SwingKid Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Someone on the Russian side of the forum is conducting an unofficial poll to see how many people would like to see the R-77 and/or R-27AE missiles restored to Su-27 arsenal in Lock On as a "play balance" feature. It seemed like the sort of thing some people on the English side of the forum might also be interested to vote on. http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=2350 For non-Russian speakers: "ЗА" - yes, I want active missiles on Su-27 in Lock On for play balance against AIM-120 "ПРОТИВ" - no, the real Su-27 doesn't shoot these missiles so the Lock On Su-27 also should not -SK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ruggbutt Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Thanks, I voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-GOYA Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I voted nyet. But if they are implemented, I would like the 15 to have EOS as a "play balance" feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dammerung Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 No... What I do want, though, is a Time to Active Timer on the MiG-29S... There has to be one in the Avionics of the real thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kula66 Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 My 2p worth ... Can the early model Su-27 have them in RL? If yes, fine ... I think we are aiming to get close to RL ... no false features should be added for balance. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayh3M Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I've voted against Better implement 2 target attack the same time in MiG-29S, which is F-15C have :roll: Son... I drive tanks! ;) Hard: ASUS 750Jx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
169th_Jaws Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I am very, VERY strongly against having the Su-27 being able to use active missiles. It's all about simulation and realism. NO ACTIVES FOR THE FLANKER! Just when you thought it was safe to go back over the water... Flight Lieutenant "Jaws" 169th Panthers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Octav Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Re: Poll - Active radar missiles for Su-27 Only if they decide to model (even basically) a Su-27 version that can deploy them (even if it isn't in massive use in the RuAF). Otherwise, you might see me asking for the MIG-29 SMT :D Octav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Thankfully the majority has so far voted against putting the R-77 and R-27AE back on the Su-27/33. I agree with Octav - the current flyable Su-27 versions(Su-27 and Su-33) have the "baseline" N001 "Miech" radar which doesnt support the R-77, so these aircraft should not be made compatible with the R-77 in the sim. JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimes Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Crikey, 40:60, one would think that realism crazed simmers would not want any such missiles on Flanker if it can't use them in real life... Anyhow, I like them, but only from a platform which can really carry them, so I voted against... Can Mig-29K carry R-77 and/or R-27AE? Kind regards, Mimes "Joined forum in 2004 but flying Flanker since 1995 :o)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisha Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 No In simulator game realism should come before balance. Besides Su-27 is deadly enough with only SARH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ruggbutt Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 No In simulator game realism should come before balance. Besides Su-27 is deadly enough with only SARH. Exactly. If I wanted a "balanced" game I'd get BF Vietnam.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdELTPoznan Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 NO!! Lets keep the ingame planes as the plane are in real... GROM- Grupa Reagowania Operacyjno Manewrowego Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britgliderpilot Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I reckon no - why bother going to all those lengths in other realism terms to throw it away on a missile that doesn't exist? This way it's more of a specific challenge - out-F-poling the American AMRAAMs, or dodging the Russian Megasticks . . . . . No... What I do want, though, is a Time to Active Timer on the MiG-29S... There has to be one in the Avionics of the real thing... . . . . I was pretty sure there wasn't? That's why the Russian birds have the big clock in the cockpit . . . . grin. "I've voted against Better implement 2 target attack the same time in MiG-29S, which is F-15C have " Last time this was brought up, apparently the 2 target attack with the R77 basically just meant fire an R77, break lock, let it fly to INS programmed intercept point . . . . and while you're doing that, fire another R77, but keep the lock to provide mid-course updates. Anyone got the final answer on that? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olaleier Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 ПРОТИВ! The game is balanced already...with skill and good tactics, each plane can defeat the other. It is important for gameplay that the tactics are different, otherwise the only difference when playing would be the cockpit textures. :) But I would be interested to hear about any timer instruments on the real MiG-29...perhaps someone could make a table? X= Range, Y= Net closure rate and the cells contains to-active flight times which you can use the clock to check. Too much work for too little use perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oceandar Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Yes, if only ED upgrade the currently model Su-27S to SM or SK so it`d be realistic. No if they don`t :wink: Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfa Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Yes, if only ED upgrade the currently model Su-27S to SM or SK so it`d be realistic. No if they don`t :wink: Just a little note..... The Su-27SK is the same as the Su-27S - the added "K" in the suffix only denotes that it is for export - hence the reason why the Su-27 version operated by e.g. by China is designated "Su-27SK" :) . Both the Su-27S and Su-27SK have the "baseline" N001 radar....no R-77 support. The Su-27SM is a Russian upgrade of the Su-27S and includes an upgraded radar called "N001VE", which incorporates air-to-ground modes and support for active radar guided missiles....including the R-77. This radar was also fitted to the Su-27UBM(upgrade of the Su-27UB combat trainer), the Su-30KN(upgrade to the Su-30 interceptor) and the Chinese Su-30MKK two-seat multirole fighter. Sorry for the nitpicking 8) JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 10km = 10 sec (head on with maneuvering) 20km = 30 sec (head on with maneuvering after) This is for teh AIM-120/R-77. These aren'tt he most accurate times, but they should do. They apply mostly to low altitude shots, in high altitude shots the missile gets there a little faster. As for play balance, it's already there, and I think Megile and I proved it very well one day when we both emptied our racks of BVR missiles (I was in an F-15, he was in a Su-27) and ended up WVR. I'd also like to point out that the R-27ET is a VERY effective weapon when used correctly. AMRAAM allows for snapshot and whatnot, flankers require a little more thought and planning before and during the engagement for your attack. If the F-15 is purely reactive, the flanker has him. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuzzU Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I'm surprised this even came up. Are we trying to turn a sim into a game? Buzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigma6584 Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I voted no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-Paralyzer Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 'NO' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywall23 Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I voted no too. Although im a Flanker fan I dont want to see it unrealistic. :!: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Things would be much better if missile logic has been upgraded the way I think it is - then the Russian sticks really will reach farther and it really will make sense to shoot'em from high up. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I've voted against Better implement 2 target attack the same time in MiG-29S, ... I second that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kusch Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 NO! Nein! Non! Nie! Give me "flying telephone pole" (SA-2)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts