DCS: MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM - Page 12 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-21-2018, 12:02 PM   #111
foxbat155
Member
 
foxbat155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 329
Default

Please read one more time my post, this time slowly.
foxbat155 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2018, 12:17 PM   #112
Dudikoff
Senior Member
 
Dudikoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Croatia / Lebanon
Posts: 2,478
Default

I missed these updates somehow. So glad to have the MiG-23 done in the game after all (the initial rejection by ED was quite a shock). MLA is a pretty good choice, especially if one with the later mods like CM dispensers and SPO-15.

MLD would have had some advantages in close-in maneuvering with the vortex generators and the extra wing sweep position, but these planes were not meant to be dogfighters anyway so the difference is probably not that drastic compared to e.g. a MiG-29.

Can't wait for it to be done to try to land that thing, thanks Razbam.
__________________
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!

Last edited by Dudikoff; 06-21-2018 at 12:41 PM.
Dudikoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2018, 01:02 PM   #113
firmek
Senior Member
 
firmek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex854Warrior View Post
RAZBAM said they were doing an MLA variant, why are you so obsessed ? They do not have documentation on the MLD, they do not have access to one.
. There is always a discussion about the versions but in this specific situation, after a clear communication from RAZBAM there is really a little reason to insist on a different version. MLA actually also makes a lot of sense. There are however a flavors, different updates that even a specific versions has went throught where I think there is still a room for discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex854Warrior View Post
It's not like CM and a better RWR (but still kind of crap) are going to make a difference in how the plane will be used and how it will be effective
RWR is the main tool that helps to build the situational awarness. Take MiG-21 and F-5E as an example. It's a night and day difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex854Warrior View Post
... it's a high altitude, fast fighter/interceptor, your force will be to have 10 when the ennemy has 4 fighters, a GCI will guide you, and if you get shot at, run away at mach 2. Getting in a dogfight will get you killed CM or no CM.
Yes, you're right. Conside that MiG-21 is also preliminary a high altitude intenceptor. The way how it's applied in DCS however is totally a different reality. At least in the multiplier missions its almost always low on deck approach ending up in a dog fights. Look on the most popular MiG-21/F-5E MP servers - if you're flying higher than 100-50m meters AGL in MP you're dead.

In other words, if you want a samewhot realistic scenario for an interceptor - SP and mission editor are your friends. Still though you're left without a GCI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex854Warrior View Post
Countermeasures are a must apprently in DCS because they are effective, fact is, chaffs alone are very much useless against any type of doppler radar with counter-countermeasures (basicly since the 70s), Fox 2s since the 80s have very powerfull CCMs and render flares almost useless aswell. You want countermeasures because DCS models them in a very basic and poor way, but as probad said, geometry is what saves you.
Geometry saves is you is just a small talk. It's like saying countermeasures are for poor pilots. In reality to use a geometry you need to have a good situational awareness and be in a good position with enough energy. This is maybe just a the the beggining of the fight long before the merge. Once the fight develops and situation gets messy the countermeasures is what saves your life.
__________________
F/A-18, F-14, M-2000C, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37 Viggen, F-5E-3, F-86F, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, L-39 Albatros, C-101 Aviojet, P-51D, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 4-K, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf... and not enough time to fully enjoy it all
firmek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2018, 01:40 PM   #114
Tarabostes
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Dacia
Posts: 98
Default

I tired listening all this experts telling and explain why MLD is much better , and why Razbam didnt choose to do that as a module . MLA is great ,dont like it , dont buy .Or maybe why ED make F18C and not F18 E , F16 blk 50 and not blk60 or70 etc etc..

Last edited by Tarabostes; 06-21-2018 at 01:44 PM.
Tarabostes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2018, 02:07 PM   #115
Vincent90
Member
 
Vincent90's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 300
Default

Which radar system are you planning to model on the MLA?
Vincent90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2018, 02:21 PM   #116
98abaile
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxbat155 View Post
Weapon system and other equipment are in 90 % the same for both aircraft, so only small research is needed for rest of this stuff.
That's like saying climb Everest instead of K2, it's only a bit more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxbat155 View Post
Luckily for you 23 had simplified SPO-15, so amount of programing with this is not significant, dispensers are simple as well.
That's an assumption you are making.
98abaile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2018, 02:25 PM   #117
Dudikoff
Senior Member
 
Dudikoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Croatia / Lebanon
Posts: 2,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent90 View Post
Which radar system are you planning to model on the MLA?
Sapfir-23MLA variant would be the only option IIRC (unless MLA-II from MLD was installed later on(?), but then they could just call it the export MiG-23MLD).
__________________
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!
Dudikoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2018, 03:00 PM   #118
probad
Senior Member
 
probad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,154
Default

the accounts about the ms makes me want to try flying that instead of the mla. those dangerous problems all sound very exciting to deal with inside the safety of a computer sim.
why do you want "bug-free" versions like the mld when you can fly fundamentally bugfree planes like the 29, 27, or eventually the 17?
for all you mld evangelists, do you really think that the aerodynamic improvements will really bring it on par with any of the 4thgens? (rhetorical question; it won't)

no let's lay it all bare: you mld lobbyists actually dont care about even the mld. you dont care about the mig-23 either. you just want to take advantage of this development to get another 4th generation module. you want 4th generation weapons, avionics, and aerodynamics -- to transform a 3rd generation aircraft into a 4th generation aircraft in all but name, because you're all deathly afraid of having to learn some other ways of flying than the open air jousts that fc3 allows.

im angry because this pursuit of easier, cheaper wins undermines those of us who want to experience difficult, undesirable aircraft characteristics, the ones that shed new insight and allow us to learn something new and different.

why own a different module if you can't experience something different?????
__________________
hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL
probad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2018, 03:14 PM   #119
Rex854Warrior
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: France
Posts: 547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firmek View Post
RWR is the main tool that helps to build the situational awarness. Take MiG-21 and F-5E as an example. It's a night and day difference.
Indeed, but the SPO-15 won't make that much of a difference, at least if you use the Mig-23 as it's meant to be used, you have a GCI, and you more or less know where SAMs are with intelligence. The F-5E's RWR in DCS is quite a bit better then the SPO-15.

Quote:
Originally Posted by firmek View Post
Yes, you're right. Conside that MiG-21 is also preliminary a high altitude intenceptor. The way how it's applied in DCS however is totally a different reality. At least in the multiplier missions its almost always low on deck approach ending up in a dog fights. Look on the most popular MiG-21/F-5E MP servers - if you're flying higher than 100-50m meters AGL in MP you're dead.

In other words, if you want a samewhot realistic scenario for an interceptor - SP and mission editor are your friends. Still though you're left without a GCI.
The Mig-23 will be used in a different way i think, first because it will be against more modern aircrafts, second because the Sapfir-23, while not being great is alot better then the Mig-21's or the F-5E's radar, which is the main reason people don't fly high because they can't do look down. And thirdly because Mig-23 dogfights won't end well...

I am lucky to be in a squadron with a GCI, and soon alot of Mig-23 pilots .

Quote:
Originally Posted by firmek View Post
Geometry saves is you is just a small talk. It's like saying countermeasures are for poor pilots. In reality to use a geometry you need to have a good situational awareness and be in a good position with enough energy. This is maybe just a the the beggining of the fight long before the merge. Once the fight develops and situation gets messy the countermeasures is what saves your life.
When you do a crank maneuver after firing a first fox one, that will draw massive amounts of energy from the ennemy's missile, when you pull high G's when evading, the missile maneuvers and looses energy, notching kills the lock, BVR is all about geometry, WVR is all about energy and doing the right maneuver with a type of aircraft to get behind and to stay there, when you listen to pilots they don't mention chaffs or flares, they mention geometry and evading with maneuvers, if he fires a fox two and you don't correctly maneuver, you're dead, even with all the flares you have onboard.
A pilot that prepares his mission at minimum and has a GCI will have enough SA to do those maneuvers. (assuming the pilot is decent)

You only answered half of my quote, i don't rely on countermeasures because when DCS will have all this figured out, they will be almost useless.
__________________

Last edited by Rex854Warrior; 06-21-2018 at 03:18 PM.
Rex854Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2018, 04:20 PM   #120
Pilot Ike
Member
 
Pilot Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 256
Default

Wonderful! Even better news than getting a MiG-19 in DCS.
Pilot Ike 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 12:03 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.