Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World

 

"its too classified" is an easier way of putting they cannot get access to manuals to derive basic functions of the flight model and avionics. We don't even have the EM charts for the legacy bugs, nor can Heatblur acquire manuals for the decades-old F-14D

Just becuase you yourself can't find said information in a 5 second google search doesn't mean they aren't available, especially for an officially licensed developer, that could for . And i would considering using the example F14D is a false equivalence fallacy, becuase for this particular aircraft its been a lack of information of that particular model "allegedly" due to paranoia finding its way into Iranian hands.

A developer for another sim would disagree since they are making a Full fidelity F/A18F ( after having prior F/A18E module which itself has been around for decade if not longer, and thus is set to have v2.0 remake after F/A18F project is complete) that is now on pre sale and expected to release in end of 2020.

For the Super Hornet, the thing was, IIRC, "they couldn't get a license" not "it's too classified". It's not necessarily the same, Boeing, for example, could have reservations for selling the license to a Russia-connected company, or even more mundanely, they could have signed an exclusive deal with the guys making it for MSFS (dunno why they'd bother to include such clause, but companies can be inscrutable sometimes). Remember that the aircraft is still Boeing's design and property, and at this level of detail, IP laws very much do come into play.

It's the same reason I wouldn't expect it to be the Rafale. It's not that the French government would mind, but Dassault has a death grip on their IP. This is also why historical aircraft are so much easier. Not only they aren't classified, but they're also in "public domain" (meaning less wrangling for license deals). :)

I'm hoping they will reconsider the F-4 Phantom for both platforms Navy and Air Force. I'm looking for the carrier base one.

I'm with you on that. I want the F-4B. But the F-4 Phantom II is one of those that I think really needs to be developed into multiple versions. If a developer is making an F-4E, I just can't believe they would have to start from scratch to make an F-4D, F-4C and F-4B. There has to be a lot of instrumentation and systems that are the same. The flight model might only need slight tweaking. The F-4F should be nearly identical to the E. The F-4G Wild Weasel would be different mainly only in radar detection and countermeasures from the E. The F-4J should be very near to the B and quite similar to the C & D. The B & J were single flight controls like the F-14, but the C & D were dual flight controls. The F-4K should be quite similar to the F-4J, but with different engines and I don't know what else. I'd like the F-4K (FG1)...if we can get functional carrier models of HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal of the Audacious class. ...and S2 Buccaneers to go with.

Personally, for a Phantom, as much as I'd love comprehensive variants, we kinda lack the assets on both sides to make them really worthwhile (such as early MiG-21/MiG-23 variants, as well as a whole load of naval assets, not to mention ground vehicles and ships; near enough all of them that aren't WWII are 1970s - 1990). So for the time being, I'd rather we focus on later variants (F-4E Block 53+ and F-4J/S/K/M). But again, we're still lacking lots and lots of naval assets and ground vehicles.

Even with Heatblur's Forrestal, it's a late version (~mid 70s - early 90s) and basically no escort ships.

 

 

 

 

 

Just becuase you yourself can't find said information in a 5 second google search doesn't mean they aren't available, especially for an officially licensed developer, that could for . And i would considering using the example F14D is a false equivalence fallacy, becuase for this particular aircraft its been a lack of information of that particular model "allegedly" due to paranoia finding its way into Iranian hands.

 

A developer for another sim would disagree since they are making a Full fidelity F/A18F ( after having prior F/A18E module which itself has been around for decade if not longer, and thus is set to have v2.0 remake after F/A18F project is complete) that is now on pre sale and expected to release in end of 2020.

I'm not googling shit or defending anyone. I'm telling you what the developer said. The information they need to make a quality reproduction isn't available. Fact. If you disagree, go find the manuals and send them to Heatblur so we can all have the F-14D. But you can't. And they can't make the Super Bug because of licensing issues from Boeing. So quit shitposting

Just becuase you yourself can't find said information in a 5 second google search doesn't mean they aren't available, especially for an officially licensed developer, that could for . And i would considering using the example F14D is a false equivalence fallacy, becuase for this particular aircraft its been a lack of information of that particular model "allegedly" due to paranoia finding its way into Iranian hands.

.

Do we actually have any confirmation that this is because of Iran? I would think that its because the IRST used on D is somewhat similar to those used in the super hornet.

I don't think anyone would openly admit they're scared of Iran gleaming something from a flight sim, but given US history with Iran, it's a pretty plausible bit of speculation. IRIAF flying one of the most iconic USN jets has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way since the revolution, to say the least.

It might also have to do with the AN/APG-71, with its detection range of 740km when used by a datalinked two-ship flight of F-14s. It was an incredibly advanced piece of kit for its time, and it would still be quite competitive. I wouldn't be surprised if it had some advanced features that US isn't quite ready to showcase.

Not allow to use 14D documentation because of iran? Pfffff, what a joke, f-14 and its radar is garbage If we're talking about 2020 standarts where ESA radars can be found on almost every semi modern fighter. And today, when iran can finally buy Su-30s with pesas that sounds even more silly

It might also have to do with the AN/APG-71, with its detection range of 740km when used by a datalinked two-ship flight of F-14s. It was an incredibly advanced piece of kit for its time, and it would still be quite competitive. I wouldn't be surprised if it had some advanced features that US isn't quite ready to showcase.

with the 740 km range APG-71 would be multiple times superior than any other radar, and being on the level of the huge ground early warning radars that has such a power requirements that F-14 can't never produce it. The APG-71 should have about 40% increase to detection and tracking ranges, that is already fairly limited by 90's standards even.

The system [APG-71] itself is capable of a 460-mile (740 km) range, but the antenna design limits this to only 230 miles (370 km). Use of datalinked data allows two or more F-14Ds to operate the system at its maximum range.

- Wikipedia.

So design limits for maximum detection good for late 80's radar but bad for 90's radars and severely limited for solo operation but can extend the operational use by having aircrafts flying further from each others etc.

And the DCS very limited capability to model radar technology is stopping right there any military secrets from being learned. If you have public data about theoretical limits (like 370 km against a bomber size target vs modern Russian 350-400 km against MiG-21 size target) then it doesn't really matter when such technologies that would make the radar something special can't be simulated in the first place.

That's why I said when used by a two-ship. Datalinking two F-14s isn't exactly rocket science, I don't know how exactly they did it (this might be one of the classified things about it), but I wouldn't surprised if a normal combat spread was sufficient to attain this performance. Yes, it was that good, and it wasn't limited by power requirements, but by the antenna size, and yes, it's quite a bit better than many ground-based EWRs, though that's mostly because horizon is much further away for an airborne system.

I think this datalink capacity might be what it's all about. None of the other fighters of the same generation have such a feature, though F-22 and F-35 probably do. Yes, in theory, you could model the FCR with just the public data, but generally, if a system is classified, then it's usually classified entirely, except the most superficial information. The F-14 is built around its radar system, so a lot of things would be hit by the "classified radar" issue.

That's why I said when used by a two-ship. Datalinking two F-14s isn't exactly rocket science, I don't know how exactly they did it (this might be one of the classified things about it), but I wouldn't surprised if a normal combat spread was sufficient to attain this performance. Yes, it was that good, and it wasn't limited by power requirements, but by the antenna size, and yes, it's quite a bit better than many ground-based EWRs, though that's mostly because horizon is much further away for an airborne system.

Yes, I read it. But that can be interpreted many ways as the simple 740 km range can be just the radar screen max range and nothing else. So if the other F-14 is flying 370 km forward and paints the sky, then the other can naturally get data over 300 km extra range. 740/2=370 km. So you can see it is EXACTLY the same as two radar screen lengths for radar limitations.

This allows the common tactics that you have one pair at the front, launching missiles or getting enemy chase them and then turning and burning when so happens. Then the rear fighters receive the overall picture how to position for the new engagement while waiting that the enemy is chasing the approaching front pair. So while your friends are engaged at long range, you can be approaching them at max speed while receiving possibly their radar contacts so you know how to position in the fight.

So the so said "740 km" range is to have twice the radar scope max scale vs radar maximum detection range for large size targets (bombers etc).

I think this datalink capacity might be what it's all about. None of the other fighters of the same generation have such a feature, though F-22 and F-35 probably do. Yes, in theory, you could model the FCR with just the public data, but generally, if a system is classified, then it's usually classified entirely, except the most superficial information. The F-14 is built around its radar system, so a lot of things would be hit by the "classified radar" issue.

F-22 and F-35 can't use their datalinks if they want to stay stealthy. All radar emissions are rendered unusable as once you emit via radio, datalink or via radar you are spotted.

They can work in receiving mode to get others data but doesn't help so much for long ranges engagements.

The same thing is with other aircrafts as well. Emissions will reveal their positions to at least ground tracking systems.

Yes, I read it. But that can be interpreted many ways as the simple 740 km range can be just the radar screen max range and nothing else. So if the other F-14 is flying 370 km forward and paints the sky, then the other can naturally get data over 300 km extra range. 740/2=370 km. So you can see it is EXACTLY the same as two radar screen lengths for radar limitations.

No, it's not. If it was like you say, it wouldn't be worth mentioning on Wikipedia. APG-71 is a very powerful radar that's limited by antenna size, which means that if you somehow found a way to give it a better antenna, you could get a 740km range. How do you put a better antenna on a fighter? You don't, but what you can do is put two fighters in the air, and split the antenna between them. You know what a phased array is? It's an antenna consisting of many elements, the reception from which is combined by the radar software. The two F-14s make up a phased array. Two ships, flying in a normal combat spread formation, can combine their radar antennas to reach out much further than any single one of them, because the phased array size isn't based on the area of their individual dishes, but the horizontal distance between them. Basically, space them two miles apart, and you get an APG-71 with an antenna two miles wide (easily comparable to ground based EWRs, which, BTW, use the same concept these days). So yes, this is something unusual, and specifics would be highly classified information.

BTW, F-35 can most likely do that and more. F-22 is about stealth, F-35 is stealthy, but what's really great about it is information warfare capabilities. People get hung up on stealthyness too much, those aircraft have a lot more to offer, the F-35 in particular can function as a "mini-AWACS" and support both manned planes and UAVs. Since it already uses a phased array, adding multiple aircraft doesn't sound like a stretch.

 

Do we actually have any confirmation that this is because of Iran? I would think that its because the IRST used on D is somewhat similar to those used in the super hornet.

 

 

Ive heard other people try to speculate its because of that, rather than this being a definitive fact. I personally am not quite convinced but i can't prove otherwise Hence why i used the term "allegedly".

 

"its too classified" is an easier way of putting they cannot get access to manuals to derive basic functions of the flight model and avionics. We don't even have the EM charts for the legacy bugs, nor can Heatblur acquire manuals for the decades-old F-14D

Im ****posting? your the one hung up on the F14D, when i was not disputing talking about the Super hornet. Yoi have no valid counter argument so you resort to ad homimum.

Keep in Mind that legacy Hornet project traces is roots back to a number of years ago. What could have been true 4 or 5 years ago may no longer be the case now. I dont know what goes on the inner halls of DCS, neither do you. Again i have no idea why Boeing back then would not want to grant ED a license for the SuperBug ( politics? oh look ED a Russian company?) but VRS got a license for thier now second superbug project. For ED afaik the Legacy Hornet was 1st choice not the Superbug.

They never really go into specific details on why or how they choose their modules.

Take the A10C for example. ED said they couldnt include certain weapons or do a more advanced version of the A10C for a number of years, because it wasn't part of the intiial deal. but now we got a DCS A10C II which is basically a suite 7B having scorpion HMD and other new weapons. a circa 2013 or later Hog.

but VRS got a license for a superbug project,

Remember that this might well be the reason ED did not. I don't know how common a practice this is in this industry, but in many other areas, when you arrange a licensing deal, you try to put an exclusivity clause in, just so that other developers can't just go and buy the same license if they want to compete with you. If VRS have pushed such a clause through, then Boeing couldn't sell the Superbug license to ED even if they wanted to, because they would then be in breach of contract with VRS.

In fact, given how long those guys have been making Superbug packs for the previous MSFS versions, I wouldn't be surprised if they were sitting on the license all this time. If so, short of actually getting them to make it for DCS, too, we've got no chance of getting it.

F-35!! Please not! The flying Laptop! Only good for home cockpit building. Put a laptop in front of you, connect a SciFi-HOTAS and viola, you have a perferct F-35 homepit :puke:

One of the ugliest and most boring jets ever built. :D

I understand your point of view but on the other hand it was never easier and cheaper to build your own home cockpit :smile:

An F-111 WSO would have a somewhat more complex job, not to mention Jester actually working is a rather impressive achievement on its own. This would require a significant effort to implement, although part of it is being done for the Hind.

 

Also, it requires knowing a bit about DCS internals to understand why, but having two players be able to operate one switch is something that's quite brain-melting on its own. It seems simple, but is, in fact, very hard due to the way DCS handles aircraft cockpits.

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. The concept of two players able to operate a single switch is, IMHO, easily overcome. I realize there are DCS-isms where a RIO can move the camera and click a switch in the FCP of the tomkitty. But that's totally artificial and could be resolved with code that essentially locks out a switch being clickable from the opposite cockpit. In the F-15E for instance IRL - the MPDs are set up where either cockpit could run the TGP or the RDR, but you would have to be IN COMMAND of that screen before you can use it. So let's say the FCP of the Strike Eagle was in command of the radar and the DCS WSO moved the view to see into the FCP, he/she would still be locked out of doing anything with it because they would not be in command based on their cockpit assignment. Now, actual switches are another thing, but again I can't imagine it's hard to code a switch to be inactive if the incorrect cockpit is trying to flip it.

The Same could be managed in a side by side cockpit like the F-111 or A-6. Ofc there would be common switches in the middle that either could physically reach and likely are shared IRL. However, the coders could designate switches and controls as Pilot only or WSO only such that if you are assigned to a specific cockpit in MP, you could see the switch, hover your mouse over it by looking over in that cockpit - but it would do nothing. For those switches that are shared - just as in real life - you have to coordinate with the other person as to who is doing what and when.

I don't see anything brain melting about this.

My understanding is RAZBAM's plan for F-15E multi-cockpit is to have live players only, e.g. there will be no AI WSO like jester. So if you're playing MP, you have to have a live WSO running the backseat. Presumably RB will allow a single player to jump back and forth between seats, as there is a couple of switches in the backseat only that are needed to turn systems on - such as the RWR, ECM, TGP, chaff/flare, etc. But that's a simple issue as a single player can simply hop in the back, flick on the power to those systems to turn them on and then the setup and control can be done from either seat once the sensor power is on.

 

I will repeat - human RIO can click on human pilots cockpit in the Tomcat already, simply by moving the camera.

 

Then that is a flaw in the coding of the tomcat. Shouldn't be possible.

 

Then that is a flaw in the coding of the tomcat. Shouldn't be possible.

Good job on missing the point entirely.

 

Then that is a flaw in the coding of the tomcat. Shouldn't be possible.

 

Good job on missing the point entirely.

Then please refresh me on what the point is.

The Same could be managed in a side by side cockpit like the F-111 or A-6. Ofc there would be common switches in the middle that either could physically reach and likely are shared IRL. However, the coders could designate switches and controls as Pilot only or WSO only such that if you are assigned to a specific cockpit in MP, you could see the switch, hover your mouse over it by looking over in that cockpit - but it would do nothing. For those switches that are shared - just as in real life - you have to coordinate with the other person as to who is doing what and when.

 

I don't see anything brain melting about this..

They really couldn't because that would mean they no longer simulated an aircraft where pilot and WSO are both fully able — indeed expected — to operate all those controls at once. The brain-melting part is synchronisation, especially of more complex controls than simple switches, and there are quite a few of those. All the really important bits that need to be shared aren't switches but far more complicated controls, often directly tied to player input devices. Have a look at how wholly untrustworthy the “synchronise controls at start” option in the settings is. and transplant that to a live and real-time environment where that needs to happen on pretty much every simulation frame.

Others have tried, and it has always ended in desync, even in instances where the controls are wholly separated. The F-14 gets around some of that (but only for simple-state switches) but in exchange creates a highly unrealistic setup in the exact opposite diretion: where you are able to manipulate controls that you should not have access to, so it's not actually a counter-argument but a further illustration of what a horribly complicated problem this is to solve.

 

They really couldn't because that would mean they no longer simulated an aircraft where pilot and WSO are both fully able — indeed expected — to operate all those controls at once. The brain-melting part is synchronisation, especially of more complex controls than simple switches, and there are quite a few of those. All the really important bits that need to be shared aren't switches but far more complicated controls, often directly tied to player input devices. Have a look at how wholly untrustworthy the “synchronise controls at start” option in the settings is. and transplant that to a live and real-time environment where that needs to happen on pretty much every simulation frame.

 

Others have tried, and it has always ended in desync, even in instances where the controls are wholly separated. The F-14 gets around some of that (but only for simple-state switches) but in exchange creates a highly unrealistic setup in the exact opposite diretion: where you are able to manipulate controls that you should not have access to, so it's not actually a counter-argument but a further illustration of what a horribly complicated problem this is to solve.

I sort of get what you're saying, but the picture you paint are two people who have agreed to "fly" together as a crew in MP or SP - and then just start playing with each other's "stuff" randomly at the same times. The big challenge IRL in a crewed aircraft is the crew coordination that boils down to who does what and when. If y'all are hammering on each others switches, controls, stick and throttle at the same time - then you deserve to desync. The crew contract could be as simple as "don't touch my sh*t and I won't touch yours unless we agree on it ahead of time.

As far as player input devices - I would assume that the buttons and controls are mapped to specific settings in their cockpit of choice. For instance, the TMS FWD button in the front seat might do one function while the same switch for the guy riding in the back would be mapped to a different function. Or in an aircraft like the F-15E for instance where either seat can control pretty much any sensor - that an "in command" function is set first such that only one person at a time can control the TGP or the radar. That's the way it works in the real jet. And other controls such as the stick, throttle, speedbrake, pickle button that can work simultaneously in either cockpit need to be coordinated as to who is using them at any given time.. And if it's not your switch to use, keep your grubby paws off it. The ability to fight over a sensor or control is a real life issue as well and if it's not coordinated, things go to sh&t irl too. SO maybe a desync and reboot every time that happens is not such a bad thing. It might reinforce the need to actually crew coordinate on who is doing what /when.

 

I sort of get what you're saying, but the picture you paint are two people who have agreed to "fly" together as a crew in MP or SP - and then just start playing with each other's "stuff" randomly at the same times. The big challenge IRL in a crewed aircraft is the crew coordination that boils down to who does what and when. If y'all are hammering on each others switches, controls, stick and throttle at the same time - then you deserve to desync. The crew contract could be as simple as "don't touch my sh*t and I won't touch yours unless we agree on it ahead of time.

It's not about “deserving” anything, and crew contact is not a factor. It's about making the tech work between two clients, preferably with a minimal bandwidth footprint. It would be a weak excuse for a broken implementation, but that's not what anyone wants in a simulation, now is it? If a crew gets into a slapfight over a switch position, they may end up with a broken-off switch, but even then, it will be in a single position that affects the functionality of the aircraft in a singular way — one part of the aircraft will not detach and fly off in a different direction like it does when things desync in DCS. We can already see this even without the multicrew if the server and the client disagrees on things: the player explodes out of nowhere for no good reason; the server says it has a good reason because it never received the switch flip that set the bombs to high-drag…

As far as player input devices - I would assume that the buttons and controls are mapped to specific settings in their cockpit of choice. For instance, the TMS FWD button in the front seat might do one function while the same switch for the guy riding in the back would be mapped to a different function.

That's not an assumption you can build a shared cockpit around, especially not when the real buttons are connected and would be the same thing. You can't really use examples of a completely different setup to explain away the complexities of an cockpit that does not have that separation. The throttle switches would be the same because both crew members use the exact same throttle handles.

And other controls such as the stick, throttle, speedbrake, pickle button that can work simultaneously in either cockpit need to be coordinated as to who is using them at any given time.

…and that is exactly the mindblowing complexity of the issue: that coordination must exist in the code, or things will break. It's not a matter of communication, but of determining who is in control when there is no hard separation between the two. One guy's joystick is in a steady left bank; the other guy's joystick is carefully adjusting pitch — which of the two does the plane listen to? Which one is genuine input and which is just jitter outside of the null zone and which one is just having a bad spring so his stick is naturally tilting a bit to the lower left? It has nothing to do with the players coordinating — it has to do with the question how does the game know? How does it handle conflicting inputs? How does it genuinely transition control from one to the other without interpreting it as going from a 20° left to a full right stick and immediately ripping wings, rotors, flaperons, whathaveyou right off the airframe? This is not a player problem; it's a code and logic problem that comes inherent with two necessarily different inputs having to share one in-game control.

SO maybe a desync and reboot every time that happens is not such a bad thing.

It is a game-breaking thing. It means the module cannot be said to actually provide its main selling point. Arguably, it can't even be sold because of how broken it is.

 

The crew contract could be as simple as "don't touch my sh*t and I won't touch yours unless we agree on it ahead of time.

That sounds like a good solution to the whole "MeToo" debacle as well.