Realistic or Balance - J-11A Datalink - Page 6 - ED Forums
 


Notices

View Poll Results: Keep/Remove J-11A Datalink
Remove 192 64.00%
Keep 108 36.00%
Voters: 300. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-14-2018, 12:22 AM   #51
Hook47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,084
Default

I opt for an option on this- one that can be set server side in the mission building options and/or in the special options menu for players. I'm all for realism but since it is a FC3 aircraft, some options would be great. Thanks for adding this awesome jet!
Hook47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 02:23 AM   #52
uboats
ED Tester / ED Moderator
 
uboats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: East Sierra
Posts: 5,326
Default

Hi All,
Thanks for your feedback!
__________________
东风夜放花千树,更吹落,星如雨


My DCS Mods, Skins, Utilities and Scripts

| Windows 10 | i7-4790K | GTX 980Ti Hybrid | 32GB RAM | 2TB SSD + 1TB HDD |
| TM Warthog Stick | CH Pro Throttle + Pro Pedal | TIR5 Pro | TM MFD Cougar | Gun Camera: PrtScn |
uboats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 03:43 PM   #53
vegue
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 67
Default

Some sensitive things are classified, thus can never be realistic in the game. In this case, please "make-up" an alternative, that can be reasonably used to make the combat realistic.

So if real J-11A has a working data link, please give us one in the game, even if it's different from real.
vegue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 10:48 PM   #54
JunMcKill
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Mexico
Posts: 840
Default

I vote for realistic, like the MIG-29S that have no datalink MFD, only a HUD duplicity.

But the SU-27Sk have a very complex DL, with many more options than the FC3 one. This was not bought by china?

Last edited by JunMcKill; 05-15-2018 at 10:55 PM.
JunMcKill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 11:49 PM   #55
Esac_mirmidon
Veteran
 
Esac_mirmidon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ferrol, Spain
Posts: 5,449
Send a message via MSN to Esac_mirmidon
Default

Russian didnt allow China access to the DL.

Like some comunication and navigation systems that where dismounted also.
__________________
" You must think in russian.."


Windows 7 64 bits Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6 - GTX 1060 EXOC KFA2 - 16 Gigas RAM 1.600 - 1920x1080

Hotas Rhino X-55 - MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals - Track IR 4
Esac_mirmidon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 08:31 AM   #56
Черный Дракул
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
Default

The options should be weighted by the development plan. If the later model is to be implemented, the DL in early model should be left inside to simulate that late model, until that model is out. Only then the first model should have it's DL removed. Thus, we'll see two different models, early w/o DL and late with DL.

If the latter model is not to be implemented (or it will take considerable time to do so), then the best solution is a switch in Mission Editor, deciding what does this airplane simulate -- the latter model with DL or the early model without. This way we can have both historycally accurate, but with limited combat capacity relict and the modern action-capable combat aircraft that will actually take combat servise if something happens.

I voted for a "keep" decision, but I think we all understand that it's not the query ratio that makes the decision, but the arguments of sides.
__________________
They are not vulching... they are STRAFING!!!
Черный Дракул is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 09:08 AM   #57
BuBu9010
Junior Member
 
BuBu9010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 28
Default

actually, this issue can be easily delt with.
it can be made that J-11A can only be fed by KJ-2000/200, and Su-27S can only be fed by A-50. REDFOR will have to add Chinese AWACS to feed J-11A
then it's done,nice and easy
BuBu9010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 01:16 PM   #58
Dudikoff
Senior Member
 
Dudikoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Croatia / Lebanon
Posts: 1,999
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuBu9010 View Post
actually, this issue can be easily delt with.
it can be made that J-11A can only be fed by KJ-2000/200, and Su-27S can only be fed by A-50. REDFOR will have to add Chinese AWACS to feed J-11A
then it's done,nice and easy
That's not technically the question here. Early J-11A which looked like the one in FC3 had no datalink at all apparently, while the datalink was added in a later upgrade, but before that another upgrade also replaced the screen with an MFD.

So, the question is whether to remove the datalink as the cockpit matches the early J-11A standard which didn't have it or pretend that it's a later J-11A standard with the DL and ignore the missing MFD.

Personally, I'd prefer it to be an optional so both could be used depending on the scenario.
__________________
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 1 btn 2 axis gameport joystick, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

DISCLAIMER: My posts are absolutely useless. Just passing time till DCS: F-14..

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!

Last edited by Dudikoff; 05-16-2018 at 01:30 PM.
Dudikoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 04:52 PM   #59
TeeJayD
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 31
Default

Keep
And fix the SU-27 DL in MP, it's been broken for YEARS.
TeeJayD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 05:01 PM   #60
Auditor
Member
 
Auditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 111
Default

Question that will influence my decision:

What are you going to replace the J-11A's data with?
That heads-down display is still there from every picture I've seen. From what I know, that's also not a HUD repeater like in the Mig-29. In fact, it's an MFD that may be closer to a systems display, an RWR, or an overhead radar view all in one.

The reason I ask is because I remember this same discussion happening with the Mig-29 a long, long time ago. The mig-29 initially had the same Datalink that the SU-27 did specifically because the systems were just mirrored for FC3, no one thought it was important enough to fix. It later came to light that only the Mig-29S would have any hope of having a Datalink, so they removed it and put a HUD repeater in its place. The problem is that not all Mig-29 versions had a HUD repeater there, especially the 29S; and it was equally unrealistic to put one for every single Mig-29. It traded one piece of unrealism for another. Heck, every version of the Mig-29 before the S shouldn't even be able to fire the cannon with a centerline fuel tank attached, but the A and G will happily fire its cannon all day long with one.

I guess my point is: If you cannot model what the actual early-version J-11As have for its head down display, then don't bother. It's making work for yourself and you're just making something even more unrealistic to fit arbitrary definitions of 'realism' from random people on the forums who seem to think realism is just making all the aircraft worse. This notion of total realism isn't in the definition of basic FC3 aircraft to begin with. If you could make it one of the MFD pages like a systems display, a more advanced RWR, or even the same top-down radar view but without the datalink; then sure. But that gets into the coding part of it and I'm not sure you have the resources to even attempt modifying the stock SU-27.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al531246 View Post
Absolutely remove if the real aircraft counterpart doesn't have the capability.

If it's kept for balance reasons we'll have begun a journey towards the death of what DCS prides itself on - accuracy.
Also I think arguments like these are misleading at best, but I see them all throughout the thread.
If you can only replace unrealism with more unrealism, then what's the point? DCS isn't going to die because an unspecified feature was kind-of-sort-of available on the same aircraft of a later version but not the version that we have right now. If that was really your concern, then the 15C that we have shouldn't have 120Cs, and the Mig-21 shouldn't be able to fire Groms but should be able to fire R-73s. These are compromises that DCS has just sort of lived with because fighting to get them changed wouldn't be worth the effort.

Last edited by Auditor; 05-16-2018 at 05:27 PM.
Auditor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:33 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.