Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Just a few thoughts, assets, maps and modules. One of the problems I see with DCS is that due to Russian and Chinese laws we are limited to cold war and older aircraft however Eagle isn't spending the time to develop for lack of a better term- a good ecosystem for the modules.

IMHO that means for the different eras we need a map, AI assets, and at least one flyable module for both sides. 

 

Let's start with an area where I think Eagle has done a good job. 

World War II Western front- the Normandy/ Channel Maps. We have the World War II asset pack with a lot of AI planes and ground assets, we have several flyable modules. On the allied side we a few playable modules have the P-51, P-47, Spitfire and on the Axis we have BF-109 and two FW-190s over all I'm happy with it add some ships and I'll be even happier. in short keep it up 

 

now what I think needs improvement

Eastern front- sadly neglected. Right now we only have one Red Airforce aircraft the I-16, which is fine for the early war but we lack ground assets. I think the a World War II version of the Caucuses would be a good map. I'd really like some late war aircraft. Something that could also be used in the Korean era would be great.

 

Korean war era- so far we have the F-86, MiG-15 and F-51.  They might not be the right models but their good enough. We also have the left over World War II equipment for bluefor but we've got nothing for Redfor. We also need more aircraft for both sides even if they are just AI assets

I'd like to have a map for the early 50s. If we don't get Korea then I'd like a European cold war gone hot. 

 

Early Vietnam era (1960 - 1969) - The Syria map might not be the ideal for the era but it is good enough for now. However we really only have the MiG-19. I think the F-100 or an early mirage would be a could opponent also we need more AI assets especially the century series fighters I know the F-8 is supposed to be on the way from leatherneck but I ain't heard jack about it in ages. 

 

Late Vietnam era (aka early 1970s) (1970- 1975) we have the MiG-21 Bis and F-5E, so we need the older AI aircraft.

 


Edited by upyr1
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Just a few thoughts, assets, maps and modules. One of the problems I see with DCS is that due to Russian and Chinese laws we are limited to cold war and older aircraft however Eagle isn't spending the time to develop for lack of a better term- a good echo system for the modules.

IMHO that means for the different eras we need a map, AI assets, and at least one flyable module for both sides. 

 

Let's start with an area where I think Eagle has done a good job. 

World War II Western front- the Normandy/ Channel Maps. We have the World War II asset pack with a lot of AI planes and ground assets, we have several flyable modules. On the allied side we a few playable modules have the P-51, P-47, Spitfire and on the Axis we have BF-109 and two FW-190s over all I'm happy with it add some ships and I'll be even happier. in short keep it up 

 

now what I think needs improvement

Eastern front- sadly neglected. Right now we only have one Red Airforce aircraft the I-16, which is fine for the early war but we lack ground assets. I think the a World War II version of the Caucuses would be a good map. I'd really like some late war aircraft. Something that could also be used in the Korean era would be great.

 

Korean war era- so far we have the F-86, MiG-15 and F-51.  They might not be the right models but their good enough. We also have the left over World War II equipment for bluefor but we've got nothing for Redfor. We also need more aircraft for both sides even if they are just AI assets

I'd like to have a map for the early 50s. If we don't get Korea then I'd like a European cold war gone hot. 

 

Early Vietnam era (1960 - 1969) - The Syria map might not be the ideal for the era but it is good enough for now. However we really only have the MiG-19. I think the F-100 or an early mirage would be a could opponent also we need more AI assets especially the century series fighters I know the F-8 is supposed to be on the way from leatherneck but I ain't heard jack about it in ages. 

 

Late Vietnam era (aka early 1970s) (1970- 1975) we have the MiG-21 Bis and F-5E, so we need the older AI aircraft.

 

I'm just reading this. Great post, +1... This guy gets it!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2021 at 6:42 PM, Callsign112 said:

I'm just reading this. Great post, +1... This guy gets it!

Thanks.

Keeping with the theme I'm wondering if Eagle has plans for any more asset packs. I have mixed feelings about asset packs, I understand that Eagle needs to cover their development costs but I also think their development costs should be factored into the price of associated modules and theaters. I'm not Katya nor am I in Eagle's marketing department so I will trust they know what they are doing and figured I am wrong. Anyhow with the Marianas coming out Eagle will need to add some Pacific theater assets I can see three ways of doing this.

  • create a new Pacific theater asset pack
  • add them to the existing World War II asset pack
  • add them to DCS core

The Pacific theater asset pack would be the most expensive option for DCS player, but it could be the cheapest option for Eagle. If Eagle goes this route I hope they make the current WWII asset pack the ETO asset pack, grab anything that would also work for the Pacific theater and give the people who already own the ETO asset pack a discount based on the amount of overlap.  I think this approach could be the most flexible though most divisive for the on line community. 

Adding them to the DCS WW II asset pack- The midrange option 

Adding them to DCS core- the main problem I see with this, is that I could see new assets being way down on Eagle's to do list. there is a reason that we have a lot of modules either in development or early access. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/1/2021 at 5:13 PM, upyr1 said:

Just a few thoughts, assets, maps and modules. One of the problems I see with DCS is that due to Russian and Chinese laws we are limited to cold war and older aircraft however Eagle isn't spending the time to develop for lack of a better term- a good ecosystem for the modules.

IMHO that means for the different eras we need a map, AI assets, and at least one flyable module for both sides. 

 

Let's start with an area where I think Eagle has done a good job. 

World War II Western front- the Normandy/ Channel Maps. We have the World War II asset pack with a lot of AI planes and ground assets, we have several flyable modules. On the allied side we a few playable modules have the P-51, P-47, Spitfire and on the Axis we have BF-109 and two FW-190s over all I'm happy with it add some ships and I'll be even happier. in short keep it up 

 

now what I think needs improvement

Eastern front- sadly neglected. Right now we only have one Red Airforce aircraft the I-16, which is fine for the early war but we lack ground assets. I think the a World War II version of the Caucuses would be a good map. I'd really like some late war aircraft. Something that could also be used in the Korean era would be great.

 

Korean war era- so far we have the F-86, MiG-15 and F-51.  They might not be the right models but their good enough. We also have the left over World War II equipment for bluefor but we've got nothing for Redfor. We also need more aircraft for both sides even if they are just AI assets

I'd like to have a map for the early 50s. If we don't get Korea then I'd like a European cold war gone hot. 

 

Early Vietnam era (1960 - 1969) - The Syria map might not be the ideal for the era but it is good enough for now. However we really only have the MiG-19. I think the F-100 or an early mirage would be a could opponent also we need more AI assets especially the century series fighters I know the F-8 is supposed to be on the way from leatherneck but I ain't heard jack about it in ages. 

 

Late Vietnam era (aka early 1970s) (1970- 1975) we have the MiG-21 Bis and F-5E, so we need the older AI aircraft.

 

 

 

Yeah this is a well known problem and has been forever. ED do periodically add new assets but there doesn't seem to be a real cohesive plan thats been laid out to flesh out any particular era aside from WW2.

 

Realistically I think the best chance we have for some sort of balanced/unified environment for DCS is the latter cold war period since the airforces were roughly equally capapble. Its pretty unlikely DCS is getting modern Sukhois or Migs. And even if we do, the balance is still "off". The later cold war already is pretty good for ground units, and we mainly need to replace the FC3 modules, and add a few others for a "decent" mix, many of which are on the way. 

 

 

Modern (2000s+): Basically needs some FF modern "red" multiroles, unlikely to happen soon or fast. Also needed are actual modern air defenses, most of what we have for "modern" defenses are from the 80's or early 90's.

 

Current planeset: A10C, Harrier II, F16blk50, F18lot20, JF-17, F14B (ish).

Pending: Eurofighter2k, Ah64D, BS3, F15E, super tucano

 

Would need a modern Mig29/35 or Su27/30/35 to really balance it out but nothing announced, maybe Deka will do a su-30mkk. But even then its gonna lean very heavily blue module wise. Modern Sams like S400 or modern patriots and so forth, but really, its gonna be a major issue doing those with much fidelity. 

 

Later Cold war (70's/80s): This period is mainly currently viable due to the FC3 modules but could be good to go fairly rapidly by the inclusion of a few FF modules, ironically mostly on "bluefor". Also most of the AI ground assets are generally good enough for this period, we have 2 excellent historical maps (syria/cauc), and on "adaptable" map (PG)

 

Current planeset: FF: F5E/Mig21bis/Mig19, F14A,viggen, M2k, gazelle, huey, Mi8 and then FC3: A10A, F15C, Mig29's SU27's, Su25's. 

Pending planeset: Hind, Mirage F1 (70s'/80s),  Mig23, Mig29A, Early F14A's,  A7E (late 80s version most likely), A6E (late 80s/early90s version most likely), Kfir (70's+), G91R,  F8J crusader, (maybe Su-17/22 teased). SeaHarrier (teased), mirage 3 (teased)

 

Most Needed: Blue: F4 versions, F4E and a F4J. Early version F16Ablk15 (most common),and F15A or early C and F18A. AH1 cobra.  

Most Needed: Red: Su-17M4, maybe Su-25. Maybe 23bn/27. Maybe mig25. 

 

Early Cold war (50's/60s): This period is pretty much a wasteland right now both in terms of flyable period AC and ground units. Syria and Cauc fit maps wise.

 

Current planeset: F86, Mig15, Mig19 (and the 21 if you want to "pretend" but its too modern.

Pending planeset: G91R, F8J (close enough)

 

Most needed Blue: Early F4, F104, F100, F105, F106, A4, early A7 etc. Mirage 3. 

Most needed Red: Mig17 (teased maybe), early red striker like a Su-7, earlier Mig21s. Su-15

 

Recycled from WW2: F4U, P51, P47

 

Conclusion

So from the lists presented, the later cold war period is gonna have the most bang for the buck. Obviously you can use any 60's planes in it as tier 2 fighters/bombers, and we have the "nerfed" modern versions of the "teen" series that people are currently using in those scenarios as well (far from ideal IMO, but lets be real thats what people are gonna use).

 

Most impactful unannounced modules:

Blue: F4E: Everyone flew this or a similar version aside from the navy guys. F4E finishes the IRAF from the 70s-modern for the PG map as well. It fits the Syria map for israel, and Turkey/USAF for the Cauc map. 

 

Red: Su17M3 or M4, relatively up to date red striker since everyone loves PGM's can be nerfed to represent earlier versions. Used in Syria, Used by Iraq, Fits all maps, numerous export customers too. 

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 6

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
4 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Thanks.

Keeping with the theme I'm wondering if Eagle has plans for any more asset packs. I have mixed feelings about asset packs, I understand that Eagle needs to cover their development costs but I also think their development costs should be factored into the price of associated modules and theaters. I'm not Katya nor am I in Eagle's marketing department so I will trust they know what they are doing and figured I am wrong. Anyhow with the Marianas coming out Eagle will need to add some Pacific theater assets I can see three ways of doing this.

  • create a new Pacific theater asset pack
  • add them to the existing World War II asset pack
  • add them to DCS core

The Pacific theater asset pack would be the most expensive option for DCS player, but it could be the cheapest option for Eagle. If Eagle goes this route I hope they make the current WWII asset pack the ETO asset pack, grab anything that would also work for the Pacific theater and give the people who already own the ETO asset pack a discount based on the amount of overlap.  I think this approach could be the most flexible though most divisive for the on line community. 

Adding them to the DCS WW II asset pack- The midrange option 

Adding them to DCS core- the main problem I see with this, is that I could see new assets being way down on Eagle's to do list. there is a reason that we have a lot of modules either in development or early access. 

We definitely need more WWII assets, and the new Marianas map is just going to make that issue more obvious. But I hope they add any new additions for the Marianas to the current WWII assets pack to help encourage more members to get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Early Cold war (50's/60s): This period is pretty much a wasteland right now both in terms of flyable period AC and ground units. Syria and Cauc fit maps wise.

 

Current planeset: F86, Mig15, Mig19 (and the 21 if you want to "pretend" but its too modern.

Pending planeset: G91R, F8J (close enough)

 

Most needed Blue: Early F4, F104, F100, F105, F106, A4, early A7 etc. Mirage 3. 

Most needed Red: Mig17 (teased maybe), early red striker like a Su-7, earlier Mig21s. Su-15

 

Recycled from WW2: F4U, P51, P47

 

Conclusion

So from the lists presented, the later cold war period is gonna have the most bang for the buck. Obviously you can use any 60's planes in it as tier 2 fighters/bombers, and we have the "nerfed" modern versions of the "teen" series that people are currently using in those scenarios as well (far from ideal IMO, but lets be real thats what people are gonna use).

 

Most impactful unannounced modules:

Blue: F4E: Everyone flew this or a similar version aside from the navy guys. F4E finishes the IRAF from the 70s-modern for the PG map as well. It fits the Syria map for israel, and Turkey/USAF for the Cauc map. 

 

Red: Su17M3 or M4, relatively up to date red striker since everyone loves PGM's can be nerfed to represent earlier versions. Used in Syria, Used by Iraq, Fits all maps, numerous export customers too. 

 

My first area of disagreement is that I don't see the 1960s as being Early cold war. In my mind the Early cold war is  1945 - 1953 I like to separate it from the Vietnam era.  There some reasons for this, but for the sake of DCS assets it shrinks the scope of time they have to deal with and due to the fact both blocs had a lot of left over World War II equipment as well as a lot of new items. Clearly a Korean era asset pack will have to include helicopters, early jets and other equipment that wasn't available in World War II so the next question is how to deal with the left over World War II equipment. The first question here is does Eagle see the current World War II Asset Pack as home to all possible World War II assets or is it simply the Western ETO? Either way Eagle needs to work on Redfor Russian front assets, paying as much attention as possible to something that may have served along side both the I-16 and the Mig-15 as well as work on the post war equipment. I would also do two versions of the Korean war pack, one would include WW II equipment and a second one for folks with the WW II asset pack(s) which would just focus on post wat.  

Then there is the question of how to deal with the Vietnam era asset pack

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Callsign112 said:

I hope they add any new additions for the Marianas to the current WWII assets pack to help encourage more members to get it.

Same here. The two areas I think DCS lacks the most are naval assets (especially historical ones) and Red Army assets. The fact we have 3 Korean era fighters and the I-16 make the lack of Soviet assets for World War II and Korea unacceptable. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Same here. The two areas I think DCS lacks the most are naval assets (especially historical ones) and Red Army assets. The fact we have 3 Korean era fighters and the I-16 make the lack of Soviet assets for World War II and Korea unacceptable. 

 

The problem with the Naval assets is the fact they are barely modeled. The current naval modeling is basically trash and I'm trying to be kind. They seriously need to rethink the whole naval model into where are radars A B C D located and how are they damaged? Same thing for SAM and CIWS positions. I don't think we even have assets from anything older than the 80's for the most part. The only naval asset I want to see in DCS is a new carrier or two UNTIL all the other naval problems are sorted. Its pointless to add them if the modeling is garbage.

 

  • Like 2

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
Just now, Harlikwin said:

 

The problem with the Naval assets is the fact they are barely modeled. The current naval modeling is basically trash and I'm trying to be kind. They seriously need to rethink the whole naval model into where are radars A B C D located and how are they damaged? Same thing for SAM and CIWS positions. I don't think we even have assets from anything older than the 80's for the most part. The only naval asset I want to see in DCS is a new carrier or two UNTIL all the other naval problems are sorted. Its pointless to add them if the modeling is garbage.

 

I can't disagree with you about the naval assets being trash, I'm not sure that discouraging them from working on them is the best route.  I honestly think they are looking for an excuse to not work on the naval assets when ever the topic comes up. This is the reason I have asked for Fleet ops.  As I figured if the community supported the idea, it would result in Eagle overhauling naval assets since it would mean a possible income stream. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think one really important thing that DCS needs to add overall to their "models" is the idea of a "mission" kill, and morale.

 

For ground troops that's fairly easy, set some criteria in a tank if its damaged that the crew just bails on the vehicle, no tanker is gonna stay in tank thats a mobility kill or has its main systems knocked out, its a coffin at that point. Or if infantry are getting CBU'ed they will break and run at some point etc.

 

For a ship model, you basically need the big systems modeled, and knocked out, and then damage control. I mean modern warships might not sink immediately (or sometimes they will very quickly). But pretty much even 1 hit from something like a harpoon on DDG is mostly gonna put it out of the fight/greatly reduce its effectiveness until damcon can fix things. 

 

If you look at a ship for a system of systems approach you pretty quickly can identify ship X has search radars XYZ, Track radars for missiles ABC, 2 launch cells etc. If the search radar is knocked out its blind (for stuff like phased arrays, this could be broken down by "arc") and so forth. I mean its not a small effort, but at this point its a single "block" model, with HITPOINTS. And at 50% damage it stops doing thing X. Surely ED can do better. And really its down to a template for the damage control, once you build 1 DDG you more or less have built em all for a certain era, or at worst you need a few different "damage model types". 

  • Like 2

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
26 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah, I think one really important thing that DCS needs to add overall to their "models" is the idea of a "mission" kill, and morale.

 

For ground troops that's fairly easy, set some criteria in a tank if its damaged that the crew just bails on the vehicle, no tanker is gonna stay in tank thats a mobility kill or has its main systems knocked out, its a coffin at that point. Or if infantry are getting CBU'ed they will break and run at some point etc.

 

For a ship model, you basically need the big systems modeled, and knocked out, and then damage control. I mean modern warships might not sink immediately (or sometimes they will very quickly). But pretty much even 1 hit from something like a harpoon on DDG is mostly gonna put it out of the fight/greatly reduce its effectiveness until damcon can fix things. 

 

If you look at a ship for a system of systems approach you pretty quickly can identify ship X has search radars XYZ, Track radars for missiles ABC, 2 launch cells etc. If the search radar is knocked out its blind (for stuff like phased arrays, this could be broken down by "arc") and so forth. I mean its not a small effort, but at this point its a single "block" model, with HITPOINTS. And at 50% damage it stops doing thing X. Surely ED can do better. And really its down to a template for the damage control, once you build 1 DDG you more or less have built em all for a certain era, or at worst you need a few different "damage model types". 

The real question is knowing Eagle is how much would the chance of seeing either increase if we got Combined Arms II and Fleet ops? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The real question is knowing Eagle is how much would the chance of seeing either increase if we got Combined Arms II and Fleet ops? 

 

Yeah, IDK, their whole product development "strategy" is a total mystery/hodgepodge to me. I assume there is one, I just stopped trying to understand it. 

 

  • Like 3

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
1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah, IDK, their whole product development "strategy" is a total mystery/hodgepodge to me. I assume there is one, I just stopped trying to understand it. 

 

I'm not sure if they have one at times. As I keep saying theF-86, I-16 and MiG-15  mean that we need at least some WW II red assets. The Marianas make it important for Eagle to work on ships  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean the f86/15 were amongst the first new modules in DCS, whatever plan they had then has changed significantly. I actually liked the historical peers they were doing for a while, but that all went out the window with the hornet. 

  • Like 1

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
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Modern (2000s+): Basically needs some FF modern "red" multiroles, unlikely to happen soon or fast. Also needed are actual modern air defenses, most of what we have for "modern" defenses are from the 80's or early 90's.

 

This time-frames are great idea, i saw many similar posts in the past.

 

There is one problem with post 2000 period: it doesn't feel authentic at all. It's all about AMRAAM and AMRAAM is not realistic, and it will never be realistically modeled in open software because it's strictly classified, especially guidance unit with it's code and algorithms, ECCM etc. And when AMRAAM is fiction all post Cold War air combat is fictional. Some arbitrary numbers.

Another problem is there will be no Russian or Chinese realistically modeled "modern" fighter. Not at all or total made up unrealistic fiction if community will be pushing hard enough.

We can safely forget about S-400, Patriot PAC-3 or AEGIS having anything in common with the real devices as well, not at all or total fiction with ~10% of it's real capabilities.

 

And the selling point of the DCS is realism.

 

But overall i agree more specific time-frames in DCS where every module would be specified as fitting one of the periods is fantastic and refreshing idea. Especially seeing DCS growth.


Edited by bies
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

I mean the f86/15 were amongst the first new modules in DCS, whatever plan they had then has changed significantly. I actually liked the historical peers they were doing for a while, but that all went out the window with the hornet. 

The F-teens had to be done, but they could have done early versions so they would be contemporary with the Russian planes they could legally do. I always figured they could have kept things late cold war. That horse has long left the barn but they still need to look at the older assets.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

19 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Later Cold war (70's/80s): This period is mainly currently viable due to the FC3 modules but could be good to go fairly rapidly by the inclusion of a few FF modules, ironically mostly on "bluefor". Also most of the AI ground assets are generally good enough for this period, we have 2 excellent historical maps (syria/cauc), and on "adaptable" map (PG)

 

Current planeset: FF: F5E/Mig21bis/Mig19, F14A and then FC3: A10A, F15C, Mig29's SU27's, Su25's. 

Pending planeset: Hind, Mirage F1 (70s'/80s),  Mig23, Mig29A, Early F14A's,  A7E (late 80s version most likely), A6E (late 80s/early90s version most likely), Kfir (70's+), G91R,  F8J crusader, (maybe Su-17/22 teased). SeaHarrier (teased), mirage 3 (teased)

 

And Mirage-2000C, Viggen, Huey, Gazelle


Edited by kseremak
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, kseremak said:

 

 

And Mirage-2000C, Viggen, Huey, Gazelle

 

 

Oh yeah.... oops

4 hours ago, bies said:

 

This time-frames are great idea, i saw many similar posts in the past.

 

There is one problem with post 2000 period: it doesn't feel authentic at all. It's all about AMRAAM and AMRAAM is not realistic, and it will never be realistically modeled in open software because it's strictly classified, especially guidance unit with it's code and algorithms, ECCM etc. And when AMRAAM is fiction all post Cold War air combat is fictional. Some arbitrary numbers.

Another problem is there will be no Russian or Chinese realistically modeled "modern" fighter. Not at all or total made up unrealistic fiction if community will be pushing hard enough.

We can safely forget about S-400, Patriot PAC-3 or AEGIS having anything in common with the real devices as well, not at all or total fiction with ~10% of it's real capabilities.

 

And the selling point of the DCS is realism.

 

But overall i agree more specific time-frames in DCS where every module would be specified as fitting one of the periods is fantastic and refreshing idea. Especially seeing DCS growth.

 

 

Yeah agreed 100%, I mean HB has trouble getting data on the Phoenix for example. And I don't think much of the "modern" aspect of DCS is at all well done. They shoulda stuck to the 80's, plus in that era you had some differentiation of airframes, i.e. unique selling points for each one. Now its like oh which "look" do I prefer, since they all carry mostly the same weapons and TGP's and do the same-ish stuff.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

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
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, bies said:

 

This time-frames are great idea, i saw many similar posts in the past.

 

There is one problem with post 2000 period: it doesn't feel authentic at all. It's all about AMRAAM and AMRAAM is not realistic, and it will never be realistically modeled in open software because it's strictly classified, especially guidance unit with it's code and algorithms, ECCM etc. And when AMRAAM is fiction all post Cold War air combat is fictional. Some arbitrary numbers.

Another problem is there will be no Russian or Chinese realistically modeled "modern" fighter. Not at all or total made up unrealistic fiction if community will be pushing hard enough.

We can safely forget about S-400, Patriot PAC-3 or AEGIS having anything in common with the real devices as well, not at all or total fiction with ~10% of it's real capabilities.

 

And the selling point of the DCS is realism.

 

But overall i agree more specific time-frames in DCS where every module would be specified as fitting one of the periods is fantastic and refreshing idea. Especially seeing DCS growth.

 

 

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Oh yeah.... oops

 

Yeah agreed 100%, I mean HB has trouble getting data on the Phoenix for example. And I don't think much of the "modern" aspect of DCS is at all well done. They shoulda stuck to the 80's, plus in that era you had some differentiation of airframes, i.e. unique selling points for each one. Now its like oh which "look" do I prefer, since they all carry mostly the same weapons and TGP's and do the same-ish stuff.

 

 

If I had been in Katya's shoes I would have tried to keep a 1991 cut off point at least for the F-teens. It's too late for that now, so that leaves Eagle with the simple question of what to do now.  I would love to have older versions of the F-teens, since we have the Syria map, the Mig-21 Bis and Razbam say's they are working on the MiG-23  I think an F-15 and F-16A modules would be great for that map.  There are rumors about an early model/ export MiG-29 in the works. I think the best answer for the lack of modern Red air would be to just put what they can as AI assets and focus on the older periods. From what I see the Truman and Regan eras should both be high on their list. 

If we ignore ships, we have a good selection of bluefor from the World war II asset pack we just need Redfor assets and a period map I would look at Korea and Germany.

I think we basically have the Regan era except for the older F-teens at least the Tomcat more or less fits except for the AG weapons. I would really like to see them work on Naval assets and could we have a 1980s Iowa class-battleship? 


Edited by upyr1
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

 

 

If I had been in Katya's shoes I would have tried to keep a 1991 cut off point at least for the F-teens. It's too late for that now, so that leaves Eagle with the simple question of what to do now.  I would love to have older versions of the F-teens, since we have the Syria map, the Mig-21 Bis and Razbam say's they are working on the MiG-23  I think an F-15 and F-16A modules would be great for that map.  There are rumors about an early model/ export MiG-29 in the works. I think the best answer for the lack of modern Red air would be to just put what they can as AI assets and focus on the older periods. From what I see the Truman and Regan eras should both be high on their list. 

If we ignore ships, we have a good selection of bluefor from the World war II asset pack we just need Redfor assets and a period map I would look at Korea and Germany.

I think we basically have the Regan era except for the older F-teens at least the Tomcat more or less fits except for the AG weapons. I would really like to see them work on Naval assets and could we have a 1980s Iowa class-battleship? 

 

 

Yeah, woulda shoulda coulda. I Think they got caught up in the idea of making the most modern possible. And it sold well. But tbh, I think it woulda sold well regardless if it was a 91 version or 05. And now they have issue of selling the older model which will likely sell less well since everyone would have paid for an upgrade, but likely fewer people will pay for a downgrade. 

I'll also add that if we had the 91, it would be done by now and with better fidelity most likely as it has less "fancy" stuff. And then they could charge like 30 bucks more for a decently done 2005 version with "fancy stuff".

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 5

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
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah, woulda shoulda coulda. I Think they got caught up in the idea of making the most modern possible. And it sold well. But tbh, I think it woulda sold well regardless if it was a 91 version or 05. And now they have issue of selling the older model which will likely sell less well since everyone would have paid for an upgrade, but likely fewer people will pay for a downgrade. 

Sadly that's a big problem. If the price is right I'll buy an older version. I figure right now the best way to get the older versions to sell would be to bundle pack them with the newer. 


Edited by upyr1
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/3/2021 at 8:38 PM, Harlikwin said:

The problem with the Naval assets is the fact they are barely modeled. The current naval modeling is basically trash and I'm trying to be kind. They seriously need to rethink the whole naval model into where are radars A B C D located and how are they damaged? Same thing for SAM and CIWS positions. I don't think we even have assets from anything older than the 80's for the most part. The only naval asset I want to see in DCS is a new carrier or two UNTIL all the other naval problems are sorted. Its pointless to add them if the modeling is garbage.

 

Absolutely this.

 

We aren't just missing the assets themselves, it's everything else for them. The RADAR modelling, the damage modelling, the physics modelling, the AI, aircraft operations (apart from the Supercarrier), EW and ASW. Even basic stuff like getting the ammunition right or even just getting the ship variant consistent.

 

I could go on and on for ages.

 

The whole naval environment could do with a major rework. There's also stuff like keeping new models to consistent quality (for instance the masts on the Pr. 636 Improved Kilo look quite a bit better than the Type VIIC U-Flak).  


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Absolutely this.

 

We aren't just missing the assets themselves, it's everything else for them. The RADAR modelling, the damage modelling, the physics modelling, the AI, aircraft operations (apart from the Supercarrier), EW and ASW.

 

Even basic stuff like getting the ammunition right or even just getting the ship variant consistent.

 

The whole naval environment could do with a major rework. There's also stuff like keeping new models to consistent quality (for instance the masts on the Pr. 636 Improved Kilo look quite a bit better than the Type VIIC U-Flak).  

 

Yeah, mainly I'd love to see things like engage air only or engage surface only as options in the ME, since its kinda annoying that they always do both when you don't necessarily want them to. 

  • Like 2

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
3 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah, mainly I'd love to see things like engage air only or engage surface only as options in the ME, since its kinda annoying that they always do both when you don't necessarily want them to. 

 

Even better - a controllable weapon release authorisation setting, such as what CMANO does, where you can configure whether or not a weapon (and how many rounds it should fire) against certain contacts.

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Even better - a controllable weapon release authorisation setting, such as what CMANO does, where you can configure whether or not a weapon (and how many rounds it should fire) against certain contacts.

 

Don't go getting all crazy now.... 

 

I'd just want to simulate shooting down an A/C, vs then automatically deciding to start WW3 by trying to sink the carrier it came from. 

  • Like 2

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...