In time there will probably be MAC versions of the Hornet and the Viper.
3 Likes
I really hope that someday, ED will entertain the notion of doing study-level send up of the Fulcrum and Flanker to give the hardcore guys an OPFOR to the Hornet and Viper. I think either one would sell very well, but I’m sure there are certain things that have to be taken into consideration that probably would prevent that from ever happening.
There are others that would also do quite well, I think. I think someone’s mentioned the Fitter, for example. Those are extremely tough aircraft that would be well-appreciated. I also like the idea of the Flogger getting some attention, I understand it was one of the scariest aircraft in the world to fly. And I think I may be echoing what others have already said, but anything older than that would suffer mightily at the hands of the Hornet and Viper, not that airforces don’t use those old aircraft anymore. If you look at it on paper, the BLUFOR side has an edge. I know that ED has a vision in mind, and we’ve just said that they should stick to it, but I can clearly see the OP’s point.
1 Like
For those of you who find the high-fidelity modules too difficult/time consuming in DCS, do you play with hot starts or air starts over cold starts? Would you prefer a system that is a bit more complex than pressing a key to start but less than in-depth BIT checks?
We’ve gone off tangent from my original question, but the thread has roused up some interesting observations and opinions. I’ve been thinking more from the scenario design perspective, so presently I’m wondering what will happen when blue strike assets mature? That is, will red be forced to come up and meet blue outside of the hills when blue has a better capability to attack from greater distances and altitudes? At present time, I tend to do this anyways, since my scenarios almost always incorporate a threat layer to force aircraft to stay above 10kft or risk being shot at. The online environment, despite scenarios incorporating this threat, still has players hugging the deck and risking aircraft… Even when there is no red air to intercept or theatre SAMs to hit them from high! I’ve even done this with the venerable Su-25T, which while having short legs, still operates better when one respects low altitude AAA. Being fair, it’s also very easy in many of these scenarios to find and engage the enemy, though not always.
Related to that, what happens if we start getting reconnaissance assets in place? I believe the F-14 will be coming with TARPS and the Viggen includes an ELINT pod now, so that would also be a great boon depending on how the scenario treats them. If these aircraft can, for example, reveal the location of red assets on the map and give precise data as exactly what the assets are, that represents an extreme tactical advantage. Heck, the F10 map as it is technically a great asset, as players can mark the map and share information with others on it. Can we build multiplayer scenarios where this is effectively taken into account? In a singleplayer campaign environment, that could be easily done.
Essentially, is the current environment built in such a way that gives advantages to the Su-27 and MiG-29 as presently modeled, simply due to scenarios designed in that way?
1 Like
I prefer the hi-fi modules usually, but I also normally go with a hot start, preferably on the runway. Starting up something like the A-10C from C&D is something I don’t like messing with. AC with a reasonably fast startup that don’t require a ton of switch flicking (looking at you MiG-21) like the F-5 and the Viggen I don’t mind a startup as much. I am not a fan of taxing just for taxing sake. If there’s something go on, I’m in a time crunch etc, sure, but beyond that it’s the aircraft equivalent of navigating out my neighborhood to go to work every morning, and is about as exciting.
1 Like
The original post intentions questions and concerns are being answered but it was always a loaded question by nature. As we are talking about the entire history and flight sim development and community now dismantled, very sad / disappointed and thats what some forget only thinking of what they want. What exactly do you do with some fidelity models where there is no balance of forces or a world map to fly in so on. What I am trying to convey is how it would work best, covering everyone’s needs and interest but for those that want total air craft fidelity only and not thinking about game play development from a Air War perspective have failed to acknowledge the greater picture by not having a world map, dynamic campaign system, other military aircraft even at an FSX type level implementation as illustrated in above posts the sim lacks the battlefield scenario where one could live in a virtual world of air combat environment. Its not just about Blue vs Red available aircraft model fidelity and its systems. Its more about incorporating some of everything and for the dev’s to make compromises where they cannot source the material for fidelity air craft but at least not sacrifice the level of game-play functionality in real application of what is an Air War scenarios where immersion of air power and ground forces Air-Land-Sea is an integral part of the sim and game or else whats the point. Where it should be about ATO and OOB (Air Tasking Orders and Order of Battle Planning). For those that say no we disagree, is only a selfish outlook on what we could have as Air War combat Sim. Think of it as a game of Chess all the right pieces that function in the correct way, I mean we have arcade games that function this way like Ace Combat, HAWX and many other game types show casing what or how things are played out in real life but at a virtual game level for fun and enthusiast not forgetting ARMA clans 
If anything to make a point the only product that still rings a bell was Microprose Falcon 4.0 they hit the standard of how it should be… is there hope for future of air combat sims sure as long as there are devs that are willing, but I think compromises should be made now before to late and bring back the numbers that we had say back in 2011. if not and the powers that be say not then end this market once and for all. Since the mid 90’s we’ve all been dreaming and voicing online what we want now we have video game engines that are outstanding but less flight sims. It makes me boil and feel sad… i rather see the sim market just fade away into oblivion. I have enjoyed all sims and in my own way the fidelity, the theaters, the missions the basic entry level air craft from many sims online and single player but its all become so frustrating to follow and be a part of and every month i read the same posts over and over again… where is it all going and what do the developers want to achieve, is there enough community left? Whats the point developing so much fidelity air craft for the few left in community? It is also getting more costly than before with less on offer? I have a 3TB hard drive full of sim stuff that is all outdated by modern gaming standards. I personally have decided no more until there is change, if ever. As to some other points addressed in thread well some of those points are for the powers that be to decide what we the flight sim community get, if anything anymore, some say you still get plenty to have fun. No not really hence this thread and so many other discussions posted every month and why 80% of the community has left the scene or at least sitting on the fence. Its all been discussed to death by others anyways. Sometimes things don’t just comeback or remain an interest and the market just fades away and on that note I say no more!
Perfection is the enemy of good enough
I am one of those wwii fans which have been waiting for years on wwii content like aircraft and radars. But I do own a few modern modules.
But I have been wondering why the DCS developers don’t start out by developing and selling more basic modules and resell the same aircraft later in advanced version when there are sufficient marked for it. I would have thought that it would generate content faster.
East vs West
System integration and automation have been inherent in westen aircrafts since the 60ties. My experience from Falcon 4, is that it is a two edged sword. You have to know why it works as it do, in order not to bit by it. While it complicate delivery of air to ground, I find it very easy to use in air to air.
The east block aircrafts seems require a very different approach. More manual, less options, simpler but also harder to break when manhandled.
It would be nice to see both the Viper and the Mig 29.
3 Likes
TLDR; press enter a few times bro! sheesh. take a breath.
4 Likes
LoL I do this when I am on my monthly 
@RAZZOR, I don’t speak for anyone else, but here is why you are getting pushback from me: I have been pecking away on flight sim forums and bulletin boards (Yes, bulletin boards) for years and years. And the prediction of the dying flight sim has been a continuous stream almost from the beginning. What I think I have learned is that whether the predictions are right or wrong, there is no solution. The reason combat flight sims were so common in the early days is that they were believable even on the low powered machines at the time. Everyone knows what it looks like to walk through the woods with a gun. So simulating that in 1992 to anyone’s satisfaction would be impossible. But practically no average Joe really knew what it looked and felt like to be in a circle fight with at MiG-21. The player was free to use his imagination to supplement the bad visuals. The experience of looking real was replaced by complex systems and tactics to make it feel real. Those fans from the 90’s and their children today now have the whole world at their fingertips. An explorer of a rich corner of the Milky Way, a mid-fielder for Everton, a machine gunner in Afghanistan, etc. It’s all there and no one needs flight sims anymore except us few remaining nerds who still can’t get enough. And the way I see it, our faithful band of developers are continuing to make the experience better and better despite the limited numbers. None of them are millionaires. Few of them are “thousand-aires”. The do it because they are nerds like us. If I sound like my head is buried in the sand, well its not, but I get why it may look that way. Be happy with what you have and be confident that they know the market far better than you ever will.
10 Likes
I know this thread has meandered, and I’ve followed it with wonder, but the main thing I’m seeing is a lack of funding.
To that end, I have NO PROBLEM paying a monthly membership fee or stipend to learn these jets and rotorcraft, and give their developers a steady income stream that they can then use to fund further investments in code, sandboxes, campaigns, realism, all of that.
I also have no problem with different levels of immersion or complexity, but yeah - migrating towards full detail has really taken me to new levels of appreciation for the work done, both in the sim and in real life. I’m completely surprised that we don’t have WW2 levels of shoot-downs in the real world. It makes all of the pilots, on both sides, true professionals.
IMHO, at the end of the day, the developers want to “achieve” a paycheck. If they put out trash products, nobody will buy them = no paycheck. If they try to make something too complicated, only a few will buy it = small paycheck.
I liked the level of complexity in LOMAC and FC1. It got me into the air and fighting. The graphics were great, etc. It was fun.
At the same time also like the complicated models. I do start my A-10C from D&C. OK, I learned a lot of it from the FSX Iris A-10…but by the third time, I had it down. I find that fun too. I can also start my Mig-21 in less than 2 minutes - yes lots of switches but its all “on, on, on, on…” Is that fun? In a way yes. If one wants to make it more fun, have an adversary airstrike inbound to your base…maybe 4-5 minted out…pressure=fun.
Amen. I still recall the wailing and grinding of teeth when MS announced it was killing its MSFS line. Yet here we are, almost a decade later, with more FSX add-ons than one can stick a shake at.
Returning to the original “theme” the high fidelity western models vs the FC3 fidelity of modern eastern aircraft…I’m not sure that’s a problem.
If I have to go through a complicated check list and make sure I’ve got my switchology right for an AIM-120 shot in my Bug…while my adversary is pretty much a lock and shoot with his AA-10ER…I’d say he has the advantage. Sure, when that ALAMO blows off part of my jet, I’ll have a comprehensive list of damaged systems to ponder on while I reach for the ejection handle, and he won’t if my AMRAM flies true.
As we float down in our respective parachutes we will both have the satisfaction knowing we had fun, each in his own way. 
2 Likes
Yeah I would say right now that at least in the Russian modules that we have a hairs chance of getting full fidelity (that ED have stated over and over that they would love to do and plan to do at some point if they can) such as a base line Mig-29A/Su-27S you will probly actually get less functionality than you have in FC3 versions right now. For example, to fly them realistically, all that stuff that you can have mapped to the HOTAS, for controlling your radar and weapons systems, most of that is actually on the control panel to the upper left of the instrument panel, very similiar to the Mig-21’s weapons control panel.
About the only HOTAS thing you can do in the baseline flanker/fulcrum is slew your TDC and designate.
For more modern versions, (Su-27SM and above, anything more advanced than the mig-29’s we have in game right now) that start having more modern cockpits and systems, good luck with that, as already discussed it is highly unlikely the Russian government will let anything more detailed than an FC3 module at best be made/released for the sim.
All of this is just so you can understand what exactly you are asking for, a full fidelity Mig-29 or Su-27 will not in any way reduce the “Capability gap” that is currently in DCS. It may in fact increase the perceived “capability gap.”
I honestly think that getting any more modern Eastern aircraft/equipment in DCS at a high level of fidelity is going to be an exercise in futility given that the countries that are producing them (Russia/China) are in the middle of rebuilding and saber rattling their military in a way that hasn’t happened since the end of the cold war. The free for all and political laissez faire of the nineties in that regard that allowed a lot of the awesome data we have (and frankly an awesome sim like Flanker 1/2.0/LOMAC to be made) is gone and probably wont be coming back anytime soon.
In case you haven’t kept up with development process of things like the F-14 and other aircraft, or in particular IASGATG’s missile research, the level of detail and documentation required to make a full fidelity DCS aircraft goes beyond what you can normally get through googling. For example, If you wanted to make one of the various versions of an F-4, you will need to get ahold of the weapons manuals for that aircraft, not just the performance/tech data that you can get by just googling F-4 flight manual.
To get those you first need to determine if it is even something you CAN get ahold of, some parts of it may still be classified, so you have to dig that data up, from there you may have to do a Freedom of information act request (all of this is assuming you are a US company) to see if you can get it unclassified. IF copies of it even exist in government/company records and they are willing to release them. If it doesnt and its unclass then you have to start digging through the world of collectors and other means of getting the data.
Remember all of this for a highly proliferated, out of service, US aircraft that is considered Obsolescent, if not obsolete at this point in history. I have no idea what the process is to start acquiring similar data for Russian aircraft.
And this is just so you can start to build a radar or system display that has appropriate switchology and symbology to what the real thing has. I’m not even talking about doing things like figuring out what the radars detection/track/lock capabilities are, or any kind of weapons release data. That would be an entire other set of problems to figure out.
All of this being said I would love to see any of these aircraft in DCS and would fly any of them full fidelity, as would a lot of people, even if it is the baseline versions. Reference previous post about tactics and capabilities and exploiting your opponents.
One advantage we have/can have in DCS is you have access to both sides equipment fairly easily, so we know what the limitations of both the AMRAAM and the R-27ER in DCS are. We know what the limitations and capabilities of the F-15 and SU-27’s radars in DCS are. You don’t have to rely on an assessment based on incomplete data to figure that out, all you have to do is hop into DCS and fly your opponents jet (if you own it) and you can start developing tactics to counter it and its systems.
14 Likes
Again personally I have no problem with your and others opinions, thats all good and true and we each take what we want and enjoy.
However that is not capturing the entire picture and truth on the matter as an entire community on wants, desires or wishes posted in various other Forums going back years now and even on the opinion of topic
Q/? - " DCS Capabilities Gap - Perhaps it’s just more of a case of poor scenario design instead of a capabilities gap?" … that gets more complicated as you take into consideration all the impacts and effects to make a good Bluefor vs Redfor sim experience.
Most statements are made from a personal accommodating perspective and level of entertainment that you maybe satisfied with, without considering the wider community audience or the extent of the discussion.
The question raised, answers its own curiosity, if I may, to put it that way for purpose of clarity!
Anyway we cannot change things but the merit is worthy of a discussion from a wider perspective I believe.
In simple we have an F/A-18 and a SU-33 with unfinished systems to enjoy as opposing air power what develops from there remains to be seen from a systems and game-play scenario and continued development.
One could be just happy and smile but the one who acknowledges and understands the depth of what we could have desires more of course, right!
Just to add i’m a tactical type player so I love and enjoy all the facets of immersive DACT or Combined Arms game-play from a sims perspective where Link-16 is thoroughly enjoyed! I don’t fight wars on my own as a virtual pilot i love the depth of interaction as systems come to play. 
What else really makes virtual air war more interesting than a 360 experience. thats the fun part…but i have exhausted the point I think 
1 Like
All good points. No argument from me at all.
I guess that I have spent too many years feeding real Link-11and Link-16 to really want to go through all the technical steps to get them working in a cockpit. That part isn’t fun for me…it’s too much like my old work. True I was working it from the other end, but it’s kind of a “busman’s holiday” as it were.
But give me a FA-18 SA MFD screen that just works…without my having to enter any codes and the like…and I’m a happy camper.
3 Likes
I only have my own perspective, which is that the Harrier and Bug both are pretty simple and straightforward to startup. There is a bit of time consumption for some things like setting up the nav, but as modeled they don’t feel too overwhelming.
The Mirage on the other hand…
I’d always seen DCS as being a hardcore type sim and even poked fun at it on occasion for being so stringent. It was a big question many people asked when we were building the AH-64D for ArmA2, asking us why we wouldn’t make it for DCS. The answer we gave was that it wouldn’t be hardcore enough and ED had very high standards which we wouldn’t be able to meet. As an example, the FCR was really just a mechanism that took targets and filtered them down to whether or not they could be seen by the radar; there was no scanning or terrain mapping or anything like that (we did entertain the idea of implementing some terrain mapping modes but they would have been too scripting intensive as well as difficult to squeeze in our visual framework). We could fudge a lot of things because we weren’t looking to get absolute precision, just good enough.
When we went into Take On Helicopters, the expansion of flight dynamics (even though that had its own problems) was nice but what really sealed the deal was a native setup to handle things like engine starts. The mechanic we used in ArmA2 was just a way to make it a bit more complex, but in TKOH we could actually make it pretty realistic. We still didn’t bother with things like BIT checks, boresighting, etc. though that was more due to the strain we were putting on the scripting engine. If I were going to do it that way though, I’d probably make a toggle like we did for complex starts, so one could do things in the standard fashion if so desired while retaining most of the functionality.
There’s actually a lot of data for all kinds of systems out there and behavior is pretty well known, so one can make a very accurate estimation of things like CMWS, ECM, missile guidance and behavior, etc. – problem is, this isn’t backed by hard data. For example, AGM-114 SAL missiles having a LOBL and LOAL mode – technically, they’re always LOAL. The data suggests that there’s a difference but there really isn’t. In terms of system modeling, it’s basically just telling the sensors to make sure the laser is there before firing. The same is true of the AGM-114L: it doesn’t really need the FCR to be guided, as all the FCR really does is pass some info to the missile about what the FCR sees in regard to all the little finicky bits. Without the FCR, all it means is that other sensors provide the data to the missile instead and it’s a little bit less precise because of the lack of specific target data, but if anything is within the general vicinity of where the missile thinks the target is at, whatever is there is gonna be the target.
The point of the above? I’m probably wrong about how it all works. I read a bunch of unclass documents and pieced together an idea of how it’d probably work. The functionality in ArmA2 ended up basically being LOBL = FCR needed, more accurate; LOAL = FCR not needed, but less accurate (didn’t work on moving targets). That was a gameplay decision rather than a realism one, for practical reasons more than anything. If you were used to the simplification that is typical of any ArmA vehicle though, it was the most comprehensive and advanced modeling ever! It’s not good enough for DCS, though.
I think my original question has been answered numerous times by now, in that most of the scenarios we see are designed in such a way for play balance and not so much for how things would operate realistically. So I’ll just have to remember to silence my Bug’s radar and make sure to load up on the IR missiles with my Flanker.
Unless, of course, I design the scenario. Because then y’all better be good at aerial refueling and respecting the low altitude AAA threats.
1 Like
That is mainly the issue with any entertainment “simulator.” Who in their right mind would want to play the Iraqi’s in a GW1 scenario or campaign. I don’t care how good you are, you might at best take down one or two AC before you’re shot down.
Your average simulator “player” is in it to feel like a heroic fighter pilot, ship captain, etc. Not the guy who eats a missile to the face without ever having an idea there’s a threat even present. Simulations of conflict by their nature should be unbalanced, that’s the whole point of good strategy and tactics. Sure I can make a great “game” of the initial invasion of Poland in WW2, with the player as a dashing young polish cavalry officer, etc. A simulation of that would most likely be far less enjoyable.
5 Likes
This happens to me a lot online. Get to altitude, start heading out for my strike, boom… Hit by IR missile launched from the deck by a Flanker or Fulcrum that went radar off.
1 Like
This a interesting discussion, I hope there will be more Red aircraft simulated however the Secrecy status seems to kill a lot of the stuff even from the 90 era. How strange that 30 years after that we are still up against unclassified data. For flight modelling and system modelling. It is all very expensive to develop. I however am impressed by the DCS WORLD in general.
I agree…I’m very impressed by the evolution of DCS World and the longer history of Eagle Dynamics. I mean, to stay viable and perhaps even thrive in this niche is admirable. As well, they have really showed a large range of what they can do (we just need a DCS Abrams and DCS 688i to round out their resume…lol).
Is there were I insert my request for an Su-25UTG? Here it is.
3 Likes
That is mainly the issue with any entertainment “simulator.” Who in their right mind would want to play the Iraqi’s in a GW1 scenario or campaign. I don’t care how good you are, you might at best take down one or two AC before you’re shot down.
Your average simulator “player” is in it to feel like a heroic fighter pilot, ship captain, etc. Not the guy who eats a missile to the face without ever having an idea there’s a threat even present. Simulations of conflict by their nature should be unbalanced, that’s the whole point of good strategy and tactics. Sure I can make a great “game” of the initial invasion of Poland in WW2, with the player as a dashing young polish cavalry officer, etc. A simulation of that would most likely be far less enjoyable.
I chuckle here, because if DCS had introduced even a FSX EF-111A Raven (Spark-Vark") with basic mock systems level aircaft flying low ahead of packaged flight and REDFOR equivalent (SU-34) it would start to create the balance the game design needs for it to be playable.
For example flying as an operational shield in a FAC mission profile with its electronic warfare capability (just flick the switch as per se) creating safe passage by basically frying all the surface to air threats or jamming them as you pass through and would have reached the target zone to drop bombs on target and fly back home safely. That was the point of having other air assets and networking over enemy territory and radio silence until clear in regards to DCS having better operational TACTICS and general basic systems without having full fidelity modules where you cannot source them but not sacrificing game design.
Public information on the EF-111A Raven (“SPARK-VARK”) - http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/ef111_raven.htm
Public information on the SU-34 EWS - Invisible Shield, Invisible Sword: Russia's Electronic Warfare 'Second to None' - 31.08.2017, Sputnik International
Public information on the Khibiny-10V systems - Khibiny (electronic countermeasures system) - Wikipedia
This is the approach to game-design that the wider community did want a few years ago, sadly all missed opportunities of great fun and role play in various operational functions virtual pilots could have had! 
Remember like a game of CHESS but I don’t think this will ever happen the state of this world I think Combat sims games might be given the … “Kick auf die Rückseite”… sad to say oh well! 