Hi-Fidelity Russian Modern Fighters

True and valid

Well. I believe that the market for a Full Fidelity Mig 29 is as big as the Vipers, so whatever the reasons, it is preventing them from making good money.

That's my view as well.

I've heard that before...

Actually a very clear explanation of why we could not have a full DCS Russian 4 gen fighter has been provided.

 

https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/

 

11:44 - Eastern Bloc Aircraft in DCS? :music_whistling:

One thing I don't get with this one. First of all, Wags says it is no go for them as these being a Russian aircraft.

Aircraft include planes and helicopters by definition.

Then he continues saying that between Sukhoi, Mikoyan and Russian government it is a no go for them, fair enough, but how come this does not apply to Kamov and Mil?

Is there really a difference between UAC and Rostov in terms of government control?

Also, claiming that is is due to the location of primary studio... What's wrong in setting up another studio in any other country of MiG-29 or Su-27 operator?

Now, there are many examples of both MiG-29 or Su-27 that either flew or still fly within NATO ranks or their allies, including those that were/are based in Nevada.

Now, there are many examples of both MiG-29 or Su-27 that either flew or still fly within NATO ranks or their allies, including those that were/are based in Nevada.

And plenty of exports, and even a few privately owned ones. You'd think the early model 29s/27s would be obsolete enough that there shouldn't be an issue; the 29A entered service what, 36 years ago now... of course because there's no sensible matching of timelines anywhere you'd have to fight them with a Mirage & not the "crown jewel" *cough* teen fighters, but hey that'd help out ED's partners too.

Wags literally saying "we've crippled our modern aircraft" in that podcast should also make people want to look at older aircraft given the freedom to actually attempt to make them accurate.

The Mi-24P puzzles me in view of this, I hope ithat isn't horribly crippled somehow.

Which podcast did Wags say they'd crippled their modern aircraft ?

This...

Which podcast did Wags say they'd crippled their modern aircraft ?

Here Wags talks about it.. I am not sure "crippled" was used, but he talks about how they had to limit performance so that it wouldn't disclose Hornet's capabilities.

Again, this is an entertainment product that allows me to experience military aviation as close as commercially possible, there is absolutely no reason they couldn't do Russian jet in the same manner, to have, for example, Chizh, being a "firewall", just like Wags is for Hornet.

Actually a very clear explanation of why we could not have a full DCS Russian 4 gen fighter has been provided.

 

https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/

 

11:44 - Eastern Bloc Aircraft in DCS? :music_whistling:

I've heard Wags give that exact explanation word-for-word in a few different places. I wouldn't describe it as "very clear," in fact I'd say it raises just as many questions as it answers.

What it sounds like to me is that Eagle Dynamics isn't officially prevented from making a Flanker, but they're worried about what the Russian government might do nonetheless, and not making semi-modern Russian fighters is a voluntary decision. Hence the idea that a non-Russian "third-party" making a Flanker wouldn't be an issue for Eagle Dynamics (which I still don't totally understand - it'd be sold in an ED product exclusively, so what's really the difference? You think the U.S. gov would allow Microsoft to sell a foreign developer's scarily accurate F-35 for MSFS2020 on a Microsoft store?).

I've heard Wags give that exact explanation word-for-word in a few different places. I wouldn't describe it as "very clear," in fact I'd say it raises just as many questions as it answers.

 

What it sounds like to me is that Eagle Dynamics isn't officially prevented from making a Flanker, but they're worried about what the Russian government might do nonetheless, and not making semi-modern Russian fighters is a voluntary decision. Hence the idea that a non-Russian "third-party" making a Flanker wouldn't be an issue for Eagle Dynamics (which I still don't totally understand - it'd be sold in an ED product exclusively, so what's really the difference? You think the U.S. gov would allow Microsoft to sell a foreign developer's scarily accurate F-35 for MSFS2020 on a Microsoft store?).

I listened to all of that indeed, and because it wasn't totally clear to me in that timeframe I avoided pondering on the speculation what ED thinks about it (which may include genuine reasons weighted over and over again) and focused my attention to just assume they're somehow blocked by some kind of reason, either access or demand or not enough docs or a few stubborn cossacks standing in the way, whatever it is something has to be negotiated before all history is lost due to heavy upgrades going on and the previous ERAs are going to disappear, I have no idea how russian law on museums works but I'm afraid there might not be operational, sure the model would be accurate but if you can't fire it up or they don't allow it then you can't record any audio, forget about afterburner.

In the past dedicated threads people said I'm exaggerating with the "lost forever" argument, I tend to agree, as I'm not that experienced with the real-life collectors and private owners of airplanes all around the world that usually get their hands on leftovers, if it works like that then okay but I still rather not depend on it because of the "someone will take care of it" phenomenon and even the people who do collect might think "well someone's going to do it", what if they all think the same and nobody does it. I guess I'm entertaining the worst case scenario here, not to be fearmongering or annoying, but to illustrate what's at stake and that we face the possibility more vividly and realize it and then try harder avoiding it, something like that, hopefully it helps.

Also the whole "clear" thing is also relative, usually we don't tend to talk in super simple language broken down into telletubies talk, so do watch out to not jump to conclusion just because an answer isn't broken down into the sun is shiny and the flowers are beautiful. That's what I'm afraid of that it could be clear, but it could be just a few guys in the forum not getting it? Maybe the airshow people who meet in real life maybe they understand more given past experience in the community.

It surely can't be some kind of an ubisoft thing like it was rumored to be with Crimea ... rrrrright? BTW: Maybe due to allegiance change of Crimea not being the same legal entity it was before, the contract could be obsolete/invalidated? Worth a try.

I've heard Wags give that exact explanation word-for-word in a few different places. I wouldn't describe it as "very clear," in fact I'd say it raises just as many questions as it answers.

 

What it sounds like to me is that Eagle Dynamics isn't officially prevented from making a Flanker, but they're worried about what the Russian government might do nonetheless, and not making semi-modern Russian fighters is a voluntary decision. Hence the idea that a non-Russian "third-party" making a Flanker wouldn't be an issue for Eagle Dynamics (which I still don't totally understand - it'd be sold in an ED product exclusively, so what's really the difference? You think the U.S. gov would allow Microsoft to sell a foreign developer's scarily accurate F-35 for MSFS2020 on a Microsoft store?).

I don't think they would a) care b) be able to do much about it.

I don't think they would a) care b) be able to do much about it.

More in the direction of having a pretty big delay in knowing about it and responding, I would say.

Also that was a bad choice analogy there hehe, in my previous post, ehm, Teletubbies don't talk at all. :doh:

More in the direction of having a pretty big delay in knowing about it and responding, I would say.

 

Also that was a bad choice analogy there hehe, in my previous post, ehm, Teletubbies don't talk at all. :doh:

Realistically in the US, .gov would have to actually prove that ED used some classified material, beyond a shadow of doubt. That whole innocent until proven guilty deal we have "in theory". In glorious mother Russia I understand it works a wee bit differently.