AI E-2C Hawkeye

[Rotor_Vibes]

Any chance we can get an AI E-2C Hawkeye? The E-2D didn't enter service until 2010 which is the wrong time frame for our F/A-18C and F-14A/B.

[Tank50us]

4 hours ago, Rotor_Vibes said:

Any chance we can get an AI E-2C Hawkeye? The E-2D didn't enter service until 2010 which is the wrong time frame for our F/A-18C and F-14A/B.

honestly, the way the sim is, we really can't see it like 99% of the time. On the RWR it still shows up as "E2", and the only time we actually get a good look at one is if it's on the deck or we're flying in close formation.

That being said, having more AWACS aircraft wouldn't be a bad thing, like the E-1 Tracer, KA-31, or that modified Sea King with a radar.

[Silver_Dragon]

7 hours ago, Rotor_Vibes said:

Any chance we can get an AI E-2C Hawkeye? The E-2D didn't enter service until 2010 which is the wrong time frame for our F/A-18C and F-14A/B.

DCS Was a E-2C many years ago, but was "update" to the E-2D some time ago.

[Lace]

With DCS you need to accept 'close enough'.  If you tried for 100% accuracy in theatre, targets, ground units, weapons and aircraft versions you'd never get any flying is done.  The nature of DCS is that substitutions and stand-ins are as good as we can hope for.  There is no single coherent plan, except maybe WWII (though purists might argue that too is compromised).

[Exorcet]

5 hours ago, Lace said:

With DCS you need to accept 'close enough'.  If you tried for 100% accuracy in theatre, targets, ground units, weapons and aircraft versions you'd never get any flying is done.  The nature of DCS is that substitutions and stand-ins are as good as we can hope for.  There is no single coherent plan, except maybe WWII (though purists might argue that too is compromised).

For player modules, variety can be difficult to achieve. In the case of AI units it's less complicated because AI units are simpler. With that simplicity we also don't need 100% accuracy, more like 80%, to throw out a number. There is probably a lot that can be done with Lua edits. 3D models are more work but for me that is less important than capabilities. I don't think AI variants are out of scope for DCS.

[Silver_Dragon]

9 hours ago, Lace said:

With DCS you need to accept 'close enough'.  If you tried for 100% accuracy in theatre, targets, ground units, weapons and aircraft versions you'd never get any flying is done.  The nature of DCS is that substitutions and stand-ins are as good as we can hope for.  There is no single coherent plan, except maybe WWII (though purists might argue that too is compromised).

Let's be clear that for "greater variety," we need more and more third parties to start having their own "assist teams." Otherwise, you won't see any progress, because ED doesn't have the resources to add that many AI units. We see that it's becoming increasingly difficult to create credible assists because the quality bar is rising higher and higher, and we all want these units to be at the same quality level as a module.

Let's not even talk about whether ED implements a new technology or feature that changes the production of these units, requiring them to be rebuilt.

As for weapons, this is subject to ED, as they will create the functionality. The days of "coffee for everyone," when anyone could make a "proton torpedo," are long gone.

[Tholozor]

If we look at some of the data from this thread, you'll find the existing E-2 in DCS is basically still an E-2C under the hood: 

 

[Tank50us]

8 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Let's be clear that for "greater variety," we need more and more third parties to start having their own "assist teams." Otherwise, you won't see any progress, because ED doesn't have the resources to add that many AI units. We see that it's becoming increasingly difficult to create credible assists because the quality bar is rising higher and higher, and we all want these units to be at the same quality level as a module.

yeah, it's a shame how so many people demand the ability to see the welds and bolts on an M1 Abrams or T-72 when the majority of us will be squinting at it through an MFD wired to a T-Pod... or pulling out of a dive a couple thousand feet above it as a 2,000lb gift pile-drives into the ground next to it.

I can understand it for the helo pilots, after all... they get MUCH closer to the unit in question... but I'd still argue that ground units need to be optimized for performance not visual fidelity. After all, if you're an Apache pilot recreating the 1991 Gulf War, the dozens of T-72s, T-55s, and BMPs that you and your 15 wingmen are engaging... the mission NEEDS to run smoothly... even as turrets head to the moon.

[Lace]

6 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

yeah, it's a shame how so many people demand the ability to see the welds and bolts on an M1 Abrams or T-72 when the majority of us will be squinting at it through an MFD wired to a T-Pod... or pulling out of a dive a couple thousand feet above it as a 2,000lb gift pile-drives into the ground next to it.

I can understand it for the helo pilots, after all... they get MUCH closer to the unit in question... but I'd still argue that ground units need to be optimized for performance not visual fidelity. After all, if you're an Apache pilot recreating the 1991 Gulf War, the dozens of T-72s, T-55s, and BMPs that you and your 15 wingmen are engaging... the mission NEEDS to run smoothly... even as turrets head to the moon.

Concur.  These super detailed AI ground units look great in screenshots and cinematics, but for most players they are IR spectral dots on a TGP.  Even the Helo guys shouldn't be close enough to be counting rivets.  If CA was a properly fleshed out element then maybe it would make more sense, but the development speed <= => unit detail slider, is way too far to the right, and while the units look great, releasing 2 or 3 a year is just glacial.  I'd much prefer objects at half, or even a quarter of the detail but produced at a quicker pace to allow more variety and temporal relevance for historical scenarios.  Maybe that's just me though.  I do feel that the sweet spot is somewhere between the FS2004-esque C-17 and the beautifully modelled new M1A1.  It does make decent performance with high unit counts tough with these new super-detailed models, to the point that a lot of the time I will chose older ones as ground targets to keep the FPS up.

Anyway, a bit off topic though.

[Northstar98]

16 hours ago, Tholozor said:

If we look at some of the data from this thread, you'll find the existing E-2 in DCS is basically still an E-2C under the hood: 

 

Well, in terms of what it's been defined as having maybe - the radar ranges are quite severely under-represented, even for a mid 80s Group 0 E-2C which would've had the older-style, 4-bladed propellers and almost certainly wouldn't have Link 16 capability. The current radar has the same instrumented range as the AN/APS-82 from the E-1B Tracer - even the AN/APS-96 from the E-2A/E-2B has a slightly longer range.

The model (with its propellers) most fits a Hawkeye 2000 (though the non-functional CEC antenna is still present and quite noticeable IMO), this should have an AN/APS-145 should have at least a 350 nmi instrumented range (at the moment DCS, the -138 is defined as having a ~180 nmi range).

Edited 6 hours ago by Northstar98

[draconus]

12 hours ago, Tholozor said:

existing E-2 in DCS is basically still an E-2C under the hood

That's actually good for my gameplay as I use it most often with the Tomcat but I fully agree they should clear it up and make 2 different units out of it (C & D with its own correct radars and features) even if it means keeping current 3D model for both until they are redone.