[ALREADY REQUESTED]Peer to Peer & Fighter to Fighter DL modes Flanker family in MP

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Its a recurring topic but one at least based off what I've seen ED seems to have conflicting views on its potential implementation.

 

 

 

As seen here:https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4288175&postcount=229

 

 

And here:https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4466206&postcount=9335

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4466237&postcount=9341

 

 

 

 

Could we get a definitive answer as to if it will be implemented and if not a more detailed explanation as to why not?

 

 

 

Simply because not adding a capability which is as clear as day there and information on it is abundant as proven by this forum post really brings into the question the authenticity of the sim ED is trying to create.

 

 

 

Link the the post can be found here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2650986&postcount=33

 

 

Now on a slightly different tangent I'd also be curious about ED's stance on the MiG-29 Top down tactical view of what the radar is seeing

I do believe a Russian MiG-29 pilot showed the monochrome display could show that

[bies]

Simply because not adding a capability which is as clear as day there and information on it is abundant as proven by this forum post really brings into the question the authenticity of the sim ED is trying to create.

 

Su-27 is low fidelity FC3 plane, it, by the definition, doesn't have advenced avionic modeling. If some day we will see full fidelity Flanker DL will be implemented in far more realistic way obviously with it's limitations and functionality. At this point even Su-27S from 1985 seems to be out of reach due to classification.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

That goes against what ED defines as SSM

All capabilities should be there, how one interacts with it though should be though keyboard commands not a clickable cockpit.

 

 

The information on how it works isn't classified for our 1985 Flanker I posted a thread where some one provided information on it.

 

 

I guess by that logic you just laid out the F-15C shouldn't get its Radar detection fixed despite performing worse than an F-15A.

[TotenDead]

Su-27 is low fidelity FC3 plane, it, by the definition, doesn't have advenced avionic modeling. If some day we will see full fidelity Flanker DL will be implemented in far more realistic way obviously with it's limitations and functionality. At this point even Su-27S from 1985 seems to be out of reach due to classification.

 

Please write what is classified in Su-27? All of its manuals were published on this forum long time ago

[bies]

Please write what is classified in Su-27? All of its manuals were published on this forum long time ago

 

Every 3rd party will tell you the same: publically available manuals are only a fraction of informationa needen to make a full fidelity module for DCS.

 

I don't now how Su-27 avionics works in detail, but i know MiG-29A avionics good enough to tell it's day and night different than what we have in MiG-29A in DCS. There is ton of limitations and specific modes missing, different logic of the modes we have. Overall IRL it's far more dependant on GCI, far more integrated with GCI and less capable in searching targets on it's own and act independently.

 

But i'm not dissapointed, i've paid only 10$ for the MiG-29A so for me it's steel great value for money.

 

I simply don't unrealistically expect avionics modeling level of full fidelity 80$ module. Still when MiG-29A will came out as full fidelity (and rumors says ED is considering it) i'll preorder it at day one.

Similar with F-15C (but Nick stated being single role it had to gave the right of way to multirole Hornet and Viper, what is a shame for me since i'm personally 90% interested in A-A combat)

Similar with Su-27S but this is not planed due to reasons ED more or less explaining in nearly every interview.

 

(Digression: Eagle's radar lacking detection range about 2 times bigger than Hornet like it has IRL - here being low fidelity is no excuse. It should be corrected but i guess it's already on ED to do list.)

Edited October 11, 2020 by bies

[BIGNEWY]

Hi

 

as already mentioned by Kate it is something we want to do, although it was never planned originally.

 

The request is in our system, but we can make no timeline guesses at this stage.

 

Thanks

[Max1mus]

Hi

 

as already mentioned by Kate it is something we want to do, although it was never planned originally.

 

The request is in our system, but we can make no timeline guesses at this stage.

 

Thanks

 

This disregard of the red side may seem profitable for you, since the F-16/18 owners are

-Happy about updates

-Happy that no tactics are needed to win BVR fights https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=240383&d=1592582904

-Happy that no tactics are needed when attacking ground targets https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=240383&d=1592582904

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699244872657403904/723570862652915782/1xF-18vsentirerussianPVO.acmi

 

But while i dont have the exact numbers, a big chunk of the "red" playerbase, especially the MP one, is switching to games like IL2 and Warthunder.

 

The reason is simply that there is no content for them here. The servers are just NATO vs NATO due to lack of capable red modules aswell as apparently no plans for R-27/77 to be CFD'd in the next months, even one year after rework of AIM-120: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4520759&postcount=9742

 

If you take look at what is left of the red playerbase (Especially russian groups like ROSS) you will find that most have migrated to flying in cold war scenarios. However, there are no regularly populated servers for this and there is no real Singleplayer content, making Warthunder, which has replayable east vs west content available 24/7, the only option for them.

 

As far as the more numerous, "blue" playerbase is concerned, they will at some point grow tired of having to choose between NATO vs NATO or turkey shooting 30 year older equipment. And with named "other games" leaping into the modern era (Warthunder has AIM-7s already), while making sure to offer replayable interesting content instead of Turkey shoots or red flag.

 

So while this strategy of keeping the red coalition down may seem profitable due to the 3 reasons stated above, ED will loose players. And this strategy (on top of issues like unbearable desync, different modelling standard for weapons between 3rd parties/ED, which have driven away quite a few people) will with absolute certainty damage DCS Multiplayer beyond repair, if not killing it entirely apart from aerobatics/BFM servers.

 

You could care for the russian FC3 modules and at the very least keep supporting them and fix basic bugs (No waypoints on Su-27, MFDs invisible due to sun, R-27/77 not following new modelling standards). Or you could not. In this case please:

-Add a disclaimer to the FC3 purchase that the product is no longer supported

-Be more clear about DCS being only for red flag-like scenarios, so people arent buying a Eurofighter/F-18 to face Su-35s/S-400, to then be disappointed

Edited October 11, 2020 by Max1mus

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Can we also expect updates on how the work is progressing similar to how the F/A-18 progress was tracked and predicted?

[Coxy_99]

Can we also expect updates on how the work is progressing similar to how the F/A-18 progress was tracked and predicted?

 

 

R-Family CFD update pushed back to next year because F-18/F16. Have to agree with Max1mus on this one.