Great point. Probably 99% of the people who play the game have zero real world experience with the specific plane/system being modeled. If they matched the system to public info, how would anyone really know how close it is to reality? In all honestly, most people just state their opinions on how something should work or feel, with no real barometer on how close it actually is. There has to be some creative license taken (and accepted) when making any of these modules, especially the ones that are still in service.
There are systems of the F18C that are classified and they will have to get creative with implementing them. Keeping that in mind, I would argue that if they just made the current F15c/SU27 clickable, and changed nothing else, they would be great modules. They supposedly already have professional flight models, and the systems like the radars/ecm/etc. that still have certain classified details are basically done to the best they can, what else is left?
I would absolutely subscribe to a model where we have a wider range of modules that are slightly less high fidelity (say 90-95%) vs a just a few that are 99%+ accurate. Unless of course, we get DCS Global Express. Iāll expect nothing but 100% accuracy on that one 
.
1 Like
F/A-18C/D and E/F/G Block I and IIās are Export ready, there fore nothing is technically āClassifiedā.
Getting the accurate data to re-produce those systems though, isnt gonna be as easy as hitting up google.
Which is where License and Contract Agreements with Boeing and the USN/USMC would come in.
3 Likes
Is it though? Would this not fall under ITAR? I know the USA can be a bit protective in that regard.
Actually the ITAR can be avoided if the specifics of ITAR items arenāt in there.
And Iām not sure it would translate over to Software emulation of those.
Interestingā¦
I donāt think this is as clear cut / black-and-white as you guys are laying out.
Estimation (and sometimes outright guessing) is a core part of simulation, but that doesnāt mean all estimates and guesses carry the same weight. Just because some blank spots need educated guesses and generalized models doesnāt mean striving for a detail-oriented study sim is futile. If you donāt do your homework, you can miss some pretty important nuances that might define a moduleās characteristics.
Right now EDās objective for DCS is "ā¦to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks and ships possible. " If you want that level of authenticity, you need full systems depth simulations, period, or else youāre aiming at providing a different product.
If your argument is still that itās in Eagle Dynamicsā and our (the communityās) best interests to shift to a lower-fidelity modelā¦ well, Iām still not sure I agree, but thatās a different topic!
2 Likes
Iād be really surprised if aspects of the radar and ECM capabilities are UNCLAS, regardless of export status.
I havent read this yet because Iām not in the mood for acronym/legalese right now, but it should answer your question.
This is pretty much the last place Iād like to be reminded of EXIM/ITAR
I canāt get away from it, nor can you!
The govāt doesnāt want you to forget, either! Remember, the fastest way to ensure our adversaries gain the ability to develop and utilize these technologies themselves is to refuse to hand them over the black boxes ourselves and force them to make their own from scratch so they better understand how they work and how to defeat them! That really shows them!
3 Likes
I mean, yes but also no.
IIRC the Sovjet called a stuck AIM-9/GAR-8(first gen IR missile) in a Migās wing a masterclass in missile design. So thereās a certain advantage to be had.
Anyway, why do you all not love EXIM/ITAR?! Itās the most wonderful thing in the world that brings joy to so many people!