Why would you do that? There’s no point in flying against a 22 or a 35. Might as well fly that A6M2 against the F-14. Or climb in that Dr I and stop the B-52 raids.
It’s for when you want to be Godzilla in Tokyo, not when you want to be faceless civilian crushed under foot.
Just like science isn’t about why, it’s about why not, so too is simming: it’s not about why, it’s about why not? Isn’t the eternal question of all sim fans to know whether or not 100 F/A-18Cs would win against 100 Fokker Eindeckers? Or to see how many B-52s are shot down by Bf-109Ds?
F-22 vs PAK-FA? Pfft. That’s what little babies ask. Real men ask whether or not Kozhedub flying an X-Wing could beat Vader flying an Su-35.
I mean, a Spitfire, a P-38, and a Zero held their own OK against Soko Galebs, after all…
This might be of interest to some of you,The Jane’s F-15E Strike Eagle Manual,Although it has nothing to do with The RAZBAM model,It does give a great general overview of systems/radar and weapons.
Oh, I am relatively sure that DCS will eventually get to the next generation (or is it the present generation?) of aircraft. One cannot beat back the tide with a teaspoon…or something like that…nor should one try. 
For myself, I’ll probably eventually get the FA-18, however I will likely remain in a DCS World in set in the 1980s to 1990s…listening to Duran Duran on an 8-Track and worrying about the Y2K bug…
In all seriousness, I think we will see some multiplayer servers with some fairly strict “Era Restrictions”…WWII, Cold War 50’s early jets, 70’s-80’s, 80’s to 90’s…etc, while others will be the Iron Eagle III battle fields with Me-190s fighting it out with F-35s.
“Oh what a Brave New (DCS) World”
If only we could have an A6…
We will. Have patience. A-6, A-7, F-111 are all going to happen some day. Maybe not soon but some day.
I like you. 
When did the Strike Eagle get an upgrade from the GW1 version with film based moving maps to digital? Probably not saying this correctly, but it seems like a long time ago that the Homestead boys headed East with their brand new F-15Es to join the coalition against Saddam.
I wonder…is it easier or harder to develop older aircraft mods? One would think easier, but I’m not a computer surgeon.
In my experience, hinges on the popularity and nationality of the subject aircraft. You’ll find no shortage of detailed info on a AH-64 (any variant, in fact, including the E/Block III) but very, very, very little on a Su-17/22M4. You can find enough to get the general gist of it, but not a whole lot of detailed data, turning it into a “best guess” sort of thing… Which DCS’s customer base really, really, really hates.
A-6, A-7, and F-111, there’s not shortage of detailed data for all three, so putting them together in a realistic fashion is just a matter of time and effort. Trying to do something like a Su-24, Su-17, or MiG-25 will involve a lot of guess work, unfortunately.
Interesting insights. It is not so much that I would like to see a FITTER (never a really good aircraft) or a FOXBAT (designed for 1 thing and not that good at that)…I could have some fun with an Su-24 though.
I was sort of wondering why RAZBAM made the decision to go with an F-15E when they already had a lot of research already done for their line of FSX A-7s. IMHO, their A-7 is probably their best model. OK, it’s a Ctrl-E to start the engine, but other than that, a pretty darn good depiction of the A-7 variants for FSX.
Just my ramblings…I hope this turns out well. I miss my Janes F-15 and the two FSX versions (MILVIZ and IRIS) while good are limited by the FSX engine (and don’t do TAC PACK).
After all RAZBAM had developed an AV-8B for FSX before they went to DCS only. I figured they had used their existing research as the basis for that jet.
The Fitter depends on variant, since you’ve got the older Su-7 (variations on the 7 would be way easier to get detailed info on) and the much more modern 17/22s, especially the M3 and M4 variants. The M3 and M4 were the premier tactical attack aircraft prior to the introduction of the Frogfoot and they share a lot of commonality. The problem? The Fitter was turned into a tactical nuke aircraft after the Frogfoot was introduced, so Russia considers any data on the later Fitter to be state secrets – even though the aircraft, at its core, remains something of a higher speed, shorter ranged Frogfoot.
I bring up the Fitter because 10 years ago I worked on a project for it and a lot of the problems with it were related to finding data for the aircraft.
So, when it comes to the F-15E vs A-7, I strongly suspect it’s more of a question of “will this sell well?” as opposed to data or effort. I would absolutely love to have an A-7, especially an A-7E (I had even considered doing one many years ago after the above mentioned 17/22M4 project), but the vast majority of modern day audiences would not care for it. It is, after all, another mud mover with little air-air capabilities. In contrast, the F-15E does a little of everything and it has enough popularity to really pay off (I know several people who say they will buy the 15E first-day). The A-7 just ain’t sexy with dumb bombs and minimal PGMs compared to the F-15E and all the fancy guided smartphones.
Because they will sell a butt load of them. The Strike Eagle will be a fantastic aircraft to have in the PG and NTTR.
My guess on the F-15E vs A-7 is that RAZBAM took a page from ED’s Hornet development. You can fly strike missions without an A/G radar if you have dumb bombs and/or PGMs and a Targeting Pod. RAZBAM has developed F-15E stuff for years, but the lynchpin has always been the A/G radar in DCS. This is the same thing for the A-7, although the F-15E has PGM capability without the A/G radar, so it would be a feasible good weather strike platform until ED develops the A/G radar for the Hornet (at which they could piggyback the technology into the mudhen).
The A-7 without an A/G radar would essentially be a visual bomber with dumb weapons, Walleye, Maverick, and ARMs in some cases. While the A-7 was an excellent day bomber in its time, people can already fly the platform that replaced it (the Hornet) and will soon have all of that capability with the Hornet’s development timeline.
I think this was as much a marketing decision as anything. I think once there is an A/G radar, there will be a better market for the SLUF.
I have no doubt on both circumstances…and that’s where the “shine” of DCS is starting to wear a little thin for me. I’m coming to realize that DCS is in fact more Game than Simulation. There seems to me to be more of a focus on what will be fun in a multi-player context than what would be a more realistic model for realistic missions, in single player and multi-player.
I might take the current FA-18C as an example. The main focus has been getting A2A up and running–better radar modes, newer missiles, etc. I recall that there was a big Career v Carrier event that was FA-18s v Su-33s…essentially virtual Jousting Tournament; pilots were the knights, jets were there steeds and missiles their lances!
Very cool and I’m sure very fun! I’m sure the aircraft performance, weapons system and missiles were as near to the real thing as possible…but the “scenario” is not even remotely realistic.
Blue Flag does better (and I love reading the Blue Flag AARs)…but its essentially “capture the flag”. I am coming to realize that, with the notable exception of the campaigns on the DCS e-store, I’m not going to see realistic scenarios to “fly” in multiplayer.
Not puling (although as a reread this it does seem that way)…as we used to say in the Fleet, “It is what it is.” Slightly dulled luster or not, DCS World is waaaaay cooler than any other combat sim out there.
Any way you slice it, money and fun are a key driver in a lot of this stuff, especially so for third party studios like RAZBAM. I can’t really blame them as I wasted 3 years of my time trying to put together a modern-age represenation of a AH-64D in a game not designed for that kind of thing and have nothing to show for it! 
Veering into a different subject, that of mission creation; I know you’ve done it before, but it’d probably be helpful to have a discussion over exactly what and how one does a proper, realistic mission. Granted, there are going to be differences from USAF, USN, to USMC, but I think it’s plenty possible to get something pretty close in a mission, if we had a better overall idea of what happens from the briefing all the way to debriefing.
If that’s the case where have my dedicated servers, fixed missile guidance/aero, and latency reduction been for the past 5 years? 
In my more pessimistic hours I refer to DCS as “digital creator of screenshots” since it sometimes feels like they’re still developing for highly catered experiences in single player showcasing certain elements of a vehicle.
To be fair they’re a limited team in a niche field breaking new ground in a genre with a LOT more scope than it had 5 years ago. 3rd party devs are going to crank out modules in demand at all due speed based on what will sell and what the environment will support, and ED will race to generate more supporting infrastructure.
I started to answer. When I got to page 11, I figured I’d better write it up as an attachment.
The short answer is its a top-down approach based on Joint Force employment doctrine. Which means that the tasking to USAF, USN and USMC for missions is pretty much the same and based on general (can it drop a Mk-82) or specific (can it shoot a HARM) capabilities of the various aircraft in the fight. At the tactical level where and who does planning and briefing are different (the USAF like big briefing theaters, the Navy does it all by closed circuit TV to the Ready Rooms on the carrier, etc.), however, the tasking that resulted in that mission planning is the same so no matter the service, the general format is the same.
There are a few things that folks in flightsims seem to do or don’t do that are not how it works in the real world.
More later
I think the answer is easy, its caled squad. I am not part of any virtual squad flying DCS thats why I am not flying it MP.
With squad you can fulfil at least first 3 points on your list. Dosent mater if it is capture the flag or any other kind of scenario.
I am wondering how complex planes as Tomcat and Strike Eagle will fit into those scenarios.
Actualy Strike Eagle is multirole so it can bomb buildings and shoot down planes on same mision what is cool and handy 