Jump to content

A-7 by RAZBAM confirmed!


MrDieing

Recommended Posts

Hmmm... Didn't they also promise us the MiG-23MFD and failed? Not a big fan of RAZBAM really. The Mirage is not done in a such a good way either, in my opinion.

 

The Mirage improved and matured a lot in this last year. Not to say that RAZBAM is the most transparent and community engaging of all the developers out there, publishing the incoming fixes before they are actually released.

 

Do you own the module?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

"Alis Aquilae Aut Pax Aut Bellum"

 

Veritech's DCS YouTube Channel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Alrgiht as multiple people responded to this, I think I should respond, which I originally would not due to two reasons:

- Drifting quite off topic

- Coming off quite like bashing the Razbam, as I don't know how and if I can sugarcoat my impression

 

People responded with saying they think Razbam is working hard, regular and quick with updates, but I do certainly agree on that front. External graphics of Mirage are also awesome, both the model and texture are nothing short of gorgeous. And well at least it's flight model isn't SFM... Credit where it's due, I don't have a problem with these (well aside from flight model, but later...). I certainly don't have an issue with the chosen version being Mirage 2000C, on the contrary I believe it is potentially a nicer bridge have between older and newer flyables available, so it can potentially be used together in missions with them all.

 

My beef lies elsewhere: I remember them stating multiple times lack of documentation and what amounts to "making it up as they go", sometimes with systems, mostly with flight control system, and apparently with flight model itself too to a degree. There are multiple red flags for me here.

 

Also, from the beginning, they have displayed a tendency towards souping up the module for gameplay purposes, like possibly allowing for some precision guided weaponry that aren't for this version of the airframe. This didn't happen yet, however, a very similar thing happened with DDM, and Zeus even began his thread announcing the feature with saying it is not mounted on Mirage 2000C, and it's cockpit indications are "WAGUESS". I'd still say "ok fine, whatever" as they have made it optional, however, made the option on by default, which is not the correct way to approach features like these in my opinion. Then there's radar display overlay option, which, in my opinion, is just giving a helmet mounted to display to an aircraft that doesn't have it.

 

Another bit of what I consider as "souping it up for extra fun" is the missiles. I certainly am not saying ED missiles are perfect, or even great at all. Nor do I say other 3rd parties that added their own custom air to air missiles did an overly convincing job. However, some consistency needs to exist in sim, as modules do not exist in a vacuum, with one update, I recally R530 and R550 becoming the missiles with almost the best energy retention, tracking and countermeasure resistance. I do appreciate Razbam acting to fix earleier ED defalts which seemed to hit a wall of drag as soon as they are fired, but I am not sure if that effort is handled the right way.

 

I don't know if the damage model is fixed now, but it was, well... I guess silly is the nicest word I can use :). From what I see it still has issues, but is probably better than what it used to be.

 

Flight model itself, I honestly don't have confidence in it being realistic. During various stages of it's development, when it comes to turns it seemed over perform in one patch, under perform in another. With spin switch off, it seemed to display space ship like characteristics :). When it comes to thrust, it used to be able to climb almost to low earth orbit in some earlier patches :). Since no data from manufacturer was available (at least as far as we know anyway), fly by wire flight control system is also a guesstimation, based on original research and pilot anectodes. Airbrakes can slow you down while diving with pretty high thrust on. I do hope it'll get there though... Was it fun to fly? Boy... those bat turns sure was fun! But if they are not quite the way it should be, should them being fun be enough to give it a pass?

 

I got it day one, and while I was positive for it, and enjoyed the idea of Mirage 2000C, and the feel of it itself, slowly I've realized there were whole systems omitted, and flight model felt, well let's just say interesting... Cockpit textures were, quite honestly more or less looked like a certain infamous case of texturegate, but I guess people didn't throw the same fit because "ooohhh... shiney! 4th gen fighteer!", and honestly, that is a big part of the reason why most people like it :). That and, it being fun to throw around. My opinion anyways... I do understand and appreciate people looking forward to aricraft past 3rd gen, and also understand doing many of those 4th gen aircraft would require some leeway in documentation available and realism. I just believe this leeway seem being taken a bit too leniently in Mirage's case. The point of this last paragraph is, that the module was in a state where it really shouln't have been released when it was first released, not even nearly at that.

 

So, in a nutshell, it gives me the impression of doing and aircraft without much real documentation available because it is cool, and also the impression of wanting to add stuff and gameplay features that don't really belong on the particular version. And personally, these are not what I like to see, or tie with how I see and enjoy the DCS.

 

To be fair though... none of the flight models are %100 probably, and that is simply not realistic to expect. And, MiG-21, which was, and still kind of is, my favorite module, seems to be in a similar state unfortunately, despite being out for more than 2 years now, and despite having it's beta tag removed. Things can be fixed, and most modules have one issue or other, this is complex sutff do make. But what leaves a reserved impression on Razbam for me, is, rather their seeming tendency to try and do every airframe regardless of how much reliable info is out there, and their "openness" to potentially adding gameplay fluff to them as well.

 

This is how I see it, and only written this wall of text as many have asked me about why, and that's my why.

 

Getting back on topic itself, A-7 (as well A-6 and Tucano, possibly Mirage III too) are aircraft that are older, not made by Dassault who are infamous for their paranoid approach to flight sims :). Therefore with more reliable information available on them, I am positive and hopeful that they will create those modules in a way I will consider "better" in my definition of it. After all, they are flight sim addon development veterans of many many years, and have also made quite a bit of DCS experience already with Mirage and other modules they currently have in development. I was interested very highly in F-15E as well, but I think I'll personally get my 4th gen modern multipurpose jet in DCS fix from ED's Hornet instead, which will predate all Razbam modules with a ground radar anyway.

 

Over&Out from me as far as this off topic issue goes :).

 

 

A few things...

 

Ultimatlly Razbam couldnt have done a more modern version of the Mirage like the -5 or -5 mk2. not enough information on those, too modern. unless people would be ok with a fantasy Mk5 with f16 style weapons systems like the featured in a simulator that shall not be named.

 

Yea despite that they ultimately needed some guesswork for the 2000c, but hey look at leatherneck. even with all the info on a Mig21BIS they introduced it with the Fantasy tracking pipper for IR missiles. Yea the eventually put in a update where you can disable this, but still they themselves too some"Liberties" with thier older aircraft, that had far more information available.

 

 

As for your statement about them souping up the Module to have Precision weapons. thats incorrect. Gbu12s the m2000C, inst unrealisitc. IT can carry them IRL..... However its just like the F5E, it just cant self designate and needs to rely on a External laser source, which you do need to have ingame.

 

http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/0/54/74/56/20150716/ob_e11bba_d437640.jpg

 

http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/0/54/74/56/20150716/ob_5fb7e4_d437299.jpg

 

^^

 

French M2000c have been used as recently in Operation Barkhane armed with Gbu12, With M2000D's designating for them, for the A2G support role.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WinterH,

thanks for the reasonable and fair arguments.

 

A few quick points:

 

1. in all modern jets there will be guesswork here and there. I am sure all devs will have to do it in some systems when we get more modern stuff. Look at ED, they are asking the community for Infos about the F18. What will they do when they dont get the wanted Infos? Stop the module? of course they will do guess work. Razbam guys are just too honest and communicative and not really into the master plan marketing stuff.

 

2. The damage model improved and is now better than the F5. Which can easily survive a 530D in the face. The Mirage now dies with the first missile.

 

3.The flight model is not perfect but quite good. However, because they are open about it we have the impression that it is not realistic. However, it is not worse than the others. Look how the FM of the Mig changed and continues to change.

 

4.D2M is not equipped but is "equipable". their choice to do so is debatable, but I dont think it is dramatic at all. The A10 can carry 6 mavericks and can change laser code in MFD, the Mig21 has Groms and has a CCIP computer, the P51 has 30 mm cannons... all unrealistic features but no immersion killers, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your statement about them souping up the Module to have Precision weapons. thats incorrect. Gbu12s the m2000C, inst unrealisitc. IT can carry them IRL..... However its just like the F5E, it just cant self designate and needs to rely on a External laser source, which you do need to have ingame.

 

In that sentence about precision weapons, I have concluded it with "this didn't happen yet", so it's not really the Paveways I was talking about. I didn't mean the GBUs there, which I know are fine. There has been very lengthy and spirited discussions back before and during its initial release for weapons like ARMAT and Exocet. Those were the ones I was talking about.

 

As for the MiG's status, yeah, I have acknowledged that too in my original post, as being in a similar state despite being out of beta.

 

WinterH,

thanks for the reasonable and fair arguments.

 

A few quick points:

 

...

 

Yeah, at this point, I don't expect any flight simulation to be %100 accurate, not even the best ones, and not even for the older airframes. In case of Hornet however, there seems to be more direct info, and ED seem to have more direct contact with militaries. My opinion remains that if an airframe will involve too much guess-working, it should not be picked up to begin with.

 

Also, I do appreciate Razbam being fairly upfront, don't want to give an impression otherwise. In MiG it took us quite some time to learn about things being fishy... and to think that lead developer is an actual active duty pilot of that very airframe :). Triplet maverick racks are in category of "certified, but never done in practice" though, which I find distinct compared my issues in Mirage's case, and admittedly in the MiG's case too. I am not really sure what it is with Mustang and 30mm s though? As far as I know there is no such option on it? :)

 

Anyway, my opinion of Mirage remains the same, but as I have already mnetioned, I am still hopeful and positive for further modules from Razbam, at least the ones that depict older and/or less classified aircraft. If we get back to actual topic, A-7 is really something I look forward to a lot.

 

As a bonus, here's some decent A-7 Corsair reading :) :

http://www.airvectors.net/ava7.html

 

While the Viggen is great and unique, this one is arguably an even better strike aircraft of a similar generation, and had fairly sophisticated stuff for it's day, which means lots of cool toys in cockpit to learn about and play with. It was last used in 1991 in USA, and soldiered on in active service for Greece all the way until 2014 with upgrades. So, it kind of is an aircraft that can be included in fairly modern-ish scenarios. Especially if it is one of the latest versions with HARM, but even if not, AGM-45 Shrike is still a given for A-7E already from Vietnam era.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't really carry *that* much ordnance does it?

 

Has it got options for MER's to up the bomb count?

 

Yes, with MER's it can haul quite "a bit".

 

a7p_fap.jpg

440px-YA-7A_NAN5-66.jpg

 

Apparently, from the carriers they didn't often operate near maximum takeoff weight.

 

Although I think these are captive versions, even mavericks on multiple ejectors may potentially be a thing :

76th_Tactical_Fighter_Squadron_A-7D_Corsair.jpg

 

So, yeah, it does haul a fair bit of ordnance alright :).

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it with people who insist on quoting long posts in their entirity? Just cut it short fer chrissakes!

 

Example:

 

viewpost.gif Alrgiht as multiple people responded to this, I think I should respond, which I originally would not due to two reasons....
and your response goes here.

 

It's like when someone posts a couple of videos or a half dozen pictures and then people keep insisting on quoting the post complete with videos or pictures repeatedly. Totally unnecessary and sux big time for those scrolling through (especially on a mobile device). It's up to you what you post (within the rules) but please think a little first.

 

On topic, I will only buy the Viggen if it goes on sale at reduced price, just to give it a go, but the A-7 was one of my childhood fantasy aircraft (that means it was one I would fly in my dreams as kid) and I cherished the first model I ever built of one - still remember it clear as yesterday.

 

Day 1 early-purchase :)

Kneeboard Guides

Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to put some clarifications here(right from the source)

We announced we are going to do an A-7 for DCS from day 1 we were granted a 3rd party developer license for DCS.

The Mig23 incident is something entirely different, and has nothing to do with our original, scheduled, lineup.

Pertinent to the A-7, we can´t do the same approach as we did with them in FSX/P3D simply because it´s not practical, there will be the E (as in late Bu No´s E version), and we´ll see if we can squeeze the D (as in late D version) and that´s it, there are enough differences between them to keep us quite busy, other versions (H, P etc) have their own differences, too many to make it a practical module (in terms of development times).HAF users can take advantage of the fact that their late SLUFF´s were in fact ex USN late E´s, with all the bells and whistles sans nuclear capacity. (and I mention HAF since they were the last users)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to put some clarifications here(right from the source)

We announced we are going to do an A-7 for DCS from day 1 we were granted a 3rd party developer license for DCS.

The Mig23 incident is something entirely different, and has nothing to do with our original, scheduled, lineup.

Pertinent to the A-7, we can´t do the same approach as we did with them in FSX/P3D simply because it´s not practical, there will be the E (as in late Bu No´s E version), and we´ll see if we can squeeze the D (as in late D version) and that´s it, there are enough differences between them to keep us quite busy, other versions (H, P etc) have their own differences, too many to make it a practical module (in terms of development times).HAF users can take advantage of the fact that their late SLUFF´s were in fact ex USN late E´s, with all the bells and whistles sans nuclear capacity. (and I mention HAF since they were the last users)

 

Do you confirm it will be after Tucano, Harrier and Mirage III ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see Razbam is still considering making both variants of the Corsair II.Hopefully they'll do the same with the Harrier and Mirage III.But wondering about the A-7,is there any difference between the US Navy E & USAF D variants.

 

It was already mentioned that there are:

 

there will be the E (as in late Bu No´s E version), and we´ll see if we can squeeze the D (as in late D version) and that´s it, there are enough differences between them to keep us quite busy

 

I do hope you manage to make both E and D's as each variant has some unique weapons.

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

Prowler,

 

This is a lot to ask, but is there any confirmation on the teaser about RAZBAM doing the Intruder. There was a screen shot or two a while back on the RAZ facebook I believe, but nothing since. Is the A-6 still on the table and going to move into production? Again, I know its a lot to ask for regarding any info, but thought it was worth a shot.

 

Regards

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:megalol:

Each time a new plane is announced, someone ask for another plane :D

 

PS: I'm an Intruder fan too, but guys, one at a time !

 

This isnt asking for new aircraft per se.

 

Since I myself do recall somewhere razbam mentioning the A6 intruder in thier development plans for the future.

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is from Prowler on the previous page:

 

"Just to put some clarifications here(right from the source)

We announced we are going to do an A-7 for DCS from day 1 we were granted a 3rd party developer license for DCS.

The Mig23 incident is something entirely different, and has nothing to do with our original, scheduled, lineup.

Pertinent to the A-7, we can´t do the same approach as we did with them in FSX/P3D simply because it´s not practical, there will be the E (as in late Bu No´s E version), and we´ll see if we can squeeze the D (as in late D version) and that´s it, there are enough differences between them to keep us quite busy, other versions (H, P etc) have their own differences, too many to make it a practical module (in terms of development times).HAF users can take advantage of the fact that their late SLUFF´s were in fact ex USN late E´s, with all the bells and whistles sans nuclear capacity. (and I mention HAF since they were the last users)"

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need some more A7 content, the A6 one is overly active compared to this one.

 

Using Skipper, Walleye, rockeye and some LGBs. Some very nice footage from the Walleye's PoV especially

 

 

Mostly the same, but with commentary and some stuff on the computer and HUD operation.

 

 

 

Some gun pods, GPU5 and SUU23(?). Unclear if these were actually ever used or just tested, especially in the case of the GPU5. There were some more images of the SUU23 though, but I imagine it was not common.

 

I8W5N7V.jpg

 

itnayhq.jpg

 

LowSk64.jpg


Edited by iLOVEwindmills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but there probably is some story on their use with Corsairs as per the above pictures. Even if it just relates to testing, it would be interesting to know regardless.

 

http://s213.photobucket.com/user/ikar_photos/media/ikar_photos%202/scan0100.jpg.html

 

another what looks like a SUU23 on a Corsair.


Edited by iLOVEwindmills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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