Nipil

Пока что непонятно, кто прав и кто виноват в конфликте Razbam и ED, так что я бы не стал кого-то сейчас обвинять в чём-либо. Развивать дискуссию здесь не стану во избежание банхамера. Смотрите реддит, кому интересно, но никакой конкретики с твёрдыми пруфами в любом случае нет. Скорее всего, исходники для F-15E у ED должны быть, так как сторонние разработчики обязаны их предоставлять ED со времён фиаско с VEAO и их Hawk'ом. Так что паниковать не стоит.

Early C blocks were already numerous enough by 1989. But, as I've said already, I would prefer the A model too. Regarding plausible WW3 scenarios, I believe that your criteria are too stringent, TBH. If we want to plausibly exclude total nuclear exterminatus, than early 60's are probably the latest point we can take. Or... Maybe not, because by the 80's the "limited nuclear war" concept was already being seriously considered. Compare WW2, where every major power had chemical weapons, but no one actually used them against those who had it too (thus limiting it's usage to Japan vs China and Germany vs resistance). So I have to respectfully disagree with the nuclear argument. When it comes to political circumstances, as was already pointed out by @F-2, WW3 never happened (yet), so any WW3 scenario would be alt history with quite big deviations from OTL. And there are some alt history scenarios which involve some more prolonged "march to war", not only those which are based on IRL close calls. Anyways, I'm just a fan of late Cold War technology. For me, late 80's is the sweetest spot between crappy unreliable analogue electronics of the early-mid CW, and the modern flying computers. That's why I love thid era the most. Also, most current "modern" DCS AI assets are from this era, and late 80's are the closest CW era to the era for which our maps are made. But it's a matter of taste, of course.

That's not correct, even blk 40/42 were already being delivered in 1989, thus covering the very late CW era. Blk 25 was first delivered in 1984, blk 30/32 in 1987, thus fitting well into mid-late 80's. So, blk 30/32 would still be pretty viable for a hypothetical Third World War starting in 1989. I would still prefer blk 15, which has flown with a ton of countries, though.

Magnitude 3 LLC хотят за него взяться после того, как выпустят F-4U Corsair. Но, боюсь, ждать нам еще не меньше пары лет.

The qustion is if RSR can provide the same quality as later FSR versions. AFAIK it can't, although I might be wrong.

Поддерживаю. Иногда читать дисплеи становится слишком трудно, а способов затенить экран нет. Отчасти убрать блики помогает наклон камеры в сторону, но тень от тела пилота была бы очень кстати.

I believe that the list of problems with the air sim part of DCS is so huge that making ships and ground vehicles modules prior to addressing those is going to be the worst decision they could make. DCS' development speed is already glacial, we wait for many years to get fixes, AI assets and essential features already teased for the air sim part alone. And yet some want ED to spend tremendous effort to build two new subsystems (ships and ground vehicles modules) that would each make a separate game in it's own right. Which would make almost 0 contribution to the pilots' experience in a sim game which is still very far from perfect. All while already having good dedicated games for tank/ship driving. I mean, let's be realistic, there will never be a good "simulator of everyrhing". Let RTS be RTS, ground combat sims be ground combat sims, naval sims be naval sims. Also, let's be honest once again, we have seen where such efforts lead in the example of CA. An overwhelming majority of players don't need it, because they have better games to play RTS, they come to DCS to fly first and foremost. Let's not push ED away from improving the combat flight simulator and into wasting tremendous resources on things it's not meant to simulate. Let them instead make a decent AI, proper ATC, clouds that aren't transparent to AI and sensors, finish some modules that have been in EA for 5 years already. Any of these is 100 times more important for the flight sim than having playable ships or tanks or RTS.

First of all, Ka-50 and Su-25T are not entirely the same as 9-31. Around a dozen of both was produced, both saw some limited combat service in Chechnya. It's already better than a couple of prototypes. You have somewhat more data from SMEs and media in that case. Secondly, times were different when they first came out. The 2000's Russia was much more liberal. ED has mentioned that work on Ka-50 was assisted by Kamov. Today it's not possible in Russia. Dunno about Chinese situation. I guess it should be somewhat easier. But still 99% impossible in foreseeble future. I wasn't referring to you specifically, my apologies if that was offensive. But there have been a few occasions when people on that forum supposed a 9-31 could be done because of the reasons I listed. I thought the discussion was going in the same direction. And I just find it weird that people keep proposing planes like 9-15, 9-31, Su-37 etc. thinking that somehow they are going to be easier to do simply because they aren't in service.

We don't know if it's going to be an official module yet. And without SDK, to which extent it would be possible to model? A-4E, for one, isn't able to use guided munitions except for Shrike due to the SDK's unavailability. I would be glad to see it come out. But for now it's still not comfirmed. That's where MiG-23MLA comes into play, doesn't it? With R-24, R-60M and decent flying perfomance. Not as unique as 25, but it can get the fighter's job done. But no Red jet can do SEAD and PGM strikes, or even simply carry a decent bombload. That's why Su-22/MiG-27 is a priority for me. All of this is not to say MiG-25 is unwelcome. It sure is very interesting and capable. But I find it a "good to have", not essential, unlike an 80's fighter-bomber.

So do I. If someone could find enough data, it sure is going to be a very interesting beast to fly. I just don't have much optimism in this regard. Not really sure Su-25 would require 3rd party though. Mi-24P was done by ED themselves, being of the same era and similar level of complexity and fullfilling quite similar roles. Both are still in Russian service, although CW vesions of both are mostly relegated to training and reserve roles. So it might be possible, unless there was a statement about Su-25 specifically saying otherwise. It's not really like MiG-29 or other fighters, which have very high flying perfomace, relatively complex radars, datalinks, FLIR etc. It's a tier lower on complexity ladder.

This. I can't understand why some people think that making an obscure prototype jet, which hasn't ever entered production, without any documentation publically available, which has it's own unique set of systems, which has only been flown by maybe a couple men, is somehow easier than doing an airplane which actually went into production, has been flown by relatively many, can be seen flying on more videos etc. Just why on earth? That something is 10 years older and is more primitive doesn't mean it is easier to model. Inb4 "but it was present in F2.5". It didn't even have it's IRL cockpit, the way it's MFD functioned was pure fantasy, and it's FM and systems quality were, naturally, waaay below today's standards. And making 9-31 to today's standards is not any easier than making 9-41. Might be even harder, for reasons explained above.

There are plenty of ground pounders, but not for REDFOR. Workhorses are no less needed then wunderwaffen. Don't take me wrong, I would be very glad to see MiG-25, probably buy it as soon as it appears, but it occupies two very specific niches (strategic interceptor or bomber which can drop a few unguides bombs on a city-side target). Besides, MiG-25 is going to be much harder to do, especially the interceptor versions. IMHO, we need a coherent environment to operate in first of all. Which means we need some mundane (actually very fun) job to be done. Especially for MP and the Dynamic Campaign to come. Right now USSR has both chopper workhorses, Mi-8 and Mi-24, but only MiG-21 among airplanes. MiG-23 is coming, which is going to satisfy late 70's to early 80's fighter requirement. But no even remotely decent attack aircraft. Without which both MP and DC are not going to feel complete. Anyways, that's more of an argument about tastes, it's ok to disagree here. I just happen to like workhorses and I feel that without them the whole era feels incomplete. Although I still hold that Su-17/22 and MiG-27 are easier to do. Especially the former, as it was used by so many countries, and was relatively simple without anything too much secret or complicated.

A ground pounder from late Cold War would be nice, we don't have any full fi Soviet strike jets yet. MiG-27K or Su-17/22M4 would be the best, being capable of PGM and ARM usage. MiG-27K especially, but I doubt it's possible. TBH I find both MiG-25 and especially Su-15 out of DCS' scope. Su-15 simply does not belong in tactical aviation environment. Yak-38 is hardly possible. And a full fidelity Su-25 isn't going to be much different from the one we have, and it wouldn't give the Red side new capabilities it desperately needs which Su-17 and MiG-27 have.

Officially allowing such deviations from reality in vanilla game seems contrary to the underlying idea of DCS. If you want to use something like R-77-1 or the likes, you can use mods. There are already some that offer both modern REDFOR airplanes and weapons. No need to mess with the vanilla game.

In case of Bison it would be interesting though to have an Indian a counterpart to JF-17. Right now Jeff fights against F-16/18, which is so counter-immersive. Although I'd rather they do Su-17 or something like that. Anyway, AFAIK, they have no plans for other MiG-21 variants.

On trimming and it's importance. On various BFMs (maybe with illustrations shown instead of aircraft pic on loading screen). On tactics of going very low and not emitting. On Free Trial. On manuals and their location. On User Files section on the website. Some basic airmanship facts for the uninitiated: barometer setting, IAS vs TAS, AoA's importance, stall recovery, transition altitude, ground effect etc. Terrain masking, ground clutter, doppler notching. On true and magnetic bearing. On aerial refueling (fly the plane, not the basket, remember to turn off radar). Propeller pitch. Eye/head tracking (that it exists and greatly enhaces flying experience).

Могу я попросить источник? Звучит слишком хорошо, чтобы быть правдой. А если сотрудничать с МО РФ будет третья сторона? Или даже так не получится?

It's not about "ownership", it's about the "military/state secret" status given to certain docs and information itself. Accessing these without clearance, as well as dissipating them, is a crime, regardless of which entity owns them. And yeah, the Russian Federation is the legal successor to the USSR, so ownership per se of any papers was also inherited from the Soviets.

The problem is, if data is considered still to be secret by Russia's authorities, than it doesn't matter if it's been made public elsewhere. And here in Russia, especially in light of war-time legislation that has been passed since last Febuary, no one would like to give our law enforcement officials a slightest excuse for starting a persecution.

This was just an example of mods which many, including myself, find to be of a quality which is not good enough. Of course I don't try to force my personal preferences on anyone. Anyway, I don't think that the discussion regarding mods as such is going to lead us anywhere. And it distracts us from the original topic. Let's just agree to disagree on this. Back to the topic, I would definetely support improved filters in the "user files" section of the website. It should not be a hard task, a few days of a junior web developer's work should ve enough. When it comes to a mod manager, I don't think that reinventing the wheel is necessary, we already have a community-made app for this, and ED had better spent their effort elsewhere. Also, maybe it's possible to marry DCS to Nexus Mods and their mod manager, that might solve many problems related to uploading and updating mods, including large ones. I've already touched upon filtering servers for mods conpatibility (depends on comolexity of implementation). And I still think that replacing models with "stand-ins" is not a good move, and it's not worth ED's effort, IMHO.

Well, it's not too hard to unpack a zip into the "mods" folder in your DCS folder, or to delete a folder from there, even without a mod manager. Also, for instance, the A-4E-C hasn't been known to break anything up to this point (unlike official DCS updates lol). And it doesn't brake anything, it doesn't break often itself (compare, for example, AIM-54 breaking every few patches), it's realistic and does add a lot value to Cold War scenarios. It's really on par with official modules in almost every aspect, and does not demand much management on your side, just unzip it to a specified folder and have fun. I use A-4E-C as an example because it's probably the most popular and quality mod, widely considered the model DCS mod, and it might be the only one which has made it's way into mainstream servers (and it hasn't caused any trouble there!). I am also suspucious towards mods by default, and I agree that most mods are of bad quality, are not supported well enough, and when they mess with vanilla game's files they tend to break stuff. All of this is especially true for an air combat sim, which has realism as a paramount value. But there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. Especially since vanilla DCS breaks itself constantly even without modders. It's also worth noting that there are games like ArmA series where half of community uses mods and they don't have much trouble with it.

Replacing models from mods with models of other assets is just a terrible idea, as it will cause confusion in almost any case. Visual ID, both of friends and foes, visual model not corresponding to collision model. When it comes to ED investing any effort into making the game more mod-friendly, TBH, I think that there myriads of way more important tasks. ED has never pledged to support modfing, IIRC, and so it's justified that they ignore problems of mod users. I am not against it, but, really, there is already a community-made mod manager, why slow down DCS development even more for the sake of ED making the same thing? Don't know about comparing mods lists, shouldn't be too hard to implenent, but, once again, I'd rather they fixed one of these small annoying bugs that have been reported but not solved for years instead. But I disagree with the somewhat irrational hate towards modding in general. Most mods are trash (especially those which portray modern stuff... especially those made by some certain ace from a certain Caribbean island). But there are some which really are good. Community A-4E mod is so good it even made it's way into DCS World 2023 and beyond trailer. Not to mention some mainstream Cold War servers. That's not the only example, MB339 and C-130 have long been mods prior to going official. I don't see how people using mods like this harm anyone, and calling such mods "junk" is clearly not appropriate. The aforementioned A-4E is in a better state than official MiG-21 now, it seems, and in some aspects is more realistic. The "headache" part is also somewhat exaggerated, at least if you use a small number of quality mods. Honestly, though, ED does this too with almost (?) each OB, and sometimes they don't fix such things for years (the F-5 drivers seem to know that especially well, as does every mission creator). Although I would agree that using mods always adds it's risks, proportional to the mods' quality and quantity. I only use A-4 mod BTW, since it's ptobably only one I find both interesting and good enough.

Будет ли в рамках разработки GFM и переработки ИИ (я так понимаю, что это взаимосвязанные процессы) переработано использование ИИ форсажа? ИИ постоянно использует форсаж в ситуациях, когда он в реальности этого делать не будет (например, сразу после взлета, когда занимает строй, даже когда ведущий всего в 5 км от аэродрома круги нарезает). Это здорово повышает расход топлива и приводит к тому, что ведомые падают без горючего тогда, когда у игрока его остается еще предостаточно. Надеюсь, что ИИ заставят использовать форсаж только в боевом режиме либо тогда, когда его использует ведущий.

I wouldn't call it the best case though. Most people would not buy two modules which are essentially the same. This means that already limited revenue would be split between two different devs, making development even harder. Really, the M4 is just M3 but better, while still being the good ol' analogue Cold War dumb bomb carrier. I can't see 90% of the playerbase justifying to themselves buying both for a full price. Maybe as one module (F-14A/B example), maybe as separate two modules but with a big discount, but not for 60-80$ each. Not to mention having different implementations of the same systems and FM. No need to add such inconsistency.

Su-22 by AviaStorm confirmed?