Realistic or Balance - J-11A Datalink - Page 10 - ED Forums
 


Notices

View Poll Results: Keep/Remove J-11A Datalink
Remove 192 64.21%
Keep 107 35.79%
Voters: 299. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-21-2018, 10:50 PM   #91
feefifofum
3rd Party Developer
 
feefifofum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 2,522
Default

The information from the datalink is displayed on the HDD. The HDD is not the datalink. The HDD can also act as a HUD repeater in the Su-27, though this binding is currently absent from the J-11A control profile.


The HDD was not removed in the early lot J-11A. The datalink was. It's pretty clear to me this is exactly what six is trying to say as well in the post you keep linking.

The HDD will likely be locked into HUD repeater mode if the datalink is removed, as with the MiG-29. This should not require any significant effort from Deka, as the avionics are already ported over from the Su-27.
feefifofum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2018, 04:58 PM   #92
Auditor
Member
 
Auditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feefifofum View Post
The information from the datalink is displayed on the HDD. The HDD is not the datalink. The HDD can also act as a HUD repeater in the Su-27, though this binding is currently absent from the J-11A control profile.


The HDD was not removed in the early lot J-11A. The datalink was. It's pretty clear to me this is exactly what six is trying to say as well in the post you keep linking.

The HDD will likely be locked into HUD repeater mode if the datalink is removed, as with the MiG-29. This should not require any significant effort from Deka, as the avionics are already ported over from the Su-27.
Six was saying that he didn't know that the HDD and the Datalink were connected. As you mentioned, the in-game HDD for the J-11A is literally just the SU-27's. Not the real one, the in-game one.

What's more: It would be very unrealistic to lock it to HUD repeater mode because the top-down radar still exists in the J-11A. The navigation pages still exist in the J-11A. Every single mode that the SU-27SK had available to it is available to the J-11A's early version models. Those screens never went away. The reason the Mig-29 is in HUD repeater mode is because that's the primary function of it in the A and G models.

My whole point as to why HUD repeater mode wouldn't work for it is: why would we want to replace unrealism with more unrealism? To feel good about 'fixing' something? That's why I think the 'remove' voters are misguided: They're not aware that removing the Datalink also entails re-writing the HDD or sticking it in HUD repeater mode. Six certainly mentioned that he didn't think it would be that big of a deal.
That's not something they have thought too much about because that's not what the poll is asking. I would like to know how the poll would look if it was mentioned that the only way to 'remove' the datalink is also to remove all those nice HDD modes that are inherent to the Flanker and its variants that it should 100% have.

And you're completely right, If the datalink goes: so does the top-down display radar, and so do the navigation pages. It will be locked in yet another mode that no one would use during an engagement, is left as an emergency mode to operators of the SK, and no operator of the J-11A would use 24/7, all of the time just to feel like something was accomplished. Turning it off is also an option, and is also extremely realistic as you can turn off the real one, too. However, I don't think anyone would argue that there should be a blank screen there just because you *can* do that.

In turn, by trying to feel like something was fixed, they would have instead just made it even less realistic.

Quote:
This should not require any significant effort from Deka
They could also just leave it alone and achieve about the same level of unrealism.
If it's not going to be the same thing we have, but minus the datalink, then what's the point? What's the purpose? I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing the J-11A's relationship with the SU-27SK, but the question then becomes: why is it okay to claim that it shouldn't have the capabilities of the S but also shouldn't have the advantages of the SK? This would be a complete systems downgrade at this point, not simply disabling a datalink.

Last edited by Auditor; 05-22-2018 at 05:24 PM.
Auditor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2018, 06:16 PM   #93
red_coreSix
Member
 
red_coreSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor View Post
Six was saying that he didn't know that the HDD and the Datalink were connected.
How do you know? It's literally only you who's saying that. It might be as simple as one line of code to completely disable the datalink and retain the VSD-style mode.

Quote:
As you mentioned, the in-game HDD for the J-11A is literally just the SU-27's. Not the real one, the in-game one.
Real one too, same HDD as the 27SK. For the early versions that is, which is what it represents right now.

Quote:
The reason the Mig-29 is in HUD repeater mode is because that's the primary function of it in the A and G models.
No, it's the only function. That's why it was changed. Not because ED is inept at changing their own code and could only remove the entire display.

Quote:
Six certainly mentioned that he didn't think it would be that big of a deal.
That's not something they have thought too much about because that's not what the poll is asking. I would like to know how the poll would look if it was mentioned that the only way to 'remove' the datalink is also to remove all those nice HDD modes that are inherent to the Flanker and its variants that it should 100% have.
Truth is that you don't have a clue how hard to re-code it is, period.
red_coreSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2018, 10:49 PM   #94
Auditor
Member
 
Auditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red_coreSix View Post
How do you know? It's literally only you who's saying that. It might be as simple as one line of code to completely disable the datalink and retain the VSD-style mode.

Real one too, same HDD as the 27SK. For the early versions that is, which is what it represents right now.

No, it's the only function. That's why it was changed. Not because ED is inept at changing their own code and could only remove the entire display.

Truth is that you don't have a clue how hard to re-code it is, period.
Wow it's almost as if I made a post addressing this already which was directly addressed to you with links to mods that have attempted this before and you just flat-out didn't read it.

We've been over this two pages before: If I'm wrong, Great! But if I'm right, like all the evidence from modders currently points toward, then the only way to rectify this is to replace it with an HDD that doesn't have a Datalink like feefifofum recommended. If that happens it will not only be absurdly unrealistic because we both agree that they're the same HDD, but also insulting to people who voted in this poll because the question never was to replace the HDD. The question was to remove the datalink, and I think using the results of his poll to justify doing that would be deceptive.
That's why there's such contention over this.

Last edited by Auditor; 05-22-2018 at 11:09 PM.
Auditor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2018, 12:04 AM   #95
red_coreSix
Member
 
red_coreSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor View Post
Wow it's almost as if I made a post addressing this already which was directly addressed to you with links to mods that have attempted this before and you just flat-out didn't read it.

We've been over this two pages before: If I'm wrong, Great! But if I'm right, like all the evidence from modders currently points toward, then the only way to rectify this is to replace it with an HDD that doesn't have a Datalink like feefifofum recommended. If that happens it will not only be absurdly unrealistic because we both agree that they're the same HDD, but also insulting to people who voted in this poll because the question never was to replace the HDD. The question was to remove the datalink, and I think using the results of his poll to justify doing that would be deceptive.
That's why there's such contention over this.
I don't have time to read through all the threads you keep linking in this convoluted way of yours. Modders aren't ED or 3rd party devs, they don't have access to the SDK. The poll asked about the removal of the datalink, that's what I voted for, if the devs come back and say that's not possible without removing the VSD, we'll reconsider it. Let's just see if the devs respond. No need to make such a fuss about it...
red_coreSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2018, 01:06 AM   #96
Auditor
Member
 
Auditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red_coreSix View Post
I don't have time to read through all the threads you keep linking in this convoluted way of yours. Modders aren't ED or 3rd party devs, they don't have access to the SDK. The poll asked about the removal of the datalink, that's what I voted for, if the devs come back and say that's not possible without removing the VSD, we'll reconsider it. Let's just see if the devs respond. No need to make such a fuss about it...
Okay, dude, bruh. Do you think I'm putting those links in my posts for sport? I'm putting them in my posts because they're threads by people who understand the engine and have tried doing exactly what you've said. ED and third party devs aren't magic, there's a process they would need to go through in order to change it.

But other than that, Yes! Lets' wait for Deka to get back to us if that's really the sticking point in this whole thing.
Auditor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 05:24 PM   #97
Oberst_Starlight
Member
 
Oberst_Starlight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Posts: 702
Default

Why it still has Datalink?
__________________

MiG-29A/S Fulcrum (PFM and ASM) | Su-27S Flanker ASM | Su-17M4 Fitter | DCS: Korea | M-2000C Mirage | AJS-37 Viggen | MiG-23MLA Flogger-G | A-10C Warthog | Ка-50 Akula


TAW_Glimmer
Oberst_Starlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2018, 04:11 PM   #98
Kazansky222
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 10
Default

I voted no, however in hindsight, I think it should be a server option. Depending on is the server is modeling earlier type aircraft or later type, depends on the scenario.
Kazansky222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2018, 05:44 PM   #99
Oberst_Starlight
Member
 
Oberst_Starlight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Posts: 702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazansky222 View Post
I voted no, however in hindsight, I think it should be a server option. Depending on is the server is modeling earlier type aircraft or later type, depends on the scenario.
But this temporary non-realistic "improvement" create disbalance between Su-27 and J-11A, because Chinese aircraft have not any limitations compare with 27. It is just copy paste with new missiles in gameplay point of view.

If J-11A in real life (version which modeled in DCS) doesn't have DL, and this creates disbalance, why it still exists?
__________________

MiG-29A/S Fulcrum (PFM and ASM) | Su-27S Flanker ASM | Su-17M4 Fitter | DCS: Korea | M-2000C Mirage | AJS-37 Viggen | MiG-23MLA Flogger-G | A-10C Warthog | Ка-50 Akula


TAW_Glimmer
Oberst_Starlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2018, 03:34 PM   #100
Kazansky222
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uboats View Post
Chinese developed its own DL for j-11a (late version), but it requires completely different cockpit etc, and DL/RWR is too sensitive and we don't have info (even if we had, do it correctly, trouble; incorrectly, trouble too ).
I think that attempting to model a "late" J-11 with the chinese DL +RWR + MAWS would be great for the meta of dcs.
Kazansky222 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 07:26 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.