Aircraft before the 1993 tech explosion for DCS

[unlikely_spider]

Yeah but thats maybe what the big ED "milestone" is going to be... (I hope to god not actually).

 

Is there even enough publicly-available information to create a high-fidelity F-22?

Regardless, I like older aircraft more. I'm not here to learn how to use a computer within my computer. I like stick & rudder, steam gauges, and up close & personal gun fights.

[Harlikwin]

I'm curious why they'd place Mirage 2000 in the 3rd gen group?

 

Yeah, there are definitely some odd calls on that chart.

[Harlikwin]

Is there even enough publicly-available information to create a high-fidelity F-22?

Regardless, I like older aircraft more. I'm not here to learn how to use a computer within my computer. I like stick & rudder, steam gauges, and up close & personal gun fights.

 

Honestly, I kind-of doubt it. I mean we can't get a Hi-fi F14D because of the Iran issue, so I really doubt a F22 is do-able.

 

As for what "milestone" actually means its pretty subjective. Perhaps it means they solved the modern redfor "problem". Or maybe some technical "milestone" EW perhaps? Or who knows what.

[Fri13]

I don't care for a battlefield. I'm here for the simulation of a modern fighter jet, not the simulation of a battlefield per se.

 

If you want to just learn to start and stop with few minutes air time, with modern fighter, then please do not care for ground units.

 

But if you want anything from ground, like SAM, ground targets, bombing, rockets or any A-G ordinance, then you need proper ground units modeling that DCS is currently lacking.

[dawgie79]

Are you flying airshows? Because your statement makes no sense to me otherwise.

As long as it makes sense to me. :)

 

Seriously, it's almost like one's not allowed to not like old planes.

Well, I don't. Oldest plane within DCS in my inventory is the F-14, and no, don't like that one either.

 

As I said. I like the complex systems of a modern fighter. I'm interested in how to operate them, I'm not interested in becoming a virtual pilot.

 

To each his own.

[Harlikwin]

As long as it makes sense to me. :)

 

Seriously, it's almost like one's not allowed to not like old planes.

Well, I don't. Oldest plane within DCS in my inventory is the F-14, and no, don't like that one either.

 

As I said. I like the complex systems of a modern fighter. I'm interested in how to operate them, I'm not interested in becoming a virtual pilot.

 

To each his own.

 

As long as it does. I just have a hard time with the modern fighter outside of a modern context to use it in. And its down to personal taste plane wise. I don't really care for the warbirds myself, even though I own a few. And I hardly fly the Gen1 stuff.

[Eldur]

In a nutshell: Desert Storm.

[Kev2go]

If thats the benchmark for "modern" they should change the name to Digital Mud Hut Bombing Simulator (DMHBS) or something similar in that case, since thats roughly what "low intensity" conflicts we are capable of simulating. I do realize that ED's hope is to do better, and I fully understand why thats hard, but if you are selling DCS as ultra realistic, and then you don't model EW for example, its not even remotely realistic. EW shapes tactics and battlespace, C4I shapes the modern battlefield etc. Both are woefully undermodeled or not modeled at all in DCS.

 

I think if they focused on a simpler "era" first and used that as a foundation the overall sim would be better, which is why I heartily endorse earlier eras. Plus I think they could be alot more fun (WVR dogfights vs BVR fox 3 lobfests). And really dodging SA2/3's with either no or crappy RWR's would be just as exciting as dodging SA10's with a good RWR IMO.

 

I also view a good part of the DCS customer base wanting the "I win" button, rather than developing skills, which I suppose favors modern aircraft.

 

 

IF you feel all the technical gee wiz post production features from the 21st century on Gen 4 is an I win button, then you need harder scenarios.

 

 

I certainly dont consider myself feeling invincible flying a F/A18C when i don't have realistic EW jamming to protect me ( or lack thereof entirely on the EA hornet) , in an area covered by IADS, and at the same time having worry about contenting with potential intercepting enemy aircraft, Even when carrying a TGP, HARMS and standoff munitions like the JSOW. All they do is mitigate risk in such environment,s but not entirely remove it. They do not guarantee you wont ever get engaged or shot down. Otherwise the danger and attrition rate of having to get in close in in a IADS network with nothing but iron bombs is about as practical strategy as a cavalry charge in ww1 against a entrenched position with line of riflemen covered by machine guns.

 

The only standoff munition that will truly put you out of harms way for A/G work entirely will be the SLAM-ER.

 

That being said ED is slowly gradually but getting there in making the game feel more live, but the balance of having to actually make modules to generate a profit. They did stat that 2020 will be a year of focusing on core game play mechanics.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

Honestly, I kind-of doubt it. I mean we can't get a Hi-fi F14D because of the Iran issue, so I really doubt a F22 is do-able.

 

As for what "milestone" actually means its pretty subjective. Perhaps it means they solved the modern redfor "problem". Or maybe some technical "milestone" EW perhaps? Or who knows what.

 

OR at least that was was claimed/ theorized by a few, which i don't buy.

 

Insert "press X to doubt meme"

 

 

F14D' FM itself isnt classifed neither and whats lacking from open availabiliy is the non nuclear delivery manual. For aircraft documentation even for non nuclear weapons procedures to be classified for the such is still unusual as all manuals ( with exception of tactics manuals) are simply all ITAR restricted. But then again so are all forms of manuals anyways for any other gen 4 module we have in DCS.

 

 

ITAR already restricts any arms or military tech related export ( even manuals) to any nation US has placed embargo on, even for used second hand surplus sales. These governing laws are sufficient enough to prosecute anyone who would no be dissuaded from doing so from trying to sell anything military related to Iran anyways, hence documentation doesn't need to be classified.

 

Same story for the F22. I dont expect a copy to be legally granted and sent to a company located outside of the USA, but similarly the F22A Flight manual and Weapons manual technically isn't classified. They are just have DOD distribution restrictions that fall under ITAR considerations. It has D level restriction ( at least the 2015 revision), as opposed to the level C that you typically see when coming across Hornet or Viper Manuals.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Kev2go

[Volator]

In a nutshell: Desert Storm.

 

Yes! That would be a great scenario, and I hope ED will give it some attention (map, assets, era aircraft) at some point.

[Harlikwin]

OR at least that was was claimed/ theorized by a few, which i don't buy.

 

Insert "press X to doubt meme"

 

 

F14D' FM itself isnt classifed neither and whats lacking from open availabiliy is the non nuclear delivery manual. For aircraft documentation even for non nuclear weapons procedures to be classified for the such is still unusual as all manuals ( with exception of tactics manuals) are simply all ITAR restricted. But then again so are all forms of manuals anyways for any other gen 4 module we have in DCS.

 

 

ITAR already restricts any arms or military tech related export ( even manuals) to any nation US has placed embargo on, even for used second hand surplus sales. These governing laws are sufficient enough to prosecute anyone who would no be dissuaded from doing so from trying to sell anything military related to Iran anyways, hence documentation doesn't need to be classified.

 

Same story for the F22. I dont expect a copy to be legally granted and sent to a company located outside of the USA, but similarly the F22A Flight manual and Weapons manual technically isn't classified. They are just have DOD distribution restrictions that fall under ITAR considerations. It has D level restriction ( at least the 2015 revision), as opposed to the level C that you typically see when coming across Hornet or Viper Manuals.

 

Yeah I get ITAR, but I'm pretty sure the fact an (ex?)-ED guy was busted for "smuggling" raptor manuals and the reason for 1.16 will mostly guarantee ED stays away from stuff like that, "but thats just like my opinion man"

[Harlikwin]

IF you feel all the technical gee wiz post production features from the 21st century on Gen 4 is an I win button, then you need harder scenarios.

 

 

Its just something I see on the various forums and online. And its MUCH easier to pump off 8 JSOW's/JDAM's using TPOD than going in for old school bombing run where you the human have to know the alt/speed/angle/release data and get all that right, versus point click, click boom. The environment not being particularly realistic is the other half of the problem (mostly on online servers, but thats a whole other thing).

[Kev2go]

Yeah I get ITAR, but I'm pretty sure the fact an (ex?)-ED guy was busted for "smuggling" raptor manuals and the reason for 1.16 will mostly guarantee ED stays away from stuff like that, "but thats just like my opinion man"

 

Thats False equivalency Fallacy. This is not comparable.

 

 

He did it on his own accord for his own gain ( he was selling them for profit online). I was not suggesting in any way that should be the way to go for getting missing F14D documentation.

 

IF it were impossible to get ahold ITAR stuff, then there is no way ED would have legally come into possession necessary documentation to model F/A18C or F16C ( or for any foreign 3rd parties for their modules), unless of course they just googled it which wouldn't be the proper procedure of squiring such documentation if you dont have a low profile; In this case a foreign company selling a simulation for profit. Those aircraft manuals have ITAR restrictions, merely on a lower rating of C, as opposed to the D level for the F22. However to put that into perspective A10C manual has a restriction rating of E, higher than the F22A, Yet they were permitted necessary documentation on an aircraft not in use outside of usa that was export restricted to model a simulation of the HOG not just for the ANG, but release a consumer grade version for DCS. Furthermore ED has announced they are making a DCS A10C Warthog 2.0 that will include enhanced capabilities implying a later software suite than one currently in game.

 

So respectfully ED or 3rd parties does not "stay away from stuff like that" since "stuff like that" is what they need to make intricate study level simulations which would be impossible to do for any developer in a authentic or realistic way without them. Its simply a matters of how they are acquired them that matters. IF they can't get it, since ITAR requests can still be denied, they don't do them. Although as we know the decision to do a module is also consideration of Profit vs development time/effort ratio, since they are still a business at the end of the day.

 

 

Even so getting back on track my original point was simply that Classified /=/ ITAR distribution restrictions ( even if going by more restrictive letter grades). Actual classified material requires a government issued security clearance of various levels, whereas to get a hold of an ITAR based document you do not. Further more breach of classified materials are prosecuted under espionage laws. Restricted documentation under ITAR would not be not. IF you read his affidavit none of the charges were espionage related, and simply dealt with attempting to smuggle out export restricted documents. This is exactly why ED or 3rd parties aren't lying when they don't utilize "classified" information to develop these modules, because they actually don't, and would be impossible for them to do so.

 

So yea it is just "your opinion man" if you cannot distinguish between actual Classified documentation vs exporrt or distribution controlled documentation.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Kev2go

[ngreenaway]

Yes! That would be a great scenario, and I hope ED will give it some attention (map, assets, era aircraft) at some point.

 

Re: desert Storm: I think that's what many were looking forward to with PG map. Don't get me wrong, it's my go-to map where I do most of my flying, but I think the northern gulf would've been a much better choice, and I don't understand the reasoning for focusing on Hormuz (a flashpoint worthy of plenty of speculative scenarios) over the northern end -kuwait,Iraq,Iran (site of actual IRL scenarios)

 

I love the Hormuz map, but what a missed opportunity.

Edited February 11, 2020 by ngreenaway

[QuiGon]

In a nutshell: Desert Storm.

I'm more thinking of Vietnam/Fulda Gap when reading the topic. Dessert Storm wasn't that much different from 1993...

[schurem]

1986 Fulda Gap, that's where it's at. When Hind D was about the scariest thing in the sky.

[Sarpalaxan]

I wouldn't call them an I win button, but from My perspective more Modern Planes tend to Have a higher Skill floor and a lower Skill ceiling. It also takes a different set of skills which naturally speaks to different Players. One asks for a greater level of Mechanical skill and intuition, the other for the management of different systems and which to use when and how.

But that's just my limited view on the subject.

[amalahama]

I rather prefer the early 2000 timeframe - JDAM/JSOW, Link 16 being in their baby leaps but still far from god's eye sensors of today, and documentation seems reasonably accessible without getting into trouble

[metzger]

I doubt we will ever be able to re-create in dcs desert storm because:

 

1. The main air strikes strategy includes heavy Jamming and it is unlikely we will have any airborne jammer and proper jamming sim in dcs any time soon. On top of that f-117 was a critical strike aircraft in desert storm

 

2. It was heavily imbalanced towards NATO, MiG-29A was the strongest IRAQ air asset whithin heavy EW zone. In DCS PVP who is going to fly jammed 29A FC3 against the F-15, F-16, FA-18 and so on.

 

For Vietnam we don't have a single Aircraft aside Huey neither we have a MAP. So nothing really for that in the near future

 

The closest we can get to irl as of now (aside ww2) I think is iran-iraq war, where we have F-5, F-14A(soon) Mig-29A, mig-21bis, mig-23(soon). And the north part of PG would be plausible enough.

 

Afghanistan map can bring maany opportunities. Nice PVE scenarios, especially russo-afghan war, we have mi-8, mi-24(soon) mig-21bis.

 

For the time being we will be limited to fictional scenarios mostly and/or a lot of pretending. Syria map will bring some more possibilities too.

[FlankerKiller]

1986 Fulda Gap, that's where it's at. When Hind D was about the scariest thing in the sky.

One A-10A might have something to say about that. But hell yeah Fulda gap would be amazing.

[Baco]

1986 Fulda Gap, that's where it's at. When Hind D was about the scariest thing in the sky.

 

One A-10A might have something to say about that. But hell yeah Fulda gap would be amazing.

 

LOL!! true! and specially in 86 with no advance man-pads and other hellish contraptions...

[blkspade]

I don't care for a battlefield. I'm here for the simulation of a modern fighter jet, not the simulation of a battlefield per se.

 

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 .

[Thor_H]

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 .

 

 

 

 

Some of us enjoy landings and takeoffs and cycles of emptiness alot, people are different.

[Kev2go]

LOL!! true! and specially in 86 with no advance man-pads and other hellish contraptions...

 

 

In the gulf most were shot down by SA13's. And had the highest casualties of any coalition aircraft. Now imagine also throwing Tunguskas and the TOR , and IGLA manapads ( successor to the older strela) into the mix, and in a environment where air superiority is not guaranteed . 86 onwards would not be a good time to be a a Hog pilot over the fulda gap, then again 86 onwards was not a good period for the Soviets economy wise. any offensive war for them was no longer feasible by then anyways, but thats in hindsight, and i digress somewhat.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

LOL!! true! and specially in 86 with no advance man-pads and other hellish contraptions...

 

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.