Why no Su-25T in Black Shark?

Even when compared to the other Lock On aircraft, it seems like an appropriate candidate:

 

- can bomb bridges and other targets that the Ka-50 can't handle on its own

- can be used on both teams for multiplayer competition (Russia & Georgia)

- AFM and damage model already finished

- property rights exclusive to ED, not owned by UbiSoft

- has the flying range to actually use the new airbases added to the DCS map

- has an RWR/ARMs, allowing SAMs/AAA to appear in missions without overwhelming players

 

The only thing it seems to lack is a 6DOF cockpit - does ED really think that makes it worth getting rid of multiplayer competition altogether? That would imply that non-TrackIR4 users are not in the target market for the DCS product line.

 

Besides, recent screenshots have shown how quickly the AH-64A and A-10A cockpits could be thrown together - long before the Ka-50 is finished itself. The cockpit designers obviously have too much time on their hands if they're that far ahead. What's the issue?

 

-SK

Personally I think the 'T' lacks quite a bit more than "just" 6DOF cockpit.

 

And might there be some issues regarding the ownership of the model?

 

Edit: oh, and doesn't this thread belong on the DCS forum?

property rights exclusive to ED, not owned by UbiSoft

 

Are you sure that there are no complications due to the fact that Flaming Cliffs was also released under the "Lock On" banner?

 

As it was explained in the past, ED owns the code and Ubi owns that name. But it may not be so simple.

- has the flying range to actually use the new airbases added to the DCS map

You know that the crimea is being cut out of DCS don't you?

Very Good Question: I would honestly and sincerely appreciate an answer from ED.

The only thing it seems to lack is a 6DOF cockpit - does ED really think that makes it worth getting rid of multiplayer competition altogether? That would imply that non-TrackIR4 users are not in the target market for the DCS product line.

No, it implies that ED want's to have a set of flyables with equal quality and let the user use their TrackIR4 to the fullest with all flyables. FC is a very flawed product in the respect that the flyables are modeled with very different realism levels. I really think ED is going about this the right way.

Sure I'd like the 'T' in DCS, but not until it truly has the same level of detail as the Ka-50, when it does it is more than welcome, it would make a great pair with the BS :)

Are you sure that there are no complications due to the fact that Flaming Cliffs was also released under the "Lock On" banner?

 

As it was explained in the past, ED owns the code and Ubi owns that name. But it may not be so simple.

 

I'm not sure. However, I've never seen it "explained it the past" for the Su-25T individually. I'm asking for a public clarification of exactly that.

 

You know that the crimea is being cut out of DCS don't you?

 

Yes, thanks. I still think that some of the new airbases like Mineralnye Vody were included with the intention of being used by jets, not by helos - given their distance from the state borders.

 

-SK

No, it implies that ED want's to have a set of flyables with equal quality and let the user use their TrackIR4 to the fullest with all flyables.

 

How is that a "no?" It appears to me to be the same as what I wrote.

 

-SK

How is that a "no?" It appears to me to be the same as what I wrote.

 

-SK

My "No" meant that I don't agree with you that ED is implying that you must have TrackIR4 to be a target for the game - in fact it doesn't make much difference at all if you don't have TrackIR - but if you do have it you should be able to use it fully with all flyables.

http://forum.digitalcombatsimulator.com/showthread.php?t=319&page=2

I'm not informed enough about the IP issue to respond, but the lockon.co.uk homepage lists FC as an "Unofficial Add-On." Draw your own conclusions.

 

Regardless, the reason ED will not include the Su-25T into DCS - and this IS the official response - is because it is modeled with a qualitatively different (lower) level of realism as compared to the Ka-50 and future DCS modules. Besides the interactive, 6DOF, fully-3D cockpit, it is missing the entire level of realistic avionics and systems modeling, which are largely approximated for FC's Su-25T, but maximally authentic for the DCS Ka-50 and future flyable aircaft.

 

This decision is final and this thread is locked, as was a string of recent threads on this forum about DCS features and goals. ED is fully aware of and sympathetic to the feelings of some that DCS is not the direction of choice and to the extent possible, we will cater to these feelings with continued support for Lock On and online communication, but going forward, persistent posts or threads on the same issues will simply be locked or deleted and the posters warned. If you are ultimately unable or unwilling to further support ED in the future based on their development decisions today, we understand and concede your right to do so until you feel otherwise. However, the continual discussion of the matter is hampering the experience of those that feel otherwise and is negatively impacting the forum, which isn’t something we intend to tolerate.