Modern eastern planes please

Except Mig23 ofcourse . Let's be reasonable here. That thing is ugly as sin and much less capable.

 

It does have gangly legs, otherwise I disagree =) As for capability, it's roughly comparable to the F-4 Phantoms of the same era, but smaller and more maneuverable. The early versions had some flaws, but from the MLA+ they were competent aircraft.

Yes, but that was just an example. It would of course include the radar "nerfing" like the emission power and speed etc, so on calculation of detecting the targets at range, maintaining lock etc etc.

 

If it would be possible to adjust some of the core parameters (like emission power, sweep speed etc) then it would effectively do such simulation (in a simulation...) for balancing reasons. But it would be just easier maybe see a F-4 :-P

 

I get your point and id like the option to damage or downgrade some systems to get an 'ish plane. But at some point its still not going work well. And the amount of work probably means a new model or at least a good chunk of one. So why not just do an f4e :).

Except Mig23 ofcourse . Let's be reasonable here. That thing is ugly as sin and much less capable.

 

For years I hold opinion that MiG-23 is ugly as.... And MiG-27 even uglier with its nose...

 

I never understood anyone that said that F-16 is a sexy... To me it is uglier than even MiG-23.

The real beauties are Su-34, Tu-160 and Su-24... Somewhat the Su-27 is beautiful, but it is similar boring as F-15 or F/A-18.

 

But one day when watching never seen MiG-23 document, it became more obvious by its details, and when I followed the SVKSniper mod of MiG-23 here, it started to reveal something in the MiG-23.

 

And now these days I consider MiG-23 beautiful, not the all variants, but ML that has the sharper tail and no flare dispensers top of the wings.

And more you read about its sensors suit, its tactics and weapons computers etc, more admirable it becomes compared to anything west had at the time. It truly is better suited for air defense than what west had.

 

And Now I can't wait to see Mig-23MLA to come out, and truly wish that Mig-27M would see a green light as well soon after it.

 

The Mig-23 ain't for a pilot that needs to do all the decisions up in the air, and rely his own eyes and radar. But it is for an airforce that sees all, that organize the strategy to win the combat up in the air and that pilot has greater situational awareness than that single western pilot has.

 

What I would have liked to see is the hypothetical Mig-23 with glass cockpit, automatic variable wingspan, AESA etc etc.

 

It is just funny how opinions can change when you start to look closer to what you dislike, and start to dislike what you so liked without knowing better...

I get your point and id like the option to damage or downgrade some systems to get an 'ish plane. But at some point its still not going work well. And the amount of work probably means a new model or at least a good chunk of one. So why not just do an f4e :).

 

When Lock-On came out, I didn't really like it as at that time details etc it was "You get alarm, you are shot down" kind game, compared to most WW2 simulators etc, where you need to get the visual, then you go to chase other with guns and try to get the advantage in more "sports" manner.

 

But the cold war era aircrafts with yet limited capabilities etc has something similar, something that a Su-35 or F-22 etc would be completely lacking. Even a F/A-18C Lot 20 and F-16C Block 50 lacks lots of that. And that might be one of the things why AV-8B N/A is so interesting that you are not there with the radar, so it is similar to A-10A (over A-10C).

 

The Viggen is at nice "balance" position that comes to the technologies and capabilities. And that is something that makes me wait more REDFOR units that would be just somewhere at 70-80's range and to fly with MiG-23MLA against a F-4E can become very interesting.

 

And I think that F-4, Mig-23 etc era is the golden time period that DCS should focus more, what has always been little downside with the F-16 and F-18 so modern versions.

This is a study sim,not a multiplayer game.

:lol: No.

 

Not only is it a multiplayer game — it is also for the most part not a study sim. There isn't a single module that doesn't come with omissions, drastic simplifications, and errors. Some are better than others, granted, and in most cases the omissions and simplifications are there because the game simply doesn't need them so it makes all the sense in the world that it's not there. But let's not kid ourselves about what it is and what it isn't, especially not to make a factually incorrect argument against player options and good game design.

 

If you want to argue against those, then by all means do so, but at least offer something more sensible to explain why it shouldn't happen.

Instead of wasting our thoughts on what would be our personal favorite Red aircraft that has little to no chances in making into DCS in the the next 10 years, we should be discussing what would be the most modern model that could be realistically licensed and simulated.

:lol: No.

 

Not only is it a multiplayer game — it is also for the most part not a study sim. There isn't a single module that doesn't come with omissions, drastic simplifications, and errors. Some are better than others, granted, and in most cases the omissions and simplifications are there because the game simply doesn't need them so it makes all the sense in the world that it's not there. But let's not kid ourselves about what it is and what it isn't, especially not to make a factually incorrect argument against player options and good game design.

 

If you want to argue against those, then by all means do so, but at least offer something more sensible to explain why it shouldn't happen.

 

There is never, ever going to be a consumer level military aircraft simulation that doesn't omit something. Even military grade training simulations will obviously have some concessions that are necessary for the medium.

 

As far as consumer level combat flight sims go, it is not incorrect to call DCS a study sim. This is especially going to be the case for those that really do genuinely treat it like a study sim. This is probably not going to be as apparent if one confines themselves to the larger DCS public server scene but for those that get into small co-op servers with carefully built scenarios, you can very easily see the "study sim" part of DCS in action.

As far as consumer level combat flight sims go, it is not incorrect to call DCS a study sim. This is especially going to be the case for those that really do genuinely treat it like a study sim.

That's overdetermining things a bit too much in DCS' favour by piling on all those qualifiers, though. Yes, as far as consumer level combat flight sims go, DCS is probably the most study-sim:esque of them all for the simple reason that you're comparing against one or maaaaaybe two other games, neither of which even attempt it. It achieves its “the most” label by virtue of scoring 3/10 compared to the other candidates' scores of 1/10 and 0/10 respectively.

 

Similarly, treating it as a study sim doesn't really make it one — it just means you're being particularly charitable towards a specific subjective preference. Cut down on the qualifiers and just look at consumer flight sims (and skipping over the argument of at what price a module no longer targets the average consumer) and it doesn't look quite as good any more.

 

This is probably not going to be as apparent if one confines themselves to the larger DCS public server scene but for those that get into small co-op servers with carefully built scenarios, you can very easily see the "study sim" part of DCS in action.

True enough, but with suitably built scenarios and stringent enough co-op orthodixy, you can turn just about anything into a study sim of one form or another. Also, which was probably the major point, this would also belie the whole notion of not being a multiplayer game.

 

That said…

Even military grade training simulations will obviously have some concessions that are necessary for the medium.

…as mentioned, this still holds true. Omissions and concessions to the form are part of the package, but we should not kid ourselves about how the gamification of ED's products have added a fair bit more of those than would otherwise be acceptable.
Edited November 6, 2019 by Tippis

When Lock-On came out, I didn't really like it as at that time details etc it was "You get alarm, you are shot down" kind game, compared to most WW2 simulators etc, where you need to get the visual, then you go to chase other with guns and try to get the advantage in more "sports" manner.

 

But the cold war era aircrafts with yet limited capabilities etc has something similar, something that a Su-35 or F-22 etc would be completely lacking. Even a F/A-18C Lot 20 and F-16C Block 50 lacks lots of that. And that might be one of the things why AV-8B N/A is so interesting that you are not there with the radar, so it is similar to A-10A (over A-10C).

 

The Viggen is at nice "balance" position that comes to the technologies and capabilities. And that is something that makes me wait more REDFOR units that would be just somewhere at 70-80's range and to fly with MiG-23MLA against a F-4E can become very interesting.

 

And I think that F-4, Mig-23 etc era is the golden time period that DCS should focus more, what has always been little downside with the F-16 and F-18 so modern versions.

 

Actually the F16A and F/A-18A would be far better choices. The F16 is a pure mix em up dogfighter/light attack, no BVR BS. Mostly the same for F-18A as well. But ground attack is harder without all the modern gee-gaws. The other nice thing for the older planes is they each have a "role" and a "personality" compared to the modern do-it-all planes.

Instead of wasting our thoughts on what would be our personal favorite Red aircraft that has little to no chances in making into DCS in the the next 10 years, we should be discussing what would be the most modern model that could be realistically licensed and simulated.

 

Well per ED its about 1980 for the cutoff, so the mig-23MLA is gonna be it "fighter" wise if that is actually true. The door is probably open for an actual MLD model but thats in the early 80's and if thats game then it might be the mig-29. The other thing "red" DCS air needs from that era is a good strike aircraft like the SU-17, Mig23BN, or Mig27 and the SU-25A for CAS.

 

In terms of what I think people would buy

 

1. Modern SU-27/29 for "comeptitive" reasons, something that could go toe-to-toe with the 2007era viper/F18 etc.

 

2. Carrier version of mig/sukhoi, and why not since ED put a ton of resources into that.

 

3. 80's era mig-29/Su-27 if there were some 80's era blue planes.

Slight thread drift, but please step down from your realism high horse will you.

 

 

Or have you deinstalled the game after your first crash or first shoot down with loss of pilot?

 

 

Because there is no -try again- in reality either in those cases.

 

 

And regarding mismatches.Asymmetric historic conflicts notwithstanding, why do you assume that people enjoy being being cannon fodder for a technological

far ahead blue side??

 

 

You wouldn‘t even get to the merge in your 70/80s vintage Mig in most cases as you would have been spamrammed out of the sky before you knew what hit you.

Oh and btw you would likely be doctrine-bound to follow GCI orders and not get to make major tactical decisions if you‘d take it to realistic level& could fly DCS only a few hours per month as you don‘t get trained as much as the rw blue force.

 

 

So please cut it down a bit.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Snappy.

 

Yup great point here. DCS has some weird historical issues with "realism". Not the planes mind you, but rather the environment. And really most of this argument is pointed at MP and being "competitive". No one wants to fly the a mig-21 against "teen series" fighters that were specifically built to kill it. At some point to quote a song "its like clubbin baby seals". And that is why there is demand for a near peer refor plane. But honestly the mig-21 would be worlds more "competitive" if it were controlled by godlike GCI, but also way less "Fun". I actually do awesome in the mig-21/29/su-27 with a human GCI provided they know what they are doing, but its rare when that happens on the servers I play on, and perhaps not realistic in all cases either.

 

And of course asymetric scenarios exist IRL, but again, not much "fun" for the primitive side.

I've always thought in terms of "scoring" on MP servers, if you get a kill with an old ass plane it should count "more". i.e. Mig-15 kills F86, 1 point. Mig-15 kill F5E, 5 points, Mig 15 kills F18/viper, 10 points, Mig15 kills F15/14 15 points. And vice versa. It would incentivize people to fly older air-frames online. Rather than relegating them to some 3rd rate status. Mr F14 kills 4 mig21's with phoneix, and 1 with a heater, jolly good, 1 point, its like clubbin baby seals... Mig21 smokes F14? Yeah, thats impressive.

Ever considered the possibility that they don't do a full version of one of the Su-27 or MiG-29 variants because they don't want the grief ?

 

Chizh has expressed his low opinion of Soviet gear on the forum before, and maybe they just feel that if they were to model an Su-27 S with it's actual radar & WCS & weapons limitations, the sh*tstorm that happened when the Su-27 (then MiG-29) PFM was unveiled would seem like a little squall - from both hemispheres of their market.

 

Better to leave that particular bitter pill for someone else to swallow.

USA never left the cold war, rest of the world did.

And Russia never stopped being a shared position with the USA in the "arms race".

 

 

 

 

USA lost the economy war... Russia won.

If you would personally have a 15 million dollar debt, no one would call you a successful in economics. But if you manage to threaten others to give you more loans so your total debt would be in future a 15 billion dollars... You wouldn't be even then a successful in economics.

 

Just my $0.02.... Sorry, $23,000,000,000,000... and counting...

 

ps. Can someone be a too fat to die?

 

 

Very interesting. Refer to the Russian government. Is the Ka-50 less secret than the Su-27? I think it’s just that the Kamov Design Bureau has worked, and Sukhoi hasn’t.

You can now think of the radar and the rest reach the level? What level?

There is no reason for a 2000s russian fighter to not be developed in the near future. There is no more money to be made on teen fighters. Name a module that is easier to produce, and generates more sales than something like a Su-27SM3 or a modern Su-30.

 

Not only would they match and even outclass all the other fighters in the sim if properly used, they also offer a lot of air to ground options and in the case of the Su-30, 2 seats, which has been very popular with the F-14. On top of that, there are a lot of people that would be ready to pay a little fortune for it, since it would be the first proper public modern russian fighter simulation in the world. If someone charged 200 bucks for it, people would still buy it simply because there is no alternative and probably will not be for a good while.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Max1mus

Very interesting. Refer to the Russian government. Is the Ka-50 less secret than the Su-27? I think it’s just that the Kamov Design Bureau has worked, and Sukhoi hasn’t.

Well, the Ka-50 isn't exactly in use. Hell, it hardly even exists (much like the Su-25T) whereas the Su-27 is one of the mainstays of their fleet. It's probably a lot easier to get the go-ahead on a long-abandoned prototype than something that sees daily action and forms a cornerstone of their force projection.

 

 

We see the same thing, albeit to a lesser degree, in the abundance of outdated or phased-out-block teen fighters (and attack aircraft) when there's shiny aircraft in the 20+ range (or the same fighters in up-to-date variants) that players would love to get their hands on.

And the flight model for a Su-27 or MiG-29 does not exist? Well than I do not know how those are simulated in FC3.

There is no reason for a 2000s russian fighter to not be developed in the near future. There is no more money to be made on teen fighters. Name a module that is easier to produce, and generates more sales than something like a Su-27SM3 or a modern Su-30.

 

That is as well a good point.

 

Once the F/A-18C is complete and moves to a ready label only to receive small fixes and updates, then what? A new livery? A new upgraded Lot? No... It will be like a A-10C since like 2012, slowly being there, getting slight updates and then in 5-7 years to see a new cockpit refreshment. This likely starts to happen 2020-2021 time, so they are going to sell it lower and lower amounts unless DCS attract a lot more users in 5-7 years period.

 

When the F-16C is ready in 2021-2022 period, then what? Again the same thing goes around. Maybe ED does a alternative version with just little different avionics. But same thing happens.

 

When the OH-58 is out, it needs a buddy. It can't be just alone there to laze for those F-16 and F/A-18 so they can drop bombs. It needs ground war, it needs attack helicopters to support. AH-64 is there always to save it, but question is just "When?" instead "If". That AH-64 will be again a major money generator guaranteed.

 

The REDFOR side is actually IMHO a fairly better condition. Su-25A and Su-25T are very potential to get better avionics, but if someone would make a Su-25SM or SM2, they instantly have a A-10C level module in their hands. But Su-25 requires a ground war, again something that comes only via a Combined Arms. And good reason why the low price was ended for CA, is that there is long time between the price change and then when the CA becomes the corner stone of the DCS.

 

That I hope will be the next major DCS money maker for ED, to alter the DCS from the pure flight simulation to a high end Real Time Strategy game, next to many big scale RTS games that takes weeks to play, and that is where the Dynamic Campaign is important factor. As if ED plays well its cards, the Combined Arms will become their main module, not the flight modules but the ground units commanding, a real time dynamic campaign where there could be a dozens of RTS players on server playing the war, advancing building by building, block by block and crossroad at the time, where the virtual pilots are there just like a any other individual unit, performing their tasks to take out the individual targets, perform close air support in heat of the engagements and strategically perform strikes. That could be selling very great amounts among RTS players, if done right and for the serious players (so not chasing those quick "RTS" games).

 

The Mig-23MLA is filling a very huge hole in REDFOR side, a major fighter for many countries and should be a great money maker. Of course not at all so sexy as example F/A-18C or F-16C, but many should get it more interested than example Viggen or F-5E.

 

The Mig-24P will be a big thing for a helicopter pilots, such a legendary gunship, troop transporter etc etc, that it just fills the CAS operations as well the support part for existing Mi-8MTv2 module. With Mi-24P the REDFOR helicopter side is pretty much covered, the KA-50 BS3 will likely bring it more up to date to modern battlefield, but the BS2 will stay as great cold war modern attack helicopter. Are the Mi-28 or KA-52 a such modules that would wake interest? Sure, but they are not required because KA-50 and Mi-24. There could be a possibility for a KA-29 Assault Helicopter, or KA-27 as Maritime utility helicopter, for anti-submarine, S&R etc. Considering that if CA starts to support a larger fleets operations, the navy helicopter would become great thing, opening possibility for a UH-60 and CH-53 as well.

 

 

Not only would they match and even outclass all the other fighters in the sim if properly used, they also offer a lot of air to ground options and in the case of the Su-30, 2 seats, which has been very popular with the F-14. On top of that, there are a lot of people that would be ready to pay a little fortune for it, since it would be the first proper public modern russian fighter simulation in the world. If someone charged 200 bucks for it, people would still buy it simply because there is no alternative and probably will not be for a good while.

 

The Su-30 would be money generator, and it could be the next major module that is as valuable as F-16C and F/A-18C are alltogether, as it would be the one to fight not just against those but as well F-14B and F-15E, placing the Mig-23MLA more to against F-4E and F-5E.

 

I see that ED and 3rd party studios starts to see a problems after the 5-7 years, so in 10 years time. As at that moment DCS World should have most major aircrafts to fly, and if VR is alive, very high end graphics rendering etc possibilities. And I only see that what would support the whole thing is the Combined Arms and its RTS side, if they manage to keep it updated, implement new major details and features to go even to individual team size level, create the urban combat environments, eventually to level of the "Full Spectrum Warrior" etc.

 

The ground combat will eventually be the most supportive element in DCS, be the pilot in A-10C, UH-1H, F/A-18C etc, they would fly by the rules of the ground units performance and advancements.

 

And such feature will as well ease the requirements (at begin) for dynamic campaign as it would be the human RTS players that are doing all the strategic decisions, units movements and plan the missions for the virtual pilots. The challenge would be to get the human virtual pilots to obey the commands and plan the sorties to complete their missions that they accept from the roster list, meaning that they do not fly and try to bomb whole army down, or go chasing enemy aircrafts if they see them etc.

And the flight model for a Su-27 or MiG-29 does not exist? Well than I do not know how those are simulated in FC3.

 

By the strings... You know? :-P

 

Someone mentioned the stormy reservation when Su-27S got the PFM, but I don't recall such at all. Sure there were some talks about the cobra and its switch location etc, but major discussions were more about so easily blowing tires when landing, or now the Mig-29S bouncing landing behavior.

Well, the Ka-50 isn't exactly in use. Hell, it hardly even exists (much like the Su-25T) whereas the Su-27 is one of the mainstays of their fleet. It's probably a lot easier to get the go-ahead on a long-abandoned prototype than something that sees daily action and forms a cornerstone of their force projection.

 

 

We see the same thing, albeit to a lesser degree, in the abundance of outdated or phased-out-block teen fighters (and attack aircraft) when there's shiny aircraft in the 20+ range (or the same fighters in up-to-date variants) that players would love to get their hands on.

 

So keeping that line of thought why not do some low production variant of the SU-27 that no one really uses? Or an export version.

 

Again, I think its more about them thinking it either wont sell, or that they can't work out a licensing deal (leaving that door open for a 3rd party).

I think we are all relishing a full fidelity MiG-23, MiG-27, and earlier Sukoi models in full fidelity. Does it have to be perfect, not in my opinion. I know the secrecy of Moscow, yada yada. 95% solution is fine with me, just make it clickable and stuff.

This has to be the fastest growing “REDFOR??” thread of all time. My approval! I know an SM was in the cards on the table a long long time ago

By the strings... You know? :-P

 

Someone mentioned the stormy reservation when Su-27S got the PFM, but I don't recall such at all. Sure there were some talks about the cobra and its switch location etc, but major discussions were more about so easily blowing tires when landing, or now the Mig-29S bouncing landing behavior.

 

That was me.

 

My memory is that there were howls of outrage at the time - about the FCS, about the trimming laws, about how easy it was so put into an inverted flat spin, and how hard it was to get out of an inverted flat spin, turning performance, blah, blah).

 

Most of those have died down, but there are still some die hard "E.D. have deliberately under-modelled the Su-27 and over modelled the F-15 to please Western buyers" conspiracy theorists even now...

 

Now imagine that applied to every aspect of the aircraft's system and avionics modelling....

 

Or do a teen fighter and everyone that buys it knows what to expect, and (eventually) claps their hands

 

Yea, like Chizh is ultimate authority to evaluate rl fighter performance.

 

I have no idea how qualified he is to "evaluate rl fighter performance", but I know he has "ED Producer" in his sig, so I guess if he doesn't like the idea of a modern Soviet fighter (for whatever reason), a modern Soviet fighter's unlikely to happen...

 

(& for the record, I'd love to see a full DCS.Su-27S (or any "M", or "K" or any suffix salad variant they chose to model)