New move in favor Aim-120? No R-27ER LA while they have it?

[shagrat]

On 8/11/2020 at 12:26 PM, Fri13 said:

 

5) We need unreliable information for the troops. No accurate data ever unless it is datalink. So if a radar detects something, it is on the radar screen but not on F10 map. Troops locations should be based to commands and not to units locations. Right now every unit is like perfect GPS, perfect accurate data of their status and all.

---cant get quote to work properly---

That's because mission designers forget to hide(!) units from the map (if they are stationary and supposedly camouflaged/hiding), or at least set F10 to "Fog of war" so units only appear on F10 when in line of sight. Then they fade out (without updates to their position) representing "surveillance" through radar/AWACS, IR or eyeball mk I sensors... You can even decide to hide units from the map and/or planner to simulate a "known" location of a moving force but won't update after mission start.

A lot of options are actually already in DCS.

[einarabelc5]

On 8/7/2020 at 6:33 AM, Chizh said:

What should I see here?

The way I see it, you have a game balancing issue you're going to have to deal with sooner or later, Simulator or no Simulator, because of human psychology. Period. You might lose customers but given the response here and the percentages I'd say it'll follow Pareto's 80/20 rule at worst.

But anyhow I strongly suggest you get your Product management department to do some reading on Game Psychology. Everything else is noise.

[einarabelc5]

On 8/7/2020 at 6:46 AM, Airhunter said:

 

What do you even mean by this? The 9X Block I we have in game also hugely underperforms and there is MORE than enough public data and research papers on the fundamentals of this particular and various other FPA HOBS missiles. What site are you refering to? I am in no way trying to limit russian weapons in DCS nor any development when it comes to more realistic missiles and flight dynamics in general. I just see silly people on here who think they know stuff they don't know. Why is this R-27 thing such a mystery? TLDR is, yes, we need an aerodynamics and guidence rework and no there are no upgraded versions in existence as of 2020, none. There are concepts and export variants that are trying to find funding and enough customers, which they haven't managed to far for some "reason" (which should be pretty obvious at this point). The very basics of the scientific method is to poke holes in a statement or theory, adhering to all the available data from all sources. Anyone claiming there are active R-27's with digital or AESA seekers are just trolls who want something to beat the AMRAAM in the multiplayer flying. I'm all for the R-27 receiving the same treatment as the AMRAAM and Sparrow but reality is, even if this narrows down the Pk gap between those two it'll still be vastly inferiour given the same launch parameters. Some people on here claim they know more about Tomcat engines than a former 4000 hour Tomcat pilot and member of the flight safety board. Funnily I see the exact same people spewing nonsense in here and various other threads, all based on their google search history.

Do you know the first thing about human Psychology? Science is quite reductionist about it, which is why Scientists SUCK at Humanities and except for its precursors really don't study  them. As Oswald Spengler said in the 1920s, study science and technology because humanities are dead in this dying civilization.

Nothing to do with trolling, just trying to KEEP playing a game for fun. Nobody really GIVES a CRAP about "facts" and evidence here, if they did they'd all go flight real planes. They just want to play a game that they can continue to keep playing and having fun with it. When you drop all the b.s. about this source and that "simulation" that's what's really motivating things here. Science is A TOOL, not a RELIGION. If you can't see what motivates people to take up their position you're wasting your time with it, you're holding it wrong.

On 8/7/2020 at 7:01 AM, Airhunter said:

 

I am not taking anything personal, clearly some people on here are trying to always be right and make up their own reality as it fits them.

It's A GAME!! A Freaking GAME. Do you understand that? What reality is this about?

[einarabelc5]

On 8/7/2020 at 4:37 PM, Max1mus said:

 

Please look at these attached tracks, i spent some time to make them. All missiles were fired head on, within 8-10km against an A-10 dropping close to 100 chaff every time.

 

Sametests_NoECM.trk 3.51 MB · 37 downloads

This track was made with no ECM equipped. The results are as follows:

 

- R-77: 0/24 missiles hit. The A-10 survived all 4 encounters (6 R-77 shot at the same time at no-run-zone).

 

- R-27ER: 0/24 missiles hit or 0/32 if you count the time the A-10 stalled, Thats 3/3 or 4/4 encounters survived (8 R-27ER shot at the same time at no-run-zone).

 

- AIM-120B: 7/30 missiles hit - The A-10 did not survive once (6 120B shot at the same time at no-run-zone).

 

R77-R27ER.trk 3.36 MB · 24 downloads

AIM-120B.trk 2.31 MB · 20 downloads

These 2 tracks were made with ECM (removing the 10-20m/s closure filter as a factor due to Home on Jam). This resulted in a decrease of AIM-120B PK and increase of R-27ER and R77 PK.

 

- R-77: 1/30 missiles hit - The A-10 survived 5/6 encounters (6 R-77 fired at same time at no-run-zone)

 

- R-27ER: 2-3/56 missiles hit - The A-10 survived 5/7 engagements (8 R-27ER fired at the same time at no-run-zone)

 

- AIM-120B: 8/54 missiles hit - The A-10 survived 2/9 engagements (6 120B fired at the same time at no-run-zone)

 

Please remember that i 100% agree that more modern missiles should track better - a 90s 120B should track a bit better than an 80s R-27ER supported by 80s N001 radar and a 2000s 120C should track better than a 90s RVV-AE. But the results in DCS are problematic.

 

In these situations, either all 6 missiles should hit or all 6 should miss, as is the case with R-77 (when ECM is off), which still uses 2.5.5 chaff resistance code. But this is not the case with the 120B in DCS post-autopilot-patch. Most of the time 2 hit while 4 miss, despite them being the exact same shot seeing the exact same amount of chaff at exactly the same angle. With 120C its even more severe, with on average 3 missing and 3 hitting. This sort of dependence on luck over skill is a serious problem for people who take air combat more seriously in DCS.

 

You tell him!!!

 

 

[dundun92]

Exactly what are you so upset about that you felt the need to bump a several month old thread to call me a "conspiracy theorist" for pointing out facts? The guy IS talking about conspiracy theories, he wasnt factually reporting anything. He was complaining about how ED has supposedly made the AIM-120 better/make ECM nonfunctional to intentionally made the russian equipment obsolete. Literally taken from the OP "...Just to have an idea of the impact of this new bias..."  "...Also seem at low altitude the missiles behave worst so at this case will be better keep low flight. Seem developers want to set an air dominance in very high altitude since ECM keep in the unrealistic 50km not affected then the only option left if terrain cover..."

You can argue about culture all you want; the fact is that this was FAR from an actual bug report and is just another in the long list of missile complaint threads with no supporting info other than the fact that he expects his 1980s R-27ER to somehow take on a 2000s AIM-120C on equal terms.

3 hours ago, einarabelc5 said:

The way I see it, you have a game balancing issue you're going to have to deal with sooner or later, Simulator or no Simulator, because of human psychology. Period. You might lose customers but given the response here and the percentages I'd say it'll follow Pareto's 80/20 rule at worst.

But anyhow I strongly suggest you get your Product management department to do some reading on Game Psychology. Everything else is noise.

So now youre gonna tell ED how they have to to run their company

(and its not that I dont fully disagree on the balancing point, but srsly calm down)

Edited December 6, 2020 by dundun92

[dundun92]

2 hours ago, einarabelc5 said:

Nobody really GIVES a CRAP about "facts" and evidence here,

Is this even serious? Yes, all of us who actually want a realistic sim actually do care about facts, unless of cource you want DCS to become Ace Combat . YOU may not care about facts but a lot of us here do

[GGTharos]

3 hours ago, einarabelc5 said:

Do you know the first thing about human Psychology?

 

 

Enough to know that you have an obsession with this thread - you had to go back, and respond to a whole bunch of posts.  Alternatively, you're a troll.

 

Get this, so that you get your head straight with the philosophy of this sim:  There will be no balancing.  This simulator attempts to be 'as close to real' as it can WRT aircraft and weapons that are represented.

Here's the relevant psychology:  You either like this game and its philosophy or not.   By its nature, any new or old information relating to this game will be discussed and debated.  And if you don't like it and you really want balance, go play war thunder, wingman, ace combat or whatever other game does these things.

[Fri13]

5 hours ago, shagrat said:

On 8/11/2020 at 1:26 PM, Fri13 said:

 

5) We need unreliable information for the troops. No accurate data ever unless it is datalink. So if a radar detects something, it is on the radar screen but not on F10 map. Troops locations should be based to commands and not to units locations. Right now every unit is like perfect GPS, perfect accurate data of their status and all.

---cant get quote to work properly---

 

To quote, you just need to press twice the Enter (new line) from the position you want to end the quote.

 

Quote

Quote

That's because mission designers forget to hide(!) units from the map (if they are stationary and supposedly camouflaged/hiding), or at least set F10 to "Fog of war" so units only appear on F10 when in line of sight.

 

That is not what I am talking about, the F10 map is unrealistic because you can have that instant data to everyone who looks at it. Like that, a fighter flies over the terrain and has LOS on the ground units, suddenly the become all visible on the map.

  A air unit flies inside a radar detection range and there is LOS on it, it becomes instantly a detailed object in the F10 map telling all about position, speed, type etc. 

 

If something is spotted, like a enemy MBT platoon. Then there shouldn't be exact positions of all units. Just a enemy MBT platoon symbol covering a large area for approximate when such is called. So player needs to use the "visual recon" mode and then transmit over the radio the required information "enemy MBT platoon, two clicks east of powerplant in city of X". And then on the map there becomes about 2x3 km size area with just assumed MBT platoon. No exact positions, strength, types or anything like that. 

 

Quote

Quote

Then they fade out (without updates to their position) representing "surveillance" through radar/AWACS, IR or eyeball mk I sensors... You can even decide to hide units from the map and/or planner to simulate a "known" location of a moving force but won't update after mission start.

A lot of options are actually already in DCS.

 

Yes there is that, but it is again missing many features.

 

 There shouldn't be accurate information of the enemies that has LOS on the friendlies. All should be reported through a communication systems, datalinks and such. So using radio to inform the type and general area like "at east of the town X". 

The radar shouldn't update target positions in realtime, it should be limited to only radar sweep cycles and only visible if the radar has datalink connection to CGI etc. Otherwise you just get a warning on the general area (large area) with unknown ID and heading. Like "Object 123, Near river Y, heading East".

 

The starting points should be more general as "expected enemy mechanized company attacking at this position" and then there is a 10 km wide area and direction from where they would be coming. 

 

This is what would make the modern aircraft modules like F-16C and F/A-18C far more effective when you have actual datalinks. The A-10C II offers the datalinks as well and easier methods to transmit coordinates in quick overfly by using Scorpion helmet etc.

 KA-50 has capability to transmit information over datalink etc. 

Everyone else it is about radio, memorizing things and drawing it on the map with a pen. And then try to survive back to base to get the information to hands of intelligence officers that would process it, check it and then update their intelligence on maps. If you die as player, you do not get to transmit any information and you just wasted the recon flight or any intelligence you got while being alive. 

 

Anyone who would act as a GCI or AWACS with F10 map would be limited to information that requires far more realistic procedures to know what is going on. Like have a visible flightplans for each aircraft made by all pilots. If going up to fly without flightplan or deviating from it, there can come unknown contacts that get intercepted etc, as F10 map would never show anything in realtime if not the technology itself provide it like a IFF and connections between radars etc.  

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Fri13

[dundun92]

Wrong thread @Fri13?

[Fri13]

Just now, dundun92 said:

Wrong thread @Fri13?

 

Nope, follow the discussion on quotes. 

[einarabelc5]

17 hours ago, dundun92 said:

Is this even serious? Yes, all of us who actually want a realistic sim actually do care about facts, unless of cource you want DCS to become Ace Combat . YOU may not care about facts but a lot of us here do

Ok, my bad. That was bad language, I totally EXAGGERATED that statement. 

What I meant is that things have to remain competitive before they remain realistic because before being a simulator this is a game and the number one psychological rule of gaming is that each member plays so they can play again and again, they have to be able to win and have fun at some point. They need a reward that entices them to keep coming back.

 My CENTRAL point since I saw this thread has been that regardless of everyone's level of knowledge, opinion, psychological state, blindness, ignorance, arrogance, wisdom, etc...NO ONE can escape that rule and there's VALUE on what the OP said from that point of view. If the SU-27 doesn't get fixed and it truly remains underpowered people will either stop using it or stop playing online. There's tons of research about why and how this happens, from rats to human children. Look it up.

Arguing over the minute details to "WIN" the argument for "argument's" sake without keeping that in mind accomplishes two things:

1.-Alienates the most ignorant side of the argument and prevents it from listening to the knowledge of the most experienced side. Simply because the ignorant side is not going to lose it won't use pure reason as long as the game seems "rigged" to them. They already are backed against a corner so to speak.

2.-Makes the knowledgeable side fall into the trap of autocracy. Incapable of seeing the obvious because they pre-assume they know ALL the reasons why they're right. This tempts it to disregard the other side's arguments and even treat them as second class and inferior people.

 

You might think you're "protecting" your game but what you're doing is ISOLATING yourselves in the process as well in an us versus them scenario. It is ONE thing to know about simulation and it is an ENTIRELY different thing to know how to effectively treat people that fall into the first category. If the "knowledgeable" side actually had known how to deal with people who already are convinced they are at a disadvantage this thread wouldn't be 8 pages long now would it?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Using the same arguments over and over again: "realism" in simulation and "we care and that's why we know better" while we mock you and TRY to make you look small didn't work AT ALL. People simply DOUBLED down in their prerogative. So why keep repeating it with EVERYONE that you identify as an antagonist to even BOTH sides? Even when that person (myself) was completely SLOPPY at redacting their argument. Seems like an autopilot habit at that point.

 

This can happen to ANYONE at ANY point in any argument and I'm pretty sure most if not all of us have been on each side.

 

And that's why the thread got heated and quite hard to read actually.

 

The only REAL way to know who's right is to TEST IT. To test it implies to go into the field with the real armament and  use these weapons....who is willing to do that? That's why it's called REALITY.

 

It's common sense, no one will.

 

So that's why I wrote what I wrote.

SLOW down, get a grip and KEEP PLAYING!!

 

CHEERS!

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by einarabelc5

[Cmptohocah]

@Fri13,

I understand where you are coming from. I also enjoy the "as real at it gets" aspect of DCS, but I am afraid we lost the battle in that regard. The fact is that money is the key factor here and people just want to jump into {insert module here} and shoot down as many people as possible. Most of the servers have external views on, GCI can see everything on the map including what missile was fired and where, etc. My point is that a lot of things make absolutely no sense, but developers don't care. Modules are selling, money is flowing and FC is slowly dying off. That's why no one flies F-15 (well almost no one) anymore. On some servers there are no FC3 planes being flown at all. No one simply cares about the Russian jets and there's not much, sadly, we can do to change that.

[GGTharos]

Public servers aren't really a measure of module usage.

Edited December 7, 2020 by GGTharos

[Cmptohocah]

38 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Public servers aren't really a measure of module usage.

Yeah, I meant to say in MP. I don't really fly simulators in single-player mode - I forgot to mention that.

[GGTharos]

I understand, but there are also a lot of private MP flights as well.

[dundun92]

10 hours ago, einarabelc5 said:

Ok, my bad. That was bad language, I totally EXAGGERATED that statement. 

What I meant is that things have to remain competitive before they remain realistic because before being a simulator this is a game and the number one psychological rule of gaming is that each member plays so they can play again and again, they have to be able to win and have fun at some point. They need a reward that entices them to keep coming back.

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the game is about balance first and realism second. The fact is, if the Flanker indeed cannot 1v1 joust AMRAAM carriers on equal grounds IRL it should be like that in game. Period. If it can, it should be like that in game. If people who want overperforming missile for the sake of "balance" and "competitiveness" leave the game, let them leave, this is a SIM first not a game first, idk where you are getting that idea from. The fact is, for some people, being in an inferior plane and coming up with smart tactics is "a reward that entices them to keep coming back.". If that werent the case you wouldnt see people using MiG-21s on public 4th gen PvP servers, or people using anything but F-16s and F-18s. The fact is if you need superior equipment to win every fight to get "a reward that entices them to keep coming back." then a sim like DCS isnt for you. And im in no way implying that the R-27 isnt underperforming in game, it is. But pepin wasnt arguing using factual information to get a realistic R-27 (probably because ED already knows whats wrong and has the needed info), hes simply comparing it to the 15-20yr newer AIM-120C, and because he couldnt win the 1v1 (which he likely isnt even after R-27s get updated) he makes up conspiracy theories about ED intentionally making russian equipment obsolete (this isnt the only thread he's done it in). So no, this is a sime first, game second.

 

Also calling peoples arguments "insane" and "autocracy" because they present actual facts? I think you need to "SLOW down"

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 12/6/2020 at 5:30 AM, einarabelc5 said:

Oh geez, you never heard about gaming balancing? What is the point of releasing ONE SIDE of the story without releasing another to compete? Do you know anything about game psychology? And then they say ruskies are the tyrannical ones...

Your assumption about what he's saying is also completely absurd. Military Gaming simulation in the "West" has been dead for a while now and everyone who's been around before Janes knows ED is a Russian company. There's no way your conspiracy theory makes sense. All so you can complain about somebody else complaining when all they are doing is reporting what they saw based on what THEY KNOW. It's quite rude, disrespectful and annoying to watch.

What Westeners fail to understand is most of the world doesn't think or behaves like they do.

Why, that's mighty nice for those who don't think like me. I do believe they should suck a fat one. Might just be high time for them to start.

 

Any reading through this thread you're not too far off the mark, it's not a matter of game balance it's a matter of sim authenticity.

 

FC3 aircraft are missing a great deal of their capabilities, the Fighters being some of the hardest hit and they've been neglected by ED for sometime, I look in bewilderment as ED adds capabilities not present in real F/A-18Cs & F-16Cs, while the F-15C, Su-27S, and MiG-29s go without accurate performance of existing systems or without them present to begin with.

 

The community has asked Devs about it and only received double talk like when @Chizh told us the Su-27 Fighter to Fighter DL would not be implemented as its a FC3 aircraft.

Despite Kate & Bignewey saying it would in fact be added.

So much for calling it a 'Finished Product' I suppose.

 

But it extends past the FC3 aircrafts in my opinion.

 

A major flaw is the implementation of assets such as SAMs and Ships etc. in the game and availability of the correct assets.

Not only are many of the existing ones significantly under-performing in terms of lethality (I wonder why the community only thought the 120 was blighted by this)

DCS also lacks a lot of modernised SAMs ground/naval units and Aircraft from the 2000s and 1990s.

 

As far as I'm concerned I don't know why the mission editor even allows you to select 'Russia' in 2016 because all it has to offer in DCS is legacy equipment in service at the end of the Soviet Union, its one thing to not have a modernised redfor tactical fighter such as a Su-27SM, J-11B or MiG-29SMT available as a player module, but to not even have it present as an AI opponent along with say S-300PMUs really hurts one's ability to sim a 'what if' 2000s era show down between NATO, China and Russia.

 

All we are asking for is a realistic depiction of aircraft and systems we have in game, and the inclusion of systems that would allow us to properly sim a turn of the century near peer adversary.

 

Things like the Chinese asset pack are a step in the right direction hopefully ED learns a thing or two from them.

Edited December 8, 2020 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[shagrat]

On 12/6/2020 at 5:22 PM, Fri13 said:

 

To quote, you just need to press twice the Enter (new line) from the position you want to end the quote.

 

 

That is not what I am talking about, the F10 map is unrealistic because you can have that instant data to everyone who looks at it. Like that, a fighter flies over the terrain and has LOS on the ground units, suddenly the become all visible on the map.

  A air unit flies inside a radar detection range and there is LOS on it, it becomes instantly a detailed object in the F10 map telling all about position, speed, type etc. 

 

If something is spotted, like a enemy MBT platoon. Then there shouldn't be exact positions of all units. Just a enemy MBT platoon symbol covering a large area for approximate when such is called. So player needs to use the "visual recon" mode and then transmit over the radio the required information "enemy MBT platoon, two clicks east of powerplant in city of X". And then on the map there becomes about 2x3 km size area with just assumed MBT platoon. No exact positions, strength, types or anything like that. 

 

 

Yes there is that, but it is again missing many features.

 

 There shouldn't be accurate information of the enemies that has LOS on the friendlies. All should be reported through a communication systems, datalinks and such. So using radio to inform the type and general area like "at east of the town X". 

The radar shouldn't update target positions in realtime, it should be limited to only radar sweep cycles and only visible if the radar has datalink connection to CGI etc. Otherwise you just get a warning on the general area (large area) with unknown ID and heading. Like "Object 123, Near river Y, heading East".

 

The starting points should be more general as "expected enemy mechanized company attacking at this position" and then there is a 10 km wide area and direction from where they would be coming. 

 

This is what would make the modern aircraft modules like F-16C and F/A-18C far more effective when you have actual datalinks. The A-10C II offers the datalinks as well and easier methods to transmit coordinates in quick overfly by using Scorpion helmet etc.

 KA-50 has capability to transmit information over datalink etc. 

Everyone else it is about radio, memorizing things and drawing it on the map with a pen. And then try to survive back to base to get the information to hands of intelligence officers that would process it, check it and then update their intelligence on maps. If you die as player, you do not get to transmit any information and you just wasted the recon flight or any intelligence you got while being alive. 

 

Anyone who would act as a GCI or AWACS with F10 map would be limited to information that requires far more realistic procedures to know what is going on. Like have a visible flightplans for each aircraft made by all pilots. If going up to fly without flightplan or deviating from it, there can come unknown contacts that get intercepted etc, as F10 map would never show anything in realtime if not the technology itself provide it like a IFF and connections between radars etc.  

 

So what is unrealistic with hiding all(!) units from the F10 map (setting F10 Map to "Map only")? It is one of the possible setting in the mission editor and the F10 map is actually just that, a map.

Now, you need to use data link, radar and comms to share enemy sightings with human players. Personally I tend to leave static objects like SAM sites or outposts visible (stuff you would expect to be on a map by you daily intellgence briefing).

It is actually pretty simple to adjust DCS' realism level to everybody's preference.

Edit: and AI is actually calling out air and ground units with bulls eye calls since DCS: A-10C Warthog.

Edited December 8, 2020 by shagrat

[GGTharos]

Fri13 is exactly right ... not knowing precise locations of stuff, IRL, is why an F-117 got shot down.  And those weren't exactly the most mobile systems in the world by modern standards ... but they were mobile.

[einarabelc5]

On 12/7/2020 at 8:45 PM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Why, that's mighty nice for those who don't think like me. I do believe they should suck a fat one. Might just be high time for them to start.

 

Any reading through this thread you're not too far off the mark, it's not a matter of game balance it's a matter of sim authenticity.

 

FC3 aircraft are missing a great deal of their capabilities, the Fighters being some of the hardest hit and they've been neglected by ED for sometime, I look in bewilderment as ED adds capabilities not present in real F/A-18Cs & F-16Cs, while the F-15C, Su-27S, and MiG-29s go without accurate performance of existing systems or without them present to begin with.

 

The community has asked Devs about it and only received double talk like when @Chizh told us the Su-27 Fighter to Fighter DL would not be implemented as its a FC3 aircraft.

Despite Kate & Bignewey saying it would in fact be added.

So much for calling it a 'Finished Product' I suppose.

 

But it extends past the FC3 aircrafts in my opinion.

 

A major flaw is the implementation of assets such as SAMs and Ships etc. in the game and availability of the correct assets.

Not only are many of the existing ones significantly under-performing in terms of lethality (I wonder why the community only thought the 120 was blighted by this)

DCS also lacks a lot of modernised SAMs ground/naval units and Aircraft from the 2000s and 1990s.

 

As far as I'm concerned I don't know why the mission editor even allows you to select 'Russia' in 2016 because all it has to offer in DCS is legacy equipment in service at the end of the Soviet Union, its one thing to not have a modernised redfor tactical fighter such as a Su-27SM, J-11B or MiG-29SMT available as a player module, but to not even have it present as an AI opponent along with say S-300PMUs really hurts one's ability to sim a 'what if' 2000s era show down between NATO, China and Russia.

 

All we are asking for is a realistic depiction of aircraft and systems we have in game, and the inclusion of systems that would allow us to properly sim a turn of the century near peer adversary.

 

Things like the Chinese asset pack are a step in the right direction hopefully ED learns a thing or two from them.

You can't get rid of people, only change their minds. If you're gonna tell Russians to go suck a fat one might as well go play Flight Simulator and stop playing DCS to be consequent with what you're saying. And don't worry, in 20 years or less you'll be the one making up conspiracy theories and calling people "totalitarian" even when they politely disagree with you because they can't entertain them, after all there's a reason for everything. That is, if you don't manage to leave the environment that'll make you do so first and "forget" about it.

 

As for the assets it must be because ED is over 20 years old and is Russian. Pretty obvious to me.

 

On 12/7/2020 at 12:04 PM, dundun92 said:

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the game is about balance first and realism second. The fact is, if the Flanker indeed cannot 1v1 joust AMRAAM carriers on equal grounds IRL it should be like that in game. Period. If it can, it should be like that in game. If people who want overperforming missile for the sake of "balance" and "competitiveness" leave the game, let them leave, this is a SIM first not a game first, idk where you are getting that idea from. The fact is, for some people, being in an inferior plane and coming up with smart tactics is "a reward that entices them to keep coming back.". If that werent the case you wouldnt see people using MiG-21s on public 4th gen PvP servers, or people using anything but F-16s and F-18s. The fact is if you need superior equipment to win every fight to get "a reward that entices them to keep coming back." then a sim like DCS isnt for you. And im in no way implying that the R-27 isnt underperforming in game, it is. But pepin wasnt arguing using factual information to get a realistic R-27 (probably because ED already knows whats wrong and has the needed info), hes simply comparing it to the 15-20yr newer AIM-120C, and because he couldnt win the 1v1 (which he likely isnt even after R-27s get updated) he makes up conspiracy theories about ED intentionally making russian equipment obsolete (this isnt the only thread he's done it in). So no, this is a sime first, game second.

 

Also calling peoples arguments "insane" and "autocracy" because they present actual facts? I think you need to "SLOW down"

 

I never criticized your arguments, everything you said is obvious, well founded, super demonstrated and logical. The difference in age and homing technology of the missiles is more than enough to throw down any conspiracy. I criticized the WAY you presented them which in turn makes it really difficult for someone in the OP's position to pay heed to. And it's obvious that approach  was enough for the OP to start calling someone who gave a much more polite response than yours Totalitarian. So obviously I'm not making things up. Did you miss the part when I made the point that this thread's been going for quite a while with back and forth arguments?

 For instance, there's no reason not to tell pepin to stop whining and learn how to win with what he has instead of telling him he's making up conspiracy theories about Russian side being sabotaged by a Russian company that cut its teeth making "simulators" about the Su-27 and probably still uses some of the same code from 20 years ago. If there's experience there's proof no? Show me don't tell me kind of thing. I mean, any Growling Sidewinder video would do right?

 

For example, does he even know what a Fox 1 versus a Fox 3 is and how speed and turn rate are inversely proportional?:

As far as sim versus game. I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. I didn't mean it as in computer game, but as in engagement. I could be talking about play and tumble for all I care about. Sarcasm - The same could be said for a "real" dogfight like the new DCS module, the SU-30 - end Sarcasm:

 

The SAME psychological rules I keep bringing up still apply as it is directly expressed by the actual Fighter pilot who made and posted the video: you win some, you lose some.

So no I'm not making any assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that you didn't understand what I meant by "game" and keep insisting on "simulation". Well you can simulate a dogfight with REAL equipment and the same rules still apply. 

As for "conspiracy" pepin, if you were Russian, you would be seeing conspiracy theories EVERYWHERE too, believe me. You have NO IDEA how good you still have it, psychologically speaking. Arguing about how he's wrong rather than showing him is completely counter productive, that's my point.

 

As for myself being an autocrat and "slowing" down, since when does presenting the facts gives you the right to treat people like shit? Because they know less than you?

 

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Just so I understand, the argument here is that it's unrealistic for legacy Su27s and similar to go up against a fully upgraded F18c?

Clearly, there's two sides to this:

 - In reality, that's exactly what's going to happen in some theatres.  Just look at what happened in 2003 during the Gulf war, when Iraq tried to stand up to coalition forces.

 - In game, yes, I understand why balance/parity is clearly a key factor, but to complain about the missiles is NOT the right move.

The issue comes down to the mission creator.  After all, DCS is basically a big sandbox, allowing players to create scenarios using the best simulated models that I'm aware of for jets.

So if you go on a server and you find it unbalanced, that's NOT the fault of ED.  That's an issue with the mission creator and server owner.

 

If you want better balance, either find a server that provides a more balanced scenario (e.g. doesn't have 120s available as it's set in the cold war period), and if you can't find that, create your own.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

38 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Just so I understand, the argument here is that it's unrealistic for legacy Su27s and similar to go up against a fully upgraded F18c?

Clearly, there's two sides to this:

 - In reality, that's exactly what's going to happen in some theatres.  Just look at what happened in 2003 during the Gulf war, when Iraq tried to stand up to coalition forces.

 - In game, yes, I understand why balance/parity is clearly a key factor, but to complain about the missiles is NOT the right move.

The issue comes down to the mission creator.  After all, DCS is basically a big sandbox, allowing players to create scenarios using the best simulated models that I'm aware of for jets.

So if you go on a server and you find it unbalanced, that's NOT the fault of ED.  That's an issue with the mission creator and server owner.

 

If you want better balance, either find a server that provides a more balanced scenario (e.g. doesn't have 120s available as it's set in the cold war period), and if you can't find that, create your own.

No, you are mistaken.

 

And I don't blame you, its hard to understand what some of these charlatans want since they argue for them in the most roundabout and stupid ways, such as these unneeded pseudo intellectual comparisons to psychology and hinting at notions of game balancing as if it were a MOBA.

 

The problem is that the missiles available to the Su-27 namely the R-27s and R-77s in game are underperforming relative to their real life counterparts, in the same way the AIM-120 and AIM-7 once were.

 

This means you obviously need to complain about the missiles to get them fixed.

That is how bug reporting works, isn't it?

 

The thread was quickly taken off the rails and it became awfully muddled, among other things people wanted the values and performance of existing planes and units to reflect real world behaviour and the inclusion of new contemporary units.

 

Now, of course such unbalanced match ups can occur when the third world faces off with a first world army, but think about it like this, in Operation Inherent Resolve the US wouldn't be sending a Forestall class carrier with F-4s A-1s and A-7s it would be silly.

 

Likewise most of Russia's air defense and fighters this day and age wouldn't be MiG-23s and SA-6s but instead Su-30SMs and Tor-M1/2s

 

Russian forces in the sim lacking these units in a modern sim is a flaw

 

I don't see why any would try and argue against it, let the mission designer have the tools to represent an 1989 Russia or a 2015 Russia if he so pleases

Edited December 9, 2020 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Mr_sukebe]

2 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

No, you are mistaken.

 

And I don't blame you, its hard to understand what some of these charlatans want since they argue for them in the most roundabout and stupid ways, such as these unneeded pseudo intellectual comparisons to psychology and hinting at notions of game balancing as if it were a MOBA.

 

The problem is that the missiles available to the Su-27 namely the R-27s and R-77s in game are underperforming relative to their real life counterparts, in the same way the AIM-120 and AIM-7 once were.

 

This means you obviously need to complain about the missiles to get them fixed.

That is how bug reporting works, isn't it?

 

The thread was quickly taken off the rails and it became awfully muddled, among other things people wanted the values and performance of existing planes and units to reflect real world behaviour and the inclusion of new contemporary units.

 

Now, of course such unbalanced match ups can occur when the third world faces off with a first world army, but think about it like this, in Operation Inherent Resolve the US wouldn't be sending a Forestall class carrier with F-4s A-1s and A-7s it would be silly.

 

Likewise most of Russia's air defense and fighters this day and age wouldn't be MiG-23s and SA-6s but instead Su-30SMs and Tor-M1/2s

 

Russian forces in the sim lacking these units in a modern sim is a flaw

 

I don't see why any would try and argue against it, let the mission designer have the tools to represent an 1989 Russia or a 2015 Russia if he so pleases

 

Without going through 7 pages, did anyone actually supply some genuine data that would support a request to ED to enhance some missiles, or was it just another whine thread?

 

Ref balance.  Again, that's just down to the mission creator.  

It's worth remembering that very few real wars have included genuine "balance" between forces, whether you look at WW2, Vietnam, the Gulf or the Falklands wars.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

 

Without going through 7 pages, did anyone actually supply some genuine data that would support a request to ED to enhance some missiles, or was it just another whine thread?

 

Ref balance.  Again, that's just down to the mission creator.  

It's worth remembering that very few real wars have included genuine "balance" between forces, whether you look at WW2, Vietnam, the Gulf or the Falklands wars.

No in this thread no one has posted figures on how they are underperforming but the Devs have been made aware in other threads 

 

It's not a thing of balance, I don't think a 2000s RuAF can really take on a 2000s USAF fielding F-22s and the like.

It's a matter of representing the RuAFs capabilities in a given period.

 

Take this as an example, you can't have a sim about the second battle of guadalcanal without giving the IJN long lance torpedo's and then replacing battleship Kirishima with the much older Mikasa or say with the total absence of the South Dakota and North Carolina class battleships.

 

While replacing the Kirishima with an older pre Jutland battleship would probably yield the same results; a USN victory and yes it would still be an uneven match between the Mikasa and USS Washington in the latter's favour, it would cease to be a sim of the Second Battle of guadalcanal. As it no longer accurately depicts IJN strength in the engagement.

[Cmptohocah]

On 12/8/2020 at 5:45 AM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

...I look in bewilderment as ED adds capabilities not present in real F/A-18Cs & F-16Cs, while the F-15C, Su-27S, and MiG-29s go without accurate performance of existing systems or without them present to begin with.

Would be grat if you could share what are the mentioned capabilities, since I don't fly this aircraft.

 

When it comes to Russian jets: I think that era was over as soon as the first custom module came out. In LOMAC/FC all the fighters were kind of simplified and in a way balanced out. Fast-forward to today and we have servers that are mostly a playground and eventually we ended up in F vs F situation. In this new era the Russian fighters are completely obsolete since they are missing those detailed features from RL. Not to mention that most of the MP public servers have toy settings, like external views and such. 

I think if ED were the only ones doing the development, we would have some sort of balance, but like this - hardly possible.