Well, to the extent possible. Or should I say, within reason.
And this is only of importance for historical scenarios. I like that! Plain and simple.
Let’s say someone made a Battle of Britain campaign for DCS. I would’t want to fly that in a Spit Mk IX. I’d much rather fly missions where the IX participated in the real war. Like @bunyap2w1 s Epsom Campaign. I’m not that nipicky that I have a problem with C or E wings, as long as it’s within reason, i.e. a IX.
Exactly the same example also crossed my mind 
If someone did the Battle of Britain professionally, like for example 777, I would not be satisfied with Bf 109 G-2 or Spitfire Mk.IX. Especially considering that, given a little thought, it is relatively easy to either pick the right theaters for given aircraft or the right aircraft for given theaters.
Of course there always has to be a balance between historical accuracy and gameplay. And everyone draws his very subjective line at a different place.
2 Likes
To be fair it should be SpitIX vs 109K4 in fictious BoB '44 scenario… why not? 
But as I mentioned there are people who strive for the hist acuracy and will have hard time to acept this…
Especialy over Caucasus… and with that K4 in '44 and so on…
We just have two camps, players who are ok with fictious scenarios and players who dont.
The point is that the former can live with the hist acuracy but not vice versa
So creating hist acurate scenarios is imho more profitable for the devs.
Well, I guess I’m both.
I like total fiction!
I would totally go for a BoB 44 campaign. Germany getting bold and trying again, sort of thing. Totally fictive, but could be fun.
But if we’re talking about a BoB 40 campaign, a recreation of an actual historic campaign, I’d like it to be as historically correct as possible. I’d want the feeling of being just a small pawn in the battle, where everything unfolds as it did in reality.
How many projects have failed in the last decade or so of flight sims as people try to produce accurate simulations of a given conflict or AC? True historically accurate simulation is difficult to do and expensive, exactly what you don’t need for a commercial product. Yes I would love for a DCS Vietnam expansion to have the correct units, with the correct time period. However if you give me a choice of waiting 20 years for someone to do that, or next year we’ll have a slightly ahistorical version, give me option 2 please!
Now days people get in an uproar over very small things. As a developer of a commercial project, I will have already weathered this storm with getting the first AC model out the door. Why would I deal with the same problems to produce a second model, or a third that are probably going to see drastically lower sales figures. I for instance love the F-8 and would be a first day buyer of one for DCS. However if they have an F-8A, F-8B, F-8C, F-8D, F-8E,… I’m only spending so much money. These days each of those AC’s is going to be expected to be rendered to the same fidelity, not just cosmetic changes, or a different pit, IF we’re paying money for them. As a smart developer I’m only going to produce the model that I think will have the largest appeal, and not worry about the rest. This has historically been where community modding has been so helpful, as it allows for the gaps to be filled. Even then though people gripe and complain that the free mod they just got isn’t perfect. I’d love for DCS to support the open modding community the SF series did, but that’s not gonna happen any time soon.
2 Likes
Yes, lets say Falklands '90 ?
AV8B vs Mirage2K + AJS37 + L39 ? …I am in
4 Likes
Hell yes 
1 Like
+1!
1 Like
Totally in!
2 Likes
I’ve spent more time in Strike Fighters than I ever did in DCS. If I wanted historical accuracy, I’ve wasted my time.
I grew up on Flanker 2.5 and Jane’s F-15, neither of which included 100% historically accurate gameplay.
2 Likes
Interestingly the Strike Fighter series also had a great diversity of aircraft and weapon variants. WoV alone had 5 different Crusaders (F-8C/D/E/H/J) or Phantom (F-4B/C/D/E/J) models.
2 Likes
Yeah it was a great bit of software. I would never fly anything else if that AI/campaign/modability and level of modelling would happen in a graphic and VR engine like DCS.
1 Like
Man, SF was my go to series. Better graphics then the “golden age sims” in exchange for a little less systems modeling then some. I loved the variety, and I loved what the community had done with it.
Interestingly the Strike Fighter series also had a great diversity of aircraft and weapon variants. WoV alone had 5 different Crusaders (F-8C/D/E/H/J) or Phantom (F-4B/C/D/E/J) models.
I think of some that was that 3rd Wire already had a lot of the work done by the time WoV and WoE came out. Also the expectation of fidelity was lower for SF, so they could get away with visual updates, and just throwing a radar scope into the cockpit with very minor tweaking to make the it all work reasonably well.
1 Like
Other- California
2 Likes
All of it?
1 Like
The part that is across from the Nevada map.
2 Likes
It’d be awesome to see Edwards, China Lake, the Sierras…and all those naval fields in southern CA and those near outlying islands…
1 Like
And “that canyon” the FA-18 jockeys like to practice in. How about the carrier ops off the coast.
2 Likes
Yeah…I got buzzed by F/A-18s on that drive between Lone Pine and Death Valley (Rt. 190?) a couple times. And saw some F-16s zipping up the valley there once you get down into the floor. Awesome stuff…
1 Like
I like where this is going (pun!).
2 Likes