Any updates on Eagle Dynamics giving Heatblur access to Aim-54 guidance changes?

I know it makes it harder for now, but it is still doable to have an enjoyable MP environment, imo, also on the opposing side of the Tomcat.

Yes, by removing the tomcats SA tools and restricting the hell out of the phoenix count and version (like a few of the more enjoyable servers have done), despite them actually fitting the 80s/90s time frame of most other aircraft and weapons.

Is there a way to self destruct the missile dynamically when its unsupported before active?

Yes, by removing the tomcats SA tools and restricting the hell out of the phoenix count and version (like a few of the more enjoyable servers have done), despite them actually fitting the 80s/90s time frame of most other aircraft and weapons.

 

Is there a way to self destruct the missile dynamically when its unsupported before active?

I usually refrain from sharing too much of my personal opinion, as we make these modules for your pleasure and in that sense it is much more important that we listen. But due to my personal love for MP, if you allow me, I would just like to give some fruit for thought, not to defend the phoenix or anything, we recognize its issues, but to maybe inspire some "gameplay out of necessity":

Thing is, in MP never everything worked as one wished. We could start listing a lot of things that we can simply start removing to improve balance or make it more enjoyable, sure, but we also take away from the game like that. JSOWs OP, lets remove them, slammers OP, lets only allow Bs, datalink is god's eye, let us remove it, rb-15s don't get fired on by some ships, let us remove them and and and..

But why not remove the nuisances through gameplay? If I fly against Tomcats or Hornets, it becomes suddenly a mission and a target to kill the awacs to take away the datalink from them. Then to stay out of their sight, to avoid their A60s, and 47Cs.. Then push to hold of the JSOWs. Kill their ships. You don't always win, but it is doable (and recently done by myself) with all the "red side toys" in the sim. Or if on the other side, protect the AWACS, kill the Viggens, etc.. Maybe I am just too used of how we did it, but I remember the time where nothing got restricted and things did not work always as supposed to either. It can be a reason to literally fight around it by gameplay, if you like, and imo it always makes you a better pilot if you accept the challenge and the shortcomings of the sim. (Not saying that it makes you a worse one if you don't. And the issues of course still need to be fixed.) But afterall, I see ppl flying around in F5s on some servers, who are literally killing it against all odds. Hence I would respectfully stick with it: it is far from miserable and it is doable even without restrictions to make fun scenarios for both sides, mixed or east vs west.

It is totally ok if we agree to disagree, like I said: fruit for thought, I don't want to force my opinion on anyone and I hope it does not come across like that.

I do understand the issues it causes, and we want to fix them, but we don't have access to all aspects of the issue. We can only adjust its behavior to be closer to reality in terms when it goes active and when it guides SARH. In that sense we all need a bit patience atm. Thank you.:)

Please feel free to continue the discussion of course and thank you again for all your input.

Please feel free to continue the discussion of course and thank you again for all your input.

Well, since i have the OK, and the questions asked in the thread have been answered (apart from the self destruct one, i am just going to assume its not an option) - We dont have any proper "red toys" that fit Slammer C, AIM-9X (2000s), so just for the realism factor alone restrictions need to be in place. AIM-120B is from 1994, AIM-9M from 82 or so. R-73 RMD-1 (DCS) is from 84, ER from the end of 80s/early 90s and R-77 from 1994. Our Flanker is also basically the old 81 Su-27P design with some air to ground, R77 in case of J-11 but missing peer to peer and Inter flight datalink on all versions. Not even mentioning the simple, but completely missing MiG-29 datalink. Any realistic scenario will not have Su-27S running against the western DCS weapons, when you include China and Russia into it at least. If we had a 2000s flanker/fulcrum with more modern avionics and weapons it would not be an issue, both realism and most likely balance wise. A not so insignificant part would be R-27ER tracking even flanking targets properly if they are fast and having the ability to engage multiple targets at once with them due to better radars. Maybe even peer to peer datalink guidance.

Now the phoenix with our tomcat fits the general DCS/SATAL 90s time frame, but because its non-detection of jamming, us generally not having as many jamming options as IRL, the issues with the DCS phoenix, and the largely missing (apparently mostly VID-requiring) ROE that a complex IRL scenario in the 80s/90s would provide, its stronger than it should be.

You also said counter advantages with tactics. Yes. Possible. But mistake margins are super low. You could aswell bring MiG-19 against 120s/54s and succeed with GCI and right tactics, assuming that you have more skilled pilots. People do it on the BF servers in some cases. But its not fair, and not really realistic either.

One example of such an unfair engagement: 2x Su-27 manage to isolate an F-15C from his teammates. They engage from 2 sides. The F-15C will now spot the smokey launches, and maddog a 120C onto them. The first flanker is far enough away to outrun it, but the second one was within the NEZ, and simply dies. The F-15c itself is very likely to also survive this 2v1 situation. Are there ways to prevent his on the flankers side? Yes, the flanker that got switched to could try to notch, for example. But its a 120C. Not easy and straightup impossible if he was too fast. A lot of things to consider, and that is assuming that you can even get such a situation to happen with the inferior weapons.

Lets turn the situation around, say 2 eagles are 2v1ing a flanker with 120C. Do you think they have as much trouble killing it without losses? They dont. There are some scenarios where the flanker may trade, but the margins for mistakes for the eagles are higher, so they can get away with way more mistakes. Its not a coincidence that the unbalanced/"OP" weapons also happen to be the more recent ones.

What if we had a Su-57/35S with all its modern long range weapons and systems, jammers? To name a few:

*R-77-1 with similar range and better seeker (said to have an additional anti-radiation mode) than 120C5

*modern archer variants that are comparable to 9x

*R-37M which is practically a modernized AIM-54 that can be fit on normal fighters (put into service very recently)

*questionable weapons like the Anti Radiation version of the R-27

They all exist and are being sold on the export market too. What if that was put against the current other modules. It would also be around a decade newer, with no modern, time frame wise equivalent aircraft like the western 5th generation ones to "balance" it out. Would that be fair? Would you still think that no restrictions need to be in place?

I think your making the mistake here of expecting balance when it never existed in the first place. Balance ≠ realism. Western aircraft have just about always outstripped and outperformed their soviet counterparts. Often in radar, jamming, performance, and missiles. The F4 was vastly superior to soviet aircraft of the 60's / early 70's. Then by the time the 23/25 came out. The competent versions that is (looking at you 23M), we had the 14A+/15C/16C. And by the time the 27/29A came out and attempted to close the gap (not surpass though) we had more modern version of the previous with even better missiles. US jets have been a decade ahead or so for quite some time.

Now do certain DCS'ism impact this yes, the 14 not seeing jamming is annoying same with the 18. But I wonder how much impact it'd have since both of these jets have advanced datalinks. Personally if you want a more level field the JF17 is going to be your aircraft, it is basically a Chinese F16/18 hybrid with the PL12, an aim-120B clone. That unlike other missiles has proper drag values as far as I can tell thanks to deka. Additionally consider this, the 15C in game is missing a lot of features that'd make it even more potent than it is right now and its a mid 90's varient at that. Imagine a mid 2000's varient with JHCMS and 9x and aesa. In the end this is more a symptom of FC3 modeling than anything else. All the FC3 jets are lacking in performance they should have. When the thrid party stuff really isn't.

Also concerning the R77-1, R27M, and modern archers lets compare them to their western counterparts, the C7, D, Meteor, and soon the aim-214 (probs got the numbers wrong). Additionally the Russians have yet to make a missile that can actually match the 9X blk I let alone the Blk II. Or even the ASRAAM, IRST, or python 5.

Yes, these new weapons need to be compared to those. Just like the current "red toys" need to be compared to what the west had during the same time frame. (No AIM-120C or AIM-9X) Sure, its never perfectly balanced, but the weapons are always comparable in performance, superior weapons will be copied or asymmetrically countered so it really just is a soft back and forth at best. Also, the current F-15C while carrying 90s avoinics, carries the 120C from the 2000s. A mid/late 2000s flanker also has a lot of features that greatly exceed the current fc3 capabilities.

The JF-17 is going to mix it up a little for sure, but its not enough, and for now reality is as grim as i described it.

Well, since i have the OK .... blah-blah-blah realism .... blah-blah-blah realism ... blah-blah-blah realism

You are not describing "realism".

You are describing "game balance".

Maximus I think you completely misunderstood me. My point was: if an F-5 can shoot down F-14s and F15s with its weak little funny radar and aim9Ps, then yes, you can make do with what you have, even if the balance is vastly tipped to one side. You can do it in an A10 (sure might be a bit frustrating at times), but do it you can. The rest - that is all in our heads. Balance. Favor on our side, of our favorite toys. Eras. "Accuracy" (just a kind reminder, that none of us know how the missiles really are, and those who do, are not allowed to say). And all those things: it is all in the head whether it "turns us on" for playing a game or "turns us off" from playing a game.

How you think we felt, when after 10 years of firing aim120s full gimble at 40nm, suddenly its range dropped to a felt 10? And before that no flanker pilot ever complained about its range or fire and forget abilities. They still killed eagles and they learned to dodge and dance with them. And yes, the ER was stronger, too, but there was no Ja-11 and 77s for them. And it is not very long ago, that Knight and I flew on red alone in 2 Mi8s with 2 or 3 flankers and MiGs, and kept fighting against 20+ guys on blue for 2 hrs, until we plastered the field so much with SAMs that blue simply gave up. That is what I mean by it is doable.

My point was: no matter what you have on what side, you can still make a game of it, and in my opinion choice and options and possibilities are big enough to make a really good one. I feel sorry that you think it is "grim".

I feel that is a vast exaggeration, and lastly, also a very personal impression that the majority here does not seem to share. That does not make it less valid of course, but imo the problem here does not lie with the phoenix, but with the fact that in comparison to Nato full fidelity strength, the warszaw side is underrepresented. And I get that, I totally do. But I'll say it again: it is represented enough, that with the right ppl on your team, you can make do with any F-14s any time. But here is also this: no matter what you throw at the red side to make it more attractive or easier for them, they mostly will still lone wolf around, not fly on SRS, not coordinate and then still complain that their side is weaker. Even if you put the F15s on red, the Tomcats on red and so on. I can tell you that from 15 years server hosting experience, and mind you, 4 years ago there were not many servers apart from ours. We constantly thought about "how to make the red side more attractive". But at some point folks also have to get creative themselves and just fly and fly against odds. And I am not suggesting anything here that I did not do countless times myself and with my friends.

Only nowadays if the C is not banned, if the Tomcat has not had taken its toys away, it seems folks prefer rather not to fly, but to complain. And nag, until everything that makes it harder for them, has been restricted. That is a development which I do not watch with pleasure, to be honest, it impacts overall skill. Flying red and against odds has always been rather an honor, and maybe it was best even, when both sides had all aircraft, because then the point of blue vs red is moot. You flew against everything and you got good against everything. And we did not need any east vs west scenarios to avoid teamkilling. If we picked it, we picked for realism or for the challenge. Like 80s missions. We restricted the game environment to change the pace, not to balance something out. We did it to make the game more diverse and we did it rarely, to make such events special. We didn't do it to gain or lose an edge on either side.

Sometimes it helps to change the POV a bit and forget about sides and winning and losing and refocus on the fun that is to be had. Because I can promise you one thing: even when the INS bug is gone, the phoenix will be among the missiles that perform closer to reality and will give you a hard time, especially with improved guidance and lofting/ maneuvering, because that hard bleeding pull at the end will be gone.

Naturally that those, who fly against it today, will be better at notching it tomorrow, when it is fixed. Because it will still be similar. And then still some will want to restrict it and get rid of it: and that is fine. It just never will be my cup of tea, no matter how uber I feel any jet or missile will be - personally I always want to learn the sim (or game) with and against all odds. Luckily today the choice of servers is great and almost anyone can make a new one to his liking.

Feel free to keep discussing this further, but please be aware that we are not really adding to the Phoenix topic anymore, in parts also due to me taking liberties, but unless someone finds some new ground breaking data, I think we were through with it anyway. Fact remains: we need to wait.

And thanks for the discussion, it sure is an issue close to our hearts. :-)

EDIT: forgot to answer your question again: @ self destruct, fox 1 etc: to create a workaround we'd need access, too. If we'd get access, we won't need a workaround anymore...

Only nowadays if the C is not banned, if the Tomcat has not had taken its toys away, it seems folks prefer rather not to fly, but to complain.

 

[...]

 

Naturally that those, who fly against it today, will be better at notching it tomorrow, when it is fixed.

1: The same thing is true the other way around. When the blue flag server about a year ago was a bit biased towards the flankers air to air wise (SATAL restrictions but no AWACS for NATO, unlimited EWR datalink for the iranian team) i almost never saw ANY of the prominent AMRAAM bus pilots fly on there or stay on there. And many of the pilots who flew left really quickly when having to face uneven odds. By my observation a still very notable amount of "red" pilots flew on servers like 104th regularly despite the uneven odds. But obviously if no server offers say a setup with ERs against no AIM-120s, you dont get to test out how much you enjoy being completely outclassed.

2: I agree, because flanker and especially mirage pilots had to over a decade newer weapons on the servers for years, their average skill and understanding of the fight has greatly surpassed the average F/A-18/18/14 pilot one. But is that a good thing? Dont these other pilots deserve a chance to fight with weapons that dont do the entire work for them? Because if they dont, they will on average never fully improve. I think that if all servers went to proper SATAL like weapon restrictions you would see the pilots that are stripped of their skill replacement weapons improve, and start doing at least equally well as before.

Yeah but that is just the same like restricting stuff. If they learn to rely only on their phoenixes and slammers, what should we care? More canon fodder for us so to speak.

I don't believe in either. I believe in fly everything against everything, learn everything.

When the missiles got reduced and folks were helplessly lost, Maverick and I flew for weeks with guns only or only aim9s to give folks a chance to shoot us down, or else they would leave the server. 2/5 when we did not fly straight into their missiles to help them (no kidding btw, we seriously did that to keep MP alive at the beginning of FC3), we'd still get them, because, you know, tactics, 2 v 1 and so on...

All form of restriction is exactly what it says. I feel so thirsty, so hungry when I fly DCS, that even after 15 years I still didn't have enough. I mean, I don't care about being on the top anymore and I fly much more for realistic sorties now than for the kill, like I used to, but still: I want more. I think we all do. That is why in my opinion both sides should embrace everything. And in the end, it really does boil down to ppl. Take a coordinated team, put it on blue, they win, put it on red, they win. team and coordination is what is key, and you can stand a chance against everything, just like when we won with 2 Mi8s (and the help of ctld) against 20+ eagles and so on. 2 guys flying strategically and tactically together on the server can wreak more havoc than 20 F15s all flying for themselves..

That is why I don't even think about which weapon should be allowed or not. All I think about is, with whom do I want to fly. :smilewink: And the list, luckily, nowadays is long. :)

The SATAL restrictions in my opinion are unnecessary. They are in favor of the viewership, which is fine and needed. They are not in favor of the pilots. But that is my personal opinion, it's the old school way: restrictions are good to define gameplay and pace, not to aid in balance or anything - because even with going guns only, the last form of restriction, there is still an unbalance left between airframes, there will always be. To balance it in your favor against odds, is where the thrill is at. The only real balance would ever exist, if you forced everyone to fly the same aircraft with the same weapons. that's fine, but not funny.

The fact missiles have lasted in this state for this long boggles the mind.

The fact missiles have lasted in this state for this long boggles the mind.

In the beginning it was a shock. Then we got used to it. Now it is fun imo. You do not have (except for the Tomcat) proper BVR anymore, the kind where you need to make good decisions 60nm away from your opponent, and realize that the guy 60nm away is already fighting you. But you have a lot more WVR, a lot more close encounters and so on. Back in the day all we practically saw were kill messages. Not even the splash, it was simply too far away lol. And I loved it, I love BVR philosophy through and through. But I also learned to enjoy the much more narrowed down fights of the past almost decade now. That is what I mean: even some of the things that we flag as "broken" can actually be a source of new inspiration and a new kind of fun. Life's too short imo to always only focus on what we lack or what we dislike. We are prone to define ourselves by that. The older I get, the more I try to focus on what I have, what I like and to define myself through what I love. [oooh, that :smartass: sobbing comment lol!!]

You can not be convinced that it comes down to player skill when one side has massively superior weapons. I refuse to believe that. If in SATAL 2 roughly evenly skilled teams fight, and one has Flankers while the other has F/A-18 or 15, mixed in with a tomcat perhabs, its roughly an even fight. If you got rid of the restrictions the one with the 120Cs and 54Cs and Mk60s would win 99,99% of times. How is that fair, or fun? Especially with the prizes involved...

What about a scenario with only MiG-21s against unrestricted other airframes? Would a team with better coordination still win on the MiG-21 side?

Also, what about nukes. Whenever these "war is not fair" and "restrictions take away content" points are brought up, they are always excluded. If in your scenario the russians and chinese are teleported back in time by over a decade (not only air to air wise, the DCS F-18C+JSOW vs current SAMs is a similar issue), and the F-14 has superpowers, why is red being a nuclear monopoly with their MiG-21 too far-fetched?

The Nukes are excluded because they create a brown puddle on the terrain, mostly, and because finishing a sortie in 5 minutes is not fun. That is what I said: restrictions are good to define gameplay and pace.

As for skill: yes. A team of highly trained mig21 pilots will win against a bunch of casual pilots with F15s and 8 C slammers each.

I won fights 2 Su-33 me and my wingman against 8 F15s. I shot down Flankers in a huey, we made guys rage quit in their whatever jets with mistrals, we flew for years aggressor PvPs 12 against 38, and won, half of the twelve being flankers, pre Ja11 times.

We've seen the 51st win and dominate matches back in the day without actives in restricted scenarios, where restricted btw was meant for both sides, means aim7s vs 27rs, not ERs.

And because that is not being embraced anymore, is why today Flanker pilots "suck enough" (no offense meant, eagle pilots suck, too, we all suck), to be scared to go against an all F15 team with slammers. It is totally doable, even against 6 F14s. but it becomes a tedious, long fight, a difficult one. And ppl nowadays want everything quick and easy. [in know this is a somewhat unfair exaggeration to bring a point across.]

That, in my opinion, is the reason why such a mentality, to have to have restrictions, exists today in the first place. Now, I am not pointing my finger at you, I understand your concerns. But no matter the arguement, for me it will always, always sound like an excuse.

Now you can ask: but then why does your team fly Nato only in Satal. Fair question, but first of all, we don't, we include also flankers, second of all: we like Nato style aircraft more than Russian style aircraft. Doesn't mean we wouldnt be good in them, or that we did not fly them excessively. But if you want someone to train on a high level, let him do it an what he likes of course. We want to fly from a boat and Nato style. But the choice is not: we want the better weapons. We just don't share in the eastern romantics, like many others do, who then become predominantly Flanker squadrons and so on. In the end, I still claim: it is not the aircraft, it is the pilot, and a well trained Flanker squad can easily beat you at the game, slammer or no slammer. Which two years ago the 51st btw did. I trained us bad, I came in with a hybris of tactics instead of a careful approach and they gobbled us up like if we were cookies. It is all about training and preparedness, weapons just make it easier or harder, but never impossible.

Ask Comie. Or better even: ask the Eagle pilots how much they cry when they get hunted down by his little F5.

Another favorite pastime of MoGas and me was always to fly the MiG29G on the server. the best missile you could take was the r73, but we took r60s instead. Cause nothing is sweeter than sending an eagle to the ground with an r60 in his butt, and without him knowing what even happened.

All of that is possible. But you need to want it and to train for it. Rely on restrictions and you ever hardly will...

But anyway, I think I keep repeating myself now. I think I said mine, not everyone needs to or will agree with me, but I hope some do, or open up more to some maybe for them still undiscovered fun in the game. That is what I basically try to bring across. In the end, it matters all what if you win or lose. What matters is that you had 3 hours of unequalled fun in an event, so that you want to do it again. If you need restrictions for that, then restrict it. As long as it increases your fun, my opinion is totally unimportant.

As for skill: yes. A team of highly trained mig21 pilots will win against a bunch of casual pilots with F15s and 8 C slammers each.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/610227109352308769/611726839769071617/SATAL_MiG21.miz

Do it.

You kidding me right now?

Restrictions exist so it can be as close to a contest of skill between the participants so the fighters need to be withing punching range if the pilots are at a comparable skill level

If the performance gap is too wide it doesn't matter how good you are it starts to matter how bad the other guy is so it wouldn't matter much if your opponent is the red barron in his triplane if you're some below average starfighter pilot in an X wing for crying out loud stop denying it

I think your making the mistake here of expecting balance when it never existed in the first place. Balance ≠ realism. Western aircraft have just about always outstripped and outperformed their soviet counterparts. Often in radar, jamming, performance, and missiles. The F4 was vastly superior to soviet aircraft of the 60's / early 70's. Then by the time the 23/25 came out. The competent versions that is (looking at you 23M), we had the 14A+/15C/16C. And by the time the 27/29A came out and attempted to close the gap (not surpass though) we had more modern version of the previous with even better missiles. US jets have been a decade ahead or so for quite some time.

 

Now do certain DCS'ism impact this yes, the 14 not seeing jamming is annoying same with the 18. But I wonder how much impact it'd have since both of these jets have advanced datalinks. Personally if you want a more level field the JF17 is going to be your aircraft, it is basically a Chinese F16/18 hybrid with the PL12, an aim-120B clone. That unlike other missiles has proper drag values as far as I can tell thanks to deka. Additionally consider this, the 15C in game is missing a lot of features that'd make it even more potent than it is right now and its a mid 90's varient at that. Imagine a mid 2000's varient with JHCMS and 9x and aesa. In the end this is more a symptom of FC3 modeling than anything else. All the FC3 jets are lacking in performance they should have. When the thrid party stuff really isn't.

 

Also concerning the R77-1, R27M, and modern archers lets compare them to their western counterparts, the C7, D, Meteor, and soon the aim-214 (probs got the numbers wrong). Additionally the Russians have yet to make a missile that can actually match the 9X blk I let alone the Blk II. Or even the ASRAAM, IRST, or python 5.

While this is true to a point, the advantages the soviets actually had aren't reflected on the servers. And this has much more to do with their doctrine, and how they actually expected to fight. But it doesn't help that the only aircraft that currently fits in with the mig set online is the F5E. We either need "modern" soviet or Chinese stuff, and apparently neither one are really happening aside from the JF17 (which isn't really "red" anyway and no one really flies)and the ever so modern mig-23MLA. Frankly I'd love it if HB would do a hi-fi mig29, enough documentation should be available on the 29G since she was the pass around girl of the 90's with most nato airforces. But I'll also happily settle for some 70's and early 80's bluefor to compete with the 70's 80's era reds we have.

And even then you want to see a "balanced" Red V Blue server you need to have a vastly better and functional GCI implementation for redfor to reflect how the soviets and their allies actually flew, and about 4x as many seats, so bluefor gets 1 awesome F4, and the reds get 4 mig 23's and a few mig21's for it shoot at, because in real wars, quanitiy has a quality all its own which was a big part of soviet cold war doctrine. While at the same time strictly limiting western wunderwaffle missles and PGM's as they were actually in quite short supply during the cold war (ref GW1 where they ran out in a much less intensive air campaign).

And to IronMikes other points about badass mig or F5E pilots, while its true the pilot matters it doesn't particularly lend itself to "realism" online unless those pilots are flying like they might under GCI control for example.

The only real balance would ever exist, if you forced everyone to fly the same aircraft with the same weapons.

This is unquestionable and should end the discussion. We fly in DCS what we have. It's not that much of a gap between our Flankers and Eagles. If one feels it's too much to handle one can always switch to the other side. As for winning the "impossible" fights deep down you know that you were gods against rookies. This only confirms how much a skill/team is better than superior weaponry.

Let's leave the balance thing to the server owners and mission designers. If you want realism you want to base it on the time frame which itself will put restrictions needed.

Good points, Harlikwin.

And to IronMikes other points about badass mig or F5E pilots, while its true the pilot matters it doesn't particularly lend itself to "realism" online unless those pilots are flying like they might under GCI control for example.

We'd often pair an eagle and a 29G. The eagle was only a run-to point, but its role was to "awacs" for the MiG. One of us would vector the other around bandits and then snaps! a little bite from the side or behind. And ofc, flying online often means flying against rooks. But that is never who we measured ourselves against, we tried to pick our rivals from the top. Even today after couple days flying, I would still claim I can "read" 8/10 against whom I am flying. If you fly online a lot, that is just stuff you train by the way so to speak. It wasn't meant to boast, it is nothing special and in my opinion everyone can do it. It was merely to show that you can invent a lot of funny underdog scenarios, if you like. Realism can be found in many nuances

Harlikwn kind of brought this up already but to me, the way DCS works in multiplayer is so far off reality that discussing balance doesn't even make sense, even assuming that both sides had access to the same goodies.

In reality you'd have well coordinated flights with specific tasks, employed under a specific military's doctrine, under guidance of proper awacs/gci (and contrary to popular belief, NATO awacs is not limited to BRAA calls...), 2 and 4 ships coordinating and communicating with each other, and so much more.

In DCS you neglect all of those things, which are arguably far more important than a plane's performance, weapons or sensors. What you end up with for the most part is individual players (or small groups at best) hugging the deck hoping to avoid radar detection, and trying to shoot each other down with next to no organization, strategy and tactics behind it. Even when you use SRS, there's still a huge gap between a getting on and asking a random A-10C driver if they need CAP, and a properly planned mission. And even when you have relatively organized 2ships, they still follow tactics that are improvised on the spot at best, with a degree of proficiency that is not comparable to real pilots.

In my opinion, it makes no sense to argue about either realism or balance when a) the DCS environment is already as limited as it is, b) everybody's flying and tactics are so limited. Flying in this way just leaves too much room for individual players or groups to outplay each other.

<snip>

In reality you'd have well coordinated flights with specific tasks, employed under a specific military's doctrine, under guidance of proper awacs/gci (and contrary to popular belief, NATO awacs is not limited to BRAA calls...), 2 and 4 ships coordinating and communicating with each other, and so much more.

<snip>

That is how I remember flying online when I had the time and so. A mission was planned each given a specific role in that mission whether it was SEAD, Strike, CAP, then the mission was briefed and specifics of what routes likely hotspots etc and timings for the various packages to arrive on target.

That moment from the IP and heading in and seeing the other packages doing their bit taking out the air defence and making the way clear for us bomb trucks to lay down our gifts upon our foe.

And when it all works as it did mostly it is great, but there was hours and hours of training leading up to these missions so we would work as a team.

Exactly my point, most people don't do that.

We digress but people do fly more realistic missions with timing and specific tasks but they are generally with a squad as it takes some training and organization.

It's not really possible on an ad hoc basis on a public server.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

Harlikwn kind of brought this up already but to me, the way DCS works in multiplayer is so far off reality that discussing balance doesn't even make sense, even assuming that both sides had access to the same goodies.

 

In reality you'd have well coordinated flights with specific tasks, employed under a specific military's doctrine, under guidance of proper awacs/gci (and contrary to popular belief, NATO awacs is not limited to BRAA calls...), 2 and 4 ships coordinating and communicating with each other, and so much more.

 

In DCS you neglect all of those things, which are arguably far more important than a plane's performance, weapons or sensors. What you end up with for the most part is individual players (or small groups at best) hugging the deck hoping to avoid radar detection, and trying to shoot each other down with next to no organization, strategy and tactics behind it. Even when you use SRS, there's still a huge gap between a getting on and asking a random A-10C driver if they need CAP, and a properly planned mission. And even when you have relatively organized 2ships, they still follow tactics that are improvised on the spot at best, with a degree of proficiency that is not comparable to real pilots.

 

In my opinion, it makes no sense to argue about either realism or balance when a) the DCS environment is already as limited as it is, b) everybody's flying and tactics are so limited. Flying in this way just leaves too much room for individual players or groups to outplay each other.

That's more or less the gist of it.

One thing that does puzzle me, is why there is no friendly AI on servers, either PVE or PVP. Certainly you can run AI and already do for PVE. But I think it could add to the game to at least have some AI/AI fights going and the player could pop-in on those. One thing I do see on the PVP servers is often one side just outnumbers the other, then most people leave because that's not fun.

We'd often pair an eagle and a 29G. The eagle was only a run-to point, but its role was to "awacs" for the MiG. One of us would vector the other around bandits and then snaps! a little bite from the side or behind. And ofc, flying online often means flying against rooks. But that is never who we measured ourselves against, we tried to pick our rivals from the top. Even today after couple days flying, I would still claim I can "read" 8/10 against whom I am flying. If you fly online a lot, that is just stuff you train by the way so to speak. It wasn't meant to boast, it is nothing special and in my opinion everyone can do it. It was merely to show that you can invent a lot of funny underdog scenarios, if you like. Realism can be found in many nuances

Ive actually seen/experienced good ground GCI while flying red which was a lot of fun, but its pretty rare online. It also takes people to actually follow their commands for it work well too, which sorta happened a few times.

Are you so sure about this?

 

I think that if all servers went to proper SATAL like weapon restrictions you would see the pilots that are stripped of their skill replacement weapons improve, and start doing at least equally well as before.

Cause, from what i know about people, what is more likely to happen is:

.... they would leave the server....

The fact missiles have lasted in this state for this long boggles the mind.

Yeah i know. Which is why i haven't fired a single MRAAM or LRAAM at a human target ever since i joined DCS. I stick to Fox2's and guns when i join MP. I can only wonder how people who have been here much longer feel. And hat's off to the people at the missile mode. I would not leave home without it for SP.

While this is true to a point, the advantages the soviets actually had aren't reflected on the servers. ...

Amen, but this i think can only be implemented on squadron level, and large organized event. There's no way you can gather a dozen of random people and expect a realistic tossup.

This is unquestionable and should end the discussion. We fly in DCS what we have.......

Which leads me to the following question. For the sake of discussion, are you guys talking about DCS as war game and a mil sim, or as an E-Sports event?

If the latter, then:

 

Let's leave the balance thing to the server owners and mission designers.

If the former:

If you want realism you want to base it on the time frame which itself will put restrictions needed.

THIS! Please leave your "fair-play" mentality out of the modules i've payed for as much as the next guy. Balance be d*mned, we should strive to simulate technical and operational authenticity as much as possible. My 5 cents anyway.