Aircraft before the 1993 tech explosion for DCS

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, WobblyFlops said:

Very strange thread. You people are talking about WVR combat and lack of sensors and EW, even though the US doctrine heavily utilized (and in fact relied on them) ever since Vietnam. The VID requirement was a doctrinal issue that didn't allow the US fighters to utilize the long range advantage that they enjoyed. The current radar simulation is incredibly highly simplistic (and it would be true for all the older radars), the EW/ECCM performance of the old systems are just as classified as that of the new ones, and if you were to simulate any kind of realistic Cold War gone hot scenario, you should most definitely utilize the BVR capabilities from both sides.

 

 

What you're describing isn't the 70-80s era at all, it's the 50s. In reality, you guys describe Banshees, Skyknights, F-104s and other early jets. Even the currently available F-14 (which is the quintessential Cold War fighter alongside the F-4) extremely heavily relies on superior sensors, weapons and in reality, the ability to deal with jamming. With a less restrictive ROE the engagements would heavily revolve around Fox Ones, not guns only dogfightin. It's fine if you want that kind of gameplay but 70-80s Cold War is not what you want. For that matter, the same can be said about Vietnam as well. 

 

I mean you're half right. Both sides would have employed whatever BVR missiles they had, and they both had them and I'm not gonna open up that can of worms debating it. ECM and the employment thereof is another whole huge can of worms, and it has to be in the context of the whole "environment", literally everyone would have been jamming everyone else, to some effect that no one knows. So the chances of it ending up WVR are well, lets say "probable". The F14 more or less is a no-factor for most of the 70's as they were limited numbers and unlikely to be employed in central Europe.  Also, literally nothing about the F4's sensors is "superior" the radar wasn't great. In fact the west Germans didn't even bother with sparrows, they went whole hog on fox2's, wonder why...  The Vietnamese lacked pretty much anything resembling a modern ADA environment, and they did pretty well against the USAF of the day. So well in fact both the USAF and Navy changed their entire thinking about fighter employment and tactics.

 

 

[WobblyFlops]

6 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean you're half right. Both sides would have employed whatever BVR missiles they had, and they both had them and I'm not gonna open up that can of worms debating it. ECM and the employment thereof is another whole huge can of worms, and it has to be in the context of the whole "environment", literally everyone would have been jamming everyone else, to some effect that no one knows. So the chances of it ending up WVR are well, lets say "probable". The F14 more or less is a no-factor for most of the 70's as they were limited numbers and unlikely to be employed in central Europe.  Also, literally nothing about the F4's sensors is "superior" the radar wasn't great. In fact the west Germans didn't even bother with sparrows, they went whole hog on fox2's, wonder why...  The Vietnamese lacked pretty much anything resembling a modern ADA environment, and they did pretty well against the USAF of the day. So well in fact both the USAF and Navy changed their entire thinking about fighter employment and tactics.

 

 

1.) But the initial point was that modern environment can't be simulated accurate because sensors and jamming are so ubiquotous and heavily emphasized in the modern battlefield. Which is of course true, and they are obviously much more sophisticated and numerous than what was used back then, but the vast portion of a cold war gone hot scenario is still the electronic battlefield. And as you said, it can't really be simulated in a home simulator, so that's a draw. But this very clearly shows how even older scenarios are always going to be fundamentally unrealistic and simplified just like the more modern ones.

 

2.) Even if we agree that ending up in WVR is probable (which I would say as plausible instead but that's a different debate), saying that both sides would heavily utilize their BVR missiles and in addition to that may end up in dogfights is a very different scenario than what people describe in the thread, which is that those older aircraft would primarily rely on winning the WVR engagements, which just simply isn't true. Sure, it was probably more likely to end up in a BFM/ACM situation back then than it is today, but if we examine realistic scenarios, both eras in a near peer war would primarily try to win with their BVR missiles. If we want guns only dogfighting, that's fundamentally an unrealistic scenario and by that logic, you can just force modern Hornets, Vipers and whatnot to dogfight as well.

 

3.) The mid 70s specifically (which is kind of a moving goalpost, because people brought up the 80s as well specifically for the Fulda Gap scenario) already had the pulse doppler radar equipped F-4Js in the USN arsenal, and even the F-4E with the original pulse radar would allow BVR engagements as you said. And I'm willing to go out on a limb here that even the APQ-120 outperformed the radar of the early Floggers, let alone the Mig-21s. And even if (theoretically speaking) the radars hadn't been superior, they would have been heavily utilized and important, after all, the guy in the back has a job to do, he isn't just there for a joyride.

 

4.) I'm not sure how your point about Vietnam is relevant. Again, if you're trying to do this realistically, you should simulate the  heavily utilized ECM (we still don't even have Vietnam era techniques in DCS), dedicated jammer aircraft, SIGINT platforms, and fairly sophisticated SAM simulation to at least approximate a reasonable air to ground environment. 

 

It's fine if you want to do guns only dogfights with older jets, but that wouldn't be a realistic representation of the doctrine and capabilities of the era. This is why I never understand why people are obsessed with the cold war on paper, when in actuality what they describe has very little to do with reality, only with some romanticized fantasy of F-4s, Tomcats and early model Eagles dogfighting Migs above the Fulda Gap en masse.  Of course it's a video game, people should feel free to construct whatever scenario they want to have fun.

 

Furthermore, as for simulating earlier jets is easier, I'm not entirely sure about that. The radars were a lot more hands on, the DCS engine doesn't even simulate a lot of the intricacies and this would definitely have to be corrected. It's easier to hide these issues behind the magic black boxes of modern PD radars. Plus, earlier jets may be less classified (although things like ECM performance, detailed missile data, ECCM performance often still is) but you have to deal with lost and destroyed documentation and the fact that SMEs are not getting any younger, and it's certainly more difficult to find one willing to help for these older platforms.

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

Very strange thread. You people are talking about WVR combat and lack of sensors and EW, even though the US doctrine heavily utilized (and in fact relied on them) ever since Vietnam. The VID requirement was a doctrinal issue that didn't allow the US fighters to utilize the long range advantage that they enjoyed. The current radar simulation is incredibly highly simplistic (and it would be true for all the older radars), the EW/ECCM performance of the old systems are just as classified as that of the new ones.

 

Uhm, no, I mean I agree about the EW environment being present, but it's going to be easier to approximate Cold War stuff than modern stuff - saying they're just as classified isn't exactly true. I mean watch this, it's from the early 60s but it basically details all we need to know and the exact techniques employed, it also goes into the exact frequency range, power, max simultaneous RADARs etc, the only thing it doesn't do is tell us is:

• What is the range of random repetition times? For the multiple target repeater? Though this should be fairly easy to approximate.
• What does the communications jammer actually do to jam communications (presumably it just broadcasts noise for a set-period of time, again, which can be approximated fairly easily).
• How far do the DECM techniques go when performing pull-offs? Again, easy to approximate.

Meanwhile the Hornet is the only aircraft in DCS with EW approaching anything close to realistic (it does perform gate pull-offs at least, but fairly sure it's simplified (i.e just break locks at certain intervals so long as range to jammed RADAR is greater than some threshold). Though, then again, the Hornet isn't even using the correct DECM set (using AN/ALQ-165 instead of what it actually should have, the AN/ALQ-126B). 

 

But it gets worse, EW in the modern era is not only more classified, it's much more sophisticated, more sophisticated = more difficult to simulate accurately. And we can see that clear as day with the AMRAAM. For most of DCS' life it had completely borked kinematics (only improved when a 3rd party's missile actually performed accurately, or at least more accurate than the AMRAAM), fast forward to today and how long has its mid-course guidance been completely broken, in TWS at least? Then there's the whole palaver with countermeasure resistance (which was only recently fixed). 

 

As for the "RADARs are simplistic and its true for older RADARs" the most complete RADARs in DCS are all on Cold War airframes. Better yet, these RADARs also typically make use of raycasting technology to further their accuracy (especially with regards to clutter).

 

Meanwhile the Hornet's RADAR can magically see moving ground targets through trees, doesn't take into account other moving vehicles (like civilian vehicles) and has no clutter represented whatsoever (it also thinks the Earth is flat, and while the maps are flat, most RADARs use a modifier to approximate it as if it wasn't). SEA mode can't see ships that are map objects AFAIK.

 

The same is not true for the Viggen's RADAR (which again is feature complete and uses raycasting). The only thing missing is ECM stuff, then again ships in DCS don't have any EW ability at all, no ELINT, no OECM, no DECM, no countermeasures, nothing.

 

The don't the Viggen can see civilian ground units either, though it's not like it was particularly brilliant at seeing them either. 

 

They barely have their RADARs there either. The Viggen though does approximate all ships using OECM (essentially broadcasting noise), though it also does it for ships that don't have ECM equipment (like the Type VIIC U-flak), but (like every other RADAR in DCS), it doesn't model sidelobes or any other beam properties apart from the scan volume and maybe the width of the mainlobe.

 

Then there's the Tomcat, which has all of its modes and is only missing ECM effects, that's it. Everything else works.

 

9 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

and if you were to simulate any kind of realistic Cold War gone hot scenario, you should most definitely utilize the BVR capabilities from both sides.

 

Yes, but pretending Cold War BVR is the same thing as modern BVR is just wrong.

 

Cold War BVR typically has missiles that are much more inferior in one way or another, you typically have to support them all the way there or to the terminal stage at least (even the AIM-54 has to be supported to the terminal stage).

 

Plus speaking about Cold War BVR, we basically already have it, and have it actually more or less working. We're just missing EW stuff, and there might be some issues with guidance, but not to the same extreme as the AIM-120s mid-course guidance being borderline absent.

 

9 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

What you're describing isn't the 70-80s era at all, it's the 50s. In reality, you guys describe Banshees, Skyknights, F-104s and other early jets.

 

Sorry, who was saying the Cold War is exclusively guns only?

 

Also look at the F-16A, an aircraft that up until basically the end of the Cold War, wasn't BVR capable at all (the F-16A Block 15 ADF with AIM-7, only came in 1989, at which point the Soviet Union was falling apart and with it the Cold War, the only other one is the Block 25 but I'm not sure when it received AIM-7 capability). Apart from those 2, up until after the Cold War it was purely guns + fox-2s.

 

9 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

Even the currently available F-14 (which is the quintessential Cold War fighter alongside the F-4) extremely heavily relies on superior sensors, weapons and in reality, the ability to deal with jamming. With a less restrictive ROE the engagements would heavily revolve around Fox Ones, not guns only dogfightin.

 

Yes, what's the problem with that? At least all of that (aside from ECM) is already in and functioning properly.

 

Also who's talking about guns only dogfighting? Most I've seen is more of an emphasis on WVR as it's more likely (which is true, no that doesn't mean BVR doesn't exist, just WVR combat is more relevant). That and a disdain for just spamming AMRAAMs and JDAMs/JSOWs (especially in SP).

 

9 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

It's fine if you want that kind of gameplay but 70-80s Cold War is not what you want. For that matter, the same can be said about Vietnam as well. 

 

No, I do want the 70-80s stuff with everything you describe. It's just more feasible to do that than post 2000s modern aircraft, which are inevitably more fudged together. I mean, we can't even do modern REDFOR at all, even if we wanted to. The closest we'll get there for the likely future is the GREENFOR JF-17. Maybe Deka will surprise us with an SU-30MKK, but I'm not holding my hopes up particularly highly.

[WobblyFlops]

The techniques are known, but the exact performance, relative effectiveness and utilized tactics are as you said have to be 'approximated', which is a fancy way of saying made up to be believable. To have any reasonable way of simulating this at any level of accuracy, first and foremost you'd need the supplementary avionics manuals and TACMANs for the relevant platforms that detail the ECM. To have an idea about the actual combat use and effectiveness, you need the supplementary TACMANs or in Air Force terms, the triple sticks manual. Guess what, those are classified for virtually any relevant aircraft that I know of, dating back to the 60s.

But to prove me wrong, if the US definitely considers the older systems and airframes a clean slate, do you know for a fact that the (let's consider Navy for now) goldbooks and the TACMAN supps for the relevant platforms are all declassified? Have you made any FOIA requests?

To put this into exact terms, for the upcoming A-6E Tram (which is a very iconic Cold War airframe), you would need the -1T(A) supplementary TACMAN (classified SECRET), which amongst other very relevant things details the working and the tactics related to the ALQ-126A. We do know the techniques that the jammer employed but to have any kind of representation that's based on quantified data and real capabilities and tactics, we need legitimate primary sources.

To make things worse, the DCS engine doesn't support these techniques, so 3rd parties can't implement them without a heavy engine wide rework, even if they had all the data.

 

 

The AIM-120 is a different topic all together, but again, what you're talking about, aside from kinematics (which most definitely can be approximated) can be just as problematic for older missiles, especially when it comes to performance against jamming targets and countermeasures. 

And if we start to peel the EW onion layer by layer, you'll have to implement not only ECCM techniques of various radars, you'd need the performance of not only US, but Soviet systems (SAMs and aircraft included) and the ability to show the effects of jamming and the related ECCM techniques on fully simulated radars.

And with that, we arrive to the radar, which is another fun topic. 

The most relevant thing here is the ability of the DCS engine. We do know that the Viggen's radar can't see oil rigs and buildings due to an engine limitation. We also know that things like proper PRF simulation, antenna gain, doppler filtering are not properly supported for 3rd parties (based on Zeus's and Elmo's comments). The F-14's radar is somewhat better, but it's still fundamentally unrealistic. In pulse mode, even with the gain set to max, the only clutter you get is the ground, which just isn't how it should work in a realistic simulation. You'd have atmospheric effects, generic noise from the environment and for PD modes different types of clutter other than the MLC/altitude line clutter that you would have to manage with the PD threshold knobs. 

 

This results in a much clearer scope than what you should expect to see. The lack of noise means that the RIO can basically leave the radar as is and it would work out fine on its own, which just simply isn't realistic for a radar from that period.We haven't even touched on specific features of the AWG-9 like the AGC or the parametric amplifier, all of which are as you guessed, not simulated. I could go on and on, radar/missile channelization (which is a pretty big deal when it comes to interference) is also missing for example.  

 

 

This isn't HB's fault of course, they did the best they could, but based on their comments, the DCS engine just doesn't allow for a truly realistic rendition of any radar, let alone an older one where you would have to have control over factors that today would be managed by the magic boxes. It will be interesting to see when they release the A-6 and the radar control panel will be basically completely non functional, because it would be impossible to even approximate that with the current engine.

As for the guns only dogfights, just go back a couple of pages. People are constantly talking about the good old days where the jets relied on dogfighting instead of BVR, which is simply not true.

Edited June 7, 2021 by WobblyFlops

[bies]

It's all theoretical chit-chat. I fly both 1980 Cold war and 2000s servers for years and truth is on 2000s server air combat is very shallow, it's all about AMRAAM and it's current parameters, it's also very easy to learn for beginners - fire AMRAAM right before MAR, slice and run. Very repetitive. With little skill involved.

 

Air combat on 1980s servers is all about close visual maneuver air combat with very rudimentary and limited BVR possible only in specific conditions adding another layer, it's way harder to learn and master, having way more depth, with all weapon systems useful AIM-9, AIM-7, R-60, R-73, R-27, R-23/24, AIM-54, R-40 and even guns.

In practice NEZ of AIM-7 or R-27 is about 7-10 miles in frontal engagement or 1-4 miles in chase, it's very much visual range like it was IRL during Sidra Gulf engagements, Bekaa Valley, Desert Storm etc.

 

It's very similar situation with A/G. 2000s - effortless, very easy to learn releasing very long range self guided JSOWs and SLAM-ERs way beyond enemy defense or SAMs cruising on autopilot like an airliner and RTB.

 

1980s - skill requiring short range dumb bombing with simple aids, unguided rockets, gun strafes, very rudimentary guided short range Mavericks/Walleye at most, all under SAM and AAA dodging enemy fire, low level penetration flights, hands-on manual engaging weapon employment etc.

 

And both 1980s and 2000s are the same airframes: F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-31, Mirage 2000 etc.

In 1980s lighter variants underlining maneuverability, in 2000s heavier with more advanced avionics and weapon.

Edited June 7, 2021 by bies

[WobblyFlops]

Flying on pewpew servers where people approach a simulator in a fundamentally unrealistic way doesn't mean that modern air combat doesn't require any skill. Airquake truly doesn't but it's a very different thing compared to simulated air to air engagements and even those are a smaller slice of the bigger picture; faithfully simulating how a modern strike fighter operates in air to air missions. Flying in a chaotic ocean of random single ships firing on one another is just so far from even what we can simulate (let alone reality) that it truly isn't a worthy notion to entertain. Of course due to the inherent limitations of DCS the effective tactics in competitive PVP servers are based around "outplaying" the limitations of the game engine and at a high enough and equal skill level, all Fox 3 engagements will end up in a visual range. But this abomination of a gameplay can be corrected if you don't treat a simulator as League of Legends with jets.

[Northstar98]

Brace yourselves, it's a bloody long one.

 

The TL;DR is that we don't need to simulate absolutely everything 100% to get more realistic than we are right now, it isn't all or nothing.

 

An approximation is a perfectly adequate way of going about it, even if it doesn't include all of the nuances involved. Something is better than nothing.

 

Said approximations are also more accurate for older aircraft than more modern ones, as more modern inevitably means more sophistication and complexity, which on top of classified documents, is harder to do, full stop.

 

 

I'm also still not seeing people going on about WVR guns-only dogfights, as if that's absolutely all the Cold War was in terms of A/A (when it obviously wasn't). The aircraft people are proposing make that abundantly clear - you're either projecting or misinterpreting.

 

That said, WVR is more relevant for the Cold War that it was now, and apart from 2 aircraft (and only in range) BVR was much more limited.

 

Also for the F-16 (which seems a popular choice), it was almost exclusively a WVR fighter, with only guns and Sidewinders. Fox 1 capable F-16s came at the end of the Cold War, in smaller numbers.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

2 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

The techniques are known, but the exact performance, relative effectiveness and utilized tactics are as you said have to be 'approximated', which is a fancy way of saying made up to be believable.

 

Yep, though what's the problem here? It's really all that's necessary for DCS. And there isn't a single topic that isn't in some way 'made up to be believable', apart from maybe, how an aircraft looks, or what the switches do.

 

Only thing is you typically have to do more approximating (across more fields) in more modern aircraft, not just for a lack of data, but when things are more sophisticated than DCS' engine can handle (and you highlight plenty of them).

 

Quote

To have any reasonable way of simulating this at any level of accuracy, first and foremost you'd need the supplementary avionics manuals and TACMANs for the relevant platforms that detail the ECM.

 

Well, clearly we're using different definitions of 'reasonable' and 'any level of accuracy'.

 

An approximation isn't perfect, sure, but an approximation is a lot better than nothing at all.

 

Quote

To have an idea about the actual combat use and effectiveness, you need the supplementary TACMANs or in Air Force terms, the triple sticks manual. Guess what, those are classified for virtually any relevant aircraft that I know of, dating back to the 60s.

 

Why do we need actual combat use? The thing we need here is how the system works from in the cockpit, and broadly what techniques it's capable of doing.

 

Is real life more complicated than this? Absolutely, is it absolutely necessary, doubt it - given the current track record.

 

Quote

But to prove me wrong, if the US definitely considers the older systems and airframes a clean slate, do you know for a fact that the (let's consider Navy for now) goldbooks and the TACMAN supps for the relevant platforms are all declassified? Have you made any FOIA requests?

 

This is a straight up straw man of my argument.

 

I didn't say "completely clean slate", I said that modern aircraft are just as if not more classified (in more fields than this). Plus they are more complex and more sophisticated, which is more of a hurdle for development on top of classification.

 

Though it should be more likely to be able to make better approximations of older aircraft than more modern stuff, talking about everything here. Not just EW (which is probably the most difficult aspect of any aircraft).

 

Quote

To put this into exact terms, for the upcoming A-6E Tram (which is a very iconic Cold War airframe), you would need the -1T(A) supplementary TACMAN (classified SECRET), which amongst other very relevant things details the working and the tactics related to the ALQ-126A.

 

You seem to have this idea that it has to be all or nothing, as if approximation (which is all we need to do, at this stage in the game an approximation is a hell of a lot better than absolutely nothing at all besides a single aircraft, using the wrong DECM set).

 

Quote

We do know the techniques that the jammer employed but to have any kind of representation that's based on quantified data and real capabilities and tactics, we need legitimate primary sources.

 

Again, we don't need to know real tactics, we need to know how the system operates from the cockpit, and what the operating principles are, and for those 60s jammers, we can make those with reasonable accuracy for DCS. Yes they'll be much more nuanced (you've made that clear), but that's all we really need.

 

As for effectiveness, I think the best way of going about it, is by doing a similar thing that CMANO does, which is go by the decade.

 

So a particular jammer is more effective against RADARs from the same era or older (provided the techniques are applicable), and become less and less effective against more modern RADARs, at least from the AI side.

 

Is this a massive simplification? Absolutely. Is it better than nothing and pretending EW doesn't really exist (kinda like the current situation in DCS), also absolutely.

 

Just because an aspect is simplified doesn't mean it isn't valid, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. The idea is to be as accurate as feasibly possible, even if we don't 100% or even 50% of the way there.

 

I don't know, but IMO I'd rather have something be approximated where we can, than to leave it absent or with an even worse approximation.

 

Quote

To make things worse, the DCS engine doesn't support these techniques, so 3rd parties can't implement them without a heavy engine wide rework, even if they had all the data.

 

The Hornet at least has gate pull-offs, but is heavily abstracted. As you rightly said, they can't do it more accurately without an incredible overhaul to absolutely every RADAR in DCS. It is a lot better, and more realistic, than either having nothing at all, or just having simple noise jamming.

 

The ECCM stuff is still missing though (Hornet only does range denial). But for RADARs with raw displays (like the Tomcat), given that we know what certain techniques should do, it should be able to approximate them - which is a lot better than nothing at all.

 

Quote

The AIM-120 is a different topic all together, but again, what you're talking about, aside from kinematics (which most definitely can be approximated) can be just as problematic for older missiles, especially when it comes to performance against jamming targets and countermeasures.

 

Except in practice, in DCS, it kinda isn't. From my reading of the bug reports, the AMRAAM's mid-course guidance, and lack of gating, as well as the whole countermeasure problem, seems more an issue, than whatever issues are brought up for the say, the AIM-7s or AIM-9s.

 

Meanwhile the AIM-7 got tweaked such that effectiveness is reduced in look-down situation, which is more realistic than ignoring it completely. Again, I'm sure there are plenty of nuances missing, it's better than it was before. 

 

With the AMRAAM, right now it seems to be the case that the more modern missile, with it's more sophisticated guidance, isn't something that DCS supports, which is why elements of it aren't even abstracted.

 

Yes, the AIM-7s and AIM-9s aren't perfect, but they seem to be in a better state. The AIM-7 also recently got a modifier such that its seeker is less effective in look-down situations, which is more realistic, than ignoring it completely.

 

The R-27 family is mostly kinematics (which has been updated), as well as some stuff related to countermeasure resistance (which is a simple modifier in DCS).

 

Jamming and countermeasures though? Absolutely.

 

Quote

And if we start to peel the EW onion layer by layer, you'll have to implement not only ECCM techniques of various radars, you'd need the performance of not only US, but Soviet systems (SAMs and aircraft included) and the ability to show the effects of jamming and the related ECCM techniques on fully simulated radars.

 

And this is just as, if not more of a problem, for modern aircraft. And again, they're more sophisticated and harder to simulate. As such (even ignoring classified documents) the more basic approximations are less accurate for them than they are for less complex systems.  

 

And speaking of modern, alongside all of the things you mentioned below, we also don't have phased array antennas modelled in any respect, all RADARs (at least AI ones) are exactly the same with different detection ranges and maybe update rates. Hell, it doesn't even differentiate from something as simple as 2D RADARs or 3D RADARs.

 

Unfortunately they've hidden the .lua files that defined all of this stuff, so I can't cite examples.

 

Quote

And with that, we arrive to the radar, which is another fun topic. 

The most relevant thing here is the ability of the DCS engine. We do know that the Viggen's radar can't see oil rigs and buildings due to an engine limitation.

 

Pretty sure it can see buildings, it can certainly see individual electrical pylons/transmission towers, and they are the same object class.

 

But, unlike the Hornet, it is using a raycasted scheme, that at least better approximates the mainlobe. That isn't the be all and end all, and is maybe less of an issue for the Hornet, given that it's using a more processed display, but it is just a small part of having a RADAR that is more accurate.

 

Quote

We also know that things like proper PRF simulation, antenna gain, doppler filtering are not properly supported for 3rd parties (based on Zeus's and Elmo's comments).

 

Hopefully that changes, but I would've thought doing stuff like antenna gain would actually require some simulation of the beam - which typically (AFAIK) uses a raycasting scheme.

 

Quote

The F-14's radar is somewhat better, but it's still fundamentally unrealistic. In pulse mode, even with the gain set to max, the only clutter you get is the ground, which just isn't how it should work in a realistic simulation. You'd have atmospheric effects, generic noise from the environment and for PD modes different types of clutter other than the MLC/altitude line clutter that you would have to manage with the PD threshold knobs.

 

For atmospherics (say clutter from water droplets), they might be working on that. There has been mention of the new clouds actually having an impact on sensors, no details however.

 

But again, even if stuff is missing on the Tomcat's RADAR, it's still in a more realistic state, than say the Hornet's RADAR, particularly the GMT mode, which is straight up magic, and doesn't have any clutter simulation (regardless of how simplified) at all.

 

And at least against ships the Viggen does approximate them all having noise jammers, which is at least is better than nothing at all.

 

I'll grant you it isn't better by a whole lot (especially when it also happens with ships that don't have OECM systems), but it's better than completely nothing.

 

Quote

This results in a much clearer scope than what you should expect to see. The lack of noise means that the RIO can basically leave the radar as is and it would work out fine on its own, which just simply isn't realistic for a radar from that period.We haven't even touched on specific features of the AWG-9 like the AGC or the parametric amplifier, all of which are as you guessed, not simulated. I could go on and on, radar/missile channelization (which is a pretty big deal when it comes to interference) is also missing for example.

 

Again, something can still have stuff missing, and still be more realistic than something else. It's more about how good the approximation is, rather than using an approximation or not.

 

Quote

This isn't HB's fault of course, they did the best they could, but based on their comments, the DCS engine just doesn't allow for a truly realistic rendition of any radar, let alone an older one where you would have to have control over factors that today would be managed by the magic boxes.

 

Agreed, but you still see issues in the 'magic boxes' and the Hornet's GMT mode is a perfect example of that.

 

Quote

It will be interesting to see when they release the A-6 and the radar control panel will be basically completely non functional, because it would be impossible to even approximate that with the current engine.

 

And I hope to god that some day we get at least somewhere closer to having more realistic RADARs.

 

It doesn't have to be 100% of the way there, that's not going to happen - simply the nature of DCS and simulations on consumer hardware. But even the smallest step there is better than nothing. 

 

Quote

As for the guns only dogfights, just go back a couple of pages. People are constantly talking about the good old days where the jets relied on dogfighting instead of BVR, which is simply not true.

 

Well, I'm not seeing it. I've soured through this whole thread and I hardly see anything about guns only dogfighting, you're probably misinterpreting.

 

Most of the proposals are Gen 3 or early Gen 4, where BVR combat is almost entirely relegated to Fox 1 fighting, and pretending that's comparable to modern BVR combat simply isn't true.

 

It seems that most people want BVR to be mostly Fox 1s, where it's more involved, at closer ranges. And less of a fire-and-forget AMRAAM slinging fest that is modern BVR combat in DCS.

 

At the same time I see a lot of talk about earlier F-16s, which for the Cold War were pretty much exclusively WVR fighters - they don't have any BVR capability to speak of and the only ones that do are the F-16A Block 15 ADF (which only has Fox 1s, and came at basically end of the Cold War, in limited numbers) and the Block 25 (again, only AIM-7, unsure when it got them).

 

The AIM-54 and R-33 is really the only exception here. Only the former requires you to support it until the terminal stage (i.e the vast majority of the flight - like a fox 1), and the latter has to be completely supported until impact (it's INS/DL + terminal SARH).

 

And in any case WVR combat was a lot more relevant for the Cold War than it is with modern, peer-to-peer aircraft.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Northstar98

[bies]

2000s modern AMRAAM with guidance unit algorithms, R-77, ECM, ECCM, radar algorithms, discrimination, SAM systems like S-400, Patriot PAC-3, AEGIS, RL datalinks functions, modern ground AESA radars and many more, shortly - the whole environment - all of that will never be modeled in a realistic way because this are strictly classified closely guarded military secrets. It would be both - impossible to find the data and illegal to model.

 

On the other hand with enough effort and passion they clearly have ED can model environment up to Desert Storm or late Cold War in reasonably realistic way, close to how this systems, with microchips comparable to modern calculator, worked IRL.

Edited June 7, 2021 by bies

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, bies said:

It's all theoretical chit-chat. I fly both 1980 Cold war and 2000s servers for years and truth is on 2000s server air combat is very shallow, it's all about AMRAAM and it's current parameters, it's also very easy to learn for beginners - fire AMRAAM right before MAR, slice and run. Very repetitive. With little skill involved.

 

Air combat on 1980s servers is all about close visual maneuver air combat with very rudimentary and limited BVR possible only in specific conditions adding another layer, it's way harder to learn and master, having way more depth, with all weapon systems useful AIM-9, AIM-7, R-60, R-73, R-27, R-23/24, AIM-54, R-40 and even guns.

In practice NEZ of AIM-7 or R-27 is about 7-10 miles in frontal engagement or 1-4 miles in chase, it's very much visual range like it was IRL during Sidra Gulf engagements, Bekaa Valley, Desert Storm etc.

 

It's very similar situation with A/G. 2000s - effortless, very easy to learn releasing very long range self guided JSOWs and SLAM-ERs way beyond enemy defense or SAMs cruising on autopilot like an airliner and RTB.

 

1980s - skill requiring short range dumb bombing with simple aids, unguided rockets, gun strafes, very rudimentary guided short range Mavericks/Walleye at most, all under SAM and AAA dodging enemy fire, low level penetration flights, hands-on manual engaging weapon employment etc.

 

And both 1980s and 2000s are the same airframes: F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-31, Mirage 2000 etc.

In 1980s lighter variants underlining maneuverability, in 2000s heavier with more advanced avionics and weapon.

 

 

I agree with this 100%.

 

As for ECM, supposedly ED is gonna give us "something" but even then I bet it will be some shallow "track breaker" Gen1 Gen2 Gen3 type system. Rather than say employing EF-111's to jam and disrupt radar, DL, and comms networks while the strike package goes to town. I mean currently even modeling basic BVR radar stuff is something ED isn't doing very well, I mean perfect track files 0 ambiguity in radar hits etc. 

But more to the point, from the 70's and 80's you have a wide variety of platforms with various degrees of specialization. Which IMO is a good thing for the customer, and for ED (more planes=more money). 

[schurem]

Yup, you guys are onto something. Late cold war stuff is where it's at. Before GPS. Before AMRAAM. When men were men, and sheep knew their place.

[kseremak]

 

On 6/5/2021 at 11:39 PM, Harlikwin said:

Yeah, the more I play DCS the more I agree with this line of thinking. Fox3 combat is boring as hell at some point, and it 100% devolves to a which missile is better, not a which pilot is better discussion, which is what it really should be. And even more so for the hordes of modern standoff stuff that is used incorrectly 90% of the time, and too much of it.

 

I like the ideas of an earlyish 80's focus because, the multiroles were still not the "optimal" platform, but master of none. The F16A/18A were mostly dumb bomb trucks, but were also good dogfighters and could do BVR in a pinch for the hornet. Compared to the more dedicated airframes, which were certainly better at their intended role, be it A/A or A/G i.e. F18 vs the F14 or A6E or A7E in that era for example. Plus no one expected to use high end ordnance on killing tanks or APC's rather those GBU's were intended for high value targets. 

 

And at the end of the day the best times I've had in DCS are with the older jets dogfighting WVR, or dropping dumb bombs, because that took some actual skill to do. 

 

The '80s just are much more suitable for a flight simulator where you maneuver, do things, use pilot skills, maneuvering, dogfighting, aiming, avoiding fire, navigating and so on.

 

The technological revolution after the fall of the Soviets made computers do almost everything for pilots, what remains is to admire the views when electronics and automation do almost everything, instead of the pilot. It maybe fun for the first few missions when you are momorizing which buttons to press in specific order, to destroy an enemy from a great distance without ever seeing him, but after a few flights it you can fall asleep.

 

Just compare what F-16A, F/A-18A, Su-17 or MiG-29A had to do in '80s to destroy enemy warehouse and what they had to do in 2007 with JDAM or something.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by kseremak

[dundun92]

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Except in practice, in DCS, it kinda isn't. From my reading of the bug reports, the AMRAAM's mid-course guidance, and lack of gating, as well as the whole countermeasure problem, seems more an issue, than whatever issues are brought up for the say, the AIM-7s or AIM-9s.

 

Meanwhile the AIM-7 got tweaked such that effectiveness is reduced in look-down situation, which is more realistic than ignoring it completely. Again, I'm sure there are plenty of nuances missing, it's better than it was before. 

 

With the AMRAAM, right now it seems to be the case that the more modern missile, with it's more sophisticated guidance, isn't something that DCS supports, which is why elements of it aren't even abstracted.

 

Yes, the AIM-7s and AIM-9s aren't perfect, but they seem to be in a better state. The AIM-7 also recently got a modifier such that its seeker is less effective in look-down situations, which is more realistic, than ignoring it completely.

 

The R-27 family is mostly kinematics (which has been updated), as well as some stuff related to countermeasure resistance (which is a simple modifier in DCS).

 

Jamming and countermeasures though? Absolutely.

The AMRAAM bugs have about nothing to do with it being new, and everything to do with EDs testing/dev style. I also wouldnt say the AIM-7s are in any better of a state. MHs are still broken (loft at any range), making AIM-7/F-pole BVR in the F-14/15 impossible unless you use 7M/Fs that like chaff more. F-14 AIM-7s are broken outside 10nm and wont guide. AIM-7s also like to eat chaff well outside the notch, as do all SARHs. And for the AIM-9, well ill grant there isnt much "wrong" with it but thats just because of how insanely simple an IR missile is. But the gamey IRCM/IRCCM really needs to be overhauled. So again, a bit better, but its not in much better of a state. Also, lack of range gating affects the SARHs too, not just the AMRAAM. Really the lack of INS guidance is the main problem with the AMRAAM, and it can be countered by supporting to active anyway. (You could include its addiction to chaff/notching, but that affects all missiles). And that low altitude aiming error you mentioned, the AMRAAM got it at the same time as the Sparrow. So not an AIM-7 thing. TBH, the reason there are so many AMRAAM bug reports is because its quite simply the most used AAM in DCS, and that heavily biases the bugs that get reported.

 

 

And another note generally on the thread in general, IMO, the constant calling AMRAAM BVR "low skill", to be blunt, just shows how much people dont understand it. Sure, solo airquake PvP is, always has been, and always will be gamey meta cheesing. 80s servers are no exception (and I say that as someone who flys on BF 1980s quite a bit, I have nothing against it). And if thats your standard of AMRAAM BVR sure you may think its low skill (though thats still quite an understatement. You can know how to skate all you want... doesnt do you any good if you dont have the SA to know theres someone to shoot at, or to know when to defend, or to keep track of the 5 planes within 20nm of you). But as soon as you start coordinating 2, 3, 4, or even 6 ship ops, it is as far from "low skill" as it gets, and not based on who has the absolute best missile, its the tactics, pilot skill, and pilot SA that matter. And again, I dont hate 70s/80s BVR, far from it, I find it quite enjoyable. But IMO there doesnt need to be this polarization of 80s BVR good AMRAAM BVR bad.

[Northstar98]

On 6/7/2021 at 8:19 PM, dundun92 said:

The AMRAAM bugs have about nothing to do with it being new, and everything to do with EDs testing/dev style.

They are at the very least in part - it's basically inevitable, you have something more complicated and sophisticated (essentially a given if it's more modern), and you're more likely to run into problems or otherwise things the API can't handle (at least at present).

Quote

I also wouldnt say the AIM-7s are in any better of a state. MHs are still broken (loft at any range), making AIM-7/F-pole BVR in the F-14/15 impossible unless you use 7M/Fs that like chaff more.

Sounds better than the AMRAAM not homing on last calculated intercept point not being implemented (AFAIK).

Quote

F-14 AIM-7s are broken outside 10nm and wont guide. AIM-7s also like to eat chaff well outside the notch, as do all SARHs.

These are more recent bugs, the AMRAAM is missing stuff that isn't even implemented. The AIM-7s were working AFAIK.

Quote

And for the AIM-9, well ill grant there isnt much "wrong" with it but thats just because of how insanely simple an IR missile is.

What you've just done there is made my point for me - the more simple something is, the less there is to go wrong, the easier it is to get it right from a development standpoint.

That doesn't mean they're perfect.

More complexity not only inherently has more that can go wrong, but it's more likely to run into something that DCS doesn't support or otherwise does a poor job of supporting (like all of EW and CCM). In any case its approximations are going to be less accurate.

Quote

But the gamey IRCM/IRCCM really needs to be overhauled.

Yes it does, though we are getting an IR overhaul, which will supposedly improve the situation for IR missiles, though not much detail of what it'll actually do.

Quote

So again, a bit better, but its not in much better of a state.

It's very simple, is the AIM-9 in a more accurate state than the AMRAAM?

Quote

Also, lack of range gating affects the SARHs too, not just the AMRAAM.

But it's especially prevalent for the AMRAAM because it can search for things independently, where this lack of gating is more of a problem when you want it to go after the thing you want it to. This was especially prevalent when the AMRAAM kept homing on missiles fired from their actual target, instead of the target.

With the range gating for SARH, it seems to be more of a CCM thing, in the AMRAAM it's both.

EDIT: Sparrows don't do range-gating as they're CW, they have a speed gate instead.

Quote

Really the lack of INS guidance is the main problem with the AMRAAM, and it can be countered by supporting to active anyway. (You could include its addiction to chaff/notching, but that affects all missiles). And that low altitude aiming error you mentioned, the AMRAAM got it at the same time as the Sparrow. So not an AIM-7 thing. TBH, the reason there are so many AMRAAM bug reports is because its quite simply the most used AAM in DCS, and that heavily biases the bugs that get reported.

I didn't know about the AMRAAM getting the low altitude thing, but that's good. I would say the lack of INS guidance is a pretty substantial thing missing from the AMRAAM. But then TWS modes with our more modern RADARs is a maybe a lot more reliable than it should be. I swear I've heard F-16 SMEs refer to TWS as track-while-lie, the same issue is less present on the Tomcat, where TWS is more accurately depicted for that RADAR, where it's less reliable.

It also sounds like it's the missile with the most wrong with it.

Quote

And another note generally on the thread in general, IMO, the constant calling AMRAAM BVR "low skill", to be blunt, just shows how much people dont understand it. Sure, solo airquake PvP is, always has been, and always will be gamey meta cheesing. 80s servers are no exception (and I say that as someone who flys on BF 1980s quite a bit, I have nothing against it). And if thats your standard of AMRAAM BVR sure you may think its low skill (though thats still quite an understatement.

And we are completely ignoring single player, which, according to ED, is the most the majority uses. Here it is like flying a like a slower, faster airliner (which I can do on autopilot) and press the push to win button. It doesn't get better in WVR either, as all the AI knows how to do is do endless vertical loops whenever they get anybody behind them.

I've struggled against the JF-17 before, and AMRAAM guidance issues were basically the reason why

Quote

You can know how to skate all you want... doesnt do you any good if you dont have the SA to know theres someone to shoot at, or to know when to defend, or to keep track of the 5 planes within 20nm of you). But as soon as you start coordinating 2, 3, 4, or even 6 ship ops, it is as far from "low skill" as it gets, and not based on who has the absolute best missile, its the tactics, pilot skill, and pilot SA that matter.

And if your pretend that this only applies to the modern era and not the Cold War you are dead wrong, it's just more intensive for the player.

And from a SP perspective, the Cold War is certainly a lot more satisfying, but that's DCS' AI for you.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[dundun92]

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And if pretend that this only applies to the modern era and not the Cold War you are dead wrong,

Im not saying 80s BVR is less intensive. Im saying that both, in a proper coordinated scenario are intensive and require far more than just having the 1% advantage in range to win, its not just SARH thats skill based. And SP SARH combat is hardly satisfying, you can beat it so easily by basic F-Pole tactics as it has no idea of when to optimally fire/defend. And the whole AI WVR thing, that equally applies to any combat era. SP is just a bad reference.

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Sounds better than the AMRAAM not homing on last calculated intercept point not being implemented (AFAIK).

Its not. Not being able to fire outside 10nm means you cant F-Pole above 20kft, and loft means no F-Pole jousting at any altitude. AKA you are forced defensive 100% of the time and either have to run/notch to merge. Meanwhile, with the AMRAAM, as long as you support it until active, which isnt hard, you can still largely fight like normal. Im not saying it has no effect, but the sparrow bugs are far worse

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

It's very simple, is the AIM-9 in a more accurate state than the AMRAAM?

Depends on the variant. 9M, if we ignore CCM, is OK. 9X is not. Even accounting for RNG it likes flares way too much, and it has too much drag and has less range than a 9M. Theres a reason the 9X block II has loft/DL IRL. I suppose if you only look at the 9M its acceptable but its not like the 9X issues have anything to do with it being newer.

Edited June 7, 2021 by dundun92

[Northstar98]

Quote

And SP SARH combat is hardly satisfying, you can beat it so easily by basic F-Pole tactics as it has no idea of when to optimally fire/defend.

The AI is much more of a threat to me in Fox 1 combat, than Fox 3 combat.

Maybe I'm just an idiot or something.

Quote

And the whole AI WVR thing, that equally applies to any combat era. SP is just a bad reference.

The AI WVR is less relevant in modern scenarios, because BVR is simply a more effective tool in the modern era than in the Cold War.

And as far as AI WVR, it's certainly harder using Cold War airframes, than with modern airframes.

In my experience with modern WVR, against AI it's like taking candy from a baby who hates candy, who is throwing its candy at you - probably because with the modern stuff, in my experience anyway, is just much better at being able to negate the BS the AI does, which is much more of an issue (at least in my experience) for aircraft with maybe less performance.

With Cold War BLUFOR 4th gen, it's less of a problem, as they're kinda in the same boat. But for gen 3 it's especially more noticeable.

Quote

Its not. Not being able to fire outside 10nm means you cant F-Pole above 20kft, and loft means no F-Pole jousting at any altitude. AKA you are forced defensive 100% of the time and either have to run/notch to merge. Meanwhile, with the AMRAAM, as long as you support it until active, which isnt hard, you can still largely fight like normal. Im not saying it has no effect, but the sparrow bugs are far worse.

This seems like a very subjective issue, I think we'll have to agree to disagree based on our own experiences.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98

[WobblyFlops]

On 6/7/2021 at 2:50 PM, Northstar98 said:

Brace yourselves, it's a bloody long one.

 

The TL;DR is that we don't need to simulate absolutely everything 100% to get more realistic than we are right now, it isn't all or nothing.

 

To sum it up, I believe that the level of implementation that you describe is almost just as doable for the modern jammers. The Hornet shouldn't even have the ASPJ, (as you said) but according to their comments they have some data on it, so that's a given. The Air Force jammer pods could also utilize roughly the publically known techniques and then be adjusted by the implementation of a CMANO-esque generational capabilities as you suggested.

Another important point to note is that certain older jammers form the base for modern ones (like the ALQ-126 series) or have overlapping histories which may mean that certain older types of equipment may also be considered highly sensitive.

 

 

The Hornet's air to ground radar's implementation is highly unrealistic to begin with (pilots described both the APG-65 and the 73 as worthless of anything other than INS updates so much so that allegedly utilizing the air to ground modes wasn't even practiced at a squadron level and only taught at the RAG), so I'm not surprised there.

While Fox 1 based BVR combat is most certainly different than modern Fox 3s, I wouldn't really say that either is particularly simple at all. The two modules we use in the group are the Tomcat and the Hornet and I certainly don't find air to air engagments or intercepts any more boring in the Hornet. And sure, these tools make the air to air engagements fundamentally different, but simulating the Tomcat in the 80s or the F-4 in the 70s is still a lot closer to modern day air to air ops than a strictly guns/very early Winders based arena.

 

It's certainly easier to have superior SA and the jet makes everything easier but it's never really easy. In a highly unrealistic and simplified scenario (spamming AMRAAMs) it most certainly is easy and boring but again, if someone finds airquake boring, they should join a squadron. All of these things are tools that determine tactics and employment but if you operate in a somewhat more realistic scenario within the constraints of the game, things will become very complicated very quickly.

Some things will inevitably be missing from the game (like the EW aspect that we talked about) and there's not much you can do about that, but those lacking aspects or errors also impact both the 80s Cold War scenarios and the modern ones.

 

For the Navy's side, we can reasonably conclude that a limited but reasonably accurate Air Wing will be available for us in DCS, with period accurate, full fidelity opponents as well. (Except for the Flanker.) I agree, the F-16A would definitely be fun to have, but it was fundamentally a fighter-bomber ever since it first got into service, so its lack of BVR capabilities aren't really that relevant. The main USAF air superiority fighter was the F-15 in the relevant time period and that most certainly had great sensors and Sparrows.

[Harlikwin]

14 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

To sum it up, I believe that the level of implementation that you describe is almost just as doable for the modern jammers. The Hornet shouldn't even have the ASPJ, (as you said) but according to their comments they have some data on it, so that's a given. The Air Force jammer pods could also utilize roughly the publically known techniques and then be adjusted by the implementation of a CMANO-esque generational capabilities as you suggested.

Another important point to note is that certain older jammers form the base for modern ones (like the ALQ-126 series) or have overlapping histories which may mean that certain older types of equipment may also be considered highly sensitive.

 

 

The Hornet's air to ground radar's implementation is highly unrealistic to begin with (pilots described both the APG-65 and the 73 as worthless of anything other than INS updates so much so that allegedly utilizing the air to ground modes wasn't even practiced at a squadron level and only taught at the RAG), so I'm not surprised there.

While Fox 1 based BVR combat is most certainly different than modern Fox 3s, I wouldn't really say that either is particularly simple at all. The two modules we use in the group are the Tomcat and the Hornet and I certainly don't find air to air engagments or intercepts any more boring in the Hornet. And sure, these tools make the air to air engagements fundamentally different, but simulating the Tomcat in the 80s or the F-4 in the 70s is still a lot closer to modern day air to air ops than a strictly guns/very early Winders based arena.

 

It's certainly easier to have superior SA and the jet makes everything easier but it's never really easy. In a highly unrealistic and simplified scenario (spamming AMRAAMs) it most certainly is easy and boring but again, if someone finds airquake boring, they should join a squadron. All of these things are tools that determine tactics and employment but if you operate in a somewhat more realistic scenario within the constraints of the game, things will become very complicated very quickly.

Some things will inevitably be missing from the game (like the EW aspect that we talked about) and there's not much you can do about that, but those lacking aspects or errors also impact both the 80s Cold War scenarios and the modern ones.

 

For the Navy's side, we can reasonably conclude that a limited but reasonably accurate Air Wing will be available for us in DCS, with period accurate, full fidelity opponents as well. (Except for the Flanker.) I agree, the F-16A would definitely be fun to have, but it was fundamentally a fighter-bomber ever since it first got into service, so its lack of BVR capabilities aren't really that relevant. The main USAF air superiority fighter was the F-15 in the relevant time period and that most certainly had great sensors and Sparrows.

 

 

I mean I agree on the EW side, you aren't really ever gonna a "real" model of how the "real thing" works. But other games do model it, and better than DCS, i.e. CMANO. And if we get to that level in DCS I think thats a net win, since modern air combat is and has been heavily about EW stuff.

 

AG radars are AG radars. I mean there are resons to use them, but they aren't the all seeing eye of sauron, but if you have clouds covering a target your TGP ain't seein through that and you use the radar best you can. I think alot of pople forget that in wars targets got missed, ALOT, and even more prior to modern PGM's. Look at how many times certain targets got bombed in VN.

 

The SA thing is a personal pet peeve of mine in DCS. Specifically most fighters should have far better SA and GCI interaction than we have, the current AWACS model is absolutely terrible to use, just calling out random crap it sees "Enemy at 15k 300 miles away" followed by 2 secs later "merged".... ED REALLY needs to work on this aspect of the game, and its partly why people flock to the 4th gen airframes with link16 precisely because they do have some level of SA there. But IRL in the previous decades pilots would have it too, just delivered differently by AWACS or Ground GCI. Online servers even have far better ways of dealing with it than ED's core engine, on blueflag you have various EWR scripts and those feed a live GCI that sounds 1000% better and is far more useful than the stock ED system. Despite it being clunky to use. Your GCI/AWACS guy should be building a picture for you and clearly communicating it. I.e. Awacs saw a bandit 20miles away hot on you then he lost it, well he should immediately be warning you where it was last seen, and roughly where he thinks it might be. Currently you are lucky if you even get a call. 

 

At any rate, I'd like to see more focus on the earlier version of the "teen" fighters, or at least for ED to give server admins a switch where they could disable certain "systems" server side (i.e. HMCS, DL radios etc). So at least you could kind-of replicate the lower capabilies of the earlier fighters.

 

[WobblyFlops]

4 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Specifically most fighters should have far better SA and GCI interaction than we have, the current AWACS model is absolutely terrible to use, just calling out random crap

I agree with this 100%. The Supercarrier ATC is a step in the right direction but still has long ways to go and both airfield ATC, GCI/AIC and other related assets need an almost complete overhaul. 

[nessuno0505]

Modern (whatever it means) airframes with whimsical stuff sell more. Why the Viper and then the Apache, if not? But sooner or later modern stuff will end and they'll have to choose something else. Cold war would be fine.

[Harlikwin]

6 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

Modern (whatever it means) airframes with whimsical stuff sell more. Why the Viper and then the Apache, if not? But sooner or later modern stuff will end and they'll have to choose something else. Cold war would be fine.

 

They just think it will sell better thats why. But they also shoot themselves in the foot, since selling an "upgrade" is alot easier than a "downgrade".

 

[bies]

Apache, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Mirage 2000 etc. are all 1970s/1980s cold war airframes.

The only reason some of them were still in service in ~2010 is fall of the Soviets and lack of any symmetrical wars or even possibly of such wars since 1991.

[Northstar98]

On 6/8/2021 at 4:58 PM, WobblyFlops said:

To sum it up, I believe that the level of implementation that you describe is almost just as doable for the modern jammers.

I mean I guess so, I'm just saying that as they get more complicated, the same kind of approximations become less accurate - but then as has been said, you can't really do much else.

Quote

The Hornet's air to ground radar's implementation is highly unrealistic to begin with (pilots described both the APG-65 and the 73 as worthless of anything other than INS updates so much so that allegedly utilizing the air to ground modes wasn't even practiced at a squadron level and only taught at the RAG), so I'm not surprised there.

I mean, maybe it's because in actually combat they're using TGPs, over dry areas with clearer skies.

Just throwing stuff out there. But in any case, even though I'm in favour of having A/G RADARs, the Hornet's one is currently magical.

Quote

While Fox 1 based BVR combat is most certainly different than modern Fox 3s, I wouldn't really say that either is particularly simple at all. The two modules we use in the group are the Tomcat and the Hornet and I certainly don't find air to air engagments or intercepts any more boring in the Hornet. And sure, these tools make the air to air engagements fundamentally different, but simulating the Tomcat in the 80s or the F-4 in the 70s is still a lot closer to modern day air to air ops than a strictly guns/very early Winders based arena.

Well, I'm going from a SP perspective, there it doesn't help that the AI is about as good as a chunky fart.

But in that area at least I find fox 3 combat easier than fox 1, the only hiccups with fox 3 is usually due to a bug in the AMRAAMs guidance system.

Quote

It's certainly easier to have superior SA and the jet makes everything easier but it's never really easy. In a highly unrealistic and simplified scenario (spamming AMRAAMs) it most certainly is easy and boring but again, if someone finds airquake boring, they should join a squadron.

Again, I'm going from an SP scenario simply because that's what I'm most experienced with, and (according to ED) the mode the majority plays.

And I'm far too much of a cretin for multiplayer anyway, let alone a squadron and I've been here for quite a while.

Quote

For the Navy's side, we can reasonably conclude that a limited but reasonably accurate Air Wing will be available for us in DCS, with period accurate, full fidelity opponents as well. (Except for the Flanker.) I agree, the F-16A would definitely be fun to have, but it was fundamentally a fighter-bomber ever since it first got into service, so its lack of BVR capabilities aren't really that relevant. The main USAF air superiority fighter was the F-15 in the relevant time period and that most certainly had great sensors and Sparrows.

Even so, I'm still holding onto WVR being more relevant for the Cold War than the modern era.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Northstar98

[Furiz]

I like new stuff, I like new technologies, I like to explore systems in the Hornet and the Viper, it is absolute fun for me to drop LGBs and to launch and AIM120 and then try to avoid the enemy launched missile while trying to keep lock on the target before my fox3 takes over. that's fun for me, its fon for me to go against heavily defended SA10 site in the Viper, to me its fun.

 

I see lots of people here say that fox3 lobbing is boring, and launching SLAMERs from 50+ miles away is not fun etc etc... they don't want DCS to have modern stuff, they want to stay in the 70s and not move an inch forward from that time cause that's fun, fox2 and no JHMCS etc... fine that's fun for you,

I see that as being very selfish, not everyone likes to be in the 80s plane, 

but those cold war 70s and 80s planes were made cause of new (for that time) technologies, cause of research and because of need ofc, so without research and new tech there wouldn't be any of those planes, you wouldn't have a computer to fly those planes on for that matter.

 

I knew about DCS for a long time, but I only boarder this jumbo jet when I learned that they have a multi-role jet from around 2007, the Hornet, then I saw that the Viper is being worked on and I said YES lets go!

 

I see DCS as a growing and learning sim that is embracing new tech, new weapons, new aircraft and new systems, how can they grow if they stick to the 80s, what when they make all the 80s planes?,

I think having modern era gen4 and beyond jets is very beneficial for the sim in the long term.

[Harlikwin]

18 minutes ago, Furiz said:

I like new stuff, I like new technologies, I like to explore systems in the Hornet and the Viper, it is absolute fun for me to drop LGBs and to launch and AIM120 and then try to avoid the enemy launched missile while trying to keep lock on the target before my fox3 takes over. that's fun for me, its fon for me to go against heavily defended SA10 site in the Viper, to me its fun.

 

I see lots of people here say that fox3 lobbing is boring, and launching SLAMERs from 50+ miles away is not fun etc etc... they don't want DCS to have modern stuff, they want to stay in the 70s and not move an inch forward from that time cause that's fun, fox2 and no JHMCS etc... fine that's fun for you,

I see that as being very selfish, not everyone likes to be in the 80s plane, 

but those cold war 70s and 80s planes were made cause of new (for that time) technologies, cause of research and because of need ofc, so without research and new tech there wouldn't be any of those planes, you wouldn't have a computer to fly those planes on for that matter.

 

I knew about DCS for a long time, but I only boarder this jumbo jet when I learned that they have a multi-role jet from around 2007, the Hornet, then I saw that the Viper is being worked on and I said YES lets go!

 

I see DCS as a growing and learning sim that is embracing new tech, new weapons, new aircraft and new systems, how can they grow if they stick to the 80s, what when they make all the 80s planes?,

I think having modern era gen4 and beyond jets is very beneficial for the sim in the long term.

 

How realistic do you think what you are actually doing is? Cuz I can 100% guarantee that most of it is not, beyond some shallow top level details. And that is in a way the crux of the argument.

For example shooting at a bandit, you are missing a good chunk of what the radar is actually doing and any challenges associated with running your radar because in DCS radar is "perfect", your tracks are perfect etc. If you are in a hornet MSI is entirely missing from the plane. When you fox on the bandit, at least now we have some reasonable guidance laws being used, but I guarantee you not much else is realistic, that missile always acquires the bandit when it pitbulls, which IRL is a major question if it does it or not based on how well you've managed the radar/intercept parts of the engagement, wihch modes you used, how good the tracks were etc etc.  NONE of that is in DCS.  And say evading the other guys missile, do you think our Chaff as "radar flare" is realistic or how effective notching is in those cases? Nope. 

 

I'm not gonna belabor the point by getting into the various inaccuracies with the A/G deliveries or TGPs and any of that but its equally bad. But I will add in that if you think the SA10 in DCS in any way resembles what an actual SAM site is doing, I'd suggest reading up on how IADS systems actually work. 

Point is that we'd love to have that stuff with some decent level of detail in DCS, but ED can't really do it. And we'd rather have some older systems that they can do, and still present some challenge/role for the pilot aside from pushing the "I win" button.

 

[Furiz]

Ofc its not realistic it is a simulation, essentially it is a video game. Shocking I know, but it is what it is.

 

And yea most new missiles and bombs are in fact an I win button, but you are forgetting that that's why those weapons were developed, to make life easier to the user.

So an Hornet pilot for example can drop GPS bomb from 30k feet and turn away, while watching a video feed of those hostiles getting blown to pieces and cheering about it with his wingmen. While other members of the strike group are dealing with SAMs, and others are keeping them safe from possible air threats etc. That's real life believe it or not.

 

And DCS is a simulation of that, it can't be 100% realistic be it ww2 plane or a gen4 plane, ofc it will be more realistic with a ww2 plane than gen4 since gen4 are much more complex.

 

And I know that SA10 in DCS is not what it is in real life, it has much more sophisticated defenses and decoys etc... but ED are expanding their knowledge on that one as well as on other modern stuff, and they will get that right eventually, but they have to start somwhere.

 

You can always simulate your cold war by limiting the weapons and equipment or airframes to a specific era, why would you ask of ED to limit their development, or their income by focusing on that era? Not everyone likes cold war era.

 

I don't want DCS to turn into arcade game ofc, but I wouldn't come to DCS if they didn't have a gen4 plane for that matter, and I think there is more like me.