We desperately need more eastern bloc aircraft

Hell, the Spaniards have Hornets, and that appears to be the source for ED's documentation and such.

A military aircraft is not "free". Remember the case of Douglas vs Il-2 by Pacific fighter or Bell vs Electronic Arts.

The DCS: World modules require some type of "legal agreement" to build them.

VEAO desestimate A-4 develop by high cost license with Douglas, and was some years with a legal battle with Bae to the Hawk T.1 license or the Eurofighter with the RAF.

Polychov was require license with Eurocopter to build the Sa-342 and Bo-105.

ED was talk with the russian authorities and aircraft manufactured to the Ka-50, L-39, etc to get a license.

Belsimtek delayed the release of UH-1 with legal issues to Bell Trexton.

Aviodev talk with Spanish Air force to get license to build the C-101

and a long etc........

Actualy all military aircraft require some type of license (trademarks, secret law, sensible info, etc).

Failing to see something doesn't, in any way, invalidate it's existence.

Of course, and I too enjoy stating the obvious on occasion. Though I challenge you to imagine the following situation. It is 2018 and the FC3 MiG-29A is complete, with it's PFM fully integrated & all cockpit issues ironed out.

The FC3 aircraft already includes a simulation of all the 'sensitive' systems in the aircraft such as RWR, kinematic performance, and radar capabilities + (more or less) all radar operating modes. Though I suspect that the integration of the radar with GCI datalink would be an excluded system.

Looking at the German & Russian manuals available, the only systems not modeled in a full FC3 MiG-29A would be mundane. The fuel pumps, hydraulics, back-up systems, engine relight, navigational aids & ILS are all very ordinary in the 29.

I am under no delusions as to thinking that this thread will convince or even be noticed by ED. Nonetheless I feel compelled to publicly wonder what could possibly, logically be holding the Fulcrum-A back from being fully simulated.

Though logical thinking is certainly not the strong suit of the Russian authorities I admit.

Actualy all military aircraft require some type of license (trademarks, secret law, sensible info, etc).

same for cars in racing sims.

Of course, and I too enjoy stating the obvious on occasion. Though I challenge you to imagine the following situation. It is 2018 and the FC3 MiG-29A is complete, with it's PFM fully integrated & all cockpit issues ironed out.

Very difficult to reach, yo-yo has actually centred on clomplete the Spitfire PFM and the F/A-18C PFM, Su-33 PFM can follow. but Add to them the other two next modules with ED require to complete on WW2 (P-47D Thunderbolt and Me262) as full fidelity modules to close WW2 and get to the old RRG KickStarter backers.

The FC3 aircraft already includes a simulation of all the 'sensitive' systems in the aircraft such as RWR, kinematic performance, and radar capabilities + (more or less) all radar operating modes. Though I suspect that the integration of the radar with GCI datalink would be an excluded system.

Actually all FC-3 systems are simplified

Very difficult to reach, yo-yo has actually centred on clomplete the Spitfire PFM and the F/A-18C PFM, Su-33 PFM can follow. bit Add to them the other two next modules with ED require to complete on WW2 (P-47D Thunderbolt and Me262) as full fidelity modules to close WW2 and get to the old RRG KickStarter backers.

Well this irrelevant, it was an example date in a hypothetical scenario. Rather silly for you to latch onto it.

Actually all FC-3 systems are simplified

As are many systems in full DCS modules, so?

Well this irrelevant, it was an example date in a hypothetical scenario. Rather silly for you to latch onto it.

 

As are many systems in full DCS modules, so?

Latching on to irrelevant parts of an argument is what people do when they have no argument. :music_whistling:

As are many systems in full DCS modules, so?

Actual situation:

PFM = Professional Flight Module (include AFM/AFM+)

SFM = Simplified Flight Module

ASM = Advanced System Module

SSM = Simplified System Module

EFM = External Flight Module (as PFM/ASM+/ASM)

SVM = Simplified Vehicle module, can change in the future to PVM (Professional Vehicle model)

ED:

Ka-50, A-10C, L-39C/ZA, Fw-190D-9, Bf-109, Spitfire Mk IX and TF-51D are PFM/ASM

Su-25T are PFM/SSM

FC-3 Aircrafts:

- F-15C, A-10A, Su-25, Su-27 are PFM/SSM

- Su-33, Mig-29A/G/S are SFM/SSM

Combined Arms: SVM/SSM

Belsimtek

UH-1H, Mi-8, F-5E are PFM/ASM

VEAO

HAWK T.1 are EFM/ASM

Aviodev

C-101EB SSM/ASM (EFM in progress)

Leatherneck

Mig-21Bis EFM/ASM

Polychop

Sa-342 EFM/ASM

The point he's making is that no aircraft in DCS has 100% accurate systems. Many systems on all of those aircraft are made with incomplete data, informed guesses, or are occasionally intentionally obfuscated (as in the A-10C). Simplifications are a fact of life when you're using a simulator that wasn't produced by, or directly for the producers or users of the simulated vehicle.

We all know the alphabet soup AFMs and ASMs and PFMs and EFMs and all that. We all know the progress various modules are making.

I want someone that actually works at ED, not some random forum goer, to explain to me what the realistic chances of a MiG-29 module are.

I'm tired of people who don't work for them telling me "nope sorry zero chances"

I want the people who actually know what they are talking about to explain.

The point he's making is that no aircraft in DCS has 100% accurate systems. Many systems on all of those aircraft are made with incomplete data, informed guesses, or are occasionally intentionally obfuscated (as in the A-10C). Simplifications are a fact of life when you're using a simulator that wasn't produced by, or directly for the producers or users of the simulated vehicle.

 

We all know the alphabet soup AFMs and ASMs and PFMs and EFMs and all that. We all know the progress various modules are making.

No point in trying to talk to him anymore. He is more interested in stating the obvious and talking down to people instead of having a conversation. That why these forums are a laughing stock in the sim community.

A-10C was "cut" by military contract, and other aircraft has limited system and capabilities by license.

Return to the Mig-29s, meanwhile ED dont get a licence to build a "hardcore" Mig-29, we dont see none progress about them, the same case has applicable to all FC-3 aircrafts. That discussion has similar to the "claims" of a more advanced F-5E Belsimtek version.

-snip-

Yes, thank you for that wall of text. I am perfectly aware of the modules of DCS, their respective levels of simulation and the acronyms that pertain to them.

Guys, Please dont assume and speculate on sources for modules,

The Cut and Dry of it,

They all require a license, from Mikoyan or Sukhoi , etc etc etc,

Those companies are not likely to give up any detailed documents on Radar, or Weapons systems anytime soon.

Just because they are everywhere doesnt mean everyone has the authority to release those said documents, etc etc.

Besides, while we are all sitting here back and forth over legal issues none of us know about,

no one knows what E.D.s plans are Post F/A-18C/WWII Planes

Did Mikoyan license the Mig-21? If so why wouldn't they approve a Mig-29? Or 27 or 23? At this point they're all obsolete aircraft.

Did leatherneck receive any info from Mikoyan to make the Mig-21? I thought the whole reason it exists was because they had a open-source info in the form of an active duty mig pilot on staff.

The Mig-29A's in the same position as the Mig-21bis, being an obsolete fighter long out of service with its home country, and even a lot of primary or secondary export countries. There's only about ten years between them.

I want someone that actually works at ED, not some random forum goer, to explain to me what the realistic chances of a MiG-29 module are.

 

I'm tired of people who don't work for them telling me "nope sorry zero chances"

 

I want the people who actually know what they are talking about to explain.

Thats not going to happen. They will not release any info until in is concrete. Dont you think they would have done so already. You coming here as a new member demanding answers will not help nor will they answer. We go through this every couple of weeks. If it will happen it will be announced when they are ready. If they want us to know they will announce it. Maybe they dont want to say anything because they are trying to negotiate a license. Maybe they are tired of the same dribble coming out of us and are ignoring us.

And as others have pointed out. Ed is based in Russia. They are liable to Russian laws for everything that they allow by their third parties. Whether something is available outside of Russia does not make it Legal and Available within Russia. Nothing is known at this point it is all speculation and until ED wants us to know, thats all it will be no matter how we feel about it.

Guys, Please dont assume and speculate on sources for modules,

 

The Cut and Dry of it,

 

They all require a license, from Mikoyan or Sukhoi , etc etc etc,

 

Those companies are not likely to give up any detailed documents on Radar, or Weapons systems anytime soon.

 

Just because they are everywhere doesnt mean everyone has the authority to release those said documents, etc etc.

 

Besides, while we are all sitting here back and forth over legal issues none of us know about,

 

no one knows what E.D.s plans are Post F/A-18C/WWII Planes

Wouldn't have to speculate if the people who did know what they are talking about would explain.

Whether it's sp or mp, having a decent variety is important. I very much doubt most of us would buy every single western 4th gen fighter ever made if offered. It takes too long to learn them and most are completely redundant functionally (ie F-16 & F-18 ). Nearly all of us will want some variety eventually. That's why eastern fighters as well as things other than fighters need to be developed.

As for legality, there are certainly eastern aircraft that can be done. But we may need to be a bit flexible on what we would accept. It is also worth mentioning that there is a lot of ground between fc3 systems and full asm. A mid point of some sort is an option worth considering if full asm isn't possible.

Wouldn't have to speculate if the people who did know what they are talking about would explain.

Your question has been answered by ED hundred and hundred times before today with the same result. Meanwhile ED has not get authorisation, resources, personal, develop time and appropriate info sources with none secret / sensible and approved to use them to build a "hardcore" module, they can´t move to build them. And of course, not vulnerate the actual russian secret laws.

Thats not going to happen. They will not release any info until in is concrete. Dont you think they would have done so already. You coming here as a new member demanding answers will not help nor will they answer. We go through this every couple of weeks. If it will happen it will be announced when they are ready. If they want us to know they will announce it. Maybe they dont want to say anything because they are trying to negotiate a license. Maybe they are tired of the same dribble coming out of us and are ignoring us.

Well, I hope you're wrong, because that sounds like the absolute worst possible way to run a business.

Well, I hope you're wrong, because that sounds like the absolute worst possible way to run a business.

Not when you get the same questions asked over and over and people refuse to listen to the people that heard the answers. If it will happen they will announce it. Until then take the last that they said it is not possible right now and listen to the people that have been around for a long time that go through this time and time again.

Not when you get the same questions asked over and over and people refuse to listen to the people that heard the answers. If it will happen they will announce it. Until then take the last that they said it is not possible right now and listen to the people that have been around for a long time that go through this time and time again.

We're not asking questions, we're expressing our desire for a product. I can only speculate on ED's business model but most companies that produce a consumer product (like video games) spend a lot of time doing market research and value community feedback, and recognize and respond to customer demand, because it helps them produce a more salable product and make more money.

We're not asking questions, we're expressing our desire for a product. Companies that produce a consumer product (like video games) spend a lot of time doing market research and value community feedback, and recognize and respond to customer demand, because it helps them produce a more salable product and make more money.

Originally Posted by Pronin

I want someone that actually works at ED, not some random forum goer, to explain to me what the realistic chances of a MiG-29 module are.

 

I'm tired of people who don't work for them telling me "nope sorry zero chances"

 

I want the people who actually know what they are talking about to explain.

How is that not asking questions. Granted it is not you. It always goes the same way. Hey we want more eastern block jets. Why cant we have them. Then when told why they dont accept it.

Trust me they know we would love more eastern modern fighters and fighter bombers. I really want a su34 as well a mig 29 as well as others, but if it will happen it will happen. If you search the forums you can see how many threads are started about the same thing as well as every wishlist thread this is brought up. The message has been transmitted time and time again and was confirmed by them why they cant do it right now.

how do you define a "random forum goer"?

how do you define a "random forum goer"?

If I had to guess he meant nondevelopers

A simple Click of that Search Button on top of the Forum and Search for "DCS: Su-27" And filter posts to wags, will yield answers from previously discussed Su-27 DCS Module.

ie:

7 May 2013 Update

 

I will be out of town this Friday. So this, combined with a post of the Russian forums, has led me to release this week's update a bit early.

 

This week we released an update to version 1.2.4 that included several changes that were planned for the initial 1.2.4 release but did not make it in time. With that out of the way, the team is working hard on version 1.2.5 that will further address remaining bugs in DCS World and its modules. As always, we'll be throwing in some new features as well. When we get close to finalizing 1.2.5, I'll post the preliminary change log to give you a heads up.

 

In addition to the never-ending quest for DCS perfection (yes, we have dreams too), we are working on releasing the F-15C Eagle and Su-27 Flanker for DCS World later this year. As I have mentioned in the past, DCS is not confined to one time period, one location or one level of detail. While DCS modules have focused on a very high level of detail, we also realize that there are many (often silent) users that wish for a shallower learning curve. In fact, the Lock On / Flaming Cliffs series has been our most successful. As such, the F-15C Eagle and Su-27 Flanker will be catered to them. Both of these aircraft will have the same detailed 3D models, cockpits and sounds of the Flaming Cliffs 3 versions, but we will be adding an Advanced Flight Model (AFM) for each.

 

We also want to release these aircraft in such a manner to allow users that are not interested in Flaming Cliffs 3, or do not have a Lock On installation, to still have these aircraft in their DCS World stable of aircraft, but at a greatly reduced price.

 

This is not to say that we will not also continue to create very high level of detail simulations. At a later point, we will further develop these aircraft to include mouse clickable cockpit and the same level of detail as the DCS: A-10C Warthog, but that is a massive effort that will take time.

 

In the meantime, the F/A-18C Hornet is still planned but we want it to be at the same level as our A-10C. Because of this, development will take much longer compared to the Eagle and Flanker projects to be released this year.

 

Matt

And:

A few notes based on my skimming of the discussion thread:

 

1- There has been no decision regarding pricing yet.

 

2- There has been no decision regarding discounts to current FC3 customers or including the advanced flight models as free FC3 update. This is certainly something that we will be discussing internally over the coming weeks.

 

3- Trying to place a release date around one of the high-fidelity aircraft modules would only be an educated guess that would more likely than not bite us in the butt later if the date was missed and features changed. The same applies to any sort of public "road map" that would even more likely change. We're not going down that road again.

 

4- Regarding the change in the 03 May 2013 language, plans change or new information comes to light that will modify previously expressed plans and intentions. While we want to better provide you earlier news of upcoming products, the price is that at times our plans and intentions will change. For instance, I only learned of the feature intentions of the F-15C and Su-27 a very short time ago. The alternative is that we go back to only discussing new products once they are 100% final. Your actions will determine my decision.

 

5- The new F-15C and Su-27 have no significant impact on the development of the high-fidelity module aircraft. In fact, they benefit them by bringing in additional income to fund that development.

 

6- We understand and fully empathize with the desire of many members here for high-fidelity module aircraft ASAP. Rest assured that they are coming and we are certainly not delaying them in favor of lesser fidelity modules. However, it seems some here vastly underestimate the amount of time and money it takes to create one of these.

I wouldnt go back farther than that, because you're getting into old plans prior to DCS:A-10C (2010 and Earlier).