fairly lengthy Q&A with Wags

The most important things I picked out are:

  • it takes about 4 to 6 years to create something on the level of the F/A-18 or the A-10C.
  • about 12 to 18 months to create a warbird.
  • It is hoped to create maps that support every conflict DCS represents.
  • There are hopes for DCS level tanks someday, but not soon.
  • An AH-64 is more likely a case of ‘when’ rather than a case of ‘if’. For now both ED and BST have other priorities though.
  • collidable trees are coming to the updated Caucasus .
  • More multicrew aircraft are coming “it’s in the future, it’s coming” don’t know if this just refers to the F-14 and BO-105, F-4E and Mi-24 or also other stuff.
  • Multicrew is coming to UH-1H and Mi-8MTV2.
  • There are considerations to make the TF-51 multicrew.
  • The updated damage models might one day seep through to ground vehicles.
  • Wags could not answer anything else than “things will change” when asked about multithreading.
  • overwing/LEX vapor for the hornet is on the to-do list.
  • Wags mentions the SLAM-ER, Laser version of the HARM (??? maybe he ment the laser version of the mav?)
  • The sounds for the F/A-18 are coming directly from Boeing.
  • SPJ’s (Self protection Jammers) might be coming to all modern aircraft (that have them) rather than just the barrage jammers they have right now.
  • Wags admits the complication, being Russian based, developing full fidelity Russian aircraft.
  • New explosions and new clouds are in the works.
  • Dynamic campaign is more of a “when” rather than an “if”. But wags admits not having the staff to do it right now to do it on a level that would meet their expectations.

Mav. The AGM-65E has both a spotty past in DCS due to the whims of the USAF, and an integral part of the F/A-18s inventory, so there was debate which would win.

Also thanks for transcribing, was hard to listen in a crowded car

1 Like

I’ll have to listen to it when I get some more time. Can someone explain why it is harder to create russian full fidelity modules over other aircraft that are still in active service?

Russia passed three metric crap baskets worth of “anti-espionage” laws meant to punish the population, secure power. One of them set extremely broad terms for what constitutes illegal exchange of military secrets. One plausible interpretation is that a DCS module would be an illegal exchange of technical information. This, combined with the Russian trend to classify all things, and use everything forever makes development of an accurate modem Russian aircraft difficult


interesting… I wonder how belsimtek was able to so accurately portray the Mi8 and now the Hind?

The Mi-8MTV and Mi-24P are old, widely exported, and use systems that are widely exported. I doubt it’s too hard to find documents on an S-8 rocket, a 23mm cannon or the engines.

The documents describing a Zhuk-001, the data links, and air to air missiles are more protected.

Also bst is belorussian

Maybe moving to Switzerland plays a role in this? Anyways, in the same way that hind and hip are old, you could make the same argument for an early 29 or 27.

I think that anything widely exported would be on the table.

AGM-84H is what he was talking about i do believe.

Yeah he mentioned the SLAM-ER, but just after that he says something that I interpreted as “laser guided HARM”. No such weapon exists to my knowledge, and the SLAM-ER uses GPS and FLIR, not laser guidance. We think wags might have ment the laser guided maverick instead.

here is some info on russian radar, and radar in general. pretty interesting. Flanker Radars in Beyond Visual Range Air Combat

After spending some time at that website, its an all-you-can-eat nerd fest on radar specs and data. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AE-Analysis.html#mozTocId377563

Yussss!! :grin:

That’s enough for me - the rest is gravy!

Later version of the HARM, not Laser.


AARGM? I can only get so erect.

thanks for clarifying!

This gets into why every commercially-available simulation we will ever fly will be just that, a simulation, an approximation based on the information available.

In order to get a true-to-life combat aviation simulator, you’d need a rig with the power of a Cray to run it. Every molecule of air going over a dynamic airframe, coupled with every last calculation done by the avionics systems, no PC ever made or one ever home built could do all that.

Coupled with the fact that you’d have to break no less than a few hundred anti-espionage laws to get your hands on the data needed to put it all together…

PC combat flight simulations are a guessing game. Some guesses are closer to the truth than others, as we all know. I’m curious to see where Wags goes with new theatres, better AI, flight models, weapons, and so on. DCS will stick with Cold War aircraft because they’re a far better known quality than the latest generation of weapons systems. I’d prefer to see some work done on the quick mission generator to make it a little more…functional. Right now, it spawns enemy aircraft flying over the airfield I’m about to take off from. That’s great if I want to simulate a hopeless situation every time. The mission editor? Well, let’s just say I’m glad some people have more time than I do.

DCS is a great game, it really is. I wish I had more time to get good at it.

Laser Mavs were only disabled in the A-10C systems, not in the sim itself.

By request of the USAF.

They have no say in an Aircraft that is not theirs.

1 Like

I used “was” in the past tense :smiley:

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

While this has been a description of DCS for years now every time we ask about “how about a module on X?”, I just don’t want it to be its epitaph.

In other words, there are two ways to do a module. One, you decide what level of systems modeling you want to achieve, and then you pick a platform you can gain access to sufficient information to in order to fulfill that goal. I don’t favor this approach, but it seems to be the way for years now. “Hey, there is almost nothing classified about the C-2A, look at all this data! Announcement incoming!!!”

Two, you decide what platform would be the most exciting from a sales, customer, and developer perspective, then acquire whatever information you can publicly access and model it to the best of your abilities based on that data. If you are missing information on this or that aspect, you make a guess based on public data, historical precedent (ie an F-15C radar should be faster/more reliable/have better ECCM than an F-4E radar for example, even if you don’t have precise ranges or modes), and common sense. The result may not be realistic or precise in many areas, no, but it should be more realistic or precise than anyone else has done before even with its shortfalls.
This is what I wish ED would do. Imagine if no one had built a car until 1950, or an airplane until 1980, because they all knew they could do better than those early 20th century models and didn’t want to bother, and concentrated instead on making AWESOME horse buggies and hot air balloons instead.

The comments about the DC are eerily similar. They have an image in their heads of how they want to do it, but they don’t believe they have the resources to do it. So instead of doing something that could be a stepping stone, a bridge to that goal that could be iterated upon perhaps, it has been kicked down the road for over a decade.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Yeah, some users are vowing perfect or nothing, but those users shouldn’t be the ones getting their way. There is no easier path for a company than to NOT develop a product but it won’t lead to growth. Many companies have collapsed after making a bad product, yes, but no company has ever succeeded by not making a product.


Someone chisel this onto marble, please.