DCS: Capabilities Gap?

Why do the battles need to be real? (Meaning actual coalition equipment). Do what’s done in real life: Red Flag it. Have F-18s, F-5s and A-10s flying is both Blue and Red, under different coalitions obviously. This way everyone get’s the toy he wants with all sticks his wings can handle.

3 Likes

Sure, but that’s kinda different from the subject at hand. I for one, really enjoy Russian aircraft. Researching and building the Su-17/22M4 for ArmA1, while difficult, was a very fun and rewarding experience. Turning around and applying that to the same fidelity level of an accurate/realistic scenario is part of the fun.

Sort of like how the helicopters are really lopsided right now and the Russians have an exceptional gunship in the Ka-50. Should we just substitute Ka-50s for AH-64s? Does that really reflect what the AH-64 brings to the table?

Doesn’t really change anything. Until you start adding in motivation to stay high, (the need to control wide swaths of air space, the need to conserve gas, the knowledge that airspace below 13,000 feet is an ocean of MANPADS), people will continue go low. If anything SARH only makes the movement towards the merge more aggressive because losing lock makes your missile entirely dumb, there is nothing screening you to run away, so your only defense is an aggressive offense. At least when you’re flying solo. Not helping things was the AIM-7 had an RMax of about 4 miles when fired below 15,000 feet until about a week ago.

For the record, this isn’t a novel idea. The 104th has been running 80’s nights for at least five years, and I can’t remember a time where Blueflag wasn’t exclusively 80s from an air to air perspective. It’s a different experience for the Eagle, but not drastically so.

The Flogger will be at a disadvantage, the MiG-19 is going to be hopelessly outclassed. If you’re flying them against Gen 4 Western fighters, you’re almost certainly well aware of this, and you’re flying because you genuinely like them. The sort of pilot who gets super defensive about his kill ratio will, I imagine, continue to opt for the Flanker. This situation exists today with the MiG-21 and F-5, and it has yet to stop anyone.

1 Like

Oh I get it. But MiG29/Flanker1,1.5,2/LOMAC/FC1,2,3,4/BS1,2,3/DCS1,2,2.5 have never had any semblance of balance. I am 50 now and was a kid when that first variation was introduced. So I am holding no hope that things will change in my lifetime. But given that DCS has never been better I want to seek ways to make best with what we have.

I am entirely with you on eastern stuff.

1 Like

As of right now I don’t see any kind of A/A capabilities gap that is not realistic to the equipment that is being fielded in DCS. Yes there is the difference between a FC3 modeled SU-33/27 and a full up DCS level western air jet in terms of capability, but probly not as much as you are thinking.

As far as weapons and sensors are concerned, its pretty much a realistic difference in capabilities compared to what you have available. Remember even if you got a full up SU-30SM or a SU27SM3 or even just a full up SU-27S variant you are still going to be limited to the weapons you are carrying right now in DCS.

R-27R/ER
R-27T/ET
R-73
and maybe R-77

So you are still going to have the same engagement limitations, and the same advantages/disadvantages.
As I see it there isn’t really an A/A capabilities gap in DCS in terms of tech, even when the Phoenix/Tomcat combo shows up, its not really a gap, remember that system came out BEFORE the R-27 family of missiles existed, so the gap was a reality, not something unique to the game.

What there is is a misunderstanding of how to employ these weapons and EXPLOIT the weaknesses of your opponents. Yes the Aim-120/F-15 combo is tough, Yes the Tomcat/Phoenix combo is tough, but guess what there are limitations in what they can do, and figuring that out, and then exploiting those limitations is all TACTICS are about.

The most important thing if you are looking for somewhere to start is is that a single jet anywhere is a target, if you are ever just going up 1 v 1 against any of these jets there really is no tactic I can give you that will give you any more than an even chance at BEST at success. Now 2 v 2 is an entirely different story, you can then maneuver and use geometry to isolate one of them and fight 1 at a time BVR or possibly get someone undetected into a kill shot.

This is the essence of tactics for red air.

9 Likes

I’m getting tired…my Geritol is wearing out…

image

3 Likes

Interesting discussion by the way. I have opinions that I’ll keep to myself because they are probably woefully ignorant and I’d rather that not be pointed out by anyone other than myself.

C’mon. All are welcome, yes indeed.

Let’s keep some “PERSPECTIVE” … this is EA GAMES HQ

This is ED-DCS Developer Team…

I have more to say but… the powers that be dictate what really happens.

However a MiG-29 and a SU-34 is in development more info on the horizon :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Will we see better balance of Blue vs Red air forces yes in time not going to be tomorrow or the day after but the foreseeable future as the sim continually develops.:thinking:

Q/? - As for the PvP or PvE sim?

Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.5 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible. This free download includes a vast mission area of the Caucasus region and Black Sea that encompasses much of Georgia. It also includes a flyable Russian Sukhoi Su-25T ground attack aircraft and the famous WWII North American TF-51D fighter. An additional more than two dozen aircraft are available for purchase.

The download comes with one of the most powerful mission planners ever designed, full network play and more than 156 AI weapons systems, 105 ground vehicles and trains, 50 air defense systems, 19 ships and 84 AI aircraft permitting you to plan and play highly sophisticated missions. DCS World is massively extensible through additional DCS modules as well as user-made add-ons and mods which you can purchase and download from our site.

DCS is a true “sandbox” simulation that is also designed to cover multiple time periods of interest such as WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War and others. Current regions to battle include the Caucasus, Nevada Test and Training Range, and Normandy 1944. New maps in development include the Persian gulf, Syria and others.

DCS World is fundamentally a deep, authentic and realistic simulation designed also to offer a more relaxed gameplay to suit the user and his particular level of experience and training. The ambition is to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator of such complex weapons systems as the A-10C Warthog or the F/A-18C Hornet. The only next step is the real thing!

Do I want something different yeah you bet but not getting it.

I have a different view altogether how a combat sim should be developed, but hey I also don’t have the millions its going to take to have a studio like EAGAMES HQ. Some things could be better done I would agree but I’m no developer either acknowledging ED-DCS source-code was developed back in 1991 and undergoing redevelopment. So it is what it is.:persevere:

2 Likes

Its ok to admit that you want a F-111 too.

Just say it with me. " Hi my name is @BeachAV8R and i would like an f-111"

6 Likes

You see here is what gets up my goat, we could easily have a DCS F-111 or any air craft with clickable cockpit’s. With the understanding that its only at a reasonable sim game level or compromises made excepting that its about lowering expectations to a more realistic approach to a combat sim development.

Example…

FSX GKS General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark

but oh well you have those that are stubborn and hard-nose snubbing at the idea of it.

Imagine a DCS B1-B…

Check out this guys channel awesome fsxtopgun - YouTube :heart_eyes:

1 Like

Even back then (2008 ish) this was only a part of EDs developers. In the last years, ED has grown considerably, they must be in the range of 100-200 people right now. They aren’t quite an industry like EA or Blizzard, but your post makes it look like they are 10 guys working out of a garage and that is certainly not the case, not now and not in 2008.

The speed at which they were cranking out F/A-18C updates in the early summer also belies the ten guys in a garage image.

It would be cool if the sim were to open up a little to user modding. But somehow making aircraft is really frakking hard as even a relatively simple jet like the A-4 scooter has taken years to gestate.

The sim isn’t per se closed, it’s simply that there are not that many people with the skillset to develop a module to DCS level and most of those work in much more lucrative fields outside the consumer game industry.

ED have never been about being reasonable. I applaud them for that. Over the years I have seen fans beg for compromises which would enhance gameplay. I have done so a bunch. They consistently resist. That to me is a sign of a good flight sim developer. The market is too small and scattered. For dev to compromise to please a vocal community within it would only invite more requests and feed a sense that the product is incomplete and lacks a soul.

I am not claiming that they are doing things right. I am only claiming that by staying focused on what they want for the product, the rest of us are able to detect a culture within the company and deal with its reatively consistent output. It molds us more than we mold it.

4 Likes

Yeah, I guess there are always other opinions, it is what it is :roll_eyes:

1 Like

I think this is critical to understanding the culture of game development. Yes, it’s important to listen to the customer because if you don’t make what they want, they’re not going to give you money in exchange for what you made. However, it’s as important to focus on what exactly it is that you want to provide. When someone has an end-goal in mind and sticks with it, staying true to what they envisioned, there’s nothing more vulnerable than that. Sometimes, by listening to every little demand, creativity gets stifled. Because at that point, something isn’t being created, it is being shaped by a committee. Sometimes that works, but more often than not, it becomes like one of those multifunction devices that attempt to do a lot of jobs at the time and ends up doing none of them very well.

1 Like

There’s nobody else doing what ED does right now while there are plenty studios churning out air combat games. Suggesting that ED should tone it down on realism won’t earn you a lot of cheers in their current customer base. :smirk:

True enough. Much of the systems and TTP (Tactics, Techniques and Procedures) are classified, by both “Red” and “Blue”. Yes, I know some different TTPs for different scenarios but won’t/can’t talk about them. Which is really for the best. No only do I stay out of prison (which I consider a plus) but Mudspikers / DCS-ers develop their own TTP based on the capabilities of the sim. Let me repeat that, based on the capabilities of the sim. That is an important point. No, we are not going to get all the modes and capabilities of high-end sim aircraft. So we work with what we do get and have fun.

…and I might add, it is superfluous. It takes 3-4 years to train a US Naval Aviator fighter pilot… Most DCS simers have jobs (myself excluded) which I assume take up most a week…nominally 40 hrs. So is one going to find the time to train to use such missiles and weapon systems effectively in all their modes? No, one is not. IMHO the goal should be for an aircraft that takes several hours to figure out how fly and fight effectively. When I read about getting in-depth with BIT checks, I roll my eyes. Yes in the real aircraft you may have to get that in-depth, but trust me, it isn’t the fun part of a fighter pilot’s day.

I recall another thread that was a discussion with a gentleman that did all kinds of aerodynamic, energy and physics calculations to get various AAM’s “just right”? I asked myself, “Why?” As we say in my Navy, “Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough” I would much rather shoot or get shot at by a missile that is in the performance “ball park” and then “Rolls the Dice” (random number x pK) for deciding the hit/no hit.

FOUO (For Official Use Only) is an administrative marking that deals more with privacy and like issues. It just means that you are not disseminate it beyond official channels…i.e. keep it at work. Example: A base phonebook may be UNCLAS FOUO…although most base phonebooks I’ve seen are woefully out of date. I think an official service record photograph is UNCLAS/FOUO, for privacy.
For technical specifications in the US there is only Classified–TOP SECRET, SECRET, CONFIDENTIAL–and UNCLASSIFIED. Yes, as some people always seem to do, there is plenty of stuff wrongly marked FOUO.

I’d buy/fly that. I love my Mig-21bis and my Viggen. The A-10C is OK (after you get by the BIT checks). What I’d really like to see is a SU-24 FENCER or better yet an Tu-22 BLINDER. (If we do get a FENCER we’l just throw a USAF skin on it and tell @Bogusheadbox its an F-111).

If by “not the greatest ever” you mean it totally psucked, then you are correct. Designed and built to intercept the XB-70 Valkyrie…and then we canx the XB-70. It can fly high and fast…and that’s about it. The Mig-31 FOXBAT was more like the F-14–a 2 seater with a RIO in the back and the longer range AA-9.

My 2 ¢: The way I see the DCS World “Spectrum”:
Single-player Mission–Single-player Campaign-Multiplayer Mission-Multiplayer Campaign-Multiplayer On-line Play.

When we discuss what we think is the best way ahead for ED, DCS, etc. I think we should keep in mind two things:

  1. What they develop is not one size fits all. The AI capability and AI platforms that I want for a Single-player Mission/Campaign, may not be needed or wanted in a Blue Flag. With the Bug they seem to be successfully navigating a mod that will work well enough across the spectrum. But even here we see initial priorities focused on further developing the A2A features–more important for most On-line server multiplayers–before A2G, which seems to figure more prominently in Missions ad Campaigns.

  2. At the end of the day ED is a company and must make commercially viable decisions. I know their priorities do to match mine (i.e. no F-4E to go up against my Mig-21…I’d go online for that). Do I like all of their decisions? No. Am I glad that they are making what they think are commercially viable decisions? You bet I am! I’d rater a DCS World that is “slightly imperfect” to my eye than no DCS World.

3 Likes

There are a lot of implementation decisions that ED has made that has prevented me from buying modules. I have the A-10C module and Flaming Cliffs 3; I haven’t bought anything since. I think I’ve fired up the A-10C module about 6 times since I’ve bought it. It simply is too complicated for me to enjoy, I don’t have the time to dedicate myself to learning the systems. I have too many demands on my time as it stands. I have flown the FC3 module quite a bit, though.

I wish that ED had offered simplifications to the platform that would allow me to get some of my money out of it. Thus far, they have not and I understand why perfectly. I’m also not angry at them for doing it, I just don’t spend any more money with them because it’s a waste. Now, it seems that ED is going to release a module very soon that is aimed squarely at my demographic (gamers in their forties who want to fly a high-performance jet without having to take classes), and I appreciate them for it. I fully plan to make Modern Air Combat a day one purchase, given the information we’ve seen about it thus far.

It isn’t that I’m angry at ED about ignoring me up to this point. My not spending any money is a sufficiently loud enough expression of my opinion. If I were ED, I wouldn’t listen to me, either. I’m not the primary target audience that DCS World was intended for; they weren’t looking at me when they made A-10C or the Hornet module. They’re probably not going to be looking at me when they get around to making the F-16, either.

And that’s perfectly cool with me.

3 Likes