Aircraft before the 1993 tech explosion for DCS

They go hand in hand though. Part of the simulation (and perhaps a major draw) of a Fighter Jet is simulating its real world applications. People who enjoy glorified bus simulation fly civil sims, but its an accurate representation of its use case. I can only enjoy so many takeoff/landing (aircraft carrier notwithstanding) cycles with emptiness in between for but so long. Can't feel the speed, can't feel the Gs, but you can feel the having accomplished defense of an asset or the victory over a (probably) thinking opponent. Even when RL pilots aren't blowing stuff up, they are training for the real thing. Without the battle elements your'e kinda just treating the bus like a Lamborghini .

Your point being? If you don't take it as seriously as you describe, you're doing it wrong?

Your point being? If you don't take it as seriously as you describe, you're doing it wrong?

Point being for most people flying in a simulated combat environment is the draw of combat flight sims. This thread was started to express a wish many of us had. To fly highly realistic models of Cold War era jets in a realistic combat environment. Nobody is telling you how to enjoy DCS, you do you. We litteraly do not care. Also this isn’t a my way or the highway kind of thing. Not one person that’s posted here has said that they wish the late 4th gens weren’t simulated, or that there would be no more. The OP simply expressed there desire for the developers to model more aircraft form the Cold War. It doesn’t even have to be the current Dev teams ether. Six months ago I didn’t even know who Deka Ironworks was. And OctopusG came out of nowhere. My point is The OP, Myself, and apparently many others would like to see modules of the aircraft that would have clashed, over the battle fields where that clash would have occurred, if the greatest stand off in history had gone hot. We, the group wanting older stuff. Don’t really care for all the stand off high tech GPS guided, Fox3 volleying of truly modern warfare. We want to get in close, and guid our own Missiles to target. We want to feel like it was us and not the weapon that won the engagement, and that’s fine. You don’t, and that’s fine to. But I do suspect we represent a pretty substantial group of potential customers. And we’re trying to signl the Devs of our desires. So that’s the point.

Hate to tell you that SA-7 all the way up to the SA-18 were in service by '86.... And then the Tungaska, and SA-15 were as well... Soooo, A-10A woulda had a "fun" time. And most of those were available in the "early" 80's...

 

But fear not. We aren't getting an A-10A or Fulda anytime soon in DCS.

Yeah it would be “fun” lol. The A-10 would have its mavs though, and if this ever dose happen hopefully there would be AH-1Qs or something with here very own optically guided surprise for those Tunguska. Hell that would be fun. Doing some old school wild Weasel in you F-4 so the CAS guys could clear out the anti CAS systems, and go in after the armor, and infantry. Fuda Gap 1984, Able Archer gone hot.

Yeah it would be “fun” lol. The A-10 would have its mavs though, and if this ever dose happen hopefully there would be AH-1Qs or something with here very own optically guided surprise for those Tunguska. Hell that would be fun. Doing some old school wild Weasel in you F-4 so the CAS guys could clear out the anti CAS systems, and go in after the armor, and infantry. Fuda Gap 1984, Able Archer gone hot.

Ah1q,s are obselescent by the 80s. They would really have a bad time time against tunguska or low air defences in general.. No rwr. , no countermeasure suites, no flir, Tows dont out range thier missiles coupled with the time it takes one to reach out to it. It it.

There's a reason why ah1 cobras went through extensive modernization (ah1f or larger extent the usmc twin engined ah1w) and why eventually the ah64 became a thing.

Yeah it would be “fun” lol. The A-10 would have its mavs though, and if this ever dose happen hopefully there would be AH-1Qs or something with here very own optically guided surprise for those Tunguska. Hell that would be fun. Doing some old school wild Weasel in you F-4 so the CAS guys could clear out the anti CAS systems, and go in after the armor, and infantry. Fuda Gap 1984, Able Archer gone hot.

Yeah, I getcha, though the A10A and the AH-1's would have had their hands full IMO. We should probably figure out some other reasonable theater too though. IMO fulda is never happening, too many units.

 

TLDR; I'd like to see the cold war era filled out with modules and assets next, once the carrier fascination has died down.

Why are these mutually exclusive? A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, F4D, F-4, F-8, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106...

Sure, in the interested of environmental activism to minimize global cooling (by 2000 we're going to be in a new ice age) we would need to re-install the bridle catchers on the carriers, but there's plenty of blue water aircraft as well. That's not even touching on the RedFor aircraft that are every bit as worthy of the time and effort.

The cold war is an embarrassment of fine aircraft from all sides that would fit beautifully into DCS. Southeast Asia, the ever-popular hypothetical roll over the Fulda gap...the scenarios are endless, and we've already started building the air fleet to model it.

Add me to the list of people who like the idea of an AIM-4 or AIM-9D being the highest tech on board. Okay, we HAVE to have an AIR-2 to go along with it... :joystick:

In today's Fighter Pilot Podcast i've learned during cold war one of F-117s missions was shooting down Soviet AWACSes using A/A sidewinder missiles.

In today's Fighter Pilot Podcast i've learned during cold war one of F-117s missions was shooting down Soviet AWACSes using A/A sidewinder missiles.

I guess Tom Clancy was more right then wrong with the F-19...

So to clarify my OP

Older not _always_ as easy to simulate - the example given is taken, showing look down pulse is a bit messy, some of the older stuff might be harder to obfuscate instead of digitalise, yes. but, I was aiming for the obvious: MFD with 20 pages of fuel calcs, cas pages, datalink overlays, 3 types of pod imagery and such and all that jazz as being more complex (but I think this was understood)

The modern battlefield. Some people are getting the point here. The Gulf War was electronically fought in the first few hours and no one really saw what happened in that Iraq were beaten by having literally no C3i and unable to respond in a coordinated way. Jamming aircraft were escorting strike packages, there was secret sauce stuff deception happening at high levels, even the media were part of that war's deception. Neither IADS or complex jamming is even touched in DCS core. However someone did point out that you can simulate low intensity permissive conflict fairly well. Well OK. Point taken. But I don't want CAS missions over Afghanistan (personally), which is more about process than delivery these days. In VR its a headache typing that much.

It was mentioned about my comment of modern A2G weapons being boring. I stand on this. You are welcome to join RedSands server any time and tell me how even a badly done IADS that moves when you launch, switches off randomly and kills you by surprise, works. Delivery standoff spam AGM88 to that is like beating back the ocean with a broom. JSOW is the same. And it evolves into "have I got coordinates" and invariably folks just cheating with tacview, scribbling DMS onto scratchpad and filling out a target. That's boring, I like my victims to wriggle and shoot back.

This is not a hate 4th gen post, it's a (excuse the bloodthirstiness) love traditional war concepts post, when the scales were larger, fighting was closer, bombing was more skill based than computerised, rockets are a thing that you used. And yeas, i'm talking ugly planes mostly, I know what I would give up! And I think there are side benefits to this on dev speed as mentioned. I loved to experience the F-18C and wouldn't have it another way. Now I'm ready to go to different places that are easier to simulate and dodge SAM's I can see smoking up, get into dogfights, use dumb bombs and kick the pedals and they DO something :) Hello F-14 you are still my friend.

Clearly i'm not on my own and I'm sure folks will have different opinions about what "gameplay" they prefer which is perfectly valid, but I can cite all my experiences in PvP on the fox1 servers and dogfight servers are generally a lot more "fun", and as a mission designer, having to abstract all the complex IADS and still know it's an abstracted sim that i'm trying to script intelligence into makes it simply about how many missiles can overwhelm a defence (the answer is on the wiki sheet of paper).

Plus the music was much better then. ;)

Personally I want to see more from this list: https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/vietnam-war-aircraft.asp

Plus the music was much better then. ;)

^^ I couldn't agree more ^^

Point being for most people flying in a simulated combat environment is the draw of combat flight sims. This thread was started to express a wish many of us had. To fly highly realistic models of Cold War era jets in a realistic combat environment. Nobody is telling you how to enjoy DCS, you do you. We litteraly do not care. Also this isn’t a my way or the highway kind of thing. Not one person that’s posted here has said that they wish the late 4th gens weren’t simulated, or that there would be no more. The OP simply expressed there desire for the developers to model more aircraft form the Cold War. It doesn’t even have to be the current Dev teams ether. Six months ago I didn’t even know who Deka Ironworks was. And OctopusG came out of nowhere. My point is The OP, Myself, and apparently many others would like to see modules of the aircraft that would have clashed, over the battle fields where that clash would have occurred, if the greatest stand off in history had gone hot. We, the group wanting older stuff. Don’t really care for all the stand off high tech GPS guided, Fox3 volleying of truly modern warfare. We want to get in close, and guid our own Missiles to target. We want to feel like it was us and not the weapon that won the engagement, and that’s fine. You don’t, and that’s fine to. But I do suspect we represent a pretty substantial group of potential customers. And we’re trying to signl the Devs of our desires. So that’s the point.

You're right.

But this is an opinion-thread. I gave my opinion, like others in this thread. Ony because my opinion isn't in line with the majority in this thread, people want to discuss my opinion. But there's nothing to discuss, it's just preference. Which is/was really annoying.

You're right.

 

But this is an opinion-thread. I gave my opinion, like others in this thread. Ony because my opinion isn't in line with the majority in this thread, people want to discuss my opinion. But there's nothing to discuss, it's just preference. Which is/was really annoying.

Your opinion is important and the best part is, you did at least get a pretty new fighter that's almost done, so I'd say you are sitting pretty right now!

I'm not sure you will get much newer though, starts to get difficult for information. And if ED or a 3rd party can model 4+ gen completely accurately, I'd question why that military was OK to hand over the specs and capability.

Your opinion is important and the best part is, you did at least get a pretty new fighter that's almost done, so I'd say you are sitting pretty right now!

 

I'm not sure you will get much newer though, starts to get difficult for information. And if ED or a 3rd party can model 4+ gen completely accurately, I'd question why that military was OK to hand over the specs and capability.

Well, to get a bit more in line with the specific era discussed in this thread, I wouldn't say no to a helo from that era. :thumbup:

Well, to get a bit more in line with the specific era discussed in this thread, I wouldn't say no to a helo from that era. :thumbup:

The question is, you want a CH-47C or earlier? :)

The question is, you want a CH-47C or earlier? :)

Yes.

Or a Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin. Or maybe a Boeing AH-6. :)

In today's Fighter Pilot Podcast i've learned during cold war one of F-117s missions was shooting down Soviet AWACSes using A/A sidewinder missiles.

Yeah, that suprised me quite a lot when he said that :huh:

There were a lot of stupid tactics brought up for all kind of aircraft. Most of them propably for really desperate situations. Though that does not mean they were or would have ever been actually employed.

Want to fly in nice dog fight? Get a WW2 plane.

Want to play "tablet" with dots? Get a most modern fighter.

Want to get something between, closer to Top Gun? 60-80's etc it's closer to that.

That is what makes MiG-21Bis so nice that it is limited. And what F-4 brings to other side.

And why MiG-23MLA will be nice thing to fly....

Its not only air to air that is more interesting, but also all air to ground stuff. Most of the work was still dumb bombs or primitve missiles, mostly command guided.

Its not only air to air that is more interesting, but also all air to ground stuff. Most of the work was still dumb bombs or primitve missiles, mostly command guided.

I tend to agree on A2G stuff mostly for strike and sead missions, it is really just look at that shitty display and press the button. CAS however is quite nice even with modern smart bombs and missiles, especially if you have a good human JTAC and good scenario to play in. But AI JТAC, A-10C and VAICOM also provide very interesting opportunities.

Aside of that I also find bombing with old stuff without CCIP solution much more involving and challenging. Also shooting rockets with Mi-8/Uh1 is very rewarding. Unguided rockets and gun runs are so fun, I really miss them in modern DCS scenarios.

Want to fly in nice dog fight? Get a WW2 plane.

Want to play "tablet" with dots? Get a most modern fighter.

Want to get something between, closer to Top Gun? 60-80's etc it's closer to that.

 

That is what makes MiG-21Bis so nice that it is limited. And what F-4 brings to other side.

 

And why MiG-23MLA will be nice thing to fly....

Yeah, the F4 is my most anticipated module in DCS, finally a true cold war era competitor to all the migs we already have. Even if they do the later 80's era F4E its still a hell of alot closer than anything we currently have.

Yeah, the F4 is my most anticipated module in DCS, finally a true cold war era competitor to all the migs we already have. Even if they do the later 80's era F4E its still a hell of alot closer than anything we currently have.

F-14 especially A is cold war too.

If the 14A has the same unrealistically accurate missiles, then cold war servers are unlikely to be very popular

If the 14A has the same unrealistically accurate missiles, then cold war servers are unlikely to be very popular

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

If the 14A has the same unrealistically accurate missiles, then cold war servers are unlikely to be very popular

I wouldn't say 'unrealistically'.

Few days ago I saw an interview with Iranian F-14 pilot who fought in Iraq-Iran war in 1980s.

According to his opinion Phoenixes were very reliable when it comes to hitting small tactical fighters. They were launching Phoenixes from around 25 miles to small fighters to ensure the kill.

From 6 Phoenixes he personally shoot 4 gave him confirmed hits and one probable hit, only one missed - all small tactical planes. Nearly all his kills were using Phoenix. It is actually phenomenal result, far greater than Sparrows and Sidewinders during Gulf War few years later.

Heatblur is pushing their more detailed Phoenix /AWG-9 modeling but they have to wait for ED API.