Possibly a Basic variant Su-30 for full fidelity Flanker

Many people have been wanting a full fidelity Flanker and many others have wanted an upgraded Flanker with the R-77 to combat them AMRAAMs.

If possible in the future, can ED (or another 3rd party dev) make a full fidelity basic Su-30 as this will kill two birds with one stone?

Not only that, but for the first time you'll get a Russian multirole twin seater where you can fly back seater in multiplayer just like the VEAO Hawk and I think the upcoming F-14 from HB.

im not sure what you intend to accomplish with this sort of mental bargaining, i guess this is a coping mechanism?

I'm going to assume by "basic" you mean one of the first variants of the Su-30s. A full Su-27 would be hard enough to even get the proper licensing and systems data for.

The most you could get with a 30 is an FC3 level module, and the time and demand for those types of aircraft are dying away as the sim has leaned less in the current decade towards simulating the latest technology used in air combat in "enough" detail and is instead leaning into developing aircraft to extensive detail of systems and flight modelling regardless of age. I like the way it's been going, honestly; it gives us a better look at how the aircraft actually functioned. When it comes to two seater aircraft, a realistic experience is always the best, unless it is executed poorly. However, I don't see any sort of good possibility of a Su-30 making it's way into DCS as a full-fidelity model. There's just not enough information that will be handed to the developer to make a PFM-ASM Su-30, as the aircraft is too new for anyone to get their hands on the required documents that are likely still classified.

Now, if you mean "full-fidelity basic" as in PFM with SSM, if there were a percentage rating, I'd say 99% sure it's still not going to happen. As I said, the desire for ED to develop more FC3 level aircraft is weakening (and has been for quite a few years now), especially considering they haven't finished upgrading the MiG-29 and Su-33 yet.

im not sure what you intend to accomplish with this sort of mental bargaining, i guess this is a coping mechanism?

IDk I simply came up with an idea and had to put it forth some how, also I'm aware that it's extremely hard to get certification for Russian planes. What about 3rd party devs like Bear Studios who made the Su-30 for FSX. Now I'm aware that it was FSX and not DCS which apparently isn't very accurate, but I'm willing to bet he got some kind of certification to make those planes right?

Isn't there a for ED or someone to get it similarly for DCS as well?

IDk I simply came up with an idea and had to put it forth some how, also I'm aware that it's extremely hard to get certification for Russian planes. What about 3rd party devs like Bear Studios who made the Su-30 for FSX. Now I'm aware that it was FSX and not DCS which apparently isn't very accurate, but I'm willing to bet he got some kind of certification to make those planes right?

 

Isn't there a for ED or someone to get it similarly for DCS as well?

FSX is nowhere near this sim as a whole.

They likely didn't get any "certification" other than if they used another guy's model or coding. Licensing is usually the first thing a developer will mention on an aircraft if they received licensing (ex. PMDG). I see none of that. FSX developers don't have to go through multiple levels of authorization before even starting the project. The choice of whether or not the aircraft you're seeing in game is realistic enough to buy is at the hands of the user entirely in that realm. Here, you will get shut down by higher ups before even attempting to make profit from an aircraft that essentially sources some vague "official documents" as its center point for realism. Weapons used that were previously unused would also need to have a flight model of sorts either implemented or tweaked. FSX's flight modelling is from the early 2000s without the use of third-party plugins. Current flight modelling in DCS is continually evolving.

Now, as a mod? Sure, I don't think anyone would stop that from happening. Hell, there's a very well done PAK FA being developed at an alarmingly fast rate by cubanace, and to be honest, I don't give a crap how realistic it is, it's free. That's where the issue comes into view with payware models. You expect quality to meet the price point. Or exceed it, in some circumstances. There should be enough detail to meet the price point and if that detail is there, it should be just as it is in the real thing.

Case-in-point when it comes to failure to produce quality that meets quantity, Abacus A380 for FS2004 and FSX. They actually charged money for this. (they still do at $15). I've seen dozens of freeware aircraft better than this.

We should probably stop or take a turn from here, FSX shouldn't really be discussed in this level on the wishlist sub-forum.

tl;dr There is no comparison of DCS and FSX aircraft when referring to the level of quality actually needed on a project before being able to earn profit from it. It's useless to try to make a payware Su-30 to excellent detail, let alone ask for permission.

Many people have been wanting a full fidelity Flanker and many others have wanted an upgraded Flanker with the R-77 to combat them AMRAAMs.

 

If possible in the future, can ED (or another 3rd party dev) make a full fidelity basic Su-30 as this will kill two birds with one stone?

 

Not only that, but for the first time you'll get a Russian multirole twin seater where you can fly back seater in multiplayer just like the VEAO Hawk and I think the upcoming F-14 from HB.

If by "basic Su-30" you mean a "full fidelity" module of the original Su-30(Su-27PU) interceptor variant, then it should be quite possible since this was little more than an Su-27UB with an inflight-refuelling probe. But since the combat systems/armament range was the same as for the existing Su-27, the only additional features would be the two-seat multiplayer functionality and inflight refuelling.

If by "basic Su-30" you mean a "full fidelity" module of the original Su-30(Su-27PU) interceptor variant, then it should be quite possible since this was little more than an Su-27UB with an inflight-refuelling probe. But since the combat systems/armament range was the same as for the existing Su-27, the only additional features would be the two-seat multiplayer functionality and inflight refuelling.

True, but I think that Su-30 also did have multirole capabilities if I'm not wrong.

FSX is nowhere near this sim as a whole.

 

They likely didn't get any "certification" other than if they used another guy's model or coding. Licensing is usually the first thing a developer will mention on an aircraft if they received licensing (ex. PMDG). I see none of that. FSX developers don't have to go through multiple levels of authorization before even starting the project. The choice of whether or not the aircraft you're seeing in game is realistic enough to buy is at the hands of the user entirely in that realm. Here, you will get shut down by higher ups before even attempting to make profit from an aircraft that essentially sources some vague "official documents" as its center point for realism. Weapons used that were previously unused would also need to have a flight model of sorts either implemented or tweaked. FSX's flight modelling is from the early 2000s without the use of third-party plugins. Current flight modelling in DCS is continually evolving.

 

Now, as a mod? Sure, I don't think anyone would stop that from happening. Hell, there's a very well done PAK FA being developed at an alarmingly fast rate by cubanace, and to be honest, I don't give a crap how realistic it is, it's free. That's where the issue comes into view with payware models. You expect quality to meet the price point. Or exceed it, in some circumstances. There should be enough detail to meet the price point and if that detail is there, it should be just as it is in the real thing.

 

Case-in-point when it comes to failure to produce quality that meets quantity, Abacus A380 for FS2004 and FSX. They actually charged money for this. (they still do at $15). I've seen dozens of freeware aircraft better than this.

 

 

We should probably stop or take a turn from here, FSX shouldn't really be discussed in this level on the wishlist sub-forum.

 

tl;dr There is no comparison of DCS and FSX aircraft when referring to the level of quality actually needed on a project before being able to earn profit from it. It's useless to try to make a payware Su-30 to excellent detail, let alone ask for permission.

Sorry for the late response, didn't have time till now, I agree with you and I know what a joke Abacus is. However I did hear of Milviz getting some sort of licence for the F-4 Phantom when they made it for FSX, so I heard somewhere on a DCS website.

True, but I think that Su-30 also did have multirole capabilities..

Not if we are talking about the initial version - in fact it may even have had less than the Su-27 in DCS.

Being an interceptor, it was slated for the PVO(airdefence forces) rather than the VVS(airforce) and IIRC the Flankers operated by the PVO didn't have any a2g capability at all(not even rockets or dumb-bombs). See the attached photo of a Su-27 cockpit - note the WCS control panel and compare it to that of the Su-27 we have in DCS.

However, it supposedly had a more sophisticated datalink system allowing it to link up to- and control a flight of single seat Su-27s - i.e. a "mini-AWACS" function similar in nature to that of the MiG-31. There was a large TV display(looks like the same unit as in the Su-25T) for the rear crew member, who would act as the controller/radar operator(photo attached).

I would totally, absolutely love a Su-30, but there are a few issues. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the initial Su-30M and export Su-30K didn't have more than rockets and dumb bombs for A/G, and I don't think they had the R-77, which would defeat the purpose. As for the Su-30MK we have in DCS, it does have all the R-77 and multi-role capabilities, but I don't think it actually got produced until it was at the Su-30MKK/MKI stage, which is obviously way too advanced for it to be possible.

Seaeagle, I believe the Su-27 is a Su-27P. We have the Su-27S in DCS, the Su-27P is the same but without A/G capability, as it's for the air defense forces.

I would totally, absolutely love a Su-30, but there are a few issues. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the initial Su-30M and export Su-30K didn't have more than rockets and dumb bombs for A/G, and I don't think they had the R-77, which would defeat the purpose. As for the Su-30MK we have in DCS, it does have all the R-77 and multi-role capabilities, but I don't think it actually got produced until it was at the Su-30MKK/MKI stage, which is obviously way too advanced for it to be possible.

 

Seaeagle, I believe the Su-27 is a Su-27P. We have the Su-27S in DCS, the Su-27P is the same but without A/G capability, as it's for the air defense forces.

The Su-27 in DCS is a standard Su-27, one of the first production models. I believe the Su-27S has the R-77 (not entirely sure, Flankers can be confusing):lol:

No, the Su-27SM had R-77s, the Su-27S (aka Su-27 without S) is the standard model, which is in DCS.

not entirely sure, Flankers can be confusing:lol:

As far as I understand, for Russian aircraft the "S"-suffix simply stands for "serial production", as in: the first mass-produced version and thus is the equivalent of the "A"-suffix for US-made aircraft.

I would totally, absolutely love a Su-30, but there are a few issues. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the initial Su-30M and export Su-30K didn't have more than rockets and dumb bombs for A/G, and I don't think they had the R-77, which would defeat the purpose.

Half right :)

The Su-30K was the export version of the initial Su-30(Su-27PU) interceptor variant and didn't have any armament capabilities besides those of the basic Su-27.

The Su-30M was the initial multirole variant - Su-30MK is the export variant of that.

In both cases the "K" suffix means for export.

As for the Su-30MK we have in DCS, it does have all the R-77 and multi-role capabilities, but I don't think it actually got produced until it was at the Su-30MKK/MKI stage, which is obviously way too advanced for it to be possible.

You would be right about that :) . Su-30MK is a common designation for a multirole export version of the Su-30, but since the concept always came with the option for a customer defined configuration, it is usually followed by an additional suffix denoting that particular configuration of the customer country - e.g. MKI(added "I" for India) or MKK(added "K" for "Kitay" = China), which BTW differ considerably.

Seaeagle, I believe the Su-27 is a Su-27P. We have the Su-27S in DCS, the Su-27P is the same but without A/G capability, as it's for the air defense forces.

I know :) - I posted the cockpit picture of the Su-27P exactly to show that there is no A/G options on the WCS panel and theorized that the initial Su-30(Su-27PU) interceptor variant may not have had any A/G capabilities either, since both were meant for the PVO(airdefence forces).

The Su-27 in DCS is a standard Su-27, one of the first production models. I believe the Su-27S has the R-77 (not entirely sure, Flankers can be confusing):lol:

No the Su-27 in DCS is the Su-27S(airforce variant with A/G capability). As mentioned in the above post, there is also an Su-27P(airdefence force variant without A/G capability), but the distinction is rarely made(suffixes not used much), so both are normally referred to simply as "the Su-27".

The one you are thinking about is the Su-27SM - an upgrade to the basic Su-27, which among other things, provides compatibility with the RVV-AE(aka R-77).

As far as I understand, for Russian aircraft the "S"-suffix simply stands for "serial production", as in: the first mass-produced version and thus is the equivalent of the "A"-suffix for US-made aircraft.

No the "S" suffix normally stands for an improved or upgraded version - e.g. MiG-29 -> MiG-29S.

This is actually also the case with the Su-27 - the initial T-10 design failed to meet the requirements and was heavily modified and redesignated T-10S before entering service.