Jump to content

Aircraft before the 1993 tech explosion for DCS


Recommended Posts

Actually you can model a modern battlefield, just call it it a low intensity "modern" battlefield :megalol:.

 

 

In all seriousness though whilst what you state is true, ED wishes is to do a "modern" time period. I know the term can be vague, and relative to a person witnessing events at a certain time frame but the game series began with Flanker and continued to with FC3, and with DCS today.

 

Remember that the original map and oldest initial campaign for DCS that was intended to be represented was the 2008 Georgian war. The first release of DCS came around not too long afterwards. All other scenarios since ( such as NTTR and Gulf) were also centered with the 21st century, and almost certainly post 2008 in terms of map design. It also appears Syria and Mariana islands in design are also 21st century, if not outright present day (at most only a few years old in terms of intended time frame design)

 

I dont know about you, but would you call conflicts from just a few years ago not still be considered "modern" relative to present day? Even if you want to go back more than a decade, life in 2008 was not fundamentally different as opposed to today. Although i suppose that an be relative to what part of the world you live in.

 

 

Sure Flaming cliffs preceded full on study sim that was DCS , and before that Flanker series, but the aircraft represented there were probably the more modern types that could be simulated during the 90s. In the 90s, the Su27S was still Russians cream of the crop air superiority fighter, as was the F15C for the USA.

 

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.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi Wishlist thread and ED.   I wanted to talk about modules and the current "spread" of eras. I know there are a lot of people with mixed feelings about this, a crowd of "We must have 4th gen + aircr

Yep I agree. I do think there is a place for the modern jets with shiny toys and fancy weapons, but I think DCS is reaching saturation there (minus a full fidelity Flanker or Fulcrum, but that's a who

Most of what this is already post Cold War or at least end of Cold War. In regards to Cold War I'm thinking more of F-104, F-4, Vietnam and yeah, the Fulda Gap!

Jeah, still find that Generation table odd. Putting a Gunfighter like the Mig-15 into the same Generation as a Mig-19 with AB, Radar and IR Missiles and Meanwhile Putting the F-5 a whole Generation above the Mig-21. But hey, more older Aircraft are always great. Really loved the Mig-21 and felt like the F-14 was just too "Modern" for my taste, so maybe something in between would be great.

 

IDK, Its roughly accurate IMO. I think the hard part is to differentiate different upgrade models. The original Mig-19 was a pure gunfighter hence gen1, and later evolved to a so/so gen2. I do find the F5 as an odd choice to put in Gen3, but I could see it for the later upgraded F5E's, just like the the mig21 which again, started as a straight gen2 daylight fighter, and then morphed into something more like gen3 (or now even Gen4) with avionics/radar upgrades. Though I think its criminal to put the F4 in the gen2 category even the early ones.

 

And I really think an F4E/Mig23 would probably be "THE" blue/red fighter combo to bring balance to cold war DCS.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just happy at the lack of "giv us 22 Raptar" posts.

 

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

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Modules: Wright Flyer, Spruce Goose, Voyager 1

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious why they'd place Mirage 2000 in the 3rd gen group?

 

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

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Well, for f-22 maybe not, but YF-23... That's another story

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ngreenaway

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] DCS: The most expensive free game you'll ever play

 

 

 

Modules: All of them

System:

 

I9-9900k, ROG Maximus , 32gb ram, RTX2070 Founder's Edition, t16000,hotas, pedals & cougar MFD, HP Reverb 1.2, HTC VIVE

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...