Next DCS (Russian) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[King_Hrothgar]

If it's played for fun then it's a game. Flight sims are merely a genre of games. That said, I do come down solidly on the side of realism. In the context of a CFS such as DCS, balance is achieved via what planes are modeled. There is always a bit of leeway in what is chosen for any given scenario or period. As an example, the P-40 was in service until the end of WW2. However, most of us would not want to fight Me-262's in a P-40. Thus, we typically favor something more along the lines of Bf-109K vs Spit Mk.XIV or some similar setup. Both scenarios are equally realistic, but only one of them can be considered balanced. Balance absolutely has a place and it does not need to contradict realism. All it requires is thinking through your design decisions a little. As for what could reasonably be added to DCS, I'm sure something from Russia or China developed after 1990 could be made so long as you weren't picky about what.

Edited June 28, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[Capn kamikaze]

Sorry but no, to call something a sim means it SIMULATES something, and that word has a specific meaning, there is no rule that says a sim can't be used for fun, but there effectively is a rule that says to call something a simulation it must be as accurate and realistic as possible, and that rule is the definition of that word.

 

As an example, the P-40 was in service until the end of WW2. However, most of us would not want to fight Me-262's in a P-40.

 

Why not, the outcome would probably be that you'd loose, but that would be realistic, and I don't see a problem with that, the P-40 was not generally used in the ETO as much, especially later in the war, it was more used in Africa and the eastern front, if it had ever encountered the 262 then it would probably not have won unless it had numerical superiority.

 

If you choose to fly such an encounter then that is your own mistake, and the sim should not be butchered so you can do that, it undermines the idea of DCS being a sim.

[Kaktus29]

of course balance has to exist..this is a game after all, simulation per se would mean simulating all kind of difference scenarios ..lets say F-15 fighting 100 F-22..why not?.. we would "simulate" results..that is the real reason why simulators exist(either of machines or systems)..

 

but would this be good in a game? who would fly a campaign of 2 F-15 fighting 100 F22..or 100 T-50 Pak-Fa..

 

balance is necessary, otherwise you have no challenge..you either loose or win easily..

 

US-Iraq in 1991 is way to easy for US side and way to hard on Iraqi side.. its boring to play either.. Iran-Iraq on other hand much more balanced and would give player a "say in the battle"..

 

Of course, one can make a little bit changed historic campaign to make the scenario balanced, lets say Vietnam '64-72'..but with more USSR involvement so instead of having 125 Mig-15,21 we would have available 1000 to match the power of USAF..and also torpedo boats to attack USN CVs.. all of a sudden you have a much more balanced scenario that of course in real life would escalate in nuclear war as US would not tolerate loosing a CV without going ballistic .. but in game terms it would be fun,balanced,much more equal for both sides..

 

so yes, balance is needed.. right now way too many western modern planes are done,which will make it much easier to win against obsolete eastern ones.. to me this is not challenge,its shooting pigeons.. its boring as h-ell.. Whatis the point of F-18,F-14,F-15,even Eurofighter, when opposing 1980s model of Su-27 at best, not to mention Mig-21bis, etc..

 

in what scenario would these planes fight? its not even realistic in theoretical war as no air force would even send such an obsolete force into air to meet advanced enemy air like this.. (witnessed in libya 2011), Iraq 2003..etc..

[McBlemmen]

How about you start a thread to discuss balance

[Proof]

I agree that balance has it's role in DCS, in the way Hrothgar describes, and I also agree that there needs to be a bit more focus on introducing Russian modules.

 

One thing that I do slightly disagree with though is your example of the Vietnam scenario Kaktus, I think pushing the Russian involvement to match the US forces would almost lessen the experience, personally I feel in that scenario it should be balanced enough to make it enjoyable, but not lose the feeling of having a disadvantage; perhaps lessening the gap, but not making the sides evenly matched, and having the roles the two sides play offer balance - for example the US forces will have their objectives, and the opposition would be there to prevent and disrupt them in trying to accomplish said objectives, not fighting for straight up air superiority.

 

I think balance can be achieved in many different ways than just giving sides equal resources, but I think this is healthy discussion and getting it right can't be an easy task.

[Kaktus29]

@proof.. i agree, balance in term of Vietnam scenario should be if you are Vietcong to disrupt US side, if you manage to make F-4 bombing sortie to be aborted due to your side surprising and shooting 1-2 F-4 while other jettison ordnance it is 100% mission success.. and vice-versa for US to accomplish bombing while under fire (from SAM,Mig).. without breaching certain level of attrition..

 

but balance means it has a 50:50 feel as you do a mission..so your skill, and skill of your team can push it to 60:40 or more for your team..thus enjoying the kill,the success..

 

in that light i would like to see Su-35, or Su-30, or Su-27SM3 .. something with AESA or PESA radar and Adders.. Ground strike capability, laser bombs etc.. and yes i think Su-35 is doable but not in DCS-A10 standards but Flamming cliff standard..which should still be welcome..

[Proof]

Yeah I completely agree with that. :thumbup:

[Capn kamikaze]

Nah, if you want a game buy acecombat, don't turn DCS (a sim) into something it shouldn't be, a sim should be that, a sim, we shouldn't have planes artificially made better than they really are, or out of place in time, to even it up.

 

If you choose to fly against a superior aircraft then you should learn how to defeat it without cheating by making yours better or it worse.

[OutOnTheOP]

Nah, if you want a game buy acecombat, don't turn DCS (a sim) into something it shouldn't be, a sim should be that, a sim, we shouldn't have planes artificially made better than they really are, or out of place in time, to even it up.

 

If you choose to fly against a superior aircraft then you should learn how to defeat it without cheating by making yours better or it worse.

 

...are you even reading what they wrote? No one (NO ONE!!!) is advocating making anything "OP" or giving incorrect performance to any aircraft or system.

 

They're just saying that you can "balance" things by choosing which aircraft are modelled.

 

DCS could make a 100% true-to-life Boeing P-26 and pit it against a 100% true-to-life MiG-35. The MiG would win every time.

 

DCS could make a 100% realistic Lockheed F-22 and throw it against a 100% accurate Polikarpov I-16. The F-22 would win every time.

 

OR, they could make a 100% accurate late-model F-4, and pit that against a 100% accurate early MiG-23. THAT would be balanced.

 

See the difference?

 

They're just saying that, when an aircraft is made for DCS, that something of comparable capability should be made for the other side so they have a CHOICE to fight a fair fight. Right now, there isn't even the OPTION to fight a fair fight, because roughly-equivalent aircraft are not available.

 

...not that I think that the Russian aircraft they're asking for should be modelled, because so few of most of those variants have been built. Like the Ka-50 and Su25T, each of which were made in quantities around a dozen, not hundreds. For modern Russian, I think the best air superiority they should get is the Su27SM2, because that's the most advanced one in fairly common circulation.

Edited June 28, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[King_Hrothgar]

Exactly.

[Capn kamikaze]

Ofcourse I'm reading what they wrote, but "balance" can only mean one thing, arcade gameplay no matter how it is achieved...

 

See the difference?

 

The way balance is achieve is irrelevant, it doesn't belong in a sim.

 

The aircraft should all be modelled around the same era, eg the modern jets should be all modelled around the same time, the 50's jets (F-86, Mig-15) should be all modelled around the same time, and the WW2 stuff should all be from the same time.

 

What happens if we get a plane like the F-22, how are you going to balance that, you can't, nothing that is in service at the moment or in the near future is even close to it.

[King_Hrothgar]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/balance?s=t

 

I don't see anything in there about turning hardcore sims into unrealistic arcade games. Everyone here except you is using "balance" to mean putting planes in of comparable era and/or performance. No one but you is suggesting making any sacrifices to realism.

 

As for your F-22 example, the obvious answer is add something other than an F-22 to the game. You could take those same resources and build an F-16C instead. The F-16C does have comparable eastern opposition fighters that could be modeled. One is already in game (MiG-29S) and more could be added. That's the point I and many others have been trying to make. Aircraft choices should be made not only on how well they will sell, but how they will fit in with other DCS content.

[Fer_Fer]

I don't know Gents,

Adding Su 35's etc might sound fun, but would wreak havoc on the MP aspect.

 

I'd prefer a Vanilla MiG 31 with the AIM 54 clone, since it would solve the BVR problems the Russians have, while not being too much of an auto take (which the F15 and EF Phoon are (or will be most likely)

[WinterH]

So uuhhh, Typhoon is coming, but Su-35 would wreak havoc for MP. Interesting approach :).

 

Anyway, while I would love a Su-35, and it would probably be the modern aircraft I would love most to play with, sadly I don't think we are too likely to see hardcore modules of them. Hope I'll be proven wrong but...

 

On the other hand I agree on "bring on more Cold War planes, especially Soviet ones" line of thought.

[King_Hrothgar]

I don't think the Su-35 would have an overwhelming advantage. Its main claim to fame over the Su-27SM's is thrust vectoring, a system of questionable use in combat. That said, I agree that a Su-27SM2 would likely be a better fit. All we really need is an Su-27 derivative with R-77's. That would balance the situation out fairly well in MP. An update to the MiG-29's would also help a lot. They are perfectly capable right now, but no one wants to fly them with that horrid cockpit and flight model.

[Xeno426]

So uuhhh, Typhoon is coming, but Su-35 would wreak havoc for MP. Interesting approach :).

Is it really? I'm skeptical that it won't wind up the same as the F-35 project because I'm not sure there's really enough publicly available information to really make a properly modeled aircraft. As for the Su-35, I feel with the way Russia keeps its secrets there's likely similar issues with making a sim of that.

 

But yes, I would love to see more Russian jets, particularly any multi-role ones that could possibly pop up. Some more modern mud movers would be fun, like perhaps the Su-24M.

[Capn kamikaze]

I think you're missing my point KH, that any form of balance does not belong in a sim at all, if you're in a dogfight in real life you will have to deal with the cards you're given, so if you end up in a Su-27 vs an F-22, then tough, it doesn't mean we should get a PAK-FA, and even if we did it's about 10 years behind.

 

The issue I have with the concept of balance is that the time periods are too easy to mess with with DCS, in reality to countries field what they have at the time of war, for example while the F-4 and Mig-23 saw service at the same time, you could end up with a sim that has an early F-4, say a B/C/D, vs a MiG-23MLD, that would be more balanced systems wise, but would not be likely to ever happen IRL, however a MiG-23MLD vs an F-4S would be reasonable.

 

What I'm saying is it is easy to ruin a sim (for hardcore simmers) by introducing "balance" by any means, an example of this was DCS's predecessor LOMAC, where it modelled an MSIP F-15C (Entered production 1978, upgraded mid 80's) but LOMAC had AI aircraft that included Su-30's (In service 1996) and 34's (In service 2014) it was period/systems highly questionable.

 

By the time both of those aircraft were in sevice a large chunk of the fleet had been upgraded to AESA (2007) yet that was not modelled, so balance has been achieved in that example at the expense of realism.

 

By those times, the C had gone through many upgrades in reality and would not be comparable to the C modelled.

[Xeno426]

What I'm saying is it is easy to ruin a sim (for hardcore simmers) by introducing "balance" by any means' date=' an example of this was DCS's predecessor LOMAC, where it modelled an MSIP F-15C (Entered production 1978, upgraded mid 80's) but LOMAC had AI aircraft that included Su-30's (In service 1996) and 34's (In service 2014) it was period/systems highly questionable.[/quote']

Neither of those two aircraft were player-flyable, though.

[Capn kamikaze]

Let me put it another way, let's pretend that the MiG-29 and Su-27 are in reality only just equal to the F-5, now lets introduce an F-15C to the game, what would you then have to add on the Russian side to maintain balance?

 

That's the problem, you reach a point where one side, in this case, the Russians, are lagging behind so much, that balance can't be achieved, and I'm firmly of the opinion that it should not, a simulation is a model of reality or how something behaves in reality, and reality does not care for "balance", so neither should a sim, a game yes, but not a sim.

[Capn kamikaze]

Neither of those two aircraft were player-flyable, though.

 

Doesn't matter, the point still stands, that when you introduce balance into a sim that means its no longer a sim.

[Xeno426]

Doesn't matter' date=' the point still stands, that when you introduce balance into a sim that means its no longer a sim.[/quote']

No, it does matter, because there are no player-vs-player Su-30 fights.

 

And learn to edit posts rather than double-posting.

[Kaktus29]

Su35 is far more capable than Su27SM2.. thrust vectoring doesn't even begin to describe it.. it seems you don't know much of Su-35..from electronics to radar, to range,to engine, to datalinks,its a new plane compared to Su-27SM2 which is merely an upgraded Su-27 vannila for RFAF..

[King_Hrothgar]

I think you're missing my point KH' date=' that any form of balance does not belong in a sim at all, if you're in a dogfight in real life you will have to deal with the cards you're given, so if you end up in a Su-27 vs an F-22, then tough, it doesn't mean we should get a PAK-FA, and even if we did it's about 10 years behind.[/quote']

 

Yes you have to fight with what you have but that doesn't mean developers should go out of their way to create lopsided plane sets. Instead, they should create a broad spectrum of aircraft across all nations of various time periods and leave it to mission builders to decide what to do with them. The worst thing that can be done is focusing on just one side or giving one side a whole bunch of modern stuff and the other side a bunch of antiques. This is currently the problem in DCS.

 

The issue I have with the concept of balance is that the time periods are too easy to mess with with DCS, in reality to countries field what they have at the time of war, for example while the F-4 and Mig-23 saw service at the same time, you could end up with a sim that has an early F-4, say a B/C/D, vs a MiG-23MLD, that would be more balanced systems wise, but would not be likely to ever happen IRL, however a MiG-23MLD vs an F-4S would be reasonable.

 

Once again, that's where mission builders come in. The mission builder can create an historic mission, realistic mission or a balanced mission. That should be left up to them, not a DCS developer. It is the developer's job to give them the tools, not dictate how they are used. It's also worth noting that even among historic minded mission builders, some fudging will have to be done since DCS can't possibly model every plane in every model. Hence LNS's upcoming F-14A (1980's model) will have to work as a stand in for the 1970's F-14A's used by Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Similarly, a MiG-23MLD would be a reasonable approximation of a MiG-23ML used by Iraq and makes even more sense given the F-14 situation. It isn't perfect, but it works.

 

Incidentally, this isn't a very balanced scenario looking only at those two planes. I fall in on the historic side of things and let the chips fall where they may. But I also favor historic scenarios that were reasonably balanced to begin with, which the Iran/Iraq war certainly was. And that does mean adding reasonably balanced planes, such as F-5E vs MiG-21Bis, F-4E vs MiG-23MS and F-14A (1970's) vs MiG-23ML.

 

What I'm saying is it is easy to ruin a sim (for hardcore simmers) by introducing "balance" by any means, an example of this was DCS's predecessor LOMAC, where it modelled an MSIP F-15C (Entered production 1978, upgraded mid 80's) but LOMAC had AI aircraft that included Su-30's (In service 1996) and 34's (In service 2014) it was period/systems highly questionable.

 

The F-15C in DCS is from the 1990's. How do I know? It has AIM-120's (entered service 1991). Our Su-27 is from 1985 and the AI only Su-30 is from 1996. It's also worth noting that the Su-30 in DCS is a trainer, it doesn't have anything the basic Su-27 doesn't have except a second guy in it (meaningless to AI).

 

Let me put it another way, let's pretend that the MiG-29 and Su-27 are in reality only just equal to the F-5, now lets introduce an F-15C to the game, what would you then have to add on the Russian side to maintain balance?

 

That's the problem, you reach a point where one side, in this case, the Russians, are lagging behind so much, that balance can't be achieved, and I'm firmly of the opinion that it should not, a simulation is a model of reality or how something behaves in reality, and reality does not care for "balance", so neither should a sim, a game yes, but not a sim.

 

I don't think you'll find many people agreeing that an F-5 is as good as a MiG-29 or Su-27, not even a heavily upgraded one with AIM-120's. It was considered a better turn fighter than the MiG-21 in it's day and that's about it. And I happen to be a pretty big fan of the F-5E, but I'm also not wearing any rose colored glasses. But to directly answer your question, the obvious answer is the MiG-31. It was mass produced in the 1980's and remains in widespread Russian service. It isn't directly comparable to anything in the west, but as a pure air to air heavy fighter, it can be lumped in with the Su-27 and F-15C.

 

In the case of Russia lagging behind, that is only partially true. Their standard gear still dates from the 1980's I think, but they've kept upgrading a few dozen aircraft every few years up to the present. It's also worth noting that the MiG-31 is probably the best plane they have in the hundreds and it isn't flyable in DCS. They've also offered numerous upgrade kits to existing aircraft, such as the MiG-21-97 which adds modern radar, RWR and missiles to the MiG-21. Upgrades like this have been fairly popular in many smaller airforces. You might find this hard to believe, but I think a MiG-21-97 might be fairly balanced with the upcoming F-18C in the air to air role.

 

Oh, and yeah a moderator should probably break this off into it's own thread. This has gone way off track but it is a worthwhile discussion on its own.

Edited June 30, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[lavisitadelandroide]

Agree 100% with what you have said.

 

The "simulator" thing...it all about mission planers.

 

Su-27 vs F-15c good, even with amraam there is some sort of balance

 

You put Ef-2000, you put Su-35S

 

You put F-86, you put Mig-15

 

You put P-51, you put Fw-190

 

But adding, F-14A, F-18C and for the red air force nothing? Well it says more about a selling market point of view than about keep the DCS fun. F-14A, you put Mig-31, F-18C (multirole fighter), you put Mig-29k or something similar (Mig-29m2 for that matter).

 

Simple as that. If people say that "no, keep it like that,in reality Russian dont field modernized aircraft" its their take, reality says otherwise.

 

I hope in the future there would be more modules for Flaming Cliffs

 

And if F-14A and F-18C are like a DCS full simulator, that would be awesome. We are only saying, remember us red force pilots :)

 

Regards to all

[BlazexX23Xx]

Su35 is far more capable than Su27SM2.. thrust vectoring doesn't even begin to describe it.. it seems you don't know much of Su-35..from electronics to radar, to range,to engine, to datalinks,its a new plane compared to Su-27SM2 which is merely an upgraded Su-27 vannila for RFAF..

 

You are wrong my friend,the Su-35 is not that far more capable than Su-27SM2,also the SM2 version has the Irbis-E radar and other technology of the Su-35.