Jump to content

Full fidelity MiG 29A by ED?


CrazyGman

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah, I think the 9.12 is probably the best one to do due to numbers produced and used. I just hope they add stuff like Lazur or maybe Takt for the DL. Then again, its gonna be marginally better than a the 23MLA so, IDK how big of a deal its gonna be. 

 

That being said, I like the idea of a more modern one, specifically a multirole ground attack version as well like the 29k. It just ticks alot of boxes for stuff that "red" is missing plus hypothetical red-naval ops could be interesting. 

 

 

 

 

The 29 didn't actually have Lazur but a different system - slightly more advanced. But I don't know how you would properly implement it in DCS without a more complex AI controlling it or some sort of commander slot. I could technically see it being AI controlled guiding you to the closest/highest threat target. 

And the 29K is far from the ideal striker/ground pounder without a2a tanking. Also only some 89 planes were ever built and 45 operated by India right now. The 20 russian ones are barely noteworthy. Let alone the classification issues with a K model to begin with when it comes to DCS. Personally the 9.12 (A) is probably the most widely used and best looking version with good T/W and at least a good punchers chance in BFM with the Archer. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

 

The 29 didn't actually have Lazur but a different system - slightly more advanced. But I don't know how you would properly implement it in DCS without a more complex AI controlling it or some sort of commander slot. I could technically see it being AI controlled guiding you to the closest/highest threat target. 

And the 29K is far from the ideal striker/ground pounder without a2a tanking. Also only some 89 planes were ever built and 45 operated by India right now. The 20 russian ones are barely noteworthy. Let alone the classification issues with a K model to begin with when it comes to DCS. Personally the 9.12 (A) is probably the most widely used and best looking version with good T/W and at least a good punchers chance in BFM with the Archer. 

 

Yeah the GCI thing is something ED needs to figure out for sure. Its a major problem for the core game IMO.

 

As for the 29K I mainly bring it up since it is operated by india, so possible docs could be obtained there to circumvent the russian laws. Plus I think one possible "modern" conflict could be India V China. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Mig-29K should be integrated as well as FC3 level. A good flight model as the current be integrated (PFM) and that A-G capability will be really needed for such a unbalanced integration now with Aim-9X also no full integrated in single unit IRL but we have it in every new module on the Air in DCS. So looking this picture created by the management of this simulator the Mig-29K with PFM flight physics and the proper weapons will be really good to face the unbalanced situation we got now.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah the GCI thing is something ED needs to figure out for sure. Its a major problem for the core game IMO.

 

As for the 29K I mainly bring it up since it is operated by india, so possible docs could be obtained there to circumvent the russian laws. Plus I think one possible "modern" conflict could be India V China. 

 

Wouldn't really call it a major problem to be honest. I'm sure a 3rd party could easily implement such a system into their module if they wanted to. It's no different from Jester AI for that matter. We'll see if Razbam does anything in the MLA.

And well, the Indians still have contractual obligations and parts support from Russia. You don't see any of their docs online for a reason and if you did you might lose said support. Part of the reason the MKI's are usually pretty guarded at Red Flag.

2 minutes ago, pepin1234 said:

Yeah Mig-29K should be integrated as well as FC3 level. A good flight model as the current be integrated (PFM) and that A-G capability will be really needed for such a unbalanced integration now with Aim-9X also no full integrated in single unit IRL but we have it in every new module on the Air in DCS. So looking this picture created by the management of this simulator the Mig-29K with PFM flight physics and the proper weapons will be really good to face the unbalanced situation we got now.

 

There is and should be no balance in DCS, period. The moment you even bring that up you pretty much admit you don't want a sim but some competitive shooter or a call of duty.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the Ka-50 don’t need warm up their ATGM when they reach the hot area in Battlefield they are ready for combat in few seconds. It is the way Mig-29 were designated as well.

 

I understand the frustration for the fan boys telling us we are in FC3 level Migs when they are shoot down. But IRL have it such a few system simulated is a disadvantage. That’s why in that political situation Wags tell in every interview telling there are restrictions. Then FC3 level is the answer giving the community a weapon to response instead leaving old stuff against new tech. That will be awesome 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Sorry let me be more clear, Considering what we have now AND whats on the horizon, mid 2000s hornet, viper, A-10, AV-8B, JF-17, strike eagle, eurofighter, and Apache. Marianas map, and supercarrier, a naval red asset from roughly the same time period seems pretty appropriate. But that's just my opinion.

Ok I see what you mean and I don't necessarily disagree. My point was just that even if you include the above mentioned upcoming items, a 9.41 MiG-29K would only fit perfectly with a handful of other 2000+ aircraft, while the vast majority of assets in the sim are older(80'ies and 90'ies). 

 

 

3 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

No I'm not a big fan of either of those aircraft or Russian MiG-29S with R77s for that matter, and half a million other little gameplay considerations they've made. But TBH I'm even less of fan of BS3 and the rabbit hole it's heading down. Which brings me to validation, how can we say if anything that aircraft can do is realistic if it's not real?

Test aircraft are real enough.

3 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

If they were to take some prototype and slap hypothetical combat systems and weapons on it and say "this is how it would/should have been" how can we possibly claim this game is even trying to be realistic. Where does it end, paper aircraft? Fictional Aircraft from pop culture? Future aircraft? If that's the case then we Don't need to look at performance charts because they aren't any, can't get mad if it's OP cause it's not real, can't say if any behavior is intended or not because it's all made up anyway. Yadda yadda. 

Let me be more clear what I mean then - it shouldn't be modelled if there isn't sufficient documentation available for the purpose...new or old, in-service or test aircraft. The question is not(as far as I am concerned anyway) whether ED should start doing guesswork- or fictional aircraft, but only whether service status, production number or proliferation of a particular type should be a prohibitive factor as to what is "allowable". 

 

In my opinion test aircraft are fine as long as they are modelled accurately. It also sounds like your perception of what  that entails is pretty single minded - there are prototypes and one-off tech demonstrators(often of a single feature) and then there are test aircraft with full combat systems(some have even been used in combat). I am personally only interested in the latter category, but if someone manages to do a proper module of e.g. an Su-37 TVC demonstrator, then I really don't see the problem in that either.

 

 

3 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

IMHO they should stick to realism and fidelity as much as possible because that's what sets DCS apart and that's what they have to offer over other games/Sims. If that means 90 percent of the game is asymmetric warfare so be it. That's reality. 

 

Again realism in what sense - accurately modelled aircraft or application(realistic combat scenarios with era appropriate assets)?. If its the latter then I would argue that you are playing the wrong sim(lol). Sadly(because its not my cup of tea) what DCS offers is the "sandbox" principle, where choices for aircraft modules are made on individual interest/what sells and not scenario driven or how well it fits with the rest of the sim.....although curiously enough with a different approach to the WWII stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

There is and should be no balance in DCS, period.

Says who - you?

Quote

The moment you even bring that up you pretty much admit you don't want a sim but some competitive shooter or a call of duty.

Bollocks! - stop trying to impose your narrow minded perception of "balance" on the rest of us. The notion that you cannot have a more balanced east/west setup without compromising realism is complete hogwash. There is no law in the universe saying that 80'ies "bluefor" aircraft *must* consistently be modelled with a 20 year offset compared to their otherwise contemporary "redfor" adversaries. 


Edited by Seaeagle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Says who - you?

Bollocks! - stop trying to impose your narrow minded perception of "balance" on the rest of us. The notion that you cannot have a more balanced east/west setup without compromising realism is complete hogwash. There is no law in the universe saying that 80'ies "bluefor" aircraft *must* consistently be modelled with a 20 year offset compared to their otherwise contemporary "redfor" adversaries. 

 

 

Then create your missions accordingly? You can certainly limit the types of weapons and make it pretty era specific as it is right now. Because what you get now is 90% of these claims being about "nerf this" and "buff that" often times with no base in reality. We are all reasonable (presumably) and know that we won't see anything past 2000's in terms of redfor from ED. Even the 9.12 alone was fairly common up until the early 2000's as a red adversary in various countries. So was the 27S/P in some. The problem (thus far) lies with ED wanting to always model the most modern bluefor variant they can like we see in the Hornet and Viper, former of which has some 2013+ features like the JHMCS MIDS feed etc. However this doesn't mean mission creators can't simply disable a JHMCS, dont give them 9X and 120C etc. to make it a lot more 90's. But to think soviet or even chinese technology resembled any form of parity in the 80's to 90's making it an even match is simply laughable to say the least for someone who knows the history and both cultures. The "gap" wasn't as big as what we can currently get in DCS but it was notable nontheless. I also think in roughly two years we might see some more era-specific aircraft arrive to DCS like the 23MLA, F-4 of some sort, A-7, F-8 and obviously the FF 29A. I don't think any developer in DCS has balance in mind even in the slightest when deciding to develop an aircraft - if someone is passionate about an aircraft they will try to model it to the best of their ability making it as real as the game or their skill level and available resources allow. Surely no one thinks "what would be an even or close match for X aircraft" or "doing this jet would be unfair against a Mig-21". 

If the more popular PvP servers or whatever just plop every aircraft in DCS into their mission with little to no restrictions it's entirely their choice.


Edited by Skysurfer
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is delusional enough to believe Indian MiG-29K entering service in 2010 (later than US F-22 Raptor) can be modeled go ahead, find the documentation, convince SMEs pilots to cooperate disclosing various data and behavior, convince the company to sign the license... Good luck.

 

There is a good reason even most basic Indian documentation for Semi-modern equipment is even harder to find then Russian.

Let alone details of MFD pages, radar operations and modes, details of the navigation system and radio communication, A/A and A/G avionics modes, sensors detection parameters, FBW flight control laws and limits, EM charts, acceleration and climb profiles, fictional strictly classified weapon and missiles parameters etc.

Without all of that it would be as good as amateur made MOD...

 

And if you want an FC3 - ED stated many times they do not plan to make any FC3 plane in the future.

 

ED is passionate group, they strive for realism which is DCS signature, not making some fictional equipment.


Edited by bies
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, bies said:

If someone is delusional enough to believe Indian MiG-29K entering service in 2010 (later than US F-22 Raptor) can be modeled go ahead, find the documentation, convince SMEs pilots to cooperate disclosing various data and behavior, convince the company to sign the license... Good luck.

 

There is a good reason even most basic Indian documentation for Semi-modern equipment is even harder to find then Russian.

Let alone details of MFD pages, radar operations and modes, details of the navigation system and radio communication, A/A and A/G avionics modes, sensors detection parameters, FBW flight control laws and limits, EM charts, acceleration and climb profiles, fictional strictly classified weapon and missiles parameters etc. It would be as good as amateur made MOD...

 

And if you want an FC3 - ED stated many times they do not plan to make any FC3 plane in the future.

 

ED is passionate group, they strive for realism which is DCS signature, not making some fictional equipment.

 

We dare to dream 🙂

 

Hey its the same delusion that lets me think Deka is gonna make me a Su-30mkk

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is very false and poor honest say everywhere you are a super pilot of a (computer) simulator that don’t even make AI against the modern and Super weapons developed for you. 
 

that’s why to believe you are in a really simulation you will need to flies in a server with real frontline and Sams everywhere. 
 

then otherwise you are pretty close to Ace Combat arcade with the only difference you are fancy system operator to face disorganized fighters without proper AI. 
 

GCI should be added in work time hours for ED team. It is a Mig-29, 23, 21 to create A-A ambushes. 
 

the super pilots Aim-9X still don’t deal with such nasty ambushes. It is unbalanced of course

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, pepin1234 said:

Is very false and poor honest say everywhere you are a super pilot of a (computer) simulator that don’t even make AI against the modern and Super weapons developed for you. 
 

that’s why to believe you are in a really simulation you will need to flies in a server with real frontline and Sams everywhere. 
 

then otherwise you are pretty close to Ace Combat arcade with the only difference you are fancy system operator to face disorganized fighters without proper AI. 
 

GCI should be added in work time hours for ED team. It is a Mig-29, 23, 21 to create A-A ambushes. 
 

the super pilots Aim-9X still don’t deal with such nasty ambushes. It is unbalanced of course

 

I don't really think of it in terms of "balance" thats dumb IMO. But rather "realism". And the reality is that for the soviets they relied heavily on GCI and ground based radars. And had good systems to do that. NATO is easier for ED since there was "less" of that formalism, but pretty much all aircraft are being fed a picture from the moment they takeoff till they land since ww2 from one source or another. So the current "SA" advantage enjoyed by the link16 guys (don't get me started on how poorly modeled it is), doesn't really exist IRL for most pilots, it just takes on different forms. But ED doesn't model those forms, so you get the really crappy DCS awacs we have. 

 

I routinely see "old" planes do just fine on modern servers where they have a human GCI guiding them. Hell the FC3 9.12 29 excels in that environment, as will the new Mig23. And even the old mig21 does ok with a good GCI as long as the pilot and GCI are smart the main limit there is the older shorter ranged missiles gotta get REAL close to be effective.

 

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really interesting video from a real pilot. What he is telling there is the way and time spend in learn how deal with ambushes, how react to this particular situation. But this is a real life pilot with real life Aim-54.

 

 

So for the fancy pilots got to get in the real deal with simulation you need feel that and be prepared for that. 
 

what we get instead: Mig-29 ask AWACS for the enemy position altitude, he already have it in his 9 notching at 35 km. No SAMs, No GCI…. What tell AWACS. enemy hot from 120km… that’s nasty, and unfair… that is the situation we got now. And for the Mig-29 surprise… the fan boy climb 9000m and shoot the Aim-120 with the help of the fantastic helmet that got position with the help of Datalink MFD information. Not even matter you are notching they shoot in interception. While Mig-29 are expecting an update for that particular closed enemy from AWACS we received enemy at 120 hot. They shoot the Aim-120 like a dumb rocket from 9000 and so on.

 

Attention…!! Mig-29 at 150m altitude and Notching from 25km and with that background terrain noise in the radar of the aircraft and the radar of the Aim-120 bump…! Magically Hit. One more Mig-29 downed only in DCS…

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Test aircraft are real enough.

Let me be more clear what I mean then - it shouldn't be modelled if there isn't sufficient documentation available for the purpose...new or old, in-service or test aircraft. The question is not(as far as I am concerned anyway) whether ED should start doing guesswork- or fictional aircraft, but only whether service status, production number or proliferation of a particular type should be a prohibitive factor as to what is "allowable". 

 

In my opinion test aircraft are fine as long as they are modelled accurately. It also sounds like your perception of what  that entails is pretty single minded - there are prototypes and one-off tech demonstrators(often of a single feature) and then there are test aircraft with full combat systems(some have even been used in combat). I am personally only interested in the latter category, but if someone manages to do a proper module of e.g. an Su-37 TVC demonstrator, then I really don't see the problem in that either.

I realize Su-25T and KA-50 we're essentially experimental aircraft but they did have a production run, and saw combat and I'm sure ED gave us something pretty close to reality. The problem I would have is if they dropped in a test aircraft and "made game play considerations" to add weapons and sensors that the real test aircraft or limited production batch didn't have but rather might have had, had it went into full production and been adopted for widespread use. Like what were seeing with BS3. Aside from the fact test aircraft don't really represent the air forces of any particular nation, which is the situation with KA-50 and SU-25T, I could see this game devolving into scenarios that straight up could never have happened.

 

I just don't think DCS is a good setting for those kind of "what if" situations.

 

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

I realize Su-25T and KA-50 we're essentially experimental aircraft but they did have a production run, and saw combat and I'm sure ED gave us something pretty close to reality. The problem I would have is if they dropped in a test aircraft and "made game play considerations" to add weapons and sensors that the real test aircraft or limited production batch didn't have but rather might have had, had it went into full production and been adopted for widespread use. Like what were seeing with BS3. Aside from the fact test aircraft don't really represent the air forces of any particular nation, which is the situation with KA-50 and SU-25T, I could see this game devolving into scenarios that straight up could never have happened.

 

I just don't think DCS is a good setting for those kind of "what if" situations.

 

 

I mean the Jeff suffers from this in DCS now. I mean not so much as flight manual/NATOPS for the thing, never mind actual tactical employment manuals. It could all be just made up and no one would know aside from the Devs and/or ED. I imagine most "modern" "RED" planes are gonna suffer from this as well if they ever get made. Hence my preference for older stuff that can be verified. Once the 80's planeset is filled out and has a online following, I'm probably done with "modern" stuff, because I know how much of it ED messes up in terms of implementation for things like the viper or the F18. 

  • Like 3

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

If the more popular PvP servers or whatever just plop every aircraft in DCS into their mission with little to no restrictions it's entirely their choice.

 

 

IDK I don't really think DCS makes it "Easy" to design very realistic missions, and the playerbase makes it even more hard. A "realistic" server would IMO have:

 

1. Differentiated planeset

2. Functional IADS for both sides, functional AI GCI with "human possible control"

3. Meaningful: Strategic targets, interdiction targets, and CAS targets 

4. Some sort of way to "pick up the slack" if humans aren't on

5. Supply/shortages/AC limits

 

So point by point

1:  Easy, several servers do this, Alpens, Buddyspike, others, it can be hard since the planeset is limited and compromises are made constantly, it will get better over time. I think the most important modules are the F4, and Mig23 to get decent cold war coverage along with a Su-17. Into the 80's we need a 9.12 and then a block 15 viper, as well as earlier model F15.

 

2: LOL, pretty much no server I've seen even vaguely gets this right, DCS has "SAMS" not IADS, yes there are scripts but they kinda suck and most servers don't use them for overhead reasons. Plus for the most part the assets needed to attack an IADS system don't exist in DCS. GCI, same deal, a few kinda try but it mostly isn't great. 

 

3. Nope, never seen a server do this at all well, It could be as simple as strategic sources produce weapons/AC, interdiction targets "distribute" them, and CAS targets are around some sort of FEBA. Perhaps not all that realistic, but at best what I see are random units in a field for CAS to kill, or a "airbase" to capture meta. Again the point of any air campaign is to support a ground campaign, and since DCS doesn't do that we are where we are.

 

4. Some PVE servers of course have AI opfor, and a handful of PVP servers have it too, but no servers I know of have some sort of AI CAP/Strike thats working around the clock in an intelligent fashion.

 

5. Again, no server I know does this in any meaningful way, and it would probably turn off too many players if the server was "out" of their favorite AC, and taking the temperature of the online community, most would take offense if they were out of their beloved AAM or JDAM cuz some dumbass noob used them all up.

 

It doesn't really help when ED won't even take a hint and make certain systems on planes "disableable" as a server option to model less capable airframes". Or have things like a working logi system. I could go on and on. Hopefully the Dynamic campaign might fix some of this, but I have very serious doubts about it working in MP. Same for things like IADS, GCI, some sort of strategic backbone AI, a way to plan an air campaign in some sort of meaningful fashion and so forth. Frankly I think the various server admins do their best with the very little that ED provides them. I mean consider stuff like CTLD is not an ED development, nor is SRS. Both are essential for DCS MP. For what ED charges for half baked modules they really should be ashamed that the core game is the dumpster fire that it is.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

What tell AWACS. enemy hot from 120km… that’s nasty, and unfair… that is the situation we got now. And for the Mig-29 surprise… the fan boy climb 9000m and shoot the Aim-120 with the help of the fantastic helmet that got position with the help of Datalink MFD information. Not even matter you are notching they shoot in interception. While Mig-29 are expecting an update for that particular closed enemy from AWACS we received enemy at 120 hot. They shoot the Aim-120 like a dumb rocket from 9000 and so on.

Why not request Bogey Dope instead of waiting for what the big Picture tells you? AWACS is the same on both sides.

They can and will use AIM-120 that way and there's nothing wrong or unrealistic about it. Since they have the DL they will use the info provided. You can notch one aircraft but you won't the others - you're not invisible to everyone.

You're a good pilot and you can manage pretty good in 29A against modern Blue, so why it is you crying the loudest every time?

You're not getting modern red ac and you know it. Seriously, go on some F-4 hunting instead to stop the constant frustration. It's not like we need to be reminded in every post what there is NOT modeled in DCS currently or how "fair" it is atm.

  • Like 1

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 32GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🚢 Supercarrier    🌍 NTTR, PG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, draconus said:

Why not request Bogey Dope instead of waiting for what the big Picture tells you? AWACS is the same on both sides.

 

 

Not too fast on that. I think I was telling ago I was notching this particular aircraft, with my altitude at 150m and he still be able to lock me from 25km range and me close to the ground in notch. That F radar in close search mode seem to be not real at all. Specially if the target is very low in altitude and the search aircraft is on the top 9000m. This is not real. the terrain  background is too close to me and I have not approaching speed to the search aircraft so is no way in real life to get a track on Mig-29 in that case. 

 

but that was not the example I wanted to point out. I wanted to show only the AWACS keep telling automatic enemy from very far away while I have an enemy 25km over me. that is not acceptable. Awacs don't keep telling the most close randomly with bogey Dope. it is an authentic disaster in Multiplayer and we must hold down until AWACS finish to tell the whole paragraph to ask back again. Seem AWACS give priority to the threat pointed toward to me but not the closest one. that's is wrong. closest distance must be priority. The question is why AWACS keep telling automatically every single bogey dope that point toward me without me asking, instead should be automatically telling the closest one constantly. I was talking about Mig-29, remember we are dealing with no datalink in MFD so we need very hard improvements in that regard.

 

 I was just explaining that particular example with another example also not understandable the lock from very far with the ground in back side and targed tracked been in very low altitude. actually the behave of Aim-120 have changed a lot. it is a tend to shoot only from 10000m. I never see that before in DCS. the evade maneuver is basically useless with such unrealistic diving shoot. there is not limitation at all and then we have not scape. shooting Aim-120 like a rocket to the ground is just not real.

 

the background terrain and altitude is not affecting the Aim-120 radar to get a lock in any circumstance. the simulation have became a no go in my opinion. Everything have become too easy for F fighters. No ECM, no terrain background for radar issues. it is like we go into a comercial game for kids. Mig-29S it is not the Serbian and Iraqi armed with short range missiles only. it is just a party for the new modules. very unrealistic. tactics have become useless in a lot of cases.    


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So instead of posting proper bug reports in relevant subforums you decided it's a good thread to pour your complaints? Why still flying against AMRAAMs with 29 if it's that bad?


Edited by draconus
  • Like 3

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 32GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🚢 Supercarrier    🌍 NTTR, PG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

I realize Su-25T and KA-50 we're essentially experimental aircraft but they did have a production run..

No they didn't. Its pretty much standard procedure to develop one or two prototypes followed by a test batch, that brings the number up to 8 airframes(sometimes 12 - the relative min/max number for a squadron) in order to test/tweak all aspects of the type before starting full scale production and giving it official service status.

 

 

11 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

 ...and saw combat and I'm sure ED gave us something pretty close to reality.

Yes both types were in actual combat.

 

11 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

The problem I would have is if they dropped in a test aircraft and "made game play considerations" to add weapons and sensors that the real test aircraft or limited production batch didn't have but rather might have had, had it went into full production and been adopted for widespread use.

This is a general thing that also affects in-service aircraft - I have seen lots of threads on this forum, where people are pushing for a weapon, sensor pod etc that isn't part of a particular RL aircraft's arsenal, to be implemented with the argument that it should thecnically/theoretically be able to use it.

11 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

 

Like what were seeing with BS3. Aside from the fact test aircraft don't really represent the air forces of any particular nation, which is the situation with KA-50 and SU-25T, I could see this game devolving into scenarios that straight up could never have happened.

Not understood - you just said yourself that both types "have seen combat", besides..

11 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

I just don't think DCS is a good setting for those kind of "what if" situations.

LOL what?! - that is the whole damn idea with a flight sim and if there is anything good to say about the "sandbox" principle that DCS adheres to, then its exactly that it leaves room for some higher degree of "what if" scenarios than would been the case if it had been scenario driven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

Then create your missions accordingly?

Yeah this is all on the mission creator - no.

Quote

You can certainly limit the types of weapons and make it pretty era specific as it is right now.

No you can't - you can limit specific weapons for an aircraft, but that does not make it era specific.

Quote

Because what you get now is 90% of these claims being about "nerf this" and "buff that" often times with no base in reality. We are all reasonable (presumably) and know that we won't see anything past 2000's in terms of redfor from ED. Even the 9.12 alone was fairly common up until the early 2000's as a red adversary in various countries. So was the 27S/P in some. The problem (thus far) lies with ED wanting to always model the most modern bluefor variant they can like we see in the Hornet and Viper, former of which has some 2013+ features like the JHMCS MIDS feed etc.

Agreed.

Quote

However this doesn't mean mission creators can't simply disable a JHMCS, dont give them 9X and 120C etc. to make it a lot more 90's.

That does not make a 90'ies aircraft - let alone an 80'ies one. The F/A-18C is one long upgrade with significant improvements every single year from 1990 right up to the end of production in ~ 1999.  Disabling JHMCS, AIM-9X, ATFLIR etc on the Hornet only removes those post-production upgrades and just takes it back to its standard Lot 20 configuration from FY 98 - i.e. still not suitable even for 90'ies scenarios.

 

 

Quote

But to think soviet or even chinese technology resembled any form of parity in the 80's to 90's making it an even match is simply laughable to say the least for someone who knows the history and both cultures. The "gap" wasn't as big as what we can currently get in DCS but it was notable nontheless.

So much more reason not to deliberately widen it further.

Quote

I don't think any developer in DCS has balance in mind even in the slightest when deciding to develop an aircraft - if someone is passionate about an aircraft they will try to model it to the best of their ability making it as real as the game or their skill level and available resources allow. Surely no one thinks "what would be an even or close match for X aircraft" or "doing this jet would be unfair against a Mig-21". 

No I am sure you are right - like I said thats the "sandbox" philosophy at play.

Quote

If the more popular PvP servers or whatever just plop every aircraft in DCS into their mission with little to no restrictions it's entirely their choice.

Of course - anyone can remove available assets as they see fit for whatever level of realism they want, but you cannot add something for the purpose if that something doesn't exist.


Edited by Seaeagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Yeah this is all on the mission creator - no.

No you can't - you can limit specific weapons for an aircraft, but that does not make it era specific.

Agreed.

That does not make a 90'ies aircraft - let alone an 80'ies one. The F/A-18C is one long upgrade with significant improvements every single year from 1990 right up to the end of production in ~ 1999.  Disabling JHMCS, AIM-9X, ATFLIR etc on the Hornet only removes those post-production upgrades and just takes it back to its standard Lot 20 configuration from FY 98 - i.e. still not suitable even for 90'ies scenarios.

So much more reason not to deliberately widen it further.

No I am sure you are right - like I said thats the "sandbox" philosophy at play.

Of course - anyone can remove available assets as they see fit for whatever level of realism they want, but you cannot add something for the purpose if that something doesn't exist.

 

 

I mean, it really comes down to mission creation. I have seen missions where someone has put serious thought in and did just that, creating an early 90's late 80's timeframe and it worked out rather well - obviously these kinds of missions usually won't be as popular with the broad masses of DCS users who want to use all the shiny toys at any given time. Let me say this, a Lot 20 C Hornet without JHMCS, 9X, AMRAAM, GPS and MSI is pretty damn close to a 90's C or A model. Yes we have the big engines but it really comes down to how specific and nit-picky you wanna get with all of this stuff. You can very easily downgrade its capabilities and combat effectiveness to the levels of a 90's jet even though it technically isn't one per se. Same can apply to the Viper as well. It also wasn't uncommon to see Tomcats in the 80's fly CAP with Sparrows only. And if you lets say wanted something along the lines of a dynamic campaign you'd also need to take economics, budget and weapons and equipment stocks into account - but that is pretty far removed from what we currently have anyway. 


Edited by Skysurfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

No they didn't. Its pretty much standard procedure to develop one or two prototypes followed by a test batch, that brings the number up to 8 airframes(sometimes 12 - the relative min/max number for a squadron) in order to test/tweak all aspects of the type before starting full scale production and giving it official service status.

 

 

Yes both types were in actual combat.

 

This is a general thing that also affects in-service aircraft - I have seen lots of threads on this forum, where people are pushing for a weapon, sensor pod etc that isn't part of a particular RL aircraft's arsenal, to be implemented with the argument that it should thecnically/theoretically be able to use it.

Not understood - you just said yourself that both types "have seen combat", besides..

LOL what?! - that is the whole damn idea with a flight sim and if there is anything good to say about the "sandbox" principle that DCS adheres to, then its exactly that it leaves room for some higher degree of "what if" scenarios than would been the case if it had been scenario driven.

Standard procedure in Russia because their procurement process is quite unique. But it's not representative of their forces because KA-50 wasn't manufactured in large numbers and never saw widespread use outside of a few combat sorties which is also standard Russian practice, Sending test/pre-production/low rate initial production or ,whatever you want to call them, aircraft into combat for hands on evaluation. Never the less if you went to war with them, you probably wouldn't see a whole lot of KA-50s your much more likely to see other helicopters that were mass produced and did see widespread adoption.

 

  • Like 2

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BIGNEWY locked and unlocked this topic
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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