Jump to content

Realistic or Balance - J-11A Datalink


uboats

Realistic or Balance - J-11A Datalink  

474 members have voted

  1. 1. Realistic or Balance - J-11A Datalink



Recommended Posts

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?


Edited by JunMcKill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian didnt allow China access to the DL.

 

Like some comunication and navigation systems that where dismounted also.

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!! :smartass::thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


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

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.

 

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.


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


Edited by probad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DL in SP - MP is something i was telling all the time here.

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds realistic to keep the Datalink since the aircraft actually has one.

Modules: A10C, AV8, M2000C, AJS-37, MiG-21, MiG-19, MiG-15, F86F, F5E, F14A/B, F16C, F18C, P51, P47, Spitfire IX, Bf109K, Fw190-D, UH-1, Ka-50, SA342 Gazelle, Mi8, Christian Eagle II, CA, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this led to the option "do not mount the DDM sensors" as a special item in the Mission Editor.

 

 

Handle it the same way perhaps ? It will be up to the mission editor if they want a realistic or balance environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldbe interesting to know how many of remove voters, are actually F15C pilots...

 

Hey, I'm all for giving the J-11s their datalink that only later blocks had... If ED gives the F-15s link-16, AESA radars and HMDs, you know, because later versions have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm all for giving the J-11s their datalink that only later blocks had... If ED gives the F-15s link-16, AESA radars and HMDs, you know, because later versions have it.

 

I'm glad we have a post right above mine demonstrating the problem with asking the forums about realism changes. I hope Deka Ironwork sees this before making a decision.

 

The J-11A is the J-11A, 104th meta is 104th meta, The F-15 is the F-15. If you have problems separating these out because you feel they're all related to one another, then you shouldn't have voted in this poll. Likewise, if someone brings up the very real possibility that some people's feelings on the F-15C and 104th meta is affecting their decision-making process on the J-11A's realism changes, and your response is "But what about the Eagle?!"; then you shouldn't have voted in this poll. You have no say in this argument because we're not talking about the J-11A's competitiveness with the Eagle, we're talking about what's best for realism of the plane.

 

If you can't separate the two, then why even vote in this poll? This has nothing to do with the Eagle and Deka Ironwork can't make design changes to the eagle; so why should it affect your decision?


Edited by Auditor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad we have a post right above mine demonstrating the problem with asking the forums about realism changes. I hope Deka Ironwork sees this before making a decision.

 

The J-11A is the J-11A, 104th meta is 104th meta, The F-15 is the F-15. If you have problems separating these out because you feel they're all related to one another, then you shouldn't have voted in this poll. Likewise, if someone brings up the very real possibility that some people's feelings on the F-15C and 104th meta is affecting their decision-making process on the J-11A's realism changes, and your response is "But what about the Eagle?!"; then you shouldn't have voted in this poll. You have no say in this argument because we're not talking about the J-11A's competitiveness with the Eagle, we're talking about what's best for realism of the plane.

 

If you can't separate the two, then why even vote in this poll? This has nothing to do with the Eagle and Deka Ironwork can't make design changes to the eagle; so why should it affect your decision?

 

Are you talking to me or the guy above me that brought the F-15 into this to begin with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking to me or the guy above me that brought the F-15 into this to begin with?

 

I'm talking to you. The guy above you was mentioning that people's biases regarding the F-15C and 'competitiveness' may be biasing people's opinions on this poll. -And then you went and confirmed it. We're not talking about changing the F-15C, we're talking about changing the J-11A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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