Jump to content
Attention! Content rebuild and reindex process is in progress. Estimated completion date - 4th December 2020. Forum content may look broken during this process.

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone. Growling Sidewinder has just released a very interesting video in which he flies a J11 modded to take SD 10s. It's easy to find on his Youtube Channel. He flies against an Aim 120C equipped F15 and it is a very balanced fight. He argues that the developments in datalink and missiles make Blueforce planes very hard to defeat and that the red force planes are fighting with weapons from a time 10 years or more before the Amraams 120 (especially the recent C variants) were introduced . He describes this contest as unbalanced and like clubbing a baby seal. Personally I would agree it would make engagements against F16's much more interesting for both blue and red forces if his suggestion of updating the red side to have effective Fox 3 weapons was taken on by the good people at ED. I have to declare I'm a bit of a Flanker fan so I would love to see this; what do other people think ? C.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or ... the mission designer could take out the fox3 of the blue planes, much easier to accomplish.

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 1500X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Windows 10 Pro - Thrustmaster HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or ... the mission designer could take out the fox3 of the blue planes, much easier to accomplish.

 

There are no interesting campaigns or popular servers that do this. Even 90s weapons like no 9X, and only AIM-120B would do. But no one wants to run it or create such singleplayer content. And as such the red planes are unplayable.

 

What doesnt help here is that the JF-17 and its missiles are mostly from at least the early 2000s, meaning it would have to be excluded from 80s and realistically 90s scenarios, making such restricted servers even less popular.

 

Thus, the only option is an upgrade of existing FC3 modules: Su-25A->Su-25SM, Su-27S->Su-27SM3, MiG-29S->MiG-29SMT

 

If none of the above are doable, put the PL-12 onto the J-11A. A single J-11A prototype carried PL-12, but it was only put into service on the J-11B. However, 3rd party devs add whatever they want to their modules these days anyway and even ED is selling out (triple mavericks on F-16).

Edited by Max1mus
Link to post
Share on other sites
If none of the above are doable, put the PL-12 onto the J-11A. A single J-11A prototype carried PL-12, but it was only put into service on the J-11B. However, 3rd party devs add whatever they want to their modules these days anyway and even ED is selling out (triple mavericks on F-16).

My thoughts as well. So many insist ED adds triple racks even though it was never operational. I dont see what would be wrong with SD-10/PL-12s on the J-11 since Deka confirmed it did prototype it, just never operational. Honestly the biggest issue would be the blue fanbois endless complaints tbh:megalol:.

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680(i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The Alamo Squadron is looking for dedicated Air-to-Air focused pilots

For more detailed recruiting information, see our forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi everyone.

 

 

 

Growling Sidewinder has just released a very interesting video in which he flies a J11 modded to take SD 10s. It's easy to find on his Youtube Channel. He flies against an Aim 120C equipped F15 and it is a very balanced fight.

 

 

 

He argues that the developments in datalink and missiles make Blueforce planes very hard to defeat and that the red force planes are fighting with weapons from a time 10 years or more before the Amraams 120 (especially the recent C variants) were introduced . He describes this contest as unbalanced and like clubbing a baby seal.

 

 

 

Personally I would agree it would make engagements against F16's much more interesting for both blue and red forces if his suggestion of updating the red side to have effective Fox 3 weapons was taken on by the good people at ED.

 

 

 

I have to declare I'm a bit of a Flanker fan so I would love to see this; what do other people think ?

 

 

 

C.

The PL-12 (AKA SD-10) has been used in the J-11A as a test bench, but mainly introduced in the J-11B, the J-11A is under developement of Deka Ironwok Simulation, so if you want to give him this idea, it could be doable if you put a request in the J11A module sub-forum.

Appart from that, we don't really need a Fox3, because we have the R77, but, we all know that the R77 is not fine. The R77 should have a range of aprox. an AIM120B more or less, and it should have less drag at supersonic speeds thanks to his fins. My two cents in this topic, is to wait and ask again and again to ED to make the CFD to the R family, and update them. If after that we still having unreal ranges in the R family, I would consider posting in the Deka Ironwork forums a propposal to add the SD-10 in the J11A, since it is able to carry them.

Have a good day!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either the re model of Russian R-27/77, or J-11A with MFI-55 would either/both help alleviate this while being realistic. I would like SD-10 on J-11A to stay as a mod, as it’s not realistic. If you want to run mods go ahead, but if we are really talking about a choice that helps populate server and add competition, adding a fox 3 missile a plane never had to a module is going to turn off a lot of people. Not just people on the receiving end of the SD-10 but other lovers of these red modules that love this game becuase of its dedication to realism, and the flexibility to mod if we like.

 

ED even said themselves, they gave up on balance years ago and realized people love this game becuase of its realistic modules.

 

Other thing that would help that don’t hurt realism, make it so tunnel stations have less drag, when R-73RDM2 is added merges will become more equal. If R-27P/EP is ever added that would be a headache for a lot of people online trying to defend. I don’t think we are at a state where we need to sacrifice the core attraction of the sim. Realism always has to be bent for playability but in DCS it hasn’t and shouldn’t mean adding a fox 3 becuase it has more range

Link to post
Share on other sites
The R77 should have a range of aprox. an AIM120B more or less

The R-77 does not have AIM-120B range. Heres an R-77 DLZ chart to illustrate: R-77.jpg

 

 

 

Also, Nhawk ran a CFD some time ago, and the straight line drag was just a little bit too low (this was before the tweak btw). Our R-77 is simply the earliest variant, and has a pretty small rocket motor. What would really help is an R-77-1.

 

 

 

Either the re model of Russian R-27/77, or J-11A with MFI-55 would either/both help alleviate this while being realistic. I would like SD-10 on J-11A to stay as a mod, as it’s not realistic. If you want to run mods go ahead, but if we are really talking about a choice that helps populate server and add competition, adding a fox 3 missile a plane never had to a module is going to turn off a lot of people. Not just people on the receiving end of the SD-10 but other lovers of these red modules that love this game becuase of its dedication to realism, and the flexibility to mod if we like.

 

ED even said themselves, they gave up on balance years ago and realized people love this game becuase of its realistic modules.

 

Other thing that would help that don’t hurt realism, make it so tunnel stations have less drag, when R-73RDM2 is added merges will become more equal. If R-27P/EP is ever added that would be a headache for a lot of people online trying to defend. I don’t think we are at a state where we need to sacrifice the core attraction of the sim. Realism always has to be bent for playability but in DCS it hasn’t and shouldn’t mean adding a fox 3 becuase it has more range

In what sense do you mean realistic? Realistic as in whether the plane can carry it, or realistic as in historically accurate. Because if its the latter, I dont really see that being a realism problem. Its not like the PLAAF doesnt use SD-10s. IMO if the place can carry it and the weapon is in use for the time period represented by the module I dont really see a problem; the triple mavs for tge F-16 and the Mirage D2M are perfect examples. Fully compatible, and could be used if needed, simply never used because it was either never needed, or had disadvantages when using it. IMO I dont see this as a balance issue. But if Deka wants to keep it operationally accurate im fine, im just giving my personal opinion.

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680(i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The Alamo Squadron is looking for dedicated Air-to-Air focused pilots

For more detailed recruiting information, see our forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, DCS usually simulates some aircraft from some period. If one was tested and fully compatible with some weapon the fact it was never used should not have any meaning for the sim. It could when creating realistic mission but if it is fictional mission about some period - it doesn't matter.

 

btw: the R-77 chart is useless without target and launcher speeds.

Edited by draconus

G4560@3,5GHz/DDR4-16GB/GTX970-4GB/SATA3-SSD, Win7-64, 27"LCD-FullHD, T16000M HOTAS, customTiR

Aircraft: FC3, F-14B / Supercarrier / Maps: NTTR, PG

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a Russian chart, launch speed and target speed is probably both Mach 2

 

As for realism, I mean if you can take one of the early J-11A with either the CRT or MFI-55(other then the test bird, real as in operational airframes, put in gas weapons and fly), disregarding the even operational non use of the weapon itself, would putting a SD-10 on a J-11A be able to fire, have its seeker cued, work mid course guidance, and hit? How is it going to have DLZ info, will it think it was something else or will you have to remember the place?

 

And let’s try and narrow down our reference for “test bird.” We have a picture of a J-11A carrying a PL-12. If we are going to say maybe our bird should also reflect this single test bird, do we know if it even fired the missile? How do we know it wasn’t a mock-up and just a separation test? Did the mid course guidance work? Did sensor cuing work? Did it hit the target? Was DLZ accurate? They could’ve just carried and ejected a mock-up and that was it.

 

And while it may seem a small difference, I don’t believe PLAAF actually has any SD-10, it’s made and sold by Luoyang and only operator is Pakistan, thankfully we also have the domestic PL-12 in game, which is making me a little confused why you don’t ask for that since the test bird carried PL-12 and that’s what PLAAF would use if they could

 

If there was any information from the test flight saying the missile worked it was a simple mod for all J-11A just like adding R-77 hack support, then yeah that might change things. But this is a missile from a different manufacturer and country, and it is probably not just coincidence that the ability to use PL-12 required all domestic radar and avionics first In the form of the J-11B. Which by all indications, would be the airframe the test with this J-11A was for right? To test the J-11B, they never considered original radar or avionics. Do we see PL-12 on anything else with Russian radar? No, for some reason every PL-12/SD-10 carrier has had indigenous radar and avionics.

 

For all we know the test bird had a lead weight in the nose and they just proved it causes no separation issues within flight envelope in preparation for J-11B.

Edited by AeriaGloria
Link to post
Share on other sites

If thats the case that we arent sure the WCS etc is compatible then fine, it wouldnt be realistic. I was under the impression that it could use it, and just never did. And yes it occured to me that I should have said PL-12, was too lazy to correct :P. Figured most people would understand lol.

And for the R-77 DLZ yes its lacking info, but its pretty clear that you arent getting AIM-120B levels of range unless they used some really odd shot parameters

Edited by dundun92

Eagle Enthusiast, Fresco Fan. Patiently waiting for the F-15E. Clicky F-15C when?

HP Z400 Workstation

Intel Xeon W3680(i7-980X) OC'd to 4.0 GHz, EVGA GTX 1060 6GB SSC Gaming, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, 500GB Crucial MX500 SSD. Thrustmaster T16000M FCS HOTAS, DIY opentrack head-tracking. I upload DCS videos here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0-7L3Z5nJ-QUX5M7Dh1pGg

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The Alamo Squadron is looking for dedicated Air-to-Air focused pilots

For more detailed recruiting information, see our forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If thats the case that we arent sure the WCS etc is compatible then fine, it wouldnt be realistic. I was under the impression that it could use it, and just never did. And yes it occured to me that I should have said PL-12, was too lazy to correct :P. Figured most people would understand lol.

And for the R-77 DLZ yes its lacking info, but its pretty clear that you arent getting AIM-120B levels of range unless they used some really odd shot parameters

 

Russian tests are usually done at 20k meters and Mach 2. AMRAAM test is done at 10k meters and Mach 1.2. Identical speeds for target and shooter in both cases.

 

So for example at 10km front aspect with the above pictured DLZ, it’s around 40km, but it may be slower then the Mach 2 at those altitudes, but I do know that the 20km tests are at Mach 2. Like how do they test that without using MiG-31? Lol

Edited by AeriaGloria
Link to post
Share on other sites

The FC3 aircraft are 1980's era, other than the F-15C, which seems to be a mishmash of 80's avionics with Aim-120Cs and 90's era radar performance.

 

I think the solution you're looking for might be to add the Aim-120A. It would be a great matchup to the early R-77 we have.

 

I really wish we could get more modern Russian aircraft, especially full fidelity modules, but it doesn't seem likely. I think the only workable solution may be to move our time period back to something ED feels comfortable modeling, like 70's/80's. That's a really exciting era for military tech and much more balanced than the 90's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The FC3 aircraft are 1980's era, other than the F-15C, which seems to be a mishmash of 80's avionics with Aim-120Cs and 90's era radar performance.

 

I think the solution you're looking for might be to add the Aim-120A. It would be a great matchup to the early R-77 we have.

 

I really wish we could get more modern Russian aircraft, especially full fidelity modules, but it doesn't seem likely. I think the only workable solution may be to move our time period back to something ED feels comfortable modeling, like 70's/80's. That's a really exciting era for military tech and much more balanced than the 90's.

 

An A model appeared in DCS as a 3D model a while ago then disappeared, like navy bombs and thermal coatings I bet it’s on the way eventually and they just haven’t decided to code everything else about it, I know they have a new process for estimating rocket propellant, that’s probably the hold up

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi everyone. ...

 

Growling Sidewinder has just...

He is...? Who?

 

...a very interesting video...

Clickbait

 

It's easy to find on his Youtube Channel.

 

That's the plan. Channel promotion and earning money on shitty content.

 

He argues... very hard to defeat...red force planes...unbalanced....

Only material for fast video production and keep channel updated. Nothing else. Flanker pilots still fighting well against all that super weapons and i'm sure that they will not accept MODED flanker. ;)

 

 

There are no interesting campaigns or popular servers that do this. Even 90s weapons like no 9X, and only AIM-120B would do. But no one wants to run it or create such singleplayer content. ...

Because no support form pilots. Many would rather support mods than restrictions.

 

Thus, the only option is an upgrade of existing FC3 modules: Su-25A->Su-25SM, Su-27S->Su-27SM3, MiG-29S->MiG-29SMT

I don't think it will ever happen.

 

 

Either the re model of Russian R-27/77, or J-11A with MFI-55 would either/both help alleviate this while being realistic. I would like SD-10 on J-11A to stay as a mod, as it’s not realistic. If you want to run mods go ahead, but if we are really talking about a choice that helps populate server and add competition, adding a fox 3 missile a plane never had to a module is going to turn off a lot of people. Not just people on the receiving end of the SD-10 but other lovers of these red modules that love this game becuase of its dedication to realism, and the flexibility to mod if we like. ...

 

Agree.

 

As Flanker (even downgraded in DCS) fan I would rather uninstall DCS and stop flying than enjoy in some stupid and unrealistic modification. Modification? In good old times we call it as cheat. But now ...you know.. youtubers and their followers (lazy ppl that want learn by sitting and watching instead to practice and adapt fight to given the conditions).

 

:pilotfly:

If you are a dedicated pilot, a team player ... join us !!!

14thVFS Samurais Discord: https://discord.gg/uc9c7Vz 

Teamspeak: 14vfs.teamspeak3.com

Quote

Немој ништа силом, узми већи чекић!

MSI Tomahawk MAX | Ryzen 7 3700x | 32GB DDR4 3200MHz | RX 5700 XT OC Red Dragon 8GB

Link to post
Share on other sites
You got me there:) I guess my assumption was based off mostly R-77 charts, as those are the ones I’ve seen the most. Time to get familiar with the 27 ones

 

The only r-77 graphic i saw had already been posted here, could you send other ones?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Falcon S

 

...his arguments ie that Blue force has defacto had upgrades and the red ones not.

 

 

 

Thats all.

 

Hi...

 

Red still enjoying ;)

 

[YOUTUBE]UPtuU1yQu7g[/YOUTUBE]

If you are a dedicated pilot, a team player ... join us !!!

14thVFS Samurais Discord: https://discord.gg/uc9c7Vz 

Teamspeak: 14vfs.teamspeak3.com

Quote

Немој ништа силом, узми већи чекић!

MSI Tomahawk MAX | Ryzen 7 3700x | 32GB DDR4 3200MHz | RX 5700 XT OC Red Dragon 8GB

Link to post
Share on other sites

He argues that the developments in datalink and missiles make Blueforce planes very hard to defeat and that the red force planes are fighting with weapons from a time 10 years or more before the Amraams 120 (especially the recent C variants) were introduced.

 

 

Take a look at this.

 

The RU planes dont need 'datalink' missiles, they need functioning missiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Weapon Override Authority on the J-11. Should add ~15% to R77 range, and will scare BlueFor more easily.

 

 

( side item request: and I'd really like data link on the Mig29. Often AWACs are out of range, so if you're nose hot you paint a big "shoot me here" picture)

Surface Pro 3 with m3 CPU 2.4Ghz w/external cooler, 2GB RAM (plus 16GB Mustang Perf Profile Settings), Thrustmaster Mark !! w/FCS Mk1 stick circa 1980 with USB mod, DIY Opentrack IR.

FC3 only. About 23 fps SP and 20 fps MP:joystick:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see Weapon Override Authority on the J-11. Should add ~15% to R77 range, and will scare BlueFor more easily.

 

 

( side item request: and I'd really like data link on the Mig29. Often AWACs are out of range, so if you're nose hot you paint a big "shoot me here" picture)

 

 

J-11 has weapon override authority. press LAlt + W for that. Its called "Launch Permission Override" btw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a multiplayer perspective it is quite boring that almost everyone and their mother are flying F/A-18C or F-16C. I guess flying Su-27 and MiG-29 could be more managable with better mission design where Redfor has sophisticated SAM coverage as their advantage. But yes, we need more types of Russian jets to keep this from being a F/A-18C vs F-16C sim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...