given how much of a flying iPad the F-35 is, I suspect it's paving the way to eventually sticking the pilot permanently into the simulator and wiring the cockpit to a broadband datalink, with the jet flown remotely. And that would sneakily pave the way for the beancounters to finally fire those pesky fighter pilots and replace them all with relatively cheap, mostly replaceable drones that don't complain about flying at night, don't get busted for DUI after a night in town, and don't threaten to go work for the airlines every time you "misplace" their promotion papers to save a bit of dough on personnel expenses. The next generation of fighters is already planned to be "optionally piloted" (read: drones with a cockpit stuck in to prevent the fighter community from lynching the designers).

I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm saying someone is going to try. One hopes that by the time someone figures out how to jam or worse, hijack the datalink, there's still someone in active service who not only knows how to fly a plane, but can train others to do it.