Su-17M4 (SU-22) Full Fidelity Research for Dev Started - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-15-2019, 08:04 PM   #21
MobiSev
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aw33com View Post
I knew I could count on you
You made my day, I'm so happy.

I don't have PG so I took a break from DDCS and started doing this.
Never done 3d modeling, but I already started doing a model of a simple airplane. It's coming out, but I'm obviously improvising a bit.

Going to Florida in 6 days. Once I come back I'll finish the simple P-47 model. If it comes out I'll post and ask for advice on how to attack Su-22 modeling.

Thanks for now.
Happy to help! I don't know if all the manuals are there, but it's a start
__________________
Modules owned:

FC3, M-2000C, Mig-21bis, F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, KA-50, Mi-8, F-14A&B
MobiSev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2019, 08:21 PM   #22
Harlikwin
Veteran
 
Harlikwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 3,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aw33com View Post
I read his post and he says there is no interest in the project. Not sure what that means. No interest by clients to fly it?

If there is like few months of work left and Fragger could help me (explain stuff in English that is) along the way, maybe I could take it over. But only if the community is interested in it.

It would be a nice start for me before I go after SU-17.
I'd say there are plenty of people in the helo community that want to see it happen. At a guess he means there might not be an interested programmer to help make it happen. It sounds like whoever he had lined up to help him had his project at the bottom of their priority list while it was at the top of his list. At least that was my take on the whole situation.

Honestly I wouldn't underestimate the difficulty of making either a fixed wing or rotary platform for DCS especially the FM. And I bet Fragger already has documentation for the BO-105 in some language, and I bet its available somewhere in English as its a fairly common helicopter worldwide.
__________________
New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)
Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).
Harlikwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 04:30 AM   #23
aw33com
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 39
Default

Update.
I created my first thing in 3d: P-47



Will learn 3ds Max now and do SU-17 in 3d. Need few days to learn the tool first. Doing p-47 got me somehow familiar with it, but I need like 10 days of learning it.
aw33com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2019, 04:52 AM   #24
aw33com
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 39
Default

Few Cool Facts about SU-17:

1. At Sea Level Su-17M3 IS AS FAST as SU-27 (Flanker).
2. Su-17M3 was the best performer of them all. Su-17M4 was slower due to fixed cone.
3. There were 24 official variants.
4. Besides the well known reconnaissance-configured Su-17 there were purposely build SEAD Configured Su-17M3s.
5. Almost all exported Su-17M4s were differently configured. It's super hard to find pictures with consistent loadouts. Each country configured their Su-17s differently. Some modified the center wing pylon to carry 2 R-60Ms on each, and some modified the most outer pylon to do that. Most customers did not carry the 2 hard points that were at the back of the fuselage.
6. I have never found a picture where Su-17 would carry Kh-29 missile on a wing pylon.
7. The aircraft has 12 hard points, but it's super hard to find them in this configuration.
8. Poland has the most advanced Su-22s with Israel and French companies updating their avionics. Those airplanes are known as Su-17M5 in many sources, but some contradict that.
Poland just announced to upgrade their fleet for 10 more years, but I'm hearing it's not happening.
9. Even though the aircraft was build to carry R-73 Archers, customers do not carry them.
10. The number of versions, and country configuration creates a lot of contradicting information online. Including NATO names themselves are confusing, not really matching Russian versions.

Much better research and model selection would be required to build this module.
aw33com 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 06:23 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.