We desperately need more eastern bloc aircraft

(re: Message #54)

 

How many DCS employed guys working on code full time compared to the real aircraft's original design time-frame envelope and the man-hours comparison to that end?

Far less anyways of the amount.

But it isn't at all as difficult to make the simulator from the actual aircraft, than making the actual aircraft in the first place by pioneering design, requirements and solving all the problems and challenges.

It is totally different thing to work with a model in a wind tunnel and design the shape, than take the wind tunnel values and enter them to your software, if you have the software developed in the first place for the modeling.

It is far more easier to make a 3D model of the cockpit when you don't need to worry about physical limitations in the first place. Or make a virtual wiring for logic in avionics, when you don't need to consider any space, temperature, friction, serviceability or such things at all. You just place a areas in 3D model that you mark as X, and then you tell what it is and what are the limits or capabilities. More work is required when example fuel flow is started to be calculated and how long the pump can operate in negative G maneuvers at given fuel flow rate etc. But that is all just by following official (or unofficial) documents instead pulling pipes, calculating pumps efficiency, testing in laboratory, testing in flight etc. A single coder can do such task in hours from a documents, when in real world it could take months if not even years.

But all the hours that has been spent on the base code to build the foundation and framework, that is used to simply enter the values in flight modeling system... That is the most expensive thing. It is like comparing writing a code with Java (today) to writing code in binary (decades ago) in even such a simple manner as "Hello World!".

I'm propably not most people, but I feel that as this is supposed to be a simulation (albeit COMBAT simulator, not necessarily systems-simulator) me sitting in a cockpit of a virtual fully modelled aircraft, I would be rather frustrated and disappointed if I could not operate the aircraft from within the cockpit. If a particular system is simulated and it's controls available, I see no reason not to have it's cockpit controls modelled.

Admittedly a good HOTAS's purpose is to reduce the time required to spend "hands off" especially during combat, but I like to use all other systems with their supposed controls instead of binding everithing possible to HOTAS. The only systems that I prefer to have on my HOTAS apart from weapons and sensors, are gear, flaps and airbrake - you can really mess up a rough weather ILS if you struggle in using the in cockpit flaps and gear controls, which is especially true in aircraft whose control buttons/switches are small in size.

But that's just me.

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

I'm propably not most people, but I feel that as this is supposed to be a simulation (albeit COMBAT simulator, not necessarily systems-simulator) me sitting in a cockpit of a virtual fully modelled aircraft, I would be rather frustrated and disappointed if I could not operate the aircraft from within the cockpit. If a particular system is simulated and it's controls available, I see no reason not to have it's cockpit controls modelled.

I think the "Combat" part means only the vehicle position in the arsenal, not its cockpit itself. Like a A-10 is for CAS tasks, not for a recon or a high altitude interceptor. But if you can weaponize it to mission and complete the task, then it is "combat simulation".

Like even today we have very simple radar operation (just a range for searching and locking regardless of any other complex radar limitations or requirements) and same is for the other sensors (like a FLIR). And those radically make the "combat" part easier than they would in reality be. I would swap the clickable cockpit any day on any aircraft (or all of them) to more correct radar and IR simulation as it would make the combat flying more interesting.

Like thinking a Mig-23 that would be still very effective if flying like a Su-27 and handled same way (non-clickable cockpit).

Admittedly a good HOTAS's purpose is to reduce the time required to spend "hands off" especially during combat, but I like to use all other systems with their supposed controls instead of binding everithing possible to HOTAS.

I do agree that it is nice to have "hands off", but that is what I have on the HOTAS (G940) as it has own 8 buttons below throttle.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71Cfu6wFahL._SL1500_.jpg

And it fits greatly with aircrafts like KA-50 where you have main control panels possible to get to same layout (2x4 buttons).

Then have a separated numpad that can be set to side of the throttle and you get your other "Off-hands" experience.

And that experience is far better than having to use a mouse on right hand. Trying to flip a switch or rotate a knob while looking around or head just shaking in cockpit. That is like one reason why stick should have "Pause TrackIR" button but it is just immersion killer then again.

So to me it is better immersion if I take hand off from HOTAS on physical button layout, than I try to flick things in aircraft with a mouse. It isn't "Study Cockpit" system but I anyways need to look the control in cockpit and press a button so I know what to do inside. Only difference is no mouse waving and aiming.

And this is why I would take more soviet aircrafts with non-clickable cockpits, and even more willing to buy those if they would come with a more realistic radars and such sensors operations than whole DCS has currently.

That seems reasonable, and fair points altogether.

Got to agree that after the hornet, a Mig-29 would be best if ED could do it.

Little info about FC-3 Su-33/Mig-29, Su-33 updates on 2016/2017, Mig-29 updates to 2017 (updates can be AFM, 3D interior, exterior models, no clickable cockpits or realistic systems)

By Chizh, russian forum:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2847554&postcount=930

I would have been satisfied with dcs mig 23

Little info about FC-3 Su-33/Mig-29, Su-33 updates on 2016/2017, Mig-29 updates to 2017 (updates can be AFM, 3D interior, exterior models, no clickable cockpits or realistic systems)

 

By Chizh, russian forum:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2847554&postcount=930

Well then. No MiG-29, full fidelity. I guess we just have to wait and see what the future holds.

I just hope such information was posted on the english forum as well. Good thing we have people translating, though. Thank you for the info Silver_Dragon.

How about a couple of Chinese aircraft? Maybe a J-8 or a J-10A?

This isn't pick and choose..

I know I'm just giving a suggestion

How about a couple of Chinese aircraft? Maybe a J-8 or a J-10A?

It will be difficult translating all the information from Chinese to English and Russian :book: :D

Little info about FC-3 Su-33/Mig-29, Su-33 updates on 2016/2017, Mig-29 updates to 2017 (updates can be AFM, 3D interior, exterior models, no clickable cockpits or realistic systems)

 

By Chizh, russian forum:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2847554&postcount=930

Is he saying MiG-29 PFM is not going to come this year?

But who's making the Mirage III?

It will be difficult translating all the information from Chinese to English and Russian :book: :D

IMO I don't think that would be much of a problem in today's world especially thanks to internet, dictionaries plus people from Russia and China probably are a part of DCS as members, they could probably help.

Also I have one more recommendation. This is an Eastern Block Aircraft but it's not Russian or Chinese.

This plane was designed by Kurt Tank the designer of the famous FW-190. It's called the HAL HF-24 Marut and was a first gen jet comparable to the Sabre and Hunter in the Indian Air Force capable of going supersonic.

Just thought this was worth a mention since Eastern block planes are what we want, maybe we could give this a look?

You guys are all in here for the Mig29 (which I would take cause I love this plane) but Im still waiting for my DCS level Su-25 so I can use that instead of the A-10C. :D

+1 for a high fidelity Su-25 :thumbup:

+1 for a high fidelity Su-25 :thumbup:

If you want a high fidelity Su-25, why not go for the carrier version Su-25? Or the Su-39 as it's known?

Little info about FC-3 Su-33/Mig-29, Su-33 updates on 2016/2017, Mig-29 updates to 2017 (updates can be AFM, 3D interior, exterior models, no clickable cockpits or realistic systems)

 

By Chizh, russian forum:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2847554&postcount=930

Ahhhh :(

In my opinion an airframe that would fill the gap in the different theatres that are present or upcoming theres one that i would love to see the most as a full clickable, realistic system and advanced flight model.

The MiG-23MLA/MLD !

If you want a high fidelity Su-25, why not go for the carrier version Su-25? Or the Su-39 as it's known?

Yup I wouldn't mind the TM version. Just me being Ukrainian and a big fan of A/G engagements :D so it would (may) have been my plane of choice.. I'm still hoping that one day Belsimtek would perhaps surprise us by announcing that they're working on a high fidelity version :joystick:

Yup I wouldn't mind the TM version. Just me being Ukrainian and a big fan of A/G engagements :D so it would (may) have been my plane of choice.. I'm still hoping that one day Belsimtek would perhaps surprise us by announcing that they're working on a high fidelity version :joystick:

Belsimtek or Leatherneck for building russian aircraft. We will have to see what the future holds ^^

How about a high fidelity Mig-29K, now I know it's been asked before, but why not? It'll be a perfect counter to the upcoming F/A-18, plus people can have a full PFM Mig-29 for a change, AND also have carrier ops in Russia there will be something other than the Su-33 to fly in the Navy.

Also the Mig-29K is available for more countries than just Russia unlike the Su-33. But this is just me

Mig 29 SMT/K/M2 version would be a formidable opponent for any western block fighter. It shouldn't be much of an effort to develop a potent ground attack version of this aircraft which already has a PFM in development. I would personally love to see the tough cold war metal Mig 27 as well :joystick:

Su-24 would be great

Why not some 1st or 2nd generation fighters in DCS? In my opinion we have enough simulators concentrating on WW2 already and it would be great to see some early jet era dogfights in DCS. Hawker Hunter or Su- 7 would be really amazing.

My personal favorite is the imposing and powerful Su-7. In the theaters it operated, it had gained profound reputation with its offensive capabilities. With a weapons system centered on a powerful dual NR-30 cannon and the sheer brute power of Lyulka AL-7F, Su-7s were quite effective in sweeping in at extremely low level, pulverizing bunkers and semi-armored vehicles with very accurate rocket attacks. Flying mostly through intense anti-aircraft fire they were brutally effective in this punishing role.

Although vulnerable operating against fortified air defenses in battles, Su-7s had a reputation of being built extremely tough. They have demonstrated their ability to absorb far greater punishment than other aircraft types and has recorded instances of being able to make it back to base despite suffering extensive damage.

I’ve read that during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971, an Indian Su-7 hit by a sidewinder was able to return to base with half the rudder missing, the elevators, ailerons and flaps severely damaged, and half the missile stuck in the chute pipe. The Su-7 is an exceptionally robust aircraft. I’d love to see them in a future Arab-Israeli theater or Indo-Pakistani theater.