Jump to content

Realistic or Balance - J-11A Datalink


uboats

Realistic or Balance - J-11A Datalink  

474 members have voted

  1. 1. Realistic or Balance - J-11A Datalink



Recommended Posts

I'm talking to you. The guy above you was mentioning that people's biases regarding the F-15C and 'competitiveness' may be biasing people's opinions on this poll. -And then you went and confirmed it. We're not talking about changing the F-15C, we're talking about changing the J-11A.

 

I'm not biased towards the F-15 and its "competitiveness" but it seems like some people are concerned about just that with regards to removing the datalink on the J-11 which was clearly not installed on the J-11 block that is currently represented in the sim. Not sure why this even needs discussing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not biased towards the F-15 and its "competitiveness" but it seems like some people are concerned about just that with regards to removing the datalink on the J-11 which was clearly not installed on the J-11 block that is currently represented in the sim. Not sure why this even needs discussing...

 

Because comparing features of the J-11A to the F-15C is a fallacy. Furthermore it seems more than a few people are really only concerned with how it stacks up the F-15C and not about portraying it realistically. We have no FC3 equivalent to what the heads down display in the J-11A actually does. Removing it would require levels of customization that we're not sure Deka Ironwork is capable of doing for what amounts to an FC3 side project, and your post about how the F-15C should get a bunch of stuff because the J-11A gets a datalink isn't helping things. Not sure why you brought it up or why the F-15C's features are even a part of this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because comparing features of the J-11A to the F-15C is a fallacy. Furthermore it seems more than a few people are really only concerned with how it stacks up the F-15C and not about portraying it realistically. We have no FC3 equivalent to what the heads down display in the J-11A actually does. Removing it would require levels of customization that we're not sure Deka Ironwork is capable of doing for what amounts to an FC3 side project, and your post about how the F-15C should get a bunch of stuff because the J-11A gets a datalink isn't helping things. Not sure why you brought it up or why the F-15C's features are even a part of this discussion.

 

We're talking about the datalink not the HDD, that wasn't changed in our version of the J-11. Only thing that wasn't there is the datalink equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking about the datalink not the HDD, that wasn't changed in our version of the J-11. Only thing that wasn't there is the datalink equipment.

..Really? You don't know what the relationship is between the HDD and the Datalink in the J-11A; or why I would refer to one when talking about the other?

 

You are aware that the HDD in the J-11A is the same one as in the SU-27, right? When we talk about the datalink; we're talking about the HDD because that's the only place the datalink comes into play in the FC3 SU-27 and J-11A.

The reason it has a datalink at all isn't because someone decided that the J-11A should have one. It has one because it's based on the SU-27's FC3 code, and the SU-27 has a datalink which is linked to its HDD.

 

Which is where the argument stems from.

Should it be based on the SU-27's HDD, should there be a new one made just for the J-11A, or should it just use a HUD repeater like the 29 does?

 

One of those is sort-of inaccurate, one of those requires modification work to FC3 code which we're not sure they're allowed to do, and the last one is extremely inaccurate, but means there would be no datalink.


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

..Really? You don't know what the relationship is between the HDD and the Datalink in the J-11A; or why I would refer to one when talking about the other?

 

You are aware that the HDD in the J-11A is the same one as in the SU-27, right? When we talk about the datalink; we're talking about the HDD because that's the only place the datalink comes into play in the FC3 SU-27 and J-11A.

The reason it has a datalink at all isn't because someone decided that the J-11A should have one. It has one because it's based on the SU-27's FC3 code, and the SU-27 has a datalink which is linked to its HDD.

 

Which is where the argument stems from.

Should it be based on the SU-27's HDD, should there be a new one made just for the J-11A, or should it just use a HUD repeater like the 29 does?

 

One of those is sort-of inaccurate, one of those requires modification work to FC3 code which we're not sure they're allowed to do, and the last one is extremely inaccurate, but means there would be no datalink.

 

So you're saying it's impossible to disable the datalink without removing the HDD? Where did you get that from? If you're not sure what they're allowed to do you should take a step back before being this bold lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying it's impossible to disable the datalink without removing the HDD? Where did you get that from? If you're not sure what they're allowed to do you should take a step back before being this bold lol

 

Do you really think you're the first one who had this idea? Do you seriously think we haven't had this discussion before with other planes? We have it at least once a year. The conclusion is always the same: "It's a harder problem than you think it is" and "It's not unrealistic enough to where it's worth the effort changing". Saying "JUST CHANGE IT CAN'T BE THAT HARD LOL" isn't constructive and shows your lack of familiarity with the problem.

 

Why do you think I made this post way back here about treating this problem with care? Why do you think I made this post discussing the J-11A and the SU-27's datalink because they're exactly the same in-game? The Datalink in the SU-27 is a part of its HDD; you would have the same problem if you tried to write an F-15C HDD without the datalink. So your options are to write it just for the J-11A to specifically remove the datalink, or replace it with another FC3 HDD. If Deka Ironwork is going to put aside the resources to do that.

 

I think you should take a step back before you comment on something that you clearly haven't taken the time to research.

 

The question is easy: Is this worth putting the resources toward to fix it because it's slightly unrealistic when all of the FC3 aircraft in the game are slightly unrealistic? I don't think it is. Not unless they want to surprise us and give us something that is unique only to the J-11A, even if it's just the same HDD the SU-27 has but without the datalink; which I would love. I wouldn't love it enough to take away from the JF-17, because I'm planning on buying that aircraft. Frankly, I think the poll should be closed only to people planning to buy the JF-17, because they're the people who are probably flying the J-11A right now.


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I think the poll should be closed only to people planning to buy the JF-17, because they're the people who are probably flying the J-11A right now.

 

Lol, I'm done. This affects everyone who is up against the J-11 not just the people that fly it...

 

I won't comment on the rest, it's just non-sense, you're overthinking this. They asked if we want the unrealistic feature removed, people say yes. The vote has clearly shown this. If you can't get over that then that's not our problem.

 

You're the only person saying it's somehow impossible to simply disable the AWACS link without providing proof, without the devs having commented on it and you call people stupid when they ask why you think that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, I'm done. This affects everyone who is up against the J-11 not just the people that fly it...

.

Ah, there it is! You just said the magic words!

 

You don't care about the actual realism of the aircraft. You never cared. The first thing you thought about was 'what would it be like to be up against this thing'. Not 'How realistic is it to fly?' or 'How will this change affect people who fly it?'. No, the only thing you even came to this thread for is because you wanted to argue about competitiveness in multiplayer because you were worried about fighting against it.

 

I mean it was pretty obvious considering that you didn't realize that it shared the SU-27's datalink, that the HDD was the datalink in question, and that you had no idea how much work it would take to change or remove it. You really only care about it because it might be inconvenient to fight. Wasn't that my point? That basing your decision off its competitiveness means you shouldn't have even voted? The question was never "is it competitive" or "will it be hard to fight against it", but instead "is it realistic"?

 

Congratulations, you've effectively proven blokovchan correct when he asked, "It wouldbe interesting to know how many of remove voters, are actually F15C pilots..." The answer is: a whole lot! A whole lot of people are giving their opinion on a plane they don't fly, don't know how the datalink works, and maybe even in a pack they don't even own, about a realism change that wasn't aimed at them.

 

Would you appreciate it if the question came up if The AIM-120C should even be on the F-15C that we have (hint: realistically, it shouldn't) and you had tons of Sukoi and MiG pilots coming to your thread, voting to remove it just because they hated fighting against it? No! You would have every right to be angry at them about that. You would be mad at them because what possible right would they have to make decisions about a plane they don't fly and aren't actually an authority on just to get an edge on you in a multiplayer server?

 

I hope Deka Ironwork sees this little exchange and realizes that asking the forums is a poor idea and they should really ask their customers on their Facebook page: You know, the people who are actually going to buy the JF-17 and what this little feature of FC3 was meant to help advertise. They are the ones who should have a say in this, not Eagle drivers who aren't even going to think about tiny details of the J-11A or the JF-17 further than "How am I going to deliver 120Cs to this thing?".


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

read some arguments:

if late ver of j-11a has dl, then we should keep it regardless its ver in game.

f-15 shouldn't have 120c, and mig-21 shouldn't have grom, but they have, so 11a should keep dl.

 

IMO, in-game status (i.e unrealistic equipment) of module A should not be the point to support unrealistic implementation of module b; and we should consider the period not mix the features from different periods (blocks)

 

also hope Deka would have enough data of MFI-55 and implement it

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

My DCS Mods, Skins, Utilities and Scripts

 

| Windows 10 | i7-4790K | GTX 980Ti Hybrid | 32GB RAM | 3TB SSD |

| TM Warthog Stick | CH Pro Throttle + Pro Pedal | TIR5 Pro | TM MFD Cougar | Gun Camera: PrtScn |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read some arguments:

if late ver of j-11a has dl, then we should keep it regardless its ver in game.

f-15 shouldn't have 120c, and mig-21 shouldn't have grom, but they have, so 11a should keep dl.

 

IMO, in-game status (i.e unrealistic equipment) of module A should not be the point to support unrealistic implementation of module b; and we should consider the period not mix the features from different periods (blocks)

 

also hope Deka would have enough data of MFI-55 and implement it

 

Yes! Preach! :thumbup: This is exactly what I would like to see, a complete implementation of the specific MFI-55 that we have on this model. If it's possible with the information we have and if it doesn't take away from the development of the JF-17

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's possible to give the mission designer an option to enable/disable it that would probably be the best to control timeframe. Although if you disable it you still have the problem of having a blank HDD which would be rather lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, there it is! You just said the magic words!

 

You don't care about the actual realism of the aircraft. You never cared. The first thing you thought about was 'what would it be like to be up against this thing'.

 

Okay buddy, whatever floats your boat. I actually do care about realism and had you actually read what I said over and over again you would know. I think we all understand the issue, the early lot J-11 we have modeled in game doesn't have the data link equipment because Russia didn't sell/license it. The later lot that has the domestic datalink has a completely redone MFD isn't the one we have modeled in the sim, so the obvious realistic answer is, remove the datalink.

 

It's funny how you say I'm only concerned about competitiveness while arguing it should keep the datalink because the F-15 has 120Cs or the MiG-21 Groms. If everyone takes that approach we'll end up with aircraft that are all a mix of different versions and capabilities because you feel it's not balanced. This should be decided on a case by case basis. Not to mention that the AIM-120C is banned virtually any competition anyway, so wouldn't effect me, the guy that is apparently only concerned about how I'm going to spam 120s on something ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay buddy, whatever floats your boat. I actually do care about realism and had you actually read what I said over and over again you would know. I think we all understand the issue, the early lot J-11 we have modeled in game doesn't have the data link equipment because Russia didn't sell/license it.

You "do" care, but the first thing you thought to care about when addressing the plane was how hard it is to fight against, not how realistic it would be to fly. And you've shown, and stated, a couple of times now that you have no intention of flying the plane.

 

But you think your opinion on it should be worth as much as someone who is going to fly it. Sure buddy, whatever floats your boat. ;)

 

The later lot that has the domestic datalink has a completely redone MFD isn't the one we have modeled in the sim, so the obvious realistic answer is, remove the datalink.

It's funny how you say I'm only concerned about competitiveness while arguing it should keep the datalink because the F-15 has 120Cs or the MiG-21 Groms. If everyone takes that approach we'll end up with aircraft that are all a mix of different versions and capabilities because you feel it's not balanced. This should be decided on a case by case basis. Not to mention that the AIM-120C is banned virtually any competition anyway, so wouldn't effect me, the guy that is apparently only concerned about how I'm going to spam 120s on something

 

I love this! :megalol: It's like you haven't even read a single one of my posts!

 

I've stated several times before that we have these inaccuracies not there because they're "okay", but because the effort to fix them isn't worth the payoff. I don't even know where you got that from. We're arguing if they're worth fixing if it makes an airframe even more inaccurate. I even said this two posts above yours, but you didn't even read that one.

 

Taking away the HDD altogether would be extremely inaccurate. Giving it the HDD of the Mig-29 would be extremely inaccurate. The ideal solution is to recode the HDD to remove the datalink functionality, which we don't know if they can do, because it's not as easy as just turning it off. Did you even read the post I specifically addressed to you mentioned why the datalink is part of the SU-27's HDD and therefore would require modifying that?

 

Also I like that strawman you've now built that my issue with you is something to do with spamming 120Cs and multiplayer. My issue is that you've come to a thread about a plane you aren't even thinking of flying to vote in a poll about a change that only affects people who fly it.

 

I'm concerned that you and many others like you are even allowed to vote in this poll at all. It's nothing personal, I just don't think you should be allowed to pitch your opinion on it if you aren't going to use it. ;)

 

If it's possible to give the mission designer an option to enable/disable it that would probably be the best to control timeframe. Although if you disable it you still have the problem of having a blank HDD which would be rather lame.

Absolutely this. Removing the HDD or making it blank would be a travesty realism-wise, when a non-change is only a slight inaccuracy because of timeframe issues. That timeframe only being in the range of about 10 years.


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You "do" care, but the first thing you thought to care about when addressing the plane was how hard it is to fight against, not how realistic it would be to fly. And you've shown, and stated, a couple of times now that you have no intention of flying the plane.

 

But you think your opinion on it should be worth as much as someone who is going to fly it. Sure buddy, whatever floats your boat. ;)

 

 

 

I love this! :megalol: It's like you haven't even read a single one of my posts!

 

I've stated several times before that we have these inaccuracies not there because they're "okay", but because the effort to fix them isn't worth the payoff. I don't even know where you got that from. We're arguing if they're worth fixing if it makes an airframe even more inaccurate. I even said this two posts above yours, but you didn't even read that one.

 

Taking away the HDD altogether would be extremely inaccurate. Giving it the HDD of the Mig-29 would be extremely inaccurate. The ideal solution is to recode the HDD to remove the datalink functionality, which we don't know if they can do, because it's not as easy as just turning it off. Did you even read the post I specifically addressed to you mentioned why the datalink is part of the SU-27's HDD and therefore would require modifying that?

 

Also I like that strawman you've now built that my issue with you is something to do with spamming 120Cs and multiplayer. My issue is that you've come to a thread about a plane you aren't even thinking of flying to vote in a poll about a change that only affects people who fly it.

 

I'm concerned that you and many others like you are even allowed to vote in this poll at all. It's nothing personal, I just don't think you should be allowed to pitch your opinion on it if you aren't going to use it. ;)

 

 

Absolutely this. Removing the HDD or making it blank would be a travesty realism-wise, when a non-change is only a slight inaccuracy because of timeframe issues. That timeframe only being in the range of about 10 years.

 

I think it's hilarious how you keep making all these assumptions about what I want or do. I had my fair share of stick time in the J-11 and plan to fly it in the future as well...

 

And even if I wouldn't I still have a right to vote here lol

 

Did you even read the post I specifically addressed to you mentioned why the datalink is part of the SU-27's HDD and therefore would require modifying that?

 

You keep saying that and only link back to your comment where you say that that's how it works. How about we wait and hear from the devs if and how dificult to remove it is?

 

Lastly I strongly disagree with making it a mission editor option, look at how that worked out with the mirage. It's a pain to disable and most mission makers don't bother. Either have it or don't, I gave my opinion on the matter, you gave yours, stop being condescending to people that disagree with you. Won't comment on this anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's hilarious how you keep making all these assumptions about what I want or do. I had my fair share of stick time in the J-11 and plan to fly it in the future as well...

 

And even if I wouldn't I still have a right to vote here lol

 

You keep saying that and only link back to your comment where you say that that's how it works. How about we wait and hear from the devs if and how dificult to remove it is?

 

Lastly I strongly disagree with making it a mission editor option, look at how that worked out with the mirage. It's a pain to disable and most mission makers don't bother. Either have it or don't, I gave my opinion on the matter, you gave yours, stop being condescending to people that disagree with you. Won't comment on this anymore.

 

Yes, I keep linking back to my posts because I've already said all of this before, but clearly you didn't remember me saying it.

 

"I have plenty of stick time in the J-11"

REALLY? Is that why you didn't even know where to find the datalink in question until I told you?

HUH.

I mean, even someone who has sat in the cockpit of the SU-27 in-game would have known this, or has read the manual would have known that, but that's okay. I'm sure you and your 'plenty of stick time' just simply overlooked that. ;)

 

Lastly, GREAT! Let's wait to hear from the devs from this. It's just silly to scream "REMOVE IT!" without ever once considering how they're going to remove it, or what it will be replaced with. Or even worse, letting people who don't even fly it have a say in how it's going to fly.

 

Again, all the more reason this poll should have been conducted on their facebook group and not here. If they don't fly the plane, they should have no say in the matter of how the plane should fly, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The information from the datalink is displayed on the HDD. The HDD is not the datalink. The HDD can also act as a HUD repeater in the Su-27, though this binding is currently absent from the J-11A control profile.

YJtGpPr.jpg

 

The HDD was not removed in the early lot J-11A. The datalink was. It's pretty clear to me this is exactly what six is trying to say as well in the post you keep linking.

 

The HDD will likely be locked into HUD repeater mode if the datalink is removed, as with the MiG-29. This should not require any significant effort from Deka, as the avionics are already ported over from the Su-27.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The information from the datalink is displayed on the HDD. The HDD is not the datalink. The HDD can also act as a HUD repeater in the Su-27, though this binding is currently absent from the J-11A control profile.

 

 

The HDD was not removed in the early lot J-11A. The datalink was. It's pretty clear to me this is exactly what six is trying to say as well in the post you keep linking.

 

The HDD will likely be locked into HUD repeater mode if the datalink is removed, as with the MiG-29. This should not require any significant effort from Deka, as the avionics are already ported over from the Su-27.

Six was saying that he didn't know that the HDD and the Datalink were connected. As you mentioned, the in-game HDD for the J-11A is literally just the SU-27's. Not the real one, the in-game one.

 

What's more: It would be very unrealistic to lock it to HUD repeater mode because the top-down radar still exists in the J-11A. The navigation pages still exist in the J-11A. Every single mode that the SU-27SK had available to it is available to the J-11A's early version models. Those screens never went away. The reason the Mig-29 is in HUD repeater mode is because that's the primary function of it in the A and G models.

 

My whole point as to why HUD repeater mode wouldn't work for it is: why would we want to replace unrealism with more unrealism? To feel good about 'fixing' something? That's why I think the 'remove' voters are misguided: They're not aware that removing the Datalink also entails re-writing the HDD or sticking it in HUD repeater mode. Six certainly mentioned that he didn't think it would be that big of a deal.

That's not something they have thought too much about because that's not what the poll is asking. I would like to know how the poll would look if it was mentioned that the only way to 'remove' the datalink is also to remove all those nice HDD modes that are inherent to the Flanker and its variants that it should 100% have.

 

And you're completely right, If the datalink goes: so does the top-down display radar, and so do the navigation pages. It will be locked in yet another mode that no one would use during an engagement, is left as an emergency mode to operators of the SK, and no operator of the J-11A would use 24/7, all of the time just to feel like something was accomplished. Turning it off is also an option, and is also extremely realistic as you can turn off the real one, too. However, I don't think anyone would argue that there should be a blank screen there just because you *can* do that.

 

In turn, by trying to feel like something was fixed, they would have instead just made it even less realistic.

 

This should not require any significant effort from Deka
They could also just leave it alone and achieve about the same level of unrealism.

If it's not going to be the same thing we have, but minus the datalink, then what's the point? What's the purpose? I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing the J-11A's relationship with the SU-27SK, but the question then becomes: why is it okay to claim that it shouldn't have the capabilities of the S but also shouldn't have the advantages of the SK? This would be a complete systems downgrade at this point, not simply disabling a datalink.


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Six was saying that he didn't know that the HDD and the Datalink were connected.

 

How do you know? It's literally only you who's saying that. It might be as simple as one line of code to completely disable the datalink and retain the VSD-style mode.

 

As you mentioned, the in-game HDD for the J-11A is literally just the SU-27's. Not the real one, the in-game one.

 

Real one too, same HDD as the 27SK. For the early versions that is, which is what it represents right now.

 

The reason the Mig-29 is in HUD repeater mode is because that's the primary function of it in the A and G models.

 

No, it's the only function. That's why it was changed. Not because ED is inept at changing their own code and could only remove the entire display.

 

Six certainly mentioned that he didn't think it would be that big of a deal.

That's not something they have thought too much about because that's not what the poll is asking. I would like to know how the poll would look if it was mentioned that the only way to 'remove' the datalink is also to remove all those nice HDD modes that are inherent to the Flanker and its variants that it should 100% have.

 

Truth is that you don't have a clue how hard to re-code it is, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know? It's literally only you who's saying that. It might be as simple as one line of code to completely disable the datalink and retain the VSD-style mode.

 

Real one too, same HDD as the 27SK. For the early versions that is, which is what it represents right now.

 

No, it's the only function. That's why it was changed. Not because ED is inept at changing their own code and could only remove the entire display.

 

Truth is that you don't have a clue how hard to re-code it is, period.

 

Wow it's almost as if I made a post addressing this already which was directly addressed to you with links to mods that have attempted this before and you just flat-out didn't read it.

 

We've been over this two pages before: If I'm wrong, Great! But if I'm right, like all the evidence from modders currently points toward, then the only way to rectify this is to replace it with an HDD that doesn't have a Datalink like feefifofum recommended. If that happens it will not only be absurdly unrealistic because we both agree that they're the same HDD, but also insulting to people who voted in this poll because the question never was to replace the HDD. The question was to remove the datalink, and I think using the results of his poll to justify doing that would be deceptive.

That's why there's such contention over this.


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow it's almost as if I made a post addressing this already which was directly addressed to you with links to mods that have attempted this before and you just flat-out didn't read it.

 

We've been over this two pages before: If I'm wrong, Great! But if I'm right, like all the evidence from modders currently points toward, then the only way to rectify this is to replace it with an HDD that doesn't have a Datalink like feefifofum recommended. If that happens it will not only be absurdly unrealistic because we both agree that they're the same HDD, but also insulting to people who voted in this poll because the question never was to replace the HDD. The question was to remove the datalink, and I think using the results of his poll to justify doing that would be deceptive.

That's why there's such contention over this.

 

I don't have time to read through all the threads you keep linking in this convoluted way of yours. Modders aren't ED or 3rd party devs, they don't have access to the SDK. The poll asked about the removal of the datalink, that's what I voted for, if the devs come back and say that's not possible without removing the VSD, we'll reconsider it. Let's just see if the devs respond. No need to make such a fuss about it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to read through all the threads you keep linking in this convoluted way of yours. Modders aren't ED or 3rd party devs, they don't have access to the SDK. The poll asked about the removal of the datalink, that's what I voted for, if the devs come back and say that's not possible without removing the VSD, we'll reconsider it. Let's just see if the devs respond. No need to make such a fuss about it...

Okay, dude, bruh. Do you think I'm putting those links in my posts for sport? I'm putting them in my posts because they're threads by people who understand the engine and have tried doing exactly what you've said. ED and third party devs aren't magic, there's a process they would need to go through in order to change it.

 

But other than that, Yes! Lets' wait for Deka to get back to us if that's really the sticking point in this whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Why it still has Datalink?

 

Су-27 Flanker | Су-30 Flanker-C | Су-33 Flanker-D | Су-34 Fullback | Су-24 Fencer | МиГ-29 Fulcrum | F-14A/B/D Tomcat | F/A-18C/D Hornet | F/A-18E/F Super Hornet | F-16C Fighting Falcon | F-15C Eagle | Eurofighter Typhoon | Tornado IDS | JAS-39 Gripen | AJ/JA(S)-37 Viggen | Rafale | M-2000 Mirage | Mirage F1

Ka-52 Hokum | Mi-28N Havoc | Mi-35M Hind | Mi-24P Hind | AH-64D Apache | AH-1W SuperCobra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I voted no, however in hindsight, I think it should be a server option. Depending on is the server is modeling earlier type aircraft or later type, depends on the scenario.

 

But this temporary non-realistic "improvement" create disbalance between Su-27 and J-11A, because Chinese aircraft have not any limitations compare with 27. It is just copy paste with new missiles in gameplay point of view.

 

If J-11A in real life (version which modeled in DCS) doesn't have DL, and this creates disbalance, why it still exists?

 

Су-27 Flanker | Су-30 Flanker-C | Су-33 Flanker-D | Су-34 Fullback | Су-24 Fencer | МиГ-29 Fulcrum | F-14A/B/D Tomcat | F/A-18C/D Hornet | F/A-18E/F Super Hornet | F-16C Fighting Falcon | F-15C Eagle | Eurofighter Typhoon | Tornado IDS | JAS-39 Gripen | AJ/JA(S)-37 Viggen | Rafale | M-2000 Mirage | Mirage F1

Ka-52 Hokum | Mi-28N Havoc | Mi-35M Hind | Mi-24P Hind | AH-64D Apache | AH-1W SuperCobra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Chinese developed its own DL for j-11a (late version), but it requires completely different cockpit etc, and DL/RWR is too sensitive and we don't have info (even if we had, do it correctly, trouble; incorrectly, trouble too ;)).

 

I think that attempting to model a "late" J-11 with the chinese DL +RWR + MAWS would be great for the meta of dcs.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...