More modern REDFOR planes!

I would really love to see 1970s/80s US planes which weren't capable of carrying amraams. That might make 1980s servers popular and give russian planes suitable opponents, not guests from the future

You could approximate that by restricting AMRAAM and AIM-9X for the server, correct? Yes, a few of the BLUFOR aircraft will have certain systems (e.g., JHMCS) that they didn't have at the time, but that would turn the F-15 and F/A-18 into Sparrow shooters for BVR and the F-16 into a pure dogfighter (no BVR missile), akin to their configurations during the 1980s.

They would still have wrong radars, glass-ish cockpits and not proper performance

Now I know the reason we can't have full fidelity modules of REDFOR planes is due to Russian laws that essentially state no one can recreate currently in service aircraft in a simulated environment like DCS.

From where is that?

As that is first time I read that confirmation it is the law (still, would be nice to get the letter of law quoted or listed at least), and that it specifically say "no one", what means that no third party could do it anyways, contrary that what ED has stated that anyone else could do it but they.

What you say is logical thing, because why would state laws disallow domestic company doing something that is "military secret" but allow foreign company doing it? That is illogical.

You could approximate that by restricting AMRAAM and AIM-9X for the server, correct? Yes, a few of the BLUFOR aircraft will have certain systems (e.g., JHMCS) that they didn't have at the time, but that would turn the F-15 and F/A-18 into Sparrow shooters for BVR and the F-16 into a pure dogfighter (no BVR missile), akin to their configurations during the 1980s.

That is one of the wanted features, have a "Enable/Disable" a "era limited loadouts/features" that when mission designer sets the mission year to 19XX, then it automatically disables all possible features (JHMCS, NVG, Link-16 etc) and weapons (AIM-120A/B/C, AIM-7M etc) that were not developed ready in that year. If one wants to get them enabled, they could go to settings set them one by one active, or just enable all.

They would still have wrong radars, glass-ish cockpits and not proper performance

Oh absolutely, hence why I said "approximate" - I wasn't going to run down a list of everything that changed between the 1980s and the early 2000s for those airframes, it would be cumbersome and unnecessary in a forum like this. Simply saying a lot of the gap can be made up for by restricting weapons. In doing so, even with more advanced systems you can't as easily take advantage of them. You might have TWS, but you can't exploit it with a Sparrow, and you can't even use it if you want to shoot. You might have JHMCS, but you're stuck with either a -9M or -9L which can't use it, even if you have the HUD projected for you when at that time it wouldn't have been an option. You have MFDs which might have a little more functionality or modifications to what they did 20 years prior, but it isn't going to help you that much.

+1

Seriously I would like to see planes like Yak 141, MiG-29M and Su-25SM in DCS. Especialy Su-25SM would be great addition for upcoming Syria map. I dont mind FC3 level, Its still better than nothing. Also older planes like Su-17(22), MiG-27 or Su-15 would make great additions for Cold War scenarios.

Since this is an ongoing topic for a very long time.

What I don’t understand is why doesn’t eagle dynamics open a second studio in Europe or the US to develop Red aircraft. That way the whole difficulty of Russian government interference is bypassed.

of course, brilliant, mess with the guys that hold your family hostage what could go wrong

Or why a us-based 3rd party doesn't develop based on mute in private ownership. The documentation is out there, and there's a demonstrated demand

You lack vision...

 

80s onward...

 

A-6, A-7, F-4 (Navy Air Force Marines All had different versions with different missions), EA-6B, FB-111, EF-111, F-16A/B early blocks, F-15A/B, F-117A, UH-1N, AH-1W/Z, AH-64A,D, UH-60 (Dozens of versions), CH-46, CH-47, CH-53 (Dozens of versions), C-130s, B-1B, B-52D,G,H...

 

And that's the list I came up with waiting for coffee to brew....I know I missed some.

As fun as it would be to trade blows with a human F-4 in a MiG-21Bis, those are definitely not even remotely modern aircraft. If we go by the standard of what was still in use in the 1980's as a 1980's onwards plane, then the MiG-17 is a modern jet fighter since N. Korea is still flying them to this day. This discussion is mainly fighter aircraft that are basically current generation aircraft. The F-16A is an option, but do you really want 500 different variants of 3-4 American fighters instead of a bit more variety? I for one don't see a particular reason to add the F-16A to the game at any point at any time in the future. The F-16C makes it redundant. If you want an F-16A, you just restrict the C to sparrows and older sidewinders. It isn't perfect, but it's good enough if that means getting a full fidelity MiG-29 to fight it.

If you want an F-16A, you just restrict the C to sparrows and older sidewinders. It isn't perfect, but it's good enough if that means getting a full fidelity MiG-29 to fight it.

There is nice vibe to fly A-10A instead A-10C and pretend to fly A-10A.

The DCS has huge potential to tap for money flow for a "DLC" for an module, sell a base module and the n each upgrade with slight price. Like there are so many F-16 variants that one could make simpler/older ones. What comes to MiG-23 there are many fancy versions, not to mention Mi-24 variants etc.

Would it make sense? I think so as many could be ready to pay small fee to get older less advanced featured variants, and those should be easier to do in many ways.

There is some kind good proportion of DCS customers that would like to buy all that there is. So as long it does not go to that you pay for a new cockpit livery, it could very well make profit.

Like example: Mi-24V <> Mi-24P <> Mi-24VP where the P is base version and each other costs like 19.99. You could get base (69.99) + 2x 19.99 from those who want all three variants.

If one wants just V or VP, they still need to buy base first. This would just compensate for main job, and then for acceptable smaller changes variants where flight modeling wouldn't need to be changed much if at all. And releasing new variants later years makes reasons to maintain your module as it still generate profit.

Since this is an ongoing topic for a very long time.

What I don’t understand is why doesn’t eagle dynamics open a second studio in Europe or the US to develop Red aircraft. That way the whole difficulty of Russian government interference is bypassed.

ED is not able to develop full fidelity Red aircraft that are Russian because it is a Russian Company. How ever the 3rd parties are free to do so if they can obtain a license and the necessary data. See the pod cast below for more details.

So ED is basically limited to German, Japaneses WWII Red aircraft or European aircraft that were used by some middle east countries like the Hawker Hunter in the Six day war.

https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/

ED is not able to develop full fidelity Red aircraft that are Russian because it is a Russian Company.

Mi-24

Since this is an ongoing topic for a very long time.

What I don’t understand is why doesn’t eagle dynamics open a second studio in Europe or the US to develop Red aircraft. That way the whole difficulty of Russian government interference is bypassed.

There was rumor that ED had opened a studio in EU, switzerland or something IIRC. That would truly be a "brain-melting" move to make a RedAir multirole fighter.... But someone could fairly easily check such thing for a company listings in Switzerland

ED is not able to develop full fidelity Red aircraft that are Russian because it is a Russian Company. How ever the 3rd parties are free to do so if they can obtain a license and the necessary data. See the pod cast below for more details.

https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/

That is very carefully stated by the Wags and it is very vague essentially by it.

Like example I got very much flak from some people here about repeating that DCS does not try to be as close to flight modeling as possible when it comes to true performances in aircrafts or weapons, but they need to adjust purposely to be little something else (better or worse, to throw adversaries off), 17:30 Wags very clearly states this to be case. And some of these people laughed off that "PC game would reveal military secrets", well.... Yeah... We are not talking about a 90's EGA graphics games here.

But that still doesn't make sense what Wags said, that Russian companies are not allowed to work together, but then Russian company can work with foreign company with that information that was denied for domestic one.

It is same thing as "No, our counter-intelligence is not allowed to have access to this information, but if foreign intelligence officer requests it then give it to them".

I completely understand example that ED can't have access to MiG-25 in Russia, they are guarded in some warehouses and manuals etc are locked away to vaults or something. But nothing such physical deniability exist that said ED worker could fly to another country where MiG-25 is privately own with all manuals, working radars, engines, weapons systems etc, and have unlimited physical access to all that.

So would it be case that ED is not allowed to handle anything at all Russian military equipment related, but as foreign company could have access to that and keep information outside of Russia and it would protect ED legally? As now comes the another question, how does ED legally withstand it by offering the business platform and publishing from Russia, or is that business in some other country (like Swiss) so ED Russian branch has nothing to do with that?

Then there are always these two another questions.

Partnership with KAMOV to produce KA-50 just ~10 years ago.

Now doing the Mi-24P that is very much in operational use (even if with some updates).

So it is easy to see that helicopter manufacturers doesn't have a such limitations to work with ED as fighter manufacturers does, as they are not under same umbrella that Russian Government owns.

If we go by the standard of what was still in use in the 1980's as a 1980's onwards plane, then the MiG-17 is a modern jet fighter since N. Korea is still flying them to this day. This discussion is mainly fighter aircraft that are basically current generation aircraft.

The majority of the aircraft I listed were in service well beyond the 80s...and by your standard the F-15, 16 and 18 should be excluded because they entered service in the 70s

Just about all of the aircraft listed received upgrades and enhancements throughout their careers. Until their retirements they were the current generation aircraft.

This is a big reason why I wish there was more competition in the combat flight simulator genre currently. There is certainly enough open-source data and even ways to physically access a more modern RU aircraft in the West to produce a simulator for it.

There is nice vibe to fly A-10A instead A-10C and pretend to fly A-10A.

 

The DCS has huge potential to tap for money flow for a "DLC" for an module, sell a base module and the n each upgrade with slight price. Like there are so many F-16 variants that one could make simpler/older ones. What comes to MiG-23 there are many fancy versions, not to mention Mi-24 variants etc.

 

 

 

Would it make sense? I think so as many could be ready to pay small fee to get older less advanced featured variants, and those should be easier to do in many ways.

 

There is some kind good proportion of DCS customers that would like to buy all that there is. So as long it does not go to that you pay for a new cockpit livery, it could very well make profit.

 

Like example: Mi-24V <> Mi-24P <> Mi-24VP where the P is base version and each other costs like 19.99. You could get base (69.99) + 2x 19.99 from those who want all three variants.

If one wants just V or VP, they still need to buy base first. This would just compensate for main job, and then for acceptable smaller changes variants where flight modeling wouldn't need to be changed much if at all. And releasing new variants later years makes reasons to maintain your module as it still generate profit.

Because that isn't realistically practical. They aren't just copy paste opportunities in DCS. In other games, yes, in this one, no.

It means redoing the cockpit, in some cases redoing the external model (although usually this won't be a major issue), and in many cases redoing the flight model. That is why, to date, variants have been extremely minor differences. The only ''significant'' version difference we have is the F-14A/F-14B, and you'll notice that after a considerable amount of time, we still only have one of them.

You're not going to see a proliferation of major versions of the same aircraft as cheap DLC addons. IF they ever exist at all, it will typically be as full priced and very separate modules, because they are generally just as much trouble to do as the initial one was.

@CarbonFox

Availability of data isn't the issue and never was.

Regarding RedFors, the door to this is pestering the 3rd parties to prioritise making more RedFor aircraft. The easiest way is writing tons of annoying forum threads they can see, and by showing support for any Red aircraft (or purple) that they produce, showing they're viable products.

Info shouldn’t be the problem. See this Mig-25 in Estonia museum.

From where is that?

 

As that is first time I read that confirmation it is the law (still, would be nice to get the letter of law quoted or listed at least), and that it specifically say "no one", what means that no third party could do it anyways, contrary that what ED has stated that anyone else could do it but they.

 

What you say is logical thing, because why would state laws disallow domestic company doing something that is "military secret" but allow foreign company doing it? That is illogical.

The Black Shark was released in 2008. I don't know how closely you follow Russian politics, but in 2012 there were massive pro democracy demonstrations against the re-election of Vladdy Putin. Western European governments and the US made statements saying basically "hey, that's cool. democracy is pretty rad". These nettled Czar Putin a bit, who saw the protests as a betrayal and the west as meddling in domestic affairs. Later that year he pushed a metric shit ton of anti espionage laws and anti agitation laws through the Duma (also other things). Around that time all references to the DCS:Su-27SM from ED magically disappear and it suddenly becomes an Su-27S

TL : DR it doesn't matter how much we know about an aircraft (I mean there are several privatly owned SU-27s in the US bought to the US after the fall of the Soviet Union through 3rd party companies)...we know the whats/hows/wheres its just the case because the base game is owned by Eagle Dynamics and thus even if a 3rd party was to make it, if it was put into a Sim made by a Russian company at the fidelity of main modules (which is why they are in FC3 quality) then this would be considered against the law no matter how much we already know about said plane ASSUMING its still in service.

HOWEVER, like wise, as SOON as it comes out of service with Russia (like the Mig 25) it should be fair game because, (and as russia kinda already knows) Western intelligence was able to sum up a lot of the Soviet Union era aircraft (first Mig 29s, Su 27s, Mig 25, Mig 31 ect).

So if its still in service until laws change, its FC3/MAC or nothing

(At least this is the information I've been able to gather over the years on the subject)

AND that is why ED should go for 60´s and 70s...

SU 7, SU 15, Mig 17, SU 17/22, SU 28,

Give me F-100s, 102, 104,105,

give me a freaking B 47!

give me A-1s Il-10s ..

I just cant understand why fideling with MDFS seems more fun to some than actually flying the planes!

AND that is why ED should go for 60´s and 70s...

 

SU 7, SU 15, Mig 17, SU 17/22, SU 28,

Give me F-100s, 102, 104,105,

give me a freaking B 47!

give me A-1s Il-10s ..

 

I just cant understand why fideling with MDFS seems more fun to some than actually flying the planes!

Not only that but older jets without fly by wire are just more enjoyable to fly.

Check out what Col. Giora Epstein, Israels top Ace with 17 kills says about the difference between his older Mirage III and the F-16 @42:08 min.

Realistic expectation on REDFORCE:

Mig 27

Su-17/22 Family

and

MAYBE some EARLY Su 27 or Mig 29 family series....EARLY.

Not only that but older jets without fly by wire are just more enjoyable to fly.

 

Check out what Col. Giora Epstein, Israels top Ace with 17 kills says about the difference between his older Mirage III and the F-16 @42:08 min.

 

 

 

 

HEES BATTAM