Realistic or Balance - J-11A Datalink - Page 7 - ED Forums
 


Notices

View Poll Results: Keep/Remove J-11A Datalink
Remove 156 64.73%
Keep 85 35.27%
Voters: 241. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-16-2018, 05:01 PM   #61
Auditor
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 18
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
Old 05-16-2018, 07:59 PM   #62
probad
Senior Member
 
probad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor View Post
These are compromises that DCS has just sort of lived with because fighting to get them changed wouldn't be worth the effort.
no, i think it's a worse fallacy that you think bad examples should be perpetuated for the sake of a consistency that is not in line with dcs's core values.
__________________
hi i know absolutely nothing about this airplane and i refuse to read any documentation pertaining to it therefore i am certain this must be a bug

Last edited by probad; 05-16-2018 at 08:02 PM.
probad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 09:53 PM   #63
Auditor
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by probad View Post
no, i think it's a worse fallacy that you think bad examples should be perpetuated for the sake of a consistency that is not in line with dcs's core values.
Okay, so why do those examples exist, then?

I think it's a worse fallacy to replace something unrealistic with something else unrealistic for the sake of feeling like you fixed something. That's not fixing anything. An actual fix would be to make an HDD that operates similar to the HDD in the J-11A, not replacing it with something else unrealistic.

I don't think that's in line with DCS' core values.
Auditor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 10:29 PM   #64
JunMcKill
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Mexico
Posts: 774
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor View Post
Okay, so why do those examples exist, then?

I think it's a worse fallacy to replace something unrealistic with something else unrealistic for the sake of feeling like you fixed something. That's not fixing anything. An actual fix would be to make an HDD that operates similar to the HDD in the J-11A, not replacing it with something else unrealistic.

I don't think that's in line with DCS' core values.
you're right, in fact the MFD of the FC3 SU-27 is far from the real one of the SU-27SK (and I'm talking the K version that is the export model)
JunMcKill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2018, 07:56 AM   #65
Axelerator
Member
 
Axelerator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Montpellier, France
Posts: 990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zergburger View Post
LOL @ realism. You guys are arguing about realism in an FC3 aircraft, the whole purpose of which is to not be realistic.
Looks like you don't understand the whole purpose of FC3... Let me explain. FC3 is there to give you aircrafts that aren't modelled in depth but that are still modelled realistically.
Axelerator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2018, 10:12 PM   #66
Yaga
Junior Member
 
Yaga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor View Post
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.
Excellent point.

Even in the Flanker, there are so many things we should be able to do, but can't. Especially in MP.

On another note, I'm worried by a lot of the misconceptions I see here about what DL is/does. It is concerning that those with imperfect information are voting and potentially deciding the J-11's fate.

For those unfamiliar:

SINGLE PLAYER:

DL is fed by your wingman's radar and the AWACS/EWR radars. You can see which wingman is sorting which bandit.

MULTIPLAYER:

DL is fed only by AWACS and sometimes EWR depending on mission settings. You only see what they see and what you detect with your own sensors. You cannot see who is sorting what, or what bandits are detected by other fighters on your team.
Yaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2018, 10:42 PM   #67
Esac_mirmidon
Veteran
 
Esac_mirmidon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ferrol, Spain
Posts: 5,085
Send a message via MSN to Esac_mirmidon
Default

The DL in SP - MP is something i was telling all the time here.
__________________
" 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 05-18-2018, 06:39 AM   #68
Scarrrface
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 8
Default

Was there a similiar thread like this with M2K D2M ?

Last edited by Scarrrface; 05-18-2018 at 09:03 PM.
Scarrrface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2018, 10:56 PM   #69
feefifofum
3rd Party Developer
 
feefifofum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 2,001
Default

Yes, this led to the option "do not mount the DDM sensors" as a special item in the Mission Editor.
feefifofum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2018, 12:50 AM   #70
NakedSquirrel
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 180
Default

It sounds realistic to keep the Datalink since the aircraft actually has one.
NakedSquirrel 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 03:45 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.