Jump to content

Fromthedeep

Members
  • Posts

    264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fromthedeep

  1. Then why are weapons on the wishlist that weren't used in the timeframe that they are modelling? Suite 4E+ only had GBU-31s, other JDAM variants were not possible, JHMCS was not implemented, SNIPER pod was not implemented, Mavericks are kind of a questionable edge case, JSOWs were not a thing in the USAF, the new UFC doesn't fit either, some other weapons on the wishlist from their Discord are also not a good fit like the GBU-39. The good reason against the CFT removal is avoiding feature creep which already seems to be heavily present in the development, we don't need yet another feature that's so highly limited in utility aside from specific circumstances, but if you're gonna use the timeline argument, you should hold Razbam accountable on that basis for all of their decisions.
  2. Fromthedeep

    A-7D

    Lipstick on a pig.
  3. Now don't get me wrong, it would be a very interesting aircraft to see in DCS, even if only an earlier variant was possible but as far as I know, currently there's extremely little chance of having this.
  4. 2000D is highly classified and licensing issues can also cause problems. I wouldn't expect it for a long, long time if ever. No to mention RB have their hands full.
  5. Time frames are an objective measurement of how modern something, not necessarily sophistication. These are approximately 35 year old variants which means they are not modern by any definition.
  6. I don't doubt that. The entire thing I was trying to refute is an earlier comment that said something along the lines that "it makes sense for countries to be protective of their modern technology". The Mig-29 9.12 isn't exactly modern by any metric when compared to currently prevalent NATO aircraft.
  7. Su-27 I can believe but do they have actual Mig-29 9.12 aircraft without any avionics upgrades in the VVS? As for the F-117 the fundamental difference is that detailed technical data on the various aspects of the aircraft can lay the ground of the develpment of game changing technology even today and reverse engineering it should be made as difficult as possible. While I don't doubt that it's compromised to some degree, the fact that it's just a wreck and not a fully functional aircraft alongside all of its technical documentation makes it significantly less of a breach than either the case with the Mig-29 or even the Su-27S. But I would argue that the level of documents needed for a DCS level product (which doesn't need actual design documents on the manufacturing process of the RAM coating or the metallurgy of the panels or the engine components) wouldn't really endanger anything. RCS for the most part is guesstimated for many DCS modules so that's not a problem, flight model and avionics shouldn't cause any problems reasonably speaking. The West didn't get a wreck without any kind of additional data, Western exchange pilots actually flew Mig-29s, they got all the required technical documentation, tactical training and access to the aircraft itself. That's a different situation. The entire point here is that modelling these aircraft in DCS wouldn't endanger the national security of these countries, because all the details of these unmodernized and ancient aircraft are known by both the East and the West. There's no secret. It's a security theatre. If you know that it's a highly compromised aircraft to the degree where your enemies actually operated it themselves, what new can be learned from a DCS level product? While I understand that the laws in Russia hold ED's hands, don't try and pretend these laws are reasonable or make sense.
  8. You're still avoiding the problem. The F-117 was a highly advanced and secretive aircraft and the sensitive technology around stealth and RAM coating is still a very relevant military secret. On the other hand, we can have an F-14, and F-16C, and F-15E, a Tornado, an F-18 and so on, some of these are significantly more advanced subvariants than 80s or 90s era technology with advanced datalink, PGMs, situational awareness tools and other systems. Why would a 1987 era Mig-29 be reasonably more of a danger to national security than a 2007 era F-16? It's already compromised. There's no one to keep this information away from. There's no legitimate reason. it's easy to see that it's an objectively unreasonable political side that's uniquely affecting the potential Russian aircraft modules.
  9. That has nothing to do with the message I replied to. The other guy said that it makes sense why militaries don't want their new technology replicated in DCS. While that definitely makes sense, 9.12 and Su-27S are not new technology, they are ancient at least with the old school, Cold War avionics setup. That doesn't mean we can have them in the game but keeping them out makes very little sense if we can also have things like 2007 F-16C or 2003~ F-15E and so on. The best way to phrase this question is that what things makes a Mig-29 from 1987 more sensitive and secretive than a modern Western fighter with an avionics setup from 2007. I could ask the same thing about all the other prominent Cold War era Soviet modules, why can we get an F-15E if we can't get a Su-24? Sure, I know the answer, it's politics, but that's not a reasonable or legitimate answer. In no way would it endanger national security to model these aircraft in DCS, partly because they are ancient and partly because the West already has pretty much all the information that they need, especially about a Mig-29 that was flown by exchange pilots from the USAF after the German reunification. And the old school Su-27 was compromised by Tolkachev who sold out all the classified info to the Americans.
  10. Preorder announcement in April, preorder starting in June, release in 2024 Q1.
  11. How is a 9.12 or a Su-27S modern? These are 30-40 year old variants with Cold War era avionics.
  12. I think it's more of a political issue not necessarily something that has to make sense. So if something is already unrealistic why is that a good argument for making other things unrealistic? As for how people play, that's an entirely different topic. DCS modules are the fundamental elements of the game and they should be as realistic as possible. How people are using them doesn't bother me. If someone is asking to make the fundamental elements less realistic that does bother me because that actively hurts my experience. People playing Air Quake on GS doesn't involve me at all.
  13. The attitude of the Russian government towards technical data is not ED's mistake. I'm sure they would make a full fidelity Mig-29 or Su-27 if they could.
  14. Thank you, that's the -1, it is available online but it is a very important document nonetheless. We would really need at least the -34 and the Thunderstick supplemental manual, which should be relatively easy to acquire through the musueum if ITAR restrictions don't apply. This is why I wonder what they told SOLIDKREATE.
  15. Not really and even the A-6E is a great example, Cobra said that they placed it towards the end of their current roadmap because it has very unique features that they have to develop before they can actually work on the systems of the module. Absolutely, and it's a great challenge with the A-6 as well. I do agree with you that a B-17 or something like that would likely be the easiest way to tackle this problem, virtually no issues with sensitive data, relatively simple systems compared to even an A-6 or F-111 (let alone a B-1) and it would be fun for sure.
  16. Same thing was said about the F-111.
  17. No mention of INS drift and update options. I wonder if that is implemented.
  18. Cobra said in an interview that the flyable A-6 is almost at the end of their current public roadmap plans. Even if we assume that it's coming before the Naval Phantom, it would still have 2 other modules before it, the F-4E and the EF. The most optimistic estimates really shouldn't excpect it anytime soon.
  19. The A-6 is already announced and it's very far from release.
  20. How did you arrive to that conclusion?
  21. 2 years? That's incredibly optimistic. Heatblur needs to finish the F-14 (early A, Iranian variant, campaigns), 4 subvariants of the Phantom (spread across 2 separate purchaseable modules), the Eurofighter and then the A-6. The absolute minimum they need for all the Phantoms is likely 4 years, add another 2 for the Eurofighter and I wouldn't expect them to start working on coding the A-6 before 2025-26 at the earliest. And it's still years after that until the EA release. And this doesn't even address the huge issues regarding documentation.
  22. Cobra said in the interview that they are planning on releasing the AI unit in early 2023, so we'll have to wait and see. The actual module will likely take a long, long time, after all they have quite a few modules to finish before they tackle the A-6.
  23. Well if they used some documents then I bet it must be very realistic. I've never understood why people spend their money on DCS if they absolutely don't care about the core concept of the entire project.
  24. I'd expect that Heatblur would start that once they are closer to release.
×
×
  • Create New...