Upgrade (evolve) DCS aircraft from baseline - Follows reality

I wasn't sure if this was a wishlist or a question for 2.5 world, so I put it here instead.

My question is would ED possibly entertain the idea of an aircraft module evolving over time similar to how real aircraft evolve with upgrades of hardware, Software loads, added weapons capability, etc.

First of all, I understand the ED model of picking an aircraft configuration and timeframe to model rather than trying to make it a Frankenstein of many different configurations. I have no issue with that mindset and it makes sense.

However, let's take the example of the F-16 Block 50 from 2007. Ok fine, The Ed Dev team needs to drive a stake in the ground and work to a specific configuration and tape load. But let's say by the end of this year it's all complete and everyone is happy (fingers crossed). What I'm talking about is in say a few years, ED could upgrade the 2007 Block 50 F-16CM to a newer configuration with more current weapons such as GBU-39, JASSM, JSOW, etc. It seems like it would be a natural evolution to pick another time point in the past - for instance 2015 and remake the current F-16 module to be the newer one. Maybe it gets a new motor like the PW-229, or the V9 radar, etc.

I would think this would not only be a natural evolution of an airframe that mirrors reality, but would be a great pay model for ED to introduce new upgrades without having to offer an entirely new aircraft. People could pay to have the new upgraded F-16 with newer capabilities or stay with the original as they choose. I would bet most would pay to get new capabilities. But those that don't can still fly - not unlike real life ANG or Reserve units who sometimes fly older models. It just seems like people will get bored with a module that stays stagnant once completed. I'm not suggesting upgrading it constantly, or we would be in EA and OB forever. But maybe every 2-3 years (even every 5 years) a module could evolve IF (and that's a big IF) data becomes available on open source in order to correctly simulate it.

Thoughts? To the Mods, any feedback on this business model?

My preference is that once the F-16 is complete, then ED starts working on a new aircraft, for example an F-4, rather than keep rehashing the F-16 or F-18.

My preference is that once the F-16 is complete, then ED starts working on a new aircraft, for example an F-4, rather than keep rehashing the F-16 or F-18.

Out of curiosity, why? Do you move on to a new aircraft as soon as they come out? Do you ever master a single platform or is it more of a survey of different aircraft for you. This is not criticism in the slightest, I've just been curious how people treat the different modules.

From a marketing perspective it makes sense to move on and build a variety of aircraft for the masses and I'm not sure how the licensing ED has would work here? If they got the extra info need for said upgrade / version would that be a new license to release?

Out of curiosity, why? Do you move on to a new aircraft as soon as they come out?

I enjoy learning new aircrafts and get to know how they work, how their systems function, how to use their armament. I tend to fly a single aircraft for months at a time, until I feel that I’ve learned it fully .. for example, at the moment I’m flying just the JF-17 since last December.

I don’t necessarily move on as soon as the next best thing arrives, for example I bought the F-16 on pre-sale, and tough I did flew it for a couple of weeks to check her out, I kept flying the Hornet as my main aircraft at that time.

Recent planes that I have flown exclusively for a few months each are: the Viggen, the Hornet, the C-101, the Tomcat, the MiG-19, the I-16 and finally the JF-17. Once I’m through with the JF-17, I intend to return to the Hornet as I miss her and hopefully in time to use it with the Supercarrier module.

Do you ever master a single platform

I do learn them quite thoroughly, but flying just a single aircraft until I die does not attract me .. I play DCS to learn, mastering the multiplayer battlefield is not something that I enjoy.

So, back to the F-16, I will probably return to her once she is on a more complete state ... but once there, rather than learn a new version of the plane, I’d rather learn a whole new bird.

Greetings,

Eduardo

It would be a huge mess. All modern planes in DCS like F/A-18C, F-16C, AV-8NA, A-10C - represent 2003-2007 standard. This makes them compatible with each other and allow some realistic scenarios. It would be nothing worse than every module from different timeframe not compatible with each other.

Another thing is - the more modern variant the less realistic - if you would like post ~2007 there will be lot of guestimated systems, many totally absent due to classification, some others working differently than real counterparts and so on. But it wouldn't be DCS anymore but some FC3 or MAC.

If one module would be taken out from this timeframe it wouldn't fit anymore so all have to upgraded, who is going to pay for that? Adding new features would be a massive undertaking, than bug fixing etc. Ka-50 will receive more modern version to fit 2003-2007 timeframe, but it will require some payment to make this upgrade profitable.

If anything they could model some legacy variants served in real warfare like Desert Storm, Middle Eastern conflicts etc. Like F/A-18C Lot 12, F-16C block 30, A-10A etc.

Yeah, I'd much rather have aircraft of a specific era instead of constantly updating for the absolute most modern.

Plus, we lack modern assets, the most recent ones we have are probably the Arleigh Burke Flt II (IIA?) coming with the Supercarrier, which fits the era of the current F/A-18C.

I'd much rather all aircraft get upgraded so that there's consistent fidelity where feasible. Meaning that in terms of graphics, system modelling, damage modelling etc all aircraft are consistent for what they can do. Instead of being updated to being the very latest variant.

If we we're going to get more variants, I'd rather go for more legacy variants - 70/80s/early 90s kinda stuff; as this better fits the current pool of assets, of which all but a very select few (the Arleigh Burke Flt. IIA, Tarawa and the new Nimitz) are pre-90s era stuff. So even without appropriate aircraft modules, there's still at least a 20 year gap.

Plus what about REDFOR? They're still stuck with the first ever production variant of the Su-27, the Su-33 has practically the exact same capability + carrier capability and 2 more hardpoints - parachute. They're also stuck with the first production variant of the MiG-29 and it's first major upgrade - both of which are Soviet era aircraft, again pre-90s

And those 2 aren't even full-fidelity, the most advanced full-fidelity aircraft REDFOR aircraft we have is the MiG-21Bis, from 1972.

Now, I'm not saying any of these aircraft are completely non-competitive, but there's a clear gap in capability, especially in air-to-ground.

I am of course excluding the JF-17, because it's operated by Pakistan, hardly an adversary to BLUFOR, sure what-if scenarios and that (which is completely fine) but realistically it's only really a soft-REDFOR aircraft at best.

It would be a huge mess. All modern planes in DCS like F/A-18C, F-16C, AV-8NA, A-10C - represent 2003-2007 standard. This makes them compatible with each other and allow some realistic scenarios. It would be nothing worse than every module from different timeframe not compatible with each other.

 

Another thing is - the more modern variant the less realistic - if you would like post ~2007 there will be lot of guestimated systems, many totally absent due to classification, some others working differently than real counterparts and so on. But it wouldn't be DCS anymore but some FC3 or MAC.

 

If one module would be taken out from this timeframe it wouldn't fit anymore so all have to upgraded, who is going to pay for that? Adding new features would be a massive undertaking, than bug fixing etc. Ka-50 will receive more modern version to fit 2003-2007 timeframe, but it will require some payment to make this upgrade profitable.

 

If anything they could model some legacy variants served in real warfare like Desert Storm, Middle Eastern conflicts etc. Like F/A-18C Lot 12, F-16C block 30, A-10A etc.

That's fair enough. I hadn't thought of it from that perspective, thanks.

I wasn't sure if this was a wishlist or a question for 2.5 world, so I put it here instead.

 

My question is would ED possibly entertain the idea of an aircraft module evolving over time similar to how real aircraft evolve with upgrades of hardware, Software loads, added weapons capability, etc.

What bies and lunatic98 said.

There could certainly be a case for alternate variants, but IMO not in the way you suggest.

Like others said, something like that probably wouldn't be very economically viable for ED just as it wouldn't be very interesting for the community to have ED spending all their time endlessly modding 2-3 of the most popular aircraft.

There is currently a 20 year plus gap between the most modern "REDFOR" aircraft and the "BLUEFOR" ones - not to mention that the REDFOR ones remain at FC-3 level. Development resources would IMO be much better spent addressing this - not just for the sake of REDFOR players, but also for the BLUEFOR side(if they hope to have human REDFOR opposition in multiplayer missions).

I personally don't believe in the notion that full fidelity versions of the current MiG-29 and Su-27 is a no-go due to lack of documentation or "government laws", but for the more modern variants it may well be. So if you cannot address the time gap between western and eastern aircraft by making new modern/upgraded versions of the eastern, there is the possibility to provide an earlier variant for each of the western ones(such as an F/A-18A and F-16A) that are contemporary with the current REDFOR variants......and then group them according to time era(80ies and 90ies) in the same way as with e.g. the WWII and Korean war stuff instead of just putting everything from the 1980ies to present day into the same "modern" pool.