Other 4th Generation Blocks F-16V / F-21 Block 70 and F-18E/F Super Hornet Block III

[ghost7o3]

Good Day DCS World Developers,

 

I wanted to say thank you for all the hard work on developing DCS world into a very immersive experience.

 

I have an idea and wish list Item that I wanted to ask for the DCS World Community.

 

Since the creation of 5th Generation Community based Aircrafts are science fiction in DCS world due to Classified materials, I wanted to know if it would be possible that we as players can get more advanced 4th generation aircraft in addition to the F-18C and F-16C Block 50 as DLC upgrade Modules.

 

For instance, users who own the F-18C Module or F-16C Module can purchase additional Blocks of each airframe as DLC addons, which come along with the detailed cockpit, avionics, weapons, and features of their respective airframes. 

 

It would be nice to see for future F-18 DLC development, the F-18E/F Block III and for the F-16 multiple DLC addon blocks to include block 52, also the block 70 for both the F-16 V Super Viper, F-16 IN Viper, and F-21 Super Viper with all advanced cockpits, radar funtions known to spec based off of known wiki sources, complete operational avionics suite, All availble ALQ ECM Jamming POD and ALE Counter Measures suites, along with current deployable weapons loadouts and other features these airframse have to offer.

 

Please take this Wish List topic serious DCS Team and make our virtual dreams come true. We really appreaciate you for all your time, hardwork, development, hours of coding, and effort going into such a great authentic digital combat flight simulator.

 

Highest Regards.

 

Virtual Viper and Hornet Driver Ghost

[Killshot0597]

F/A-18E/F Block III, F-16 Block 70 are way too new, the F-21 is only a concept so far afaik. I'm sorry for bursting your bubble on this, but let's try to not wish for something that we can't possibly see as modules in the next 20 or 30 years. You said so yourself that 5th generation aircraft are still classified and so these modern upgrades to 4th generation aircraft will be a no-go for the same reason. 

I know this is a wish list but let's try to keep things realistic at least.

That being said, I'd love the idea of "DLC upgrades" but for other older variants. Problem with this is development time for one modern fighter module takes so long as it is, and I'm not talking about release into early access. I'm talking about full completion of the module. Then I'd say ED and or 3rd parties can potentially make DLC of older variants once the module is complete. 

An idea I've had for a while now is ED could sell a module as an airframe. Let's say an F/A-18 Legacy module, it'd have the base price of 79.99 as it is now. When you add it to your cart the website would let you choose what variant you are interested in, be it A, C or D. Then you can later on buy the remaining variants for maybe 9.99 USD a piece. Alternatively you could buy it all together as a bundle for a slight discount. Without the discount it would've costed 109.97 USD. With a discount maybe it'll cost 105.99 USD instead. I'd pay for that.

[upyr1]

No, if we get any more f-teens they need to be a or first gulf War era c models.

On 8/11/2021 at 4:05 AM, KIllshot0597 said:

F/A-18E/F Block III, F-16 Block 70 are way too new, the F-21 is only a concept so far afaik. I'm sorry for bursting your bubble on this, but let's try to not wish for something that we can't possibly see as modules in the next 20 or 30 years. You said so yourself that 5th generation aircraft are still classified and so these modern upgrades to 4th generation aircraft will be a no-go for the same reason. 

I know this is a wish list but let's try to keep things realistic at least.

That being said, I'd love the idea of "DLC upgrades" but for other older variants. Problem with this is development time for one modern fighter module takes so long as it is, and I'm not talking about release into early access. I'm talking about full completion of the module. Then I'd say ED and or 3rd parties can potentially make DLC of older variants once the module is complete. 

An idea I've had for a while now is ED could sell a module as an airframe. Let's say an F/A-18 Legacy module, it'd have the base price of 79.99 as it is now. When you add it to your cart the website would let you choose what variant you are interested in, be it A, C or D. Then you can later on buy the remaining variants for maybe 9.99 USD a piece. Alternatively you could buy it all together as a bundle for a slight discount. Without the discount it would've costed 109.97 USD. With a discount maybe it'll cost 105.99 USD instead. I'd pay for that.

If people who bought the C when it was alone qualify for the discount then I am for this. but get the older versions first

Edited August 12, 2021 by upyr1

[SkateZilla]

Classified,
Classified,

Classified.

[Northstar98]

The modules as they exist currently are probably the latest and greatest feasible to do, and personally I don't really see the point - I don't need an even more modern aircraft just to engage 80s/90s REDFOR stuff.

Especially seeing as the F-16V, with its AESA RADAR - phased array RADARs don't exist in DCS, and our current mechanical RADARs, especially in terms of EW, still need a fair amount of work.

Personally, I like the idea, but I think we should go backwards, not forwards. So that we have BLUFOR aircraft that are peers of REDFOR aircraft that are actually doable, even if it just means earlier C models.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[F-2]

I think the block 60 is the basis of the F-21 and actually more capable then the 70, not sure if you could get documentation or not though. It’s almost 20 years old, but it exists in a weird place as a UAE aircraft that Lockheed is allowed to market on the condition the UAE gets a cut. The super hornet block iii is likely too new and apg-79 is widely thought to be too classified to reproduce in a sim. A block 1 or early 2 super hornet with apg-73 is widely thought possible, though it’s debatable if it’s different enough from the hornet to be worth it.

[SkateZilla]

Firstly:
F-21 is a Indian Variant of the F-16V Block 70/72, Designed by Lockheed Martin and Built by Tata Adv. Systems.

Definitely Classified. Not Seeing Either F-16V nor F-21.

F/A-18E/F Block III, Most Definitely Classified, You will not be seeing an accurate representation systems wise anytime in the next 2 decades.
Block I Lots are "do-able", they share roughly 85% Commonality with a Legacy Lot 20 Airframe,
But if you look at capability, it's actually a downgrade vs F/A-18C Lot 20, due to A2G Ordinance restrictions and transonic drag.
Block II Early Lots are the same as Block I, Block II Later Lots are classified as those lots incorporate expandability to Growler Airframes and numerous new systems.

E/Fs were designed to continue to grow the Boeing Hornet Suite in a new airframe w/ Space for new systems, Late C/Ds were running out of space internally for some of the systems that are now part of the super hornets.

It takes the Hornet Design, and expands it's capability and survivability, but the transition from C/D to E/F initially lost some A2G Capability until newer Systems replaced the old ones.

Edited August 23, 2021 by SkateZilla

[Tank50us]

31 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Firstly:
F-21 is a Indian Variant of the F-16V Block 70/72, Designed by Lockheed Martin and Built by Tata Adv. Systems.

Definitely Classified. Not Seeing Either F-16V nor F-21.

F/A-18E/F Block III, Most Definitely Classified, You will not be seeing an accurate representation systems wise anytime in the next 2 decades.
Block I Lots are "do-able", they share roughly 85% Commonality with a Legacy Lot 20 Airframe,
But if you look at capability, it's actually a downgrade vs F/A-18C Lot 20, due to A2G Ordinance restrictions and transonic drag.
Block II Early Lots are the same as Block I, Block II Later Lots are classified as those lots incorporate expandability to Growler Airframes and numerous new systems.

E/Fs were designed to continue to grow the Boeing Hornet Suite in a new airframe w/ Space for new systems, Late C/Ds were running out of space internally for some of the systems that are now part of the super hornets.

It takes the Hornet Design, and expands it's capability and survivability, but the transition from C/D to E/F initially lost some A2G Capability until newer Systems replaced the old ones.

 

 

It was also designed to solve some of the Legacy hornets issues. But again, as awesome as it would be to have the Super Bug, it's just not feasible to model it 1-1 like we can with other aircraft. The information required just isn't there like it is for other planes.

 

Ergo, as I've said before, either the militaries, governments or manufacturers release the data needed to make these planes, or, the player base is just going to have to accept that features will be missing from the plane and its capabilities.

[Furiz]

What we need in regards to modern  jets is more EU, Russian, Chinese jets etc... So we can have balance, all we have atm is US jets and a Pakistani JF- 17.

Rafale, Gripen, EF2000 (on the way), Russuan SU and MiG around 2005 would be great, so we can make good modern conflicts.

[Furiz]

On 8/12/2021 at 11:24 PM, Northstar98 said:

 I don't need an even more modern aircraft just to engage 80s/90s REDFOR stuff.

 

Its not about what you need.

You are posting in every thread about modern jets always with the same story. You have posted in almost every thread that is mentioning modern jets to say how you dont need modern jets.

 

We get it, you dont like modern stuff, thanks, bye.

[SkateZilla]

He/She might not like modern stuff, but RedFor Modern is pretty much out the window due to information lockdown laws in most of those countries.

American/NATO/Joint stuff might get to 2005ish, but I doubt you see any MiG/Su Aircraft past 1980.

[Northstar98]

On 8/23/2021 at 11:48 PM, Furiz said:

Its not about what you need.

But it is about what you need? Or does this just apply to me?

On 8/23/2021 at 11:48 PM, Furiz said:

You are posting in every thread about modern jets always with the same story. You have posted in almost every thread that is mentioning modern jets to say how you dont need modern jets.

Yes, believe it or not people are allowed to voice their opinions here Furiz. You're more than welcome to go through everything I've ever posted, and respond saying that you couldn't disagree more and think that I'm a doo doo head, and so is everyone else - be my guest.

And I personally not liking modern stuff isn't the reason Furiz... Firstly, look at my signature - I own most of them, and secondly, you can even see that in your quote of my reply! But nope, you just straight up ignore it.

My main gripes with this modern stuff is the following: peer adversarial aircraft are almost certainly not going to happen in the near future (classification and legal issues), these aircraft take years and years and years to get finished, in some cases even after axing features they should have, as evidenced by every single one of them so far apart from the JF-17 (heck the Mirage is just becoming feature complete 6 years after release, and most of the improvements only came after direct involvement with the AdA, and that thing is v. late 80s/early 90s), they're less feasible to infeasible to develop in the first place owing to classification, as well as missing core functionality and the era as a whole being poorly fleshed out compared to others.

You on the other hand ignore all that, especially when it comes to the fact that peer REDFOR is basically off the table at this point, you post over and over again telling us why we need modern REDFOR stuff, and when anyone tells you that it's almost certainly not happening, you ignore it and carry on.

I mean seriously, the latest REDFOR jet that's on the plans is a 9-12 MiG-29 from the early 80s, and even that is in a 'hope-to' state that isn't confirmed... So why do you think that asking for the latest and greatest MiG-29s, Su-30s and Su-35s is a realistic request?

On 8/23/2021 at 11:48 PM, Furiz said:

We get it, you dont like modern stuff, thanks, bye.

Yes and we get it, you think modern stuff is the only stuff worth doing and reality be damned if it's possible or not, or if it will ever get fleshed out. Thanks bye!

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
spelling

[Tank50us]

37 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes and we get it, you think modern stuff is the only stuff worth doing and reality be damned if its possible or not, or if it will ever get flushed out. Thanks, bye!

 

meanwhile someone like me will welcome just about any aircraft into DCS, regardless of the era it was built, or even if it was built at all in the real world. Why? Because I like diversity in my DCS, and I want DCS to have as much content available to the general public as possible so that there's something for everyone. Does someone like WW1? I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to buy the planes that will make them happy. Does someone like to fly around in armed-up X-Planes? I don't see a reason not to include such aircraft since many of them were based off of existing planes anyway, so adding systems and such would just be a matter of adapting it to the new aircraft.

 

This is ultimately the great thing about DCS being such an open platform for development. ED doesn't have to do the balancing act of "Will it sell?" when it's not their time and dime on the line. And given how passionate the 3rd Party devs are about their projects, you can count on the aircraft or module in question being of top-notch quality. And to that end, I say this: If a team wants to make any of the aircraft listed here, and has the clearance needed to make them, then go right ahead. Do it right, and there will be someone who will throw money at you the moment it's announced, no matter what the aircraft is.

[sirrah]

10 hours ago, Furiz said:

 

Its not about what you need.

You are posting in every thread about modern jets always with the same story. You have posted in almost every thread that is mentioning modern jets to say how you dont need modern jets.

 

We get it, you dont like modern stuff, thanks, bye.

 

Well, I think @Northstar98 is allowed to share his opinion here just like you are. He even used the word "personally" a few times to emphasize that he's sharing his own opinion.

 

It's not his fault that people seem to lazy (sorry, but yes, it gets a bit annoying) to use the forum search and start a new thread every single week where they ask for obviously classified aircraft (or some exotic prototype for that matter).

 

[twistking]

On 8/12/2021 at 11:24 PM, Northstar98 said:

[...]

Personally, I like the idea, but I think we should go backwards, not forwards. So that we have BLUFOR aircraft that are peers of REDFOR aircraft that are actually doable, even if it just means earlier C models.

 

I agree. Going backwards should make development a little bit easier too, so such a module could be offered at a big discount.

[Furiz]

3 hours ago, sirrah said:

 

Well, I think @Northstar98 is allowed to share his opinion here just like you are. He even used the word "personally" a few times to emphasize that he's sharing his own opinion.

 

 

Yea ofc he is allowed like everyone else, that's what the forum is for,

but what he does is spam, jumping on every thread about modern jets to post the same story over and over again. Just look at the modern jet threads, he posted in every single one of them with always the same story and then ends up with we need more cold war jets..., I read those threads, he is spamming. That's why I quoted him.

[Northstar98]

On 8/24/2021 at 2:29 PM, Furiz said:

Yea ofc he is allowed like everyone else, that's what the forum is for,

but what he does is spam, jumping on every thread about modern jets to post the same story over and over again. Just look at the modern jet threads, he posted in every single one of them with always the same story and then ends up with we need more cold war jets..., I read those threads, he is spamming. That's why I quoted him.

Oh, but it's completely fine for you to do the exact same thing? Repeat the same story that we need modern European stuff, and modern REDFOR stuff in every thread about it, regardless of how many times you get told that (especially for the latter) is pretty much completely off the table?

And when people ask for the same thing, over and over again, they're going to get a similar response, over and over again. This isn't anything new, it isn't even unique to this. So what's your problem exactly? That people disagree with you and you want them to shut up? What difference does it make if the same person does it or not? The same overall message is getting conveyed - who does it makes no difference whatsoever.

I bet if I agreed with your position, you wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[Furiz]

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Oh, but it's completely fine for you to do the exact same thing? Repeat the same story that we need modern European stuff, and modern REDFOR stuff in every thread about it?

 

And when people ask for the same thing, over and over again, they're going to get a similar response, over and over again - this isn't anything new, it isn't even unique to this, so what's your problem exactly? That people disagree with you and you want them to shut up?

 

 

I started doing it when I noticed that there is few of you constantly spamming threads with same stuff over and over again. There isnt a thread where you guys havent responded with your own agenda.

OP speaks about variants of modern jets and you start with how we need cold war stuff...

 

anyways we are offtopic here,

 

I only disagree with OP cause altho we need more modern jets we don't need variants of the jets we have, we need other models, from EU, Russia, China etc... so we can make some good scenarios in modern era.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Furiz

[Northstar98]

On 8/24/2021 at 3:19 PM, Furiz said:

I started doing it when I noticed that there is few of you constantly spamming threads with same stuff over and over again.

And I bet if we were agreeing with you you'd want more of it. So it's more that people have opinions you don't like, and want them to shut up.

Again, if people make posts asking about the same thing over and over again, they're going to get the same responses, over and over again, what part of that is difficult?

If you went on every wishlist thread I've ever posted and said you disagree, citing some common reason, I wouldn't have a problem with it, I'll defend my position sure, but I have absolutely no right to tell you to be quiet or that you're spamming my threads, purely on the basis that you disagree with me.

And again, this isn't even unique to this:

• Same thing happened with easy AAR.
• Same thing happened with weapons not suitable on some of our aircraft.
• Same thing happened with DCS going subscription.
• Same thing happened with civilian aircraft, or non combat aircraft.

On 8/24/2021 at 3:19 PM, Furiz said:

There isnt a thread where you guys havent responded with your own agenda.

Bloody hell, it isn't my agenda, it's true that I prefer mid-to-late Cold War, but that's nowhere near the main reason why I voice my opinions, you just ignore it all, this response being a perfect example.

I'll say it again, look at my signature, apart from the JF-17 and the AV-8B N/A I own all of the modern modules, and I owned said modern modules before I started having more of an affinity for Cold War stuff.

It is basically a certainty that modern REDFOR is not going to happen in the near future, the only hope is maybe Dekka with an Su-30MKK, but it seems very doubtful, and that's based on their own statements, not "my agenda".

Take it up with Putin and Jinping and the armed forces they're in command of if you want modern REDFOR jets, and take it up with Dassault if you want the Rafale.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[Furiz]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Look, if I make a thread every other month complaining about aircraft damage models or any other long-standing issues that are WIP, and BIGNEWY, NineLine, Wags or whoever comments on every single one of them, saying: "we don't have a timeline, but it is on the plans/WIP, thanks" they're not spamming threads with their own agenda, it's like I said above, make posts asking for the same thing over and over again - get the same responses over and over again.

 

Only difference is that they are working for ED and its called public relations, they are just answering a customers question, yes with the same sentence but it is the best answer they currently can provide, when stuff change their answer will change as well.

 

How is that the same as what you do. It's not the same, you cant compare your self with them.

[Northstar98]

On 8/24/2021 at 3:49 PM, Furiz said:

Only difference is that they are working for ED and its called public relations,

And? Let's say that instead of me, one of them says it's off the table, citing the same reasons I do. They've certainly done it before, just look towards all of the APKWS wishlist threads.

Exact same thing happening, with similar responses, just different people doing it. What's the difference?

On 8/24/2021 at 3:49 PM, Furiz said:

they are just answering a customers question,

So am I...

On 8/24/2021 at 3:49 PM, Furiz said:

when stuff change their answer will change as well.

As will mine!

On 8/24/2021 at 3:49 PM, Furiz said:

How is that the same as what you do.

Your answer is above.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[ghost7o3]

Sorry for posting spam and irreleavant post. Moderators can take this thread down. I won't make any more posts or personal opinions again. Sorry for it.

[sirrah]

5 hours ago, ghost7o3 said:

Sorry for posting spam and irreleavant post. Moderators can take this thread down. I won't make any more posts or personal opinions again. Sorry for it.

Nobody's saying you can't post, or share your opinions here mate. We all do, as that's what a forum is for 

It's just that at the time of you posting this, there was quite an exact similar post literally a few threads below yours . So it was not even needed to use the forum search option.

 

But by all means, just post whatever/whenever you like and ignore this grumpy old fart 

[WRAITH]

me.. all in my little quiet space here in my room wanting nothing more and would simply be overly thrilled and celebrating the completion of the ED DCS-F-16CM Block 50 and the DCS F/A-18C OFP 13C + Super Carrier and/with ED Dynamic Campaign and World Globe.

Oh what a celebration it will be................

Edited November 16, 2021 by WRAITH

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, ghost7o3 said:

Sorry for posting spam and irreleavant post. Moderators can take this thread down. I won't make any more posts or personal opinions again. Sorry for it.

Don't feel like you shouldn't post or ask for things, and definitely don't think that you shouldn't share your opinion.

But to avoid creating duplicate threads, it might be better to try searching for it to see if something had been posted before.

2 minutes ago I posted a video that had already been posted (and it was the 2nd post above mine, to add to the embarrassment) in the official roadmap thread, because I didn't check, so don't feel bad about it.