Your choice of release order for the next HB modules variants

[Leviathan667]

I’ve been thinking I would rather start flying an early variant and get the upgrades in the same order RL pilots did. Also, I suspect since early variants are less complex, HB might be able to release them faster than otherwise.

 

Also, it is likely HB will make a flyable J-35 after the AI version (this is what they intend to do with the A-6). It’d be more enjoyable to fly a 60s version of the Draken in its proper setting as this was the plane’s heyday. The -J version dates back to 1985 and it was already surpassed by any modern fighter plane of that time.

 

What are your thoughts about the variants release order (and/or the Draken)?

[TLTeo]

I wish there was an option for "I don't mind either way". As long as it's a high quality DCS module, I will enjoy it.

 

Regarding the Draken, I also don't care about what variant is released, it's just too cool regardless. The only caveat is that I think it would be neat if we could have one with the RB-28/AIM-4 just to experiment how awful that missile truly was.

[Flagrum]

(deleted - made no sense)

Edited July 24, 2021 by Flagrum
screwed up :)

[Sonoda Umi]

I wanna say it again: "if someday there were an F/A-18F(Block 1) to develop, I would be extremely happy."

 

As a Tomcat/US Navy fan, F/A-18F(not Echo) should be the one of "must to fly" aircraft for me.

[bies]

Overall i agree earlier variant can come first. I enjoy the most historically relevant variant in it's prime. I.e.

 

• F-4B/C/D/J/E from 1960s / early 1970s with hard wing fighting full scale Vietnam war as US Top Dog, doing the most dangerous fighter, bomber and carrier job, able to face the most capable opposition on equal terms and with it's true atmosphere as an iconic aircraft - Great, the best choice

 

• Late F-4E from late 1970s/1980s with slats, partially replace by way more capable F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18, still used as a fighter, but already more often as a bomber, not being the top dog anymore, though still relevant especially in the Middle East - Good

 

• F-4G from late 1980s/1990s when F-4 became truly outdated aircraft, completely replace by F-14/F-15 in a fighter role and converted to SEAD, with only limited historical context and limited role - Not so much

 

• F-4 exterminator 2000 something, from 2010s etc. when F-4 was utterly hopelessly outdated and replaced by two subsequent Generations of fighters, reduced to standoff weapon carrier and zero threat environment operations, being completely out flied by basically everything in the air and with close to zero historical relevance and zero atmosphere - Absolutely not

Edited August 6, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

I'd rather start with something early and then work the way up.

 

They can lay the ground work for later stuff (much like the AGM-62 laid the ground work for the AGM-84E, which in turn laid the ground work for the AGM-84H).

 

From a finacial perspective, you'll be able to make more money, like for instance in the case of the A-10C and A-10C II, how many people would've bought the A-10C, if the newer A-10C II had been available? How many would buy a legacy Hornet, if a Superhornet was already available. I would, but I doubt many would.

 

It's easier to sell modules that are more modern, it's probably less so to go the other way around. It's a shame, but that seems to be the case.

 

But I guess it depends on the user.

Edited July 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[Home Fries]

Earlier versions may be "simpler," but not necessarily easier to model.  Take for example the A-6A vs. the A-6E.  The A-6E (I'm including the TRAM/SWIP in this discussion) could carry the PGMs and had solid state equipment (just one integrated radar), while the A model was limited to dumb bombs and the AGM-45, had two separate radars, and had a drum computer (the thing that Willem DaFoe was kicking when the bombing computer went down in FOTI, and yes, kicking the drum was a valid troubleshooting method).  

 

If we want to go with simple development, I imagine it would be a lot easier to model the E systems with the single radar and solid state equipment.  Having to model the two radars and the interlocks/interconnects, as well as the drum computer would likely be much more difficult.  When it came to the pilot's VDI, the drum computer was so slow that the pilot looked less at the altitude AGL, but rather the rate of change of the altitude AGL.

 

Personally, I would be happy with an A-6E with a base loadout to begin with.  You still get the 90% experience of the A model, albeit with a faster DIANE processor and no pilot radar repeater since it's no longer two radars.

Edited July 27, 2021 by Home Fries

[xvii-Dietrich]

I prefer typical variants or more-widely-used variants, than any special, best or last versions. So, I'd go for a J35F (incl. J35FS) in the first instance. But, really, any J35 Draken would be good; it is such a cool plane.

 

Once there's a flyable J35, HB can move onto their other projects

[Hummingbird]

A J-35F2 would be really cool.

 

[Northstar98]

On 7/27/2021 at 10:47 PM, Home Fries said:

Earlier versions may be "simpler," but not necessarily easier to model.  Take for example the A-6A vs. the A-6E.  The A-6E (I'm including the TRAM/SWIP in this discussion) could carry the PGMs and had solid state equipment (just one integrated radar), while the A model was limited to dumb bombs and the AGM-45, had two separate radars, and had a drum computer (the thing that Willem DaFoe was kicking when the bombing computer went down in FOTI, and yes, kicking the drum was a valid troubleshooting method).  

 

If we want to go with simple development, I imagine it would be a lot easier to model the E systems with the single radar and solid state equipment.  Having to model the two radars and the interlocks/interconnects, as well as the drum computer would likely be much more difficult.  When it came to the pilot's VDI, the drum computer was so slow that the pilot looked less at the altitude AGL, but rather the rate of change of the altitude AGL.

 

Personally, I would be happy with an A-6E with a base loadout to begin with.  You still get the 90% experience of the A model, albeit with a faster DIANE processor and no pilot radar repeater since it's no longer two radars.

 

Well with A-6E, the option is more between baseline, TRAM, WCSI and SWIP. Personally, I think the better direction is to start off with a baseline A-6E, then the TRAM, then the WCSI and then the SWIP, obviously though, I'm assuming doing all 4 of them are on the table, which I wouldn't count on.

 

Or say to do an F-16CJ Block 50D (or even an older F-16C), then doing a CM Block 50, for instance.

 

At the moment, I'm not interested in A-6A regardless, and for a number of reasons.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Northstar98

[Leviathan667]

On 7/27/2021 at 5:47 PM, Home Fries said:

Earlier versions may be "simpler," but not necessarily easier to model.  Take for example the A-6A vs. the A-6E.  The A-6E (I'm including the TRAM/SWIP in this discussion) could carry the PGMs and had solid state equipment (just one integrated radar), while the A model was limited to dumb bombs and the AGM-45, had two separate radars, and had a drum computer (the thing that Willem DaFoe was kicking when the bombing computer went down in FOTI, and yes, kicking the drum was a valid troubleshooting method).  

 

I understand why certain early versions could be more difficult to simulate in DCS. Thanks for your knowledgeable answer. If we consider a plane like the J-35 though, it does not seem to be the case that  early variants would be more complexe, save maybe for one system: the navigation radar (probably a doppler system). Do you have any clue about the level of complexity this kind of system would entail?

[TLTeo]

15 hours ago, Leviathan667 said:

Do you have any clue about the level of complexity this kind of system would entail?

Likely the same level of complexity as the Viggen's and G-91, seeing as they also use one.

[Leviathan667]

On 7/29/2021 at 12:20 PM, TLTeo said:

Likely the same level of complexity as the Viggen's and G-91, seeing as they also use one.

This has been a revelation for me. I had never thought ternav was based on a doppler nav radar

Edited July 31, 2021 by Leviathan667

[TLTeo]

1 hour ago, Leviathan667 said:

This has been a revelation for me. I had never thought ternav was based on a doppler nav radar

 

Ternav is not the doppler nav radar, it's the update to it that makes it take automatic fixes to avoid drift as long as the radar altimeter is working, and it's from the 90s. The doppler radar is from way before then, it was introduced with the Viggen itself in the 70s. Much older jets had doppler nav radars as well - some variants of the F-100, the F-105, the A-4E off the top of my head.  In fact, at the time the F-104G having an INS instead was an exception (and a fair improvement, the INS produces less drift generally).

 

so yeah, tldr, there's nothing particularly remarkable in doppler nav suites that can't be done in DCS, given that it's doable even with lua in a (very good) community-based mod, so that really isn't something that would stand in the way of any of those old Cold War modules.

Edited July 31, 2021 by TLTeo

[Northstar98]

Is the doppler navigation system a similar deal to the DISS-15 as used in the Mi-8 and Mi-24?

[TLTeo]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Is the doppler navigation system a similar deal to the DISS-15 as used in the Mi-8 and Mi-24?

Yep, same idea