Jump to content

Four Additional Flaming Cliffs Aircraft


Vampyre

Recommended Posts

^^ just now that we are finally getting 4th gen full fidelity modules to compete with the FC3 air superiority 4th gen fighters that always ruled the DCS sky, the posts start about bringing FC4 with 5th gen air superiority fighterst! Gotta love that!

My DCS modding videos:

 

Modules I own so far:

Black Shark 2, FC3, UH-1H, M-2000C, A-10C, MiG-21, Gazelle, Nevada map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

there is open source information on flight performance(charts) and the inner workings of flight control systems for aircraft like the F-15C, Su-27 and MiG-29 - I doubt you would be able to find anything like that for the F-22, F-35 or Su-57 :)

Touche! :) Yeah, flight performance charts would probably have to be generated in some similar fashion to this : https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?129077-A-quot-Rough-quot-F-35-Kinematics-Analysis

 

There are some high level descriptions like this 1.5hour lecture by the designer of F-35 https://youtu.be/u-cfy-k_8ew (not far off the similarly high level publicly available descriptions of F-15C FCS e.g. http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm. Although I still do not know if ED-BST had access to something better than this. Maybe I'll ask in the Russian forums as its a genuinely interesting question)

 

The only technical doc that I have seen people refer to was some "F-35 240-4.2 configuration report" https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?140845-Proof-F-35A-can-out-accelerate-Su-27-35-in-subsonic-region

 

Anyway, the real sticking point is always going to be the onboard systems - these can be hard enough to do(even in simplified form) for new multirole- or upgraded versions of the current 4th gen FC3 aircraft. But at least we have a pretty good idea of what they contain and some information on their general specs - the same cannot be said for 5th gen aircraft.

There is some info, e.g. this article suggests that F-35's EOTS is basically a Lightning pod that is compromised by constrained space and stealth requirements. https://www.thedailybeast.com/newest-us-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets

 

 

 

Quite a bit actually - e.g. you can find specifications for the 9B-1348 seeker of the R-77/RVV-AE, while we don't even know exactly which seeker the RVV-SD has :)

Isn't that some 1980 (1981?) version of the thing? :)
Edited by Katmandu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ just now that we are finally getting 4th gen full fidelity modules to compete with the FC3 air superiority 4th gen fighters that always ruled the DCS sky, the posts start about bringing FC4 with 5th gen air superiority fighterst! Gotta love that!

 

Good job you didn't buy that Mustang P-51, it must really suck. All those switches to flick and still have no chance against "Shift+Home and away" FC3 Mig-29 :)

 

PS I did buy the P-51 and have no regrets. Come on, man! :)


Edited by Katmandu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good job you didn't buy that Mustang P-51, it must really suck. All those switches to flick and still have no chance against "Shift+Home and away" FC3 Mig-29 :)

 

PS I did buy the P-51 and have no regrets. Come on, man! :)

 

Show me a server where P-51 flies against MiG-29...

My DCS modding videos:

 

Modules I own so far:

Black Shark 2, FC3, UH-1H, M-2000C, A-10C, MiG-21, Gazelle, Nevada map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Just to be clear, I know of no decisions or hints at what the pack might include, there are still a lot of options out there, doesnt mean they will jump right to an F-22. I would guess 5th gen wont be it, but again, I have no idea right now.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read the whole thread and I might be repeating what someone else has said before, but I think it's pretty obvious to make a Su-17M4/22M4 for the FC4 ... the systems are pretty similar to Su-25T from an FC-point of view

and cockpit looks like a mix of Su-25 and Su-25T - both already present in FC3

 

 

just copy-paste job :)


Edited by ZHeN

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't care what other aircraft they put into FC4 as long as it has a single 4th Gen Russian Jet (FC level), then its good. MiG-29K looks a nice candidate and so is the Su-30 (maybe not Su-30 as its dual-seat). I mean they had the MiG-29K already in the original Su-27 Commander versions and I believe there are remnants of the MiG-29K code still available in some lua file in the game. Come on, just slap on the MiG-29 PFM they are currently working on, add Su-25T weapons capability, some fancy MFDs, and a working hook from the Su-33 and voila MiG-29K..:D (Long shot, I know, but I got to try)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Touche! :) Yeah, flight performance charts would probably have to be generated in some similar fashion to this : https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?129077-A-quot-Rough-quot-F-35-Kinematics-Analysis

 

I didn't read the whole post(way above my head anyway), but note that he started by saying that he had to base his calculations on a lot of assumptions about the F-35.

 

This was actually the point I was trying to make - if we compare e.g. to the Su-27 and its further multirole developments then;

 

- for the Su-27SM you wouldn't really need to do anything, because it retains the original aerodynamics and FCS of the basic Su-27 airframe since its a system's upgrade for this.

 

- for the Su-35 there are changes to the aerodynamics and it has a more advanced digital FBW system, but I think it would nevertheless be easier to deal with this than with an entirely new airframe.

 

There are some high level descriptions like this 1.5hour lecture by the designer of F-35 https://youtu.be/u-cfy-k_8ew (not far off the similarly high level publicly available descriptions of F-15C FCS e.g. http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm. Although I still do not know if ED-BST had access to something better than this. Maybe I'll ask in the Russian forums as its a genuinely interesting question)

 

I don't know what documentation they had either - I would assume that they would have had to simulate some aspects themselves(e.g. I don't know of any publically available charts for the Su-33), but again - the more unknowns, the harder it will be.

 

There is some info, e.g. this article suggests that F-35's EOTS is basically a Lightning pod that is compromised by constrained space and stealth requirements. https://www.thedailybeast.com/newest-us-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets

 

Well thats not much is it? :D . Its really the same deal as I described with the aerodynamics/FCS of new/upgraded multirole versions of current FC3 aircraft vs. 5 gen ones - and if take my above examples in regards to radars then this is what you can find on NiiP's homepage;

 

- SUV-VEP (Su-27SM): https://www.niip.ru/catalog/aviatsionnoe-naprvlenie/suv-vep-mech/

rather thorough description and specs.

 

- Irbis (Su-35S): https://www.niip.ru/catalog/aviatsionnoe-naprvlenie/rlsu-irbis/

more general description with only key specs.

 

- AESA (Su-57): https://www.niip.ru/catalog/far-s-eul/afar-kh-diapazona/

no description or specs - only general information on AESA technology.

 

I rest my case :)

 

Isn't that some 1980 (1981?) version of the thing? :)

 

Which one do you mean?. The 9B-1348E seeker is the one used on the currently produced RVV-AE.

 

It is speculated that the RVV-SD is using a modernised version of the 9B-1103M seeker. This was first promoted as the ARH seeker for upgrading R-27E missiles(R-27EA), but has since been upgraded(redesigned really) several times and is currently being offered in several different variants including some with combined homing methods(passive radar+ARH and SARH+ARH).

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't care what other aircraft they put into FC4 as long as it has a single 4th Gen Russian Jet (FC level), then its good. MiG-29K looks a nice candidate and so is the Su-30 (maybe not Su-30 as its dual-seat). I mean they had the MiG-29K already in the original Su-27 Commander versions and I believe there are remnants of the MiG-29K code still available in some lua file in the game.

 

Well more recent than that - "Flanker 2.5" had the MiG-29K as the flyable add-on aircraft. :)

 

Come on, just slap on the MiG-29 PFM they are currently working on, add Su-25T weapons capability, some fancy MFDs, and a working hook from the Su-33 and voila MiG-29K..:D (Long shot, I know, but I got to try)

 

I for one would love a MiG-29K(!), but hopefully they could do "a little" better than that :) . E.g. PFM for the MiG-29 wouldn't do - the MiG-29K has different aerodynamics and FBW.

 

Su-25T WCS.....:shocking: .

 

But seriously though, some of the new Su-33 features could actually come in handy - apart from the hook, there is AOA indexer, IFR probe routine, engine emergency thrust mode, 90 deg nose wheel deflection, wingfold etc.


Edited by Alfa

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, I know of no decisions or hints at what the pack might include, there are still a lot of options out there, doesnt mean they will jump right to an F-22. I would guess 5th gen wont be it, but again, I have no idea right now.

 

Yea, don't forget about us rotor heads. Would be great if AH-64 A or D was part of FC4.

 

Including a heli in FC4 would also introduce beginners to the heli word and if it's a 2 crew heli like Apache the would also experience pilot/gunner in MP.

 

If they discover they like it they will probably buy Ka-50/Gazelle/... as well.

 

:prop:


Edited by KeyCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alfa

 

I didn't read the whole post(way above my head anyway), but note that he started by saying that he had to base his calculations on a lot of assumptions about the F-35.
But we also do not know which assumptions were made by ED in current FC3 models. Is there public technical data- not high level descriptions- on fancy airfoil and FCS for F-15for instance? Although I do agree that there do seem to be more variables that need educated guesses in case of F-35 for example, performance charts being one of them.

 

This was actually the point I was trying to make - if we compare e.g. to the Su-27 and its further multirole developments then;

 

- for the Su-27SM you wouldn't really need to do anything

 

- for the Su-35 there are changes to the aerodynamics and it has a more advanced digital FBW system, would nevertheless be easier to deal with this than with an entirely new airframe.

Valid point, I also thought about it when I suggested replacing Pak-Fa/Su-57 with Su-34 in my list :) Yes, its a two seater, but your planes above are identical looking to Su-27/J-11/Su-33 that we already have in FC3. Su-34 on the other hand also shares some of Su-33 aerodynamics, but also looks sufficiently "different". Important if selling to people outside of this forum:D

 

Plus its display cluster seems good for single pilot use, one would not need to switch to copilot seat to view targeting pod feed for example.

40af60ff8725171ac35a643fc9dd3d97.jpg

 

Well thats not much is it? . Its really the same deal as I described with the aerodynamics/FCS of new/upgraded multirole versions of current FC3 aircraft vs. 5 gen ones - and if take my above examples in regards to radars then this is what you can find on NiiP's homepage;
For the targeting pod this "not much" could be sufficient actually:), but AESA radars are a different cattle of fish - their simulation would necessarily be more generalised. But again, compared to current FC3 radar simulation (lacking ray tracing modelling etc), this extra step of educated guesswork may not be as bad as it may seem. I.e. we would not be replacing a comprehensive model of SUV-VEP with a generalised AESA. Our current radars in FC3 are generalised radar models themselves- in a sense.

 

The 9B-1348E seeker is the one used on the currently produced RVV-AE.
That one is not used by the Russian VVS, allegedly they did not buy any of "izdelie 190/RVV-AE". They use izdeliye-170, but I've not seen much info on it.

AIM-120C is similarly stingy with info. Hell, forgetting about the F-35 for the moment, F-22 Raptor could use the DCS aim120C as is. Just call it F-22 1990s-early2000s version :)


Edited by Katmandu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MiG-31 and MiG-29M/K. That's all I ask. Make em ugly, make stuff up, but those... пожалуйста =)

 

But Mig-31 would be boring (all beyond visual range and eject if somebody got through), Mig-29K looks identical to the Mig-29A/G/S we have right now. Appealing to us on this forum, but would people on Steam be impressed?

 

Gran Turismo is famous for its Nissan Skylines in 180 different variations that look identical unless under a microscope, but there are hundreds of other cars there too. DCS needs to make every plane count :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's subjective, obviously. Also it doesn't matter if it externally looks similar. A-10A and A-10C look similar, as do the Su-25 variants, among hundreds of others. The M and K bring precision multirole comparable to F-15/16/18 that we currently don't have. Su-30 would work well for that also, but I'm partial to MiG even if they are typically inferior to Sukhoi these days.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A-10C is not part of Flaming Cliffs. Su-25 is a better counterexample, yep.

 

But in Mig-29 case the M or K would become the fourth(?) "Nissan Skyline" in FC - Mig-29 A, G, S, and now K...

Imho this kind of project would be perfect for somebody like Deka. Just like in J-11 case, they would reuse Mig-29S PFM and change its cockpit, sensors and weapons. I love Mig-29's as much as anybody (my avatar, cough-cough ;)), but would not want to "lose" one of the 4 slots to another 29...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Mig-31 would be boring (all beyond visual range and eject if somebody got through)

 

Like oh, an F-14? Performance figures are pretty similar (as are their roles). It'd also give the Russians an aircraft that can engage multiple targets at once (and at a date earlier than the Mig-29 could).

 

If it is the Mig-31BM then you'd have a strike fighter capable of carrying a wide range of ordinance as well (technically a larger warload than the Su-24 - up to six KAB-1500s for instance).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is my whole point - it's all down to server rules :)

 

... my point was that nearly all servers have a mix of FC3 and high fidelity aircraft, and that's more than likely to continue like so with FC4 (you don't play a lot of multiplayer, do you?)

My DCS modding videos:

 

Modules I own so far:

Black Shark 2, FC3, UH-1H, M-2000C, A-10C, MiG-21, Gazelle, Nevada map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kat

I know it's not FC3...

 

@Avi

I'm honestly not real familiar with MiG-31 flight behavior. Obviously, it's not a AoA brawler, but I seem to remember like 5 or 6g limits. You wouldn't last long in a knife fight, but you'd have a chance to get off heaters. The later versions apparently can carry precision A2G.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MiG-31 and MiG-29M/K. That's all I ask. Make em ugly, make stuff up, but those... пожалуйста =)

 

Since MiG-31 is a twin seater, it would be a first for FC, but I guess it could be done like in Fleet Defender with seat-switching and simplified radar system modeling (given the amount of buttons present in the rear cockpit for radar modes, filtering and stuff, I guess a full module would be too complex given its appeal even if the documentation was available).

 

A similar thing could be done with Su-24M, but it would require some basic A2G radar model to be added (I guess not a big deal once they implement it for the Hornet).

 

MiG-29M/K (presumably the original 9.15 and 9.31) would be great to have, but their MFD's make them a difficult choice for an FC level module (e.g. control-wise to begin with). So, some version of the earlier Fulcrums, but just with some TV guided A2G capability added would be much more suitable (e.g. MiG-29SM or perhaps 9.14).

 

MiG-23ML(D) or MiG-25PD would be quite straightforward cockpit wise, on the other hand. As would be the Su-17M3/4 or MiG-27M/K.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alfa

 

These posts are getting a little too long for me, so I have cut my replies down to the key arguments :) .

 

But we also do not know which assumptions were made by ED in current FC3 models.

 

No but we know that they had good documentation to work with from the outset and as I said earlier - the more assumptions you have to make the harder it becomes and the less likely the end result has anything to do with reality.

 

Valid point, I also thought about it when I suggested replacing Pak-Fa/Su-57 with Su-34 in my list :) Yes, its a two seater, but your planes above are identical looking to Su-27/J-11/Su-33 that we already have in FC3. Su-34 on the other hand also shares some of Su-33 aerodynamics, but also looks sufficiently "different". Important if selling to people outside of this forum:D

 

By the same token you could argue that the Su-34 "looks identical" to the Su-33 if you are sufficiently clueless :D .

 

But in Mig-29 case the M or K would become the fourth(?) "Nissan Skyline" in FC - Mig-29 A, G, S, and now K...

 

Then keep the A(original version), add the K(most capable and versatile) and then chuck out the G(same as A really) and the S(adds little) for all I care :)

 

Imho this kind of project would be perfect for somebody like Deka. Just like in J-11 case, they would reuse Mig-29S PFM and change its cockpit, sensors and weapons. I love Mig-29's as much as anybody (my avatar, cough-cough )...

 

....but don't know much about the MiG-29K obviously.

 

For the targeting pod this "not much" could be sufficient actually:), but AESA radars are a different cattle of fish - their simulation would necessarily be more generalised. But again, compared to current FC3 radar simulation (lacking ray tracing modelling etc), this extra step of educated guesswork may not be as bad as it may seem.

 

Yes it would...

 

I.e. we would not be replacing a comprehensive model of SUV-VEP with a generalised AESA. Our current radars in FC3 are generalised radar models themselves- in a sense.

 

Katmandu - this is getting stupid. You are constantly giving the impression that it doesn't matter whether you have 95%, 40% or 3% of the required information available.

 

That one is not used by the Russian VVS, allegedly they did not buy any of "izdelie 190/RVV-AE".

 

The VVS didn't get the RVV-AE, but they have(now) aircraft capable of deploying it - so do other nations. All versions of the R-77/RVV-AE are using the 9B-1348 seeker.

 

They use izdeliye-170, but I've not seen much info on it.

 

They by-passed the RVV-AE and went for the modernised RVV-SD(domestic version of it) instead.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be good with a 27, too =) It's basically a supersonic Frogfoot lol You get a Shkval and you get a Shkval! Technically it'smore of a pre-Shkval, but whatever.

 

And you make valid points, but other FC3 aircraft have MFDs, too, they're basically ignored. The 31 wouldn't need back seat switching, it'd just be yet more sensor mods. Mash 5 or whatever till you get the one you want. Anextra axis or two. Not that big a deal.

 

I don't really know about the 24. It has radar? Regardless, I'm holding out that it is old enough we might see a fully simulated, multicrew version, so I'd rather skip it for now. The 31 etc, we won't see anytime soon, though as full modules

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Su-22 is also very much like the Mig-27... you get more versatility in some areas (although the sensor suite might be a bit worse for most variants).

 

@Kat

I know it's not FC3...

 

@Avi

I'm honestly not real familiar with MiG-31 flight behavior. Obviously, it's not a AoA brawler, but I seem to remember like 5 or 6g limits. You wouldn't last long in a knife fight, but you'd have a chance to get off heaters. The later versions apparently can carry precision A2G.

 

I know!

 

Could you imagine the rush, the adrenaline? Making the choice to engage with an infra-red missile knowing that if your shots fail the enemy can out-turn you?

 

It would be exciting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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