Jump to content

Did ED sneak in another preview?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dannyvandelft said:

While the focus was the helicopter on the screen, I can't help but think this was a sneaky way to tease the SU-34 lol.

 

The Su-34 is still in production (and still in service). It is the major tactical strike aircraft of Russia... there is no way that it could be modelled without a major reversal in policy by Russia regarding how sensitive technology is handled.

 

It makes for a good camera shot - so that is probably it.

 

P.S. Maybe MAC will be sufficiently lower fidelity that they'll be able to add some newer models... so there is a slight hope there - but then that mean that it wouldn't have detailed systems... and it sounds like they'll also be aiming for something much less realistic than Flaming Cliffs 3...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the Su-34 model already in the sim...

So unless we see a cockpit shot I'd say no.

Proud owner of:

PointCTRL VR : Finger Trackers for VR -- Real Simulator : FSSB R3L Force Sensing Stick. -- Deltasim : Force Sensor WH Slew Upgrade -- Mach3Ti Ring : Real Flown Mach 3 SR-71 Titanium, made into an amazing ring.

 

My Fathers Aviation Memoirs: 50 Years of Flying Fun - From Hunter to Spitfire and back again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, as much as I want to believe it isn't possible the su34 could become a module, part of me still kinda considers this plane. 

You see, ED said that the eagerly awaited aircraft clues are to be looked in the 2021 and beyond video. I'm pretty sure the eagerly awaited aircraft isn't the apache. 

So if it isn't the apache what other plane was shown in the video that we don't already have? It seems the su34 was the only non ww2 ai aircraft that was shown. 

 

Yes, I know I'm just speculating, it's probably a far stretch to believe any of it anyway. 

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see it. as others have said they simply wont be able to get the info necessary.

Su24s would be awesome but thats not whats being discussed.

I highly doubt it, and if it was done it would be a module/game I wouldnt want as theyd have to simply guess at half the things they did.  Heck even the F16 module saw a poor guy get arrested with F16A manuals for suspicion of espionage at an airport in Texas.  IIRC the case got thrown out, but its not a position I personally would like to be in, whether America or Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be a buzzkill, but instead of yet MORE modules they'll never finish, how about fixing the stupid yellow/black flashing? It seems that just about everyone has it, and no effort has been made to fix it.

 

Su-34 is a newer Russian aircraft, no way to legally simulate it with any level of detail.

 

AD


Edited by Aluminum Donkey

Kit:

Asus Z170-P, i5-6600k at 4.5 GHz, 1.35V w/ CM Hyper 212 EVO, 2 x 8GB GSkill Ripjaws 4 @ 3000MHz 15-15-15-35, Zotac GTX 1080 Ti AMP Extreme Core Edition, EVGA SuperNova 750 G2 PSU, HP Omen 32" 2560x1440, Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS fitted with Leo Bodnar's BU0836A controller.

--Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground, and having all the rules and regulations get in the way!

If man was meant to fly, he would have been born with a lot more money!

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Avimimus said:

The Su-34 is still in production (and still in service). It is the major tactical strike aircraft of Russia... there is no way that it could be modelled without a major reversal in policy by Russia regarding how sensitive technology is handled.

 

What is sad, that maybe in 20-50 years we might see such.

 

https://youtu.be/opI_sgUS8J4?t=950

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aluminum donkey makes a good point, though I havent played in about 10 days so idk what you mean by the yellow black flashing .  jesus that sounds lame.

anyways this continual drive to announce theyre gonna make 25 new modules every few months - when introducing one module or major changes in a patch screws up all  the current modules (or many, see the saga of the aim54 from heatblurs f14) - maybe they should ramp it down somewhat and work on whats already out.

For example, they also are still filling out the F18, and the F16 idk even know whats going on with it.

It just seems bad luck for them to announce a massive amount of incoming modules. (cof cof razbam)  because it seems then we end up with nothing.  Im *still* waiting on the AH1, F4 Phantom II, etc that were announced 6+ years ago (yes I know they arent coming. F4 is on 'permanent hold', why not just say cancelled?  permanent hold? lol)

3 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

What is sad, that maybe in 20-50 years we might see such.

 

https://youtu.be/opI_sgUS8J4?t=950

Id adore the plane in game. but not made up stuff. Id want it done right.

Now they probably could do a Su24.  Theres a lot of older Soviet aircraft that have been exported or whatever. 

(50 years? Ill be dead lol)


Edited by sublime
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sublime said:

(50 years? Ill be dead lol)

 

Try getting into space exploration... I always check the launch date, travel time, and analysis time for space exploration probes against my life expectancy. 🙂

 

I think the big hope is that someone will do an FC level simulation (with realistic times for radar acquisition, realistic weapons and flight model)... but without the detailed systems modelling/switchology... then they might be able to make Russian aircraft from after 1980 and aircraft like the the Panavia Tornado...

 

P.S. It is interesting that the Eurofighter is being added but the Tornado isn't... I wonder if this just has to do with them being managed by different consortiums? Or is it because the Eurofighter isn't currently used for ground attack and countries are more sensitive about their strike aircraft and bombers (e.g. Tu-22M can't be modelled).

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Try getting into space exploration... I always check the launch date, travel time, and analysis time for space exploration probes against my life expectancy. 🙂

 

I think the big hope is that someone will do an FC level simulation (with realistic times for radar acquisition, realistic weapons and flight model)... but without the detailed systems modelling/switchology... then they might be able to make Russian aircraft from after 1980 and aircraft like the the Panavia Tornado...

 

P.S. It is interesting that the Eurofighter is being added but the Tornado isn't... I wonder if this just has to do with them being managed by different consortiums? Or is it because the Eurofighter isn't currently used for ground attack and countries are more sensitive about their strike aircraft and bombers (e.g. Tu-22M can't be modelled).

that is indeed very odd. Ive honestly thought it was odd that they were able to get the goods on the typhoon to make a module. I wouldnt have dreamed of say a realistic F22 module or something. 

I think it must be the  consortium however; I dont think its purely a strike aircraft thing.  Maybe with Russia, but every country handles these things differently.  Also ISTR in the HB forums them saying theyre trying to get permission from the companies that made the A6 to do a module or something and they need  that first. The A6 is long retired, etc, so that seriously makes me think its all about getting a thumbs up from the aircraft makers.

the thing with DCS as well is what I want, or you want, or whomever, its all going to be different.

For example Id happily approve of them doing DCS ww2, and the jets for DCS being 1949-1989.   To me the sweet spot seems to be 60s and 70s designs/airframes, and theyd be able to put a lot of redfor aircraft in it too.

however other people would hate that! and itd be fair of them to wish differently.

One thing I am fairly confident about - whenever razbam or even ed announces more than 2 projects at once I get a bit concerned.  Id say its not happening at all, but I included ED.  if Im talking razbam, lets just say im tired of them 'announcing' modules that its almost clear they can never do.  Remember the circa 2016 period - Razbam had said they were going to make  A BUNCH of different airframes. none have come out that were announced.  If theyre doing it to forestall other companies from doing it, or theyre just hopelessly overoptimistic, idk.

PS for space exploration we are just a mousefart. on almost any space probes timeline my entire life + my future death dont even see the object out of our solar system.


Edited by sublime
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

P.S. It is interesting that the Eurofighter is being added but the Tornado isn't... 

 

If I were to invest on the development of a DCS aircraft, I would take care to choose an aircraft that will sell in sufficent numbers .. given that most DCS users seem to prefer only the "latest and greatest", I can then understand that an Eurofighter would sell better than a Tornado.

  • Like 1

 

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 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

What is sad, that maybe in 20-50 years we might see such.

 

https://youtu.be/opI_sgUS8J4?t=950

 

Probably closer to 50, AFAIK, the best ED can do for a full-fidelity frontline fixed-wing fighter aircraft is the 9.12 MiG-29 Fulcrum A, an aircraft from 1982.

 

@Rudel_chw (sorry have no idea how to multi-quote), the issue was that the manufacturer weren't willing to work with ED, Truegrit on the other hand is already supposedly working with NETMA which is the management agency for the Typhoon and the Tornado so they're probably best poised for one once the Typhoon is out of the way (we'll probably be waiting a long time for that though).

 

As for the latest and greatest, I agree that it seems to be the popular position. While that's fine in and of itself (so long as feasible) it creates issues for the rest of DCS, which already hardly had any era flushed out with assets and modules (on both sides) as well as maps; adding newer and newer aircraft only makes the divide worse and only provides another era that will probably never have peer-to-peer contemporary modules, for at least the foreseeable future.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

@Northstar98

Multiquoting now is super easy, just go through the list ''quoting'' everything you want to respond to, when you get to your comment box each will be in its own box for you.

 

 

Awesome, thanks!

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Or is it because the Eurofighter isn't currently used for ground attack and countries are more sensitive about their strike aircraft and bombers (e.g. Tu-22M can't be modelled).

 

Of course the Typhoon is used for strike roles. It's not a CAS aircraft by any means, but it has been used extensively by the RAF for strikes against IS in Syria. Hence why the Tornado was retired, because the Typhoon does it all, and better. The initial version we get in the Early Access release will be AA only, but ground weapons will be added in time.

- i7-7700k

- 32GB DDR4 2400Mhz

- GTX 1080 8GB

- Installed on SSD

- TM Warthog

 

DCS Modules - A-10C; M-2000C; AV8B; F/A-18C; Ka-50; FC-3; UH-1H; F-5E; Mi-8; F-14; Persian Gulf; NTTR

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Tornado IDS, the IDS stands for interdictor strike, and IIRC from the onset the Tornado was designed to fly very low, very fast to penetrate air defences (in a similar role to the Viggen and F-111, you can kinda think of the Tornado being in-between). 

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect it's purely because of corporate whims. With Russian and Chinese aircraft, the issue is government policy - they are just paranoid about their tech, since they've relied on information warfare for a very long time. With European ones, OTOH, it's the companies that make them have their own, usually much sillier, reasons for not wanting to license things. It's the same problem racing simmers are very familiar with when it comes to cars, there are manufacturers who are more than happy to sell you a license, and those that either don't want their cars appear in a video game, or want to sell under unacceptable conditions. This had occasionally in odd-looking car lineups. 

 

Maybe it's that they see ED as a Russian company, or maybe it's the old prejudice that licensing out their plane to a "video game maker" would somehow make their company be seen as less serious somehow (the execs typically know even less about flight simulation than they do about actual aviation). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have no plans for the Su-34 currently. 

 

The video shows the AI Su-34 and a lovely shot of our Mi-24 which is in development. 

 

thank you

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

If I were to invest on the development of a DCS aircraft, I would take care to choose an aircraft that will sell in sufficent numbers .. given that most DCS users seem to prefer only the "latest and greatest", I can then understand that an Eurofighter would sell better than a Tornado.

The latest and greatest are the most fun to fly because they have the best flight performance. I'll take a Typhoon over a Tornado any day! An F-22 Raptor would be cool, but not possible, so Typhoon it is--and that's awesome!

 

I've given up holding my breath for the Typhoon, though. 3-5 years if we're lucky. I'm 44 already and can't be bothered waiting for years just for a video game, if they ever release it that's cool, but it'll probably get dropped in a couple years. That sort of thing always happens.

 

That's why I insist that developers should DEVELOP the module first, and only after it's ready to fly and fight with, announce the release. That way they don't piss off their prospective clientele by having everyone waiting for years, then say that it's been cancelled!

 

Personally though, I'd really prefer it if ED would fix the yellow/black flashing, just so we could fly the sim we've blown hundreds (thousands?!) of dollars on over the years, and just enjoy it for what it is. The sim engine is buggy as hell and they have to fix that before worrying about more new content for a buggy sim engine.

 

Any new modules they announce is just like installing a new turbo kit on an old car with a blown cylinder.

 

my apologies for hijacking the thread 🙂

 

AD

Kit:

Asus Z170-P, i5-6600k at 4.5 GHz, 1.35V w/ CM Hyper 212 EVO, 2 x 8GB GSkill Ripjaws 4 @ 3000MHz 15-15-15-35, Zotac GTX 1080 Ti AMP Extreme Core Edition, EVGA SuperNova 750 G2 PSU, HP Omen 32" 2560x1440, Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS fitted with Leo Bodnar's BU0836A controller.

--Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground, and having all the rules and regulations get in the way!

If man was meant to fly, he would have been born with a lot more money!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/19/2020 at 8:37 PM, Northstar98 said:

the issue was that the manufacturer weren't willing to work with ED, Truegrit on the other hand is already supposedly working with NETMA which is the management agency for the Typhoon and the Tornado so they're probably best poised for one once the Typhoon is out of the way (we'll probably be waiting a long time for that though).

 

 Typhoon = european /NATO aircraft. ED= russian software developer, TrueGrit = german/western software developer. Maybe thats the reason why NETMA gave a license to TrueGrit for the Typhoon and denied the Tornado license for ED. Not talking about classification as it will still be in DCS and we wont see any classified systems anyways, but about principles. Some western weapon makers may generally deny the direct cooperation with russian software devs. Thats speculation, but i wouldnt be too surprised. 


Edited by VpR81
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VpR81 said:

 Typhoon = european /NATO aircraft. ED= russian software developer, TrueGrit = german/western software developer. Maybe thats the reason why NETMA gave a license to TrueGrit for the Typhoon and denied the Tornado license for ED. Not talking about classification as it will still be in DCS, but about principles. Some western weapon makers may generally deny the direct cooperation with russian software devs. Thats speculation, but i wouldnt be too surprised. 

 

Yeah, I figured as such.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...