No Newer Red Side Aircraft to compete with the advancing capabilities of the Blue Side Aircraft

[Blackhawk NC]

Is it just me or does it seem that DCS World is quickly becoming a PVE game? We continue to see development of more advanced and capable aircraft for the Blue side but never any newer aircraft for the Red side. When the Eurofighter is introduced, it will only add to the imbalance. We have now resorted to just letting some traditionally Blue aircraft ,like the Viper, fly on both sides. This has resulted in basically Hornets and Tomcats against Vipers. The JF-17, while very capable, is plagued by missile and avionic bugs that regularly spring up and are very slow to be corrected. The SD-10 is a newer more advanced missile but for some reason underperforms even aim-120b missiles in most encounters. Meanwhile the AIM-120c missiles seem to get regular performance improvements. The SU-27 doesn't even have a FOX 3 missile available. The J-11 carries R-77 missiles that can barely leave the rail before starting to slow down. The R-73 missiles outperform the R-77. With each new addition, DCS World becomes less and less enjoyable for players that like the Red Side aircraft. While the recently added Hind helicopter is fun to fly, it adds very little to the game. The Black Shark had many of the same capabilities. We constantly hear squawking about lack of information that prevents Red Side aircraft development, I feel that many logical ASSUMPTIONS about aircraft and weapons performance have been included in the development of Blue Side systems. Yet for some reason we can't cant hang an SD-10 or Chinese equivalent on mainstream J-11s and include them in most multiplayer Servers. We can't make player to player datalink work on the SU-27 or J-11. Those improvements would be less than authentic and we can't have that. We can't model an R-77 that is even slightly effective. But we can make the AIM-120c and the AIM-54 track golf ball size maneuvering targets from 100 miles away after the guiding aircraft has turned and fled. By the way, in real life combat, did the AIM-54 ever really kill a single fighter sized maneuvering  target? I'm not so sure it did. Our Navy never did. I think they tried twice and both missiles missed their mark. So much for authenticity.... I"M JUST SAYING....

[Exorcet]

DCS is a PVE game allegedly. Balanced MP was never really advertised, you're just given the ability to fly your modules with other players.

 

However balance is possible with mission design. Not every mission needs a Eurofighter and not every Eurofighter needs Meteors. Red side, if you're going to have all modules in the mission, needs some advantages. They should be on the defensive and behind a massive IADS network and probably have more player slots as well.

 

As far the red side being gimped, I don't see it. Su-27/J-11 are FC3 modules so of course they're worse than other fighters (but I agree they should make DL work online). The SD-10 is actually better than the 120C kinematically, and the R-77 hasn't been given a CFD overhaul yet. The real AIM-54 has hit multiple maneuvering targets, and a sample size of two doesn't really tell you anything.

[Hawkeye_UK]

@Blackhawk NC "The JF-17, while very capable, is plagued by missile and avionic bugs that regularly spring up and are very slow to be corrected. "

 

Of all the modules the JF17 is the one that is the least buggy and trouble free and certainly when there are issues Deka are way way faster than ED or any other third party supplier in bringing out updates.  Look at how the JF17 was released, nearly feature complete and then the monthly change logs after release, those guys didnt stop and to be fair they are an example of how a module should be released.  I think you should reconsider your statement as its really not based on reality.

 

THE SD10 also im not sure what your doing wrong with it but its one of the most capable ingame if used correctly, not to mention the JF17's all seeing radar and DTT far outshines any bluefor aircraft.  I know i play alot of MP with 18/16/JF17 modules on a highly competative PvP server which has very skillful players (well the regulars).

 

"But we can make the AIM-120c..............track golf ball size maneuvering targets from 100 miles away after the guiding aircraft has turned and fled"  Im really not sure how you are locking up a fighter at 100 miles in the F18 or F16, we must be playing a different game.  Sorry you need to base your statements on fact or your points loses all credability.

 

On the basis that we need more FF redfor aircraft i completely agree, however given the geopolitics of ED its not going to be likely.  Put your money on Deka being the ones to bring further modules of balance.  I'd expect a FF Mig29 in the next 18 months from ED but this would be an early A version no doubt.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Hawkeye_UK

[Northstar98]

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

Is it just me or does it seem that DCS World is quickly becoming a PVE game?

 

According to ED, SP is the dominant game mode people play.

 

But with the AI in the way that it is? Not a chance.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

We continue to see development of more advanced and capable aircraft for the Blue side but never any newer aircraft for the Red side.

 

That's because developing peer, modern REDFOR aircraft that are contemporaries of current (and future BLUFOR aircraft) is basically a non-starter, due to factors outside of our's, or ED's control.

 

Personally though, I see it less as REDFOR being too old, rather I see it as BLUFOR being too modern. Personally, I think developing BLUFOR aircraft to just be the latest and greatest possible is kinda a shot to the foot when you consider the rest of the game. If developers had chosen earlier (say 80s/90s) variants of the same aircraft, this would be far less of a problem.

 

Unfortunately the ship has sailed, and given that more modern variants exist, I think it's unlikely that we'll get older variants, and they probably wouldn't do too well financially.

 

Whereas, had they started off with an earlier variant, and then offer paid upgraded variants (in exactly the same fashion as the A-10C), it would've been better for the game as whole and it would be more comprehensive, while potentially allowing them to make more money.

 

Want do I think? I think that the best course of action by far, is to offer older BLUFOR aircraft that will fit with REDFOR aircraft that are actually feasible to make, and so far, the latest fixed-wing REDFOR aircraft is a 9.12 MiG-29 [NATO: "Fulcrum A"] from the early 80s, and even that is a 'hope to' and not confirmed - there's certainly no timeline for it.

 

Past that, the latest full-fidelity, fixed-wing REDFOR aircraft we have so far, is the MiG-21bis from the early 70s. Meanwhile, the latest full-fidelity fixed-wing BLUFOR is from the mid-ish 2010s - a roundabout 45 year age gap, the same age gap between the introduction of the very first F-4 Phantom II and the F-22A Raptor.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

When the Eurofighter is introduced, it will only add to the imbalance.

 

Yep, especially with things like Meteor, a 2016 missile, and first became operational on the Typhoon in 2019 AFAIK (though RAF Typhoon, and IIRC it was operational on the Gripen first).

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

The JF-17, while very capable, is plagued by missile and avionic bugs that regularly spring up and are very slow to be corrected.

 

The JF-17 isn't even a classically REDFOR aircraft, all of its operators are GREENFOR.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

The SD-10 is a newer more advanced missile but for some reason underperforms even aim-120b missiles in most encounters. Meanwhile the AIM-120c missiles seem to get regular performance improvements. 

 

AFAIK (which isn't much), its performance should be approximately that of the AIM-120B.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

The SU-27 doesn't even have a FOX 3 missile available.

 

Because it doesn't IRL, ED are pretty terrible at naming things precisely, but the Su-27 we have is actually an Su-27S [NATO: "Flanker B"] or in other words, the first production variant for the VVS, circa mid 80s.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

The R-73 missiles outperform the R-77.

 

ED are supposed to be reworking all missiles to the standards set by the AIM-120, it's just that progress is very slow.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

With each new addition, DCS World becomes less and less enjoyable for players that like the Red Side aircraft.

 

I guess so, but it would be more enjoyable if there were contemporary BLUFOR aircraft, right now the only truly Cold War BLUFOR aircraft is the F-86F from the 50s and the F-5E-3 from 1972.

• The Mirage 2000C, at the very earliest, is technically from 1989 (RDI, Super 530D), Cold War was basically over by then.
• The current F-14A/B is technically late 90s-early 2000s (LANTIRN), though without LANTIRN it's a mid 90s aircraft at the earliest (AN/ALR-67), Soviet Union had broken up by then. There is an early F-14A which should be appropriate for the 80s, up to the mid 90s.
• The AJS 37 is also mid 90s, though you can sorta approximate an earlier AJ 37 with weapons restricting.

This is excluding the C-101, though we do have 3 Cold War Mirage F1s in development, as well as an A-6E, A-7E, F-8J, an earlier F-14A and a Fiat G.91R (hopefully I haven't missed anything).

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

While the recently added Hind helicopter is fun to fly, it adds very little to the game.

 

I absolutely love flying the Hind, and it may well be my favourite helicopter (well the Mi-24V is anyway).

 

But it would add more if there was a comprehensive experience for it, right now DCS is basically a mile-wide but an inch deep, where we have aircraft spanning 70-80 years, but pick any one decade and there's not much at all, in fact what is easily the most flushed out and comprehensive era is WWII, with roughly equal numbers of BLUFOR and REDFOR modules of similar quality, 2 dedicated maps with a 3rd in development and a dedicated asset pack, as well as several new features and improvements (searchlights, working submarines, torpedoes).

 

That said I personally think it would've been better to stick to a Soviet Hind instead of mid 90s and beyond Russian Hind, which is kinda out of its depth. Then again, if you don't take Ataka (which isn't implemented yet) then you've got the same thing, just missing Lipa (though we don't have many SAMs that it can counter anyway).

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

The Black Shark had many of the same capabilities.

 

The Ka-50, simply by virtue of having a laser beam-riding missile, with an EO system with full ground stabilisation makes it more capable in the anti-tank role.

 

But what you've got to remember is that the Hind isn't a true attack helicopter, like the Apache, it's more like an older version of an MH-60L DAP or a more capable UH-1.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

We constantly hear squawking about lack of information that prevents Red Side aircraft development

 

Yes, and from where I'm standing the 'squaking' seems to be accurate.

 

I think there's a reason why the only place where you see very modern REDFOR aircraft (and I guess some BLUFOR aircraft too), is Ace Combat, and maybe some lite sims like SF2. Where the only thing that's accurate is what it looks like.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

I feel that many logical ASSUMPTIONS about aircraft and weapons performance have been included in the development of Blue Side systems.

 

[citation needed]

 

And just because something may be an assumption, doesn't automatically mean it's inaccurate. If the assumption is justified then it's fine, especially when data is sparse.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

Yet for some reason we can't cant hang an SD-10 or Chinese equivalent on mainstream J-11s and include them in most multiplayer Servers.

 

Our J-11 isn't an J-11B, it's essentially an Su-27SK (an export Su-27S) given a Chinese livery and R-77. And I'm not even sure it should have R-77.

 

Only the J-11B and above AFAIK have PL-12 (which is the native designation of the SD-10), and that's quite a bit different to what we have.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

We can't make player to player datalink work on the SU-27 or J-11. Those improvements would be less than authentic and we can't have that. 

 

Well, I'm not expecting improvements to simplified aircraft, FC3 in the first place was essentially LOMAC FC2 ported and upgraded (as far as graphics and flight models go) to DCS.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

We can't model an R-77 that is even slightly effective.

 

The R-77 is due a CFD rework, but in general it's inferior to the AMRAAM, that seems to be realistic.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

But we can make the AIM-120c and the AIM-54 track golf ball size maneuvering targets from 100 miles away after the guiding aircraft has turned and fled.

 

Golf ball sized targets?

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

By the way, in real life combat, did the AIM-54 ever really kill a single fighter sized maneuvering target? I'm not so sure it did.

 

Depends who you ask.

 

The Iranians have claimed 62 kills, and the Phoenix was tested successfully against fighter targets. This is an argument that really needs to be put to bed.

 

On 7/29/2021 at 1:36 PM, Blackhawk NC said:

Our Navy never did. I think they tried twice and both missiles missed their mark. So much for authenticity.... I"M JUST SAYING....

 

Oh yes, because a sample size of 3 is good statistics. And out of the 3, 2 of them had dud rocket motors...

 

If this is what we base missile performance off of then I guess the AIM-9X should also be terrible, seeing as the only time (to my knowledge at least, someone correct me) it's been fired it missed.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Northstar98

[near_blind]

Just out of curiosity, what are you expecting? Assuming 'balance', the Russian aircraft that would be in service against a 2005 Hornet and a 2007 F-16 would be a Su-27S. In fact it would be the same Su-27S we have in FC3. The upgraded Su-27SMs didn't exist in anything other than one or two off prototypes until 2010, and even then they were just entering squadron service in limited numbers. The Su-35S wouldn't be a deployable thing until around the Russian intervention in Syria around 2015. A handful of Su-30s existed in the 90s, but they were closer to a two seater Su-27S than the Indian and Chinese commercial variants and their derivatives. Russia itself wouldn't actually domestically acquire the fancy version until the 2010s. MiG-29 development also kind of cratered: the MiG-29M technically exists in 2005, but no one seems to want it, so do with that what you will. 

So if you want a contemporary fighter to the current western options, you can choose between: The Su-27 we have, the Su-33 we have, the MiG-29 we have, an export Su-30 (good luck getting the technical details), or an upgraded MiG-29. All of these except the export Su-30 will also be shooting Alamos, because Russia didn't think the R-77 was worth spending extra money on.

If I were you, I'd go ask China to bestow the blessings of J-10s and J-8IIs upon us. 

[nighthawk2174]

11 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

If this is what we base missile performance off of then I guess the AIM-9X should also be terrible, seeing as the only time (to my knowledge at least, someone correct me) it's been fired it missed.

 

It has been used a few more times than that against some drones and the SU24 shot down by the turks was with a 9x.

[Northstar98]

On 7/29/2021 at 4:36 PM, nighthawk2174 said:

It has been used a few more times than that against some drones and the SU24 shot down by the turks was with a 9x.

 

I stand corrected.

 

But even so, basing a missile's performance off of such a puny number of shots is just silly, and with the Phoenix, the arguments just need to be put to bed.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Northstar98

[nighthawk2174]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I stand corrected.

 

But even so, basing a missile's performance off of such a a puny number of shots is just silly, and with the Phoenix, the arguments just need to be put to bed.

agreed

[sthompson]

25 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

in fact what is easily the most flushed out and comprehensive era is WWII, with roughly equal numbers of BLUFOR and REDFOR modules of similar quality, 2 dedicated maps with a 3rd in development and a dedicated asset pack, as well as several new features and improvements (searchlights, working submarines, torpedoes).

 

 

Not to mention bomber formations and flak.

[Tank50us]

OK... dude... I get it... but seriously: Formatting is a very useful thing.

 

Now, balance belongs in War Thunder, not DCS. These aircraft are built to win wars, and in a war, if you're 'fighting fair', you're fighting stupid. Ergo, you go in with every conceivable advantage you can give yourself, or you will lose. You might still lose even with that (just ask 1945 Japan), but at least you have a chance to win, vs no chance at all.

[Bloodlet]

Agree with OP, Redfor does seem to need more competitive aircraft. I am still fairly new to DCS so maybe the balance is there and I don't see it. I do know that in most Blue vs Red servers hardly anyone seems to fly red so that tells me something. The poster above me referenced War Thunder where up until recently I spent most of my time. Beyond other issues I won't go into here, one of the things that has bothered me is that they have implemented ahistorical matchmaking where you constantly have basically the same aircraft fighting each other. Part of the reason I came to DCS is I expected more realism. Sure it's there in flight models and switchology but I expect it in the PvP department too so you can have reliably balanced Nato vs. Warsaw Pact type servers. I am aware of the Cold War and Korea Servers but feel that some semblance of balance should be maintained throughout the timeline.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Bloodlet

[5ephir0th]

11 hours ago, Bloodlet said:

Agree with OP, Redfor does seem to need more competitive aircraft. I am still fairly new to DCS so maybe the balance is there and I don't see it. I do know that in most Blue vs Red servers hardly anyone seems to fly red so that tells me something. The poster above me referenced War Thunder where up until recently I spent most of my time. Beyond other issues I won't go into here, one of the things that has bothered me is that they have implemented ahistorical matchmaking where you constantly have basically the same aircraft fighting each other. Part of the reason I came to DCS is I expected more realism. Sure it's there in flight models and switchology but I expect it in the PvP department too so you can have reliably balanced Nato vs. Warsaw Pact type servers. I am aware of the Cold War and Korea Servers but feel that some semblance of balance should be maintained throughout the timeline.

 

Let me tell you something: DCS has nothing to do with War Thunder. War Thunder is a multiplayer arcade game, DCS is a single player (or cooperative) focused flight simulator, theres no balance and theres no needed. The multiplayer on DCS is an AddOn, not the base of the game.

 

It will be great if theres more high fidelity russian planes? Of course! I´ll kill for a Flanker family module, i have the Black Shark II and i bought the Hind cause i want some "soviet like" cockpit.

 

In other hand, if you fly online on a Navy Hornet against an Iranian Tomcat, the time the 14 appears on RWR you know you will outranged insanely by radar and missile range but you cant call for balance, thats the way war works

[Northstar98]

6 hours ago, 5ephir0th said:

Let me tell you something: DCS has nothing to do with War Thunder. War Thunder is a multiplayer arcade game, DCS is a single player (or cooperative) focused flight simulator, theres no balance and theres no needed. The multiplayer on DCS is an AddOn, not the base of the game.

 

I don't disagree by any means, but I think there should be 'balance' but only in the sense of having aircraft fighting their contemporaries.

 

This is why I think we should preferably stick to the mid-to-late Cold War, where the Soviet Union is more of a peer adversary.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Northstar98

[5ephir0th]

12 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I don't disagree by any means, but I think there should be 'balance' and only in the sense of having aircraft fighting their contemporaries.

 

This is why I think we should preferably stick to the mid-to-late Cold War, where the Soviet Union is more of a peer adversary.

 

 

The thing that people have to take in mind is that there must be a Flanker, or Fulcrum, or whaterver they want high fidelity, not for balance "like War Thunder" but just cause we want it. People may think "well, in the end is the same" but is not, doing things by balance way is a dangerous approach for any serious simulator, we start asking for counterparts for balance and then we will start by "nerf that radar or missile, is OP!"

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, 5ephir0th said:

The thing that people have to take in mind is that there must be a Flanker, or Fulcrum, or whaterver they want high fidelity, not for balance "like War Thunder" but just cause we want it. People may think "well, in the end is the same" but is not, doing things by balance way is a dangerous approach for any serious simulator, we start asking for counterparts for balance and then we will start by "nerf that radar or missile, is OP!"

 

Oh I absolutely agree we shouldn't be 'nerfing' or 'buffing' any particular system or RADAR, the only thing we should do is make them more realistic.

 

But I'll still maintain that the only balance there should be is having aircraft that fight their peers (ideally within ±5 years), and I don't agree that one will cause another.

 

For me it's not even about balance per se, more just having a simulator that's more coherent, and not the mile-wide, inch deep thing that it currently is, it's just that an element of balance (if you can call it that), is a side effect (well, depending on the era you choose).

 

This thread goes into a bit more detail.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Northstar98

[DD_Fenrir]

I fail to see what the point of yet another one of these discussions is.

 

A whole host of the community would love to see high fidelity Non-western hemisphere aircraft, both as operator and adversary. 

 

But how many times do ED have to say their hands are tied? Given the demand from the community do people actually think ED deliberately choose not to develop modules that would clearly sell? Do people actually believe this lack of Redfor HF DCS module arises out of some spite or bias?

Edited July 30, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all,

 

we have said many times to get the clearance and detailed public information for Redfor jets is difficult, we are well aware of the desire and the need, sadly reality gets in the way. We have mentioned in the past we would like to do the Mig-29 but we can not confirm it yet, we remain hopeful.

 

Feel free to discuss, it has been done many times, but please keep the discussion of other sims out, their play styles and plane sets are no factor in our decision process. We want to be as realistic as possible and balance on the battlefield is not something we are working towards, producing the most realistic aircraft is what we aspire to. 

 

thanks

[Harker]

We want to be as realistic as possible and balance on the battlefield is not something we are working towards, producing the most realistic aircraft is what we aspire to.

Well said, that's what DCS is all about.

[bies]

Simple solution: add F-16A and F/A-18A - voilà!  Issue solved!

 

Then we would have Cold War NATO vs Warsaw Pact the same timeframe 1980s both REALISTIC and BALANCED at the same time: 

 

MiG-29A and F-16A/F-18A, 

Mi-24P and Gazelle M/Bolkov-105,

Su-25A and A-10A, 

MiG-21bis and F-5E,

Su-27S and F-15C,

Su-17M and A-6E/A-7E,

MiG-23MLA and Mirage F.1/F-14A

Mi-8 and UH-1,

L-39 and C-101,

MiG-19 and F-8J

and so on.

All reasonably realistic, declassified, possible to model for both sides (no US Navy vs. USAF spAMRAAM), with attractive close skill-based gameplay, mostly manual weapon employment and all the sexiest 4th generation airframes.

Edited July 30, 2021 by bies

[killkenny1]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

We have mentioned in the past we would like to do the Mig-29 but we can not confirm it yet, we remain hopeful.

 

No, please, I beg you, don't take away 9.12 from us...

Everyday I wish for a 4th generation full fidelity Soviet/Russian jet in DCS. Even a very old 9.12 would mean a lot to me...

 

 

And people who say that 90's should have been a cutoff year for DCS I completely agree. Or modules like F/A-18 and F-16 should have been developed in two stages - early variant + upgrade to modern variant. That way for people who want to play competitive MP in DCS there would be such an option. Even with restriction the F/A-18 and F-16 are too modern for the end of the Cold War era.

[bies]

18 minutes ago, killkenny1 said:

No, please, I beg you, don't take away 9.12 from us...

Everyday I wish for a 4th generation full fidelity Soviet/Russian jet in DCS. Even a very old 9.12 would mean a lot to me...

 

9.12 from 1980s is way sexier than 2000s SMT. 29 SMT is overweight, it has lower T/W, higher wing loading, lower acceleration, slower sustained turn, slower climb rate. 

It only has better avionics but this is totally classified so it would has to be totally fictional anyway.

 

Plus 9.12 was operated the by half of the world and extensively used in combat when SMT is just a curio with low priority even is Russia.

[killkenny1]

8 minutes ago, bies said:

 

9.12 from 1980s is way sexier than 2000s SMT. 29 SMT is overweight, it has lower T/W, higher wing loading, lower acceleration, slower sustained turn, slower climb rate. 

It only has better avionics but this is totally classified so it would has to be totally fictional anyway.

 

Plus 9.12 was operated the by half of the world and extensively used in combat when SMT is just a curio with low priority even is Russia.

 

I agree, SMT looks fugly. But some SMTs were sent to Syria, so theydid see some limited combat.

When talking about MiG-29 I would love an M variant or an OG K varian, new K being my ultimate MiG-29. But it will never happen.

[kseremak]

50 minutes ago, killkenny1 said:

 

I agree, SMT looks fugly. But some SMTs were sent to Syria, so theydid see some limited combat.

When talking about MiG-29 I would love an M variant or an OG K varian, new K being my ultimate MiG-29. But it will never happen.

 

Agree. M and K are proably even lot more classified than SMT as they are more modern than Viper and Hornet we have in DCS... We can safely forget about them for the next 2 decades or so.

(M and K are not the best looking in my opinion because they have only 2-seat canopy even in 1-seater probably due to lack of founds to develop two separate fuselage/canopy sets and 2-seat canopy is too big for such small airframe, it looks a bit like a trainer)

 

I'm more than happy with a Soviet classic lightest 9.12 with concave fuselage without humpback, this one is a rocketship

[killkenny1]

42 minutes ago, kseremak said:

 

Agree. M and K are proably even lot more classified than SMT as they are more modern than Viper and Hornet we have in DCS... We can safely forget about them for the next 2 decades or so.

(M and K are not the best looking in my opinion because they have only 2-seat canopy even in 1-seater probably due to lack of founds to develop two separate fuselage/canopy sets and 2-seat canopy is too big for such small airframe, it looks a bit like a trainer)

 

I'm more than happy with a Soviet classic lightest 9.12 with concave fuselage without humpback, this one is a rocketship

 

M (9.15) was before SMT. It was developed in 80ies and already had some MFDs. Its cockpit looks pretty cool - for me it is a perfect combination of digital and analogue instruments. OG K (9.31) was based on M. They were both single seaters and featured some cool weapons for the time.

 

M2 (aka MiG-35) on the other hand is based on new K/KUB (9.41/9.47). They feature a 2-seat canopies for unification purposes, with extra fuel tank instead of a second pilot seat on a single seat variant.

 

[dawgie79]

This discussion is just beaten to death already. And you guys are discussing about it like DCS is a game. Which it's not. It's a study sim, in which there is a multiplayer option. In a way every aircraft in DCS is a sim in itself, they all just live under the umbrella that is called DCS World.

 

At least that's how I see it.