Jump to content

Recommended Posts

New Mig 29 version perhaps?

Recently, I've been seeing the non balance between the Bluefor and Redfor. This could make it be a little more balanced. My suggestion is adding the mig 29K, since it is pretty much not that classified as it is used internationally. Mig 29K would bring more fun to the Russian carriers and would make the stabilization between the coalitions mentioned before. It would feature the r77-1/RVV-AE. There actually is enough information for the improved r77 that you can even find on the internet.

Here is some information about the K variant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K

It should be a separate module from the fc3^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though it is not specifically a Mig-29K, I do believe a full fidelity Mig-29 is being developed. Unfortunately, I don’t believe it will be anything modern, though despite that, I’m sure people will still be happy to have a 29. 

 

Balance between factions on the other hand is a different issue. Considering the focus of DCS is to try and faithfully simulate aircraft as close to real life as possible. Developing aircraft with the intent of achieving balance in a competitive environment goes against the principles of realistic simulation. I have nothing against simulating early 2000’s era Russian aircraft, but balance should be left to the tournament hosts and players that want to play competitively, and not Eagle Dynamics. To do otherwise would result in a less authentic simulation.

 

If ED were to produce tools that give the player base more flexibility in determining allowed aircraft, systems, and weapon systems in a multiplayer environment, that would be fine, so long as it does not impact the development of systems and craft that are faithful to reality.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HalasKor said:

Though it is not specifically a Mig-29K, I do believe a full fidelity Mig-29 is being developed. Unfortunately, I don’t believe it will be anything modern, though despite that, I’m sure people will still be happy to have a 29. 

 

Balance between factions on the other hand is a different issue. Considering the focus of DCS is to try and faithfully simulate aircraft as close to real life as possible. Developing aircraft with the intent of achieving balance in a competitive environment goes against the principles of realistic simulation. I have nothing against simulating early 2000’s era Russian aircraft, but balance should be left to the tournament hosts and players that want to play competitively, and not Eagle Dynamics. To do otherwise would result in a less authentic simulation.

 

If ED were to produce tools that give the player base more flexibility in determining allowed aircraft, systems, and weapon systems in a multiplayer environment, that would be fine, so long as it does not impact the development of systems and craft that are faithful to reality.

The thing is that, those migs and sukhois are the ones that should be compared with f15A and f16A as they are pretty much the oldest. That's why, I'm not saying that the current russian aircraft need to be buffed or anything. Also, the one that's being delevoped is a mig 29 9.12A, which, still is old...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aleksxy said:

The thing is that, those migs and sukhois are the ones that should be compared with f15A and f16A as they are pretty much the oldest. That's why, I'm not saying that the current russian aircraft need to be buffed or anything. Also, the one that's being delevoped is a mig 29 9.12A, which, still is old...

Yes, the new full fidelity Mig will be old. I’m confident ED would do something newer if they could.Though it seems to be very tough for ED to develop anything even vaguely modern from Russia. I imagine the Russian government does not see the value in allowing ED to simulate modern aircraft. I bet some would love to have older versions of the 15, 16, and 18.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HalasKor said:

I bet some would love to have older versions of the 15, 16, and 18.

 

🙋‍♂️

 

that's one way of providing balance, by building out earlier versions of bluefor planes. also, A-10A.

 

early versions of the teen fighters (F-14 excluded as it's already there (thank you Heatblur!)), plus full fidelity FC3 planes (-25, -29, -27, -33).. plus a germany map.. that 70's to 90's cold war period could be the flagship tier/era of DCS.


Edited by Munkwolf
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HalasKor said:

Yes, the new full fidelity Mig will be old. I’m confident ED would do something newer if they could.Though it seems to be very tough for ED to develop anything even vaguely modern from Russia. I imagine the Russian government does not see the value in allowing ED to simulate modern aircraft. I bet some would love to have older versions of the 15, 16, and 18.

How did they do the ka 50 then?

2 minutes ago, Munkwolf said:

 

🙋‍♂️

 

that's one way of providing balance, by building out earlier versions of bluefor planes. also, A-10A.

 

early versions of the teen fighters (F-14 excluded as it's already there (thank you Heatblur!)), plus full fidelity FC3 planes (-25, -29, -27, -33).. plus a germany map.. that 70's to 80's cold war period could be the flagship tier/era of DCS.

How's that balancing when there's still the f/a 18 and f16...

 


Edited by Aleksxy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Aleksxy said:

The thing is that, those migs and sukhois are the ones that should be compared with f15A and f16A as they are pretty much the oldest. That's why, I'm not saying that the current russian aircraft need to be buffed or anything. Also, the one that's being delevoped is a mig 29 9.12A, which, still is old...

 

Compared yes, but they would always end up facing technology 10 years superior.  The F-15C was available and F-15A was undergoing (or had undergone) MSIP by the time the flanker was operational ... so while it was still comparable to the original F-15A, it was outdated already.  The F-16C came about in '84.

 

ED did not do the Ka-52, and balance is not intended.

 

If any more modern versions of those aircraft are added to DCS, they probably won't be Russian (ie. they will be export variants) and they will likely not be made by ED according to everything we have been told so far (of course, everything is subject to change).


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we keep forgeting that Soviets/Russians had different phylosophy when it comes to air combat and DCS doesn't really paint that picture very well - at least not on MP servers.

One should not compare any blue/red plane direclty.

Soviets relied on integrated air defences and this is almost not simulated at all. We mostly have all the weapons available in DCS as well as endless amounts of fuel and so on.

When things are taken out of context like this, of course then that a 29A looks like a trash can compared to a 15C, for example.

Not to mention ECM and one million other things.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

No philosophy of any kind is simulated.  Systems and doctrines exist on both sides.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aleksxy said:

How did they do the ka 50 then?

How's that balancing when there's still the f/a 18 and f16...

 

 

Well, as far as I understand it, the Ka-50 had a fairly limited production, and not many were made. Perhaps the limited production of the Ka-50 had something to do with ED being allowed to simulate it. In any case I can only speculate why they could do a Ka-50 but not anything else from the time period. ED have the desire to simulate Russian aircraft. With that desire in mind the only reasons you could imagine something wouldn’t be simulated would be: Cost, lack of documentation, lack of subject matter experts, legalities, lack of interest or technology. The most significant reason I think, ED are a company based in Russia and are subject to Russian law.

 

The Solution to F-16C’s and F-18’s in the same airspace as older types like the Mig-21 or MiG-29 could be as simple as restricting those newer aircraft types.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HalasKor said:

Well, as far as I understand it, the Ka-50 had a fairly limited production, and not many were made. Perhaps the limited production of the Ka-50 had something to do with ED being allowed to simulate it. In any case I can only speculate why they could do a Ka-50 but not anything else from the time period. ED have the desire to simulate Russian aircraft. With that desire in mind the only reasons you could imagine something wouldn’t be simulated would be: Cost, lack of documentation, lack of subject matter experts, legalities, lack of interest or technology. The most significant reason I think, ED are a company based in Russia and are subject to Russian law.

 

The Solution to F-16C’s and F-18’s in the same airspace as older types like the Mig-21 or MiG-29 could be as simple as restricting those newer aircraft types.

This exactly. The Ka-50 quickly fell out of production in favour of Ka-52.

 

Additionally, Russia doesn't have anything similar to US public information act which would mean it doesn't ever have to declassify documentation on obsolete military equipment. Many counties work that way (for example MiG-29B manual is still classified in Serbia). 

 

So we are kinda luckly we get a late 1980s, relatively modern Russian rotary craft. And even with this in mind when Russian legislature about simulating modern military equipemnt changed recently ED had to step back and reevaluate how they are doing Blackshark 3.

 

With this in mind I highly doubt we'll be seing contemporarily equiped Russian aircraft any time soon. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2021 at 6:58 AM, Zweistein000 said:

This exactly. The Ka-50 quickly fell out of production in favour of Ka-52.

 

Additionally, Russia doesn't have anything similar to US public information act which would mean it doesn't ever have to declassify documentation on obsolete military equipment. Many counties work that way (for example MiG-29B manual is still classified in Serbia). 

 

So we are kinda luckly we get a late 1980s, relatively modern Russian rotary craft. And even with this in mind when Russian legislature about simulating modern military equipemnt changed recently ED had to step back and reevaluate how they are doing Blackshark 3.

 

With this in mind I highly doubt we'll be seing contemporarily equiped Russian aircraft any time soon. 

Us Serbs have classified the manual for the mig29Bs due to them being a little modernized and due to them being improved generally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2021 at 10:54 AM, HalasKor said:

Though it is not specifically a Mig-29K, I do believe a full fidelity Mig-29 is being developed. Unfortunately, I don’t believe it will be anything modern, though despite that, I’m sure people will still be happy to have a 29. 

 

Balance between factions on the other hand is a different issue. Considering the focus of DCS is to try and faithfully simulate aircraft as close to real life as possible. Developing aircraft with the intent of achieving balance in a competitive environment goes against the principles of realistic simulation. I have nothing against simulating early 2000’s era Russian aircraft, but balance should be left to the tournament hosts and players that want to play competitively, and not Eagle Dynamics. To do otherwise would result in a less authentic simulation.

 

If ED were to produce tools that give the player base more flexibility in determining allowed aircraft, systems, and weapon systems in a multiplayer environment, that would be fine, so long as it does not impact the development of systems and craft that are faithful to reality.

 

I think you misunderstood what he ask. In the simulator is not anything close to the 2000 in the red side. Not even Air defeses such is a powerful side in redfor. You are talking about the balance should be left to host and players, but for example even when The Fighter Collection Company doesn't order to programmers do an improvement in to redfor. We still get more and more improvements in Bluefor, for example Aim-7 have become a 40% capable than R-27R. But the management that control this simulator doesn't go into implementation of a real ECM direction because R-27T at the end of the day was made for a ECM environment and R-27P is not even implemented in the simulator. see the exporter compony info: Production (ktrv.ru)


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2021 at 1:13 AM, pepin1234 said:

 

I think you misunderstood what he ask. In the simulator is not anything close to the 2000 in the red side. Not even Air defeses such is a powerful side in redfor. You are talking about the balance should be left to host and players, but for example even when The Fighter Collection Company doesn't order to programmers do an improvement in to redfor. We still get more and more improvements in Bluefor, for example Aim-7 have become a 40% capable than R-27R. But the management that control this simulator doesn't go into implementation of a real ECM direction because R-27T at the end of the day was made for a ECM environment and R-27P is not even implemented in the simulator. see the exporter compony info: Production (ktrv.ru)

 

Yes, you are correct, I did misunderstand. However, ED still has the same challenges for what it can simulate. Nearly every aircraft, system, and weapon system that is simulated, especially those that are in active service, have limiting factors concerning their simulation fidelity. Sometimes these limitations could be local or international laws, or a lack of information. Whatever the case, some things will remain hidden from public consumption due to their sensitive nature. Things like ECM might never be fully fleshed out, nearly every country with combat aircraft have some ECM or ECCM capabilities. At the end of the day, the basic function of a military is to destroy its enemies and defend its country. The easier it is to understand the capabilities, doctrine, and readiness of a enemy military, the easier it is to defeat. What does this have to do with DCS? DCS is for fun, and national defense is a matter of life and death. If any military body decides it doesn't want a specific craft or system implemented, ED must respect their wishes or suffer the consequences.

 

Concerning the Aim-7 and the R-27, ED have just finished Computational Fluid Dynamic tests on the R-27 missiles, here is a link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/medialibrary/bda/xnncgbqcdftgat1awbmcegln17yf2c8m/R-27_Missile_Family.pdf

The R-27 should now be more accurate to real life, at least where aerodynamics and missile thrust is concerned. Concerning the R-27P, I'm sure ED would love to implement this missile, but they may lack the airframe or permission to do so.

 

In my mind, the main factors concerning Bluefor vs Redfor development priorities probably comes down to information access and the user base. ED has a limited development staff and everything developed costs time and money. ED needs to think strategically when it comes to development decisions. So, if we assume they are intelligent, their short term development goals probably line up with the long term business strategy. So at the moment some things might be on the back burner.

 

At the end of the day, I don't say these things to prove right or wrong. I only wish to temper our collective thoughts and desires within reality. In my opinion it is a little easer to deal with disappointment if one sees an issue from multiple sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HalasKor said:

Yes, you are correct, I did misunderstand. However, ED still has the same challenges for what it can simulate. Nearly every aircraft, system, and weapon system that is simulated, especially those that are in active service, have limiting factors concerning their simulation fidelity. Sometimes these limitations could be local or international laws, or a lack of information. Whatever the case, some things will remain hidden from public consumption due to their sensitive nature. Things like ECM might never be fully fleshed out, nearly every country with combat aircraft have some ECM or ECCM capabilities. At the end of the day, the basic function of a military is to destroy its enemies and defend its country. The easier it is to understand the capabilities, doctrine, and readiness of a enemy military, the easier it is to defeat. What does this have to do with DCS? DCS is for fun, and national defense is a matter of life and death. If any military body decides it doesn't want a specific craft or system implemented, ED must respect their wishes or suffer the consequences.

 

Concerning the Aim-7 and the R-27, ED have just finished Computational Fluid Dynamic tests on the R-27 missiles, here is a link: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/medialibrary/bda/xnncgbqcdftgat1awbmcegln17yf2c8m/R-27_Missile_Family.pdf

The R-27 should now be more accurate to real life, at least where aerodynamics and missile thrust is concerned. Concerning the R-27P, I'm sure ED would love to implement this missile, but they may lack the airframe or permission to do so.

 

In my mind, the main factors concerning Bluefor vs Redfor development priorities probably comes down to information access and the user base. ED has a limited development staff and everything developed costs time and money. ED needs to think strategically when it comes to development decisions. So, if we assume they are intelligent, their short term development goals probably line up with the long term business strategy. So at the moment some things might be on the back burner.

 

At the end of the day, I don't say these things to prove right or wrong. I only wish to temper our collective thoughts and desires within reality. In my opinion it is a little easer to deal with disappointment if one sees an issue from multiple sides.


your words justified and repeated arguments used by blue players. Lack of information… sensitive nature… and you even announce the tiny update for R-27 such should be another crappy improvements to calm down the community of what is obvios. The Biased treatment in this simulator in control by western owner is very noticeable. Try again with different sweet words… we almost got what you mean.

 

A GCI for Redforce is not a sensitive information… 

 

also ECM is not sensitive information for people that bring to the table such modern weapons. They must know how nasty is the ECM in a air combat and coincidentally or not. They are not simulated what they know very well it is a Achilles Heel, Not for passive seeking sensors…(IRST on RU Fighters) not for Passive IR head seekers (R-27T) not for Radiation A-A missiles (R-27P) ignored by this simulator, but they need information. Red Aircraft were pioneers on that… what a pure coincidence right…?

 

for example: the very first fighter in the world to get a proper operational datalink is the Su-27 and surprisedly Su-27 in DCS don’t link Datalink between a group of them in Multiplayer. What a pure coincidence right…? 
 

R-27P is for export. Same family, tiny differences im range. Not big deal… it is a radiation passive seeker… but well… on that case also is a “lack of information” when the business is in risk and what gonna be shoot down is a F-18, then let’s say to the community we don’t get enough information, restrictions are present. When the target is air Defense then there is a passive seeker that work and been introduced, like Kh-31P and Kh-58, AGM-88… not a problem on this case… right.

 

The Hawk defense system have been improved to defeats targets at 2000m from 40km…!!! Wow almost reaching a long range capability. Such improvements have not been seen in any of the redforce Sams… (current S-300 in game 50km using same example)
 

 


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, pepin1234 said:


your words justified and repeated arguments used by blue players. Lack of information… sensitive nature… and you even announce the tiny update for R-27 such should be another crappy improvements to calm down the community of what is obvios. The Biased treatment in this simulator in control by western owner is very noticeable. Try again with different sweet words… we almost got what you mean.

 

A GCI for Redforce is not a sensitive information… 

 

also ECM is not sensitive information for people that bring to the table such modern weapons. They must know how nasty is the ECM in a air combat and coincidentally or not. They are not simulated what they know very well it is a Achilles Heel, Not for passive seeking sensors…(IRST on RU Fighters) not for Passive IR head seekers (R-27T) not for Radiation A-A missiles (R-27P) ignored by this simulator, but they need information. Red Aircraft were pioneers on that… what a pure coincidence right…?

 

for example: the very first fighter in the world to get a proper operational datalink is the Su-27 and surprisedly Su-27 in DCS don’t link Datalink between a group of them in Multiplayer. What a pure coincidence right…? 
 

R-27P is for export. Same family, tiny differences im range. Not big deal… it is a radiation passive seeker… but well… on that case also is a “lack of information” when the business is in risk and what gonna be shoot down is a F-18, then let’s say to the community we don’t get enough information, restrictions are present. When the target is air Defense then there is a passive seeker that work and been introduced, like Kh-31P and Kh-58, AGM-88… not a problem on this case… right.

 

The Hawk defense system have been improved to defeats targets at 2000m from 40km…!!! Wow almost reaching a long range capability. Such improvements have not been seen in any of the redforce Sams… (current S-300 in game 50km using same example)
 

 

 

The truth is, neither of us has the complete picture. We can only speculate why ED makes, or does not make, any one decision. My opinion concerning ED's development decisions stems from what they have told us, as vague as it can be, and what makes sense to me logically. I don't understand why you believe that GCI and ECM systems are not sensitive or controlled information. Both GCI and ECM/ECCM are considerable parts of air war and air defense. It makes no sense for any military to allow their civilian populace, or foreign citizens, to have any detailed understanding of these systems as they are used in warfare.

 

ED worked hard to improve the simulation of the R-27. It seems to me that you are very jaded, considering you view these positive changes as a public relations stunt. I am sorry that you are not more happy about your favorite simulator. I can't help you fix that. We are at an impasse, and this conversation is no longer constructive. I have nothing further to contribute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"for example: the very first fighter in the world to get a proper operational datalink is the Su-27 and surprisedly Su-27 in DCS don’t link Datalink between a group of them in Multiplayer. What a pure coincidence right…? "

 

You sure about that ? ..... Swedish STIRL system used a pretty capable DL systemas early as the Draken.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/swedish-air-force-datalink-history-and-gripen-link-16-integration-described-by-czech-air-force-article.33880/

 

 


Edited by IvanK
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2021 at 4:13 AM, pepin1234 said:

... You are talking about the balance should be left to host and players ...

 

"Balance" is for games, on real-life there is no such balance and this is a Simulator, so it reflects that and there is no balance on the gaming sense.

 

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
59 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

"Balance" is for games, on real-life there is no such balance and this is a Simulator, so it reflects that and there is no balance on the gaming sense.

 

You made me laugh. What simulator...? Do you really think the red AI in this game is close to the level of a real organized Air force. Well if you put 20 nations in coalition against a single country like in Serbia maybe you get a pretty unbalanced picture. We were talking about the lack of systems, lack of tactical game in red Sams in this so called simulator and you come out with the word Simulator over game name...  just pointing an example: You are facing a fleet of Mig-21 without tactical information from GCI. that is not a simulator. There are many nations in NATO that operated the soviet GCI export version. Not Sensitive information on that. Where is the GCI in your beloved simulator? You are not simulating a real tactical life situation. it is just a game to put your brain in the winner position. 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...