Grim_Smiles

Just wanted to help you out in giving you an update on the Su-27SM from Wags. It is buried in the Su-27 module thread, understandable that no one wants to dig through that one. Su-27SM should be changed to Su-27S. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1839764&postcount=223

I know, the shortsightedness (nicer term used instead of a less nicer term) of some of the people on here just blows me away. Makes me wonder why they are playing study sims instead of Ace Combat or something along those lines. The people claiming he needs to work on MiG-21 first need to use their head. With multiple members on his team it takes a really dense individual to not realize that he has down time while he waits for others to finish. What's he supposed to do, loom over them? Yeah that will get things done faster:chair: And yes, it is amusing how some can't see how a variety of content brings in more money into ED and partner coffers, which helps to make the content they want come out faster. It really tells you something about the people who can't figure that one out. As for Beczl and other developers, I wouldn't worry about them. For a developer to dive into these forums they have to have a pretty thick skin. I am willing to bet that Beczl could see that more appreciated the content than complained. If I had to guess, Beczl may have just wanted to cut the BS off early rather than deal with it, prompting the thread closure. Again though, that's just a guess.

This is nice to see, would be great to have some WWII vehicles to put into missions for P-51/Dora.

Maybe more info available for it than the new one?

Ah okay. That did throw me for a loop initially.

Indeed, even if I end up killing Goose all over again on occasion, I'll take the A model.

I'm hoping the Tomcat is the next module after the T-38. I know that they are getting burned out by putting the Tomcat into other sims, but hopefully the T-38 gives them a good break.

Yeah I saw that comment as well. Glowing, you are a sadist!:P

I had a feeling that would happen, I'm sure it has to do with the Ubisoft Lock-on requirement.

*Looks at watch* Geez guys, you want to make a Wag date thread go for it, but I think this is getting too early now. This trend keeps up and we'll have Wag day threads popping up on Wednesdays.

Agreed. I was very much looking forward to an Su-27SM and I'm not going to lie and say I wasn't bummed out by the news, but I'll take an Su-27S high-fidelity. At least some Flanker module is coming down the road. Another thing we should keep in mind is that Wags never said there will never be an SM, just that they changed their mind and did an S for now. Hell plenty (if not most) of their staff is Russian and I'm sure they'd love to do an SM, if ED could do it at the level they wanted I have no doubt they would do so. Like GG and Spawn said, obviously something happened and they couldn't do it. Now the third parties seem to be the ones being allowed to do more speculative aircraft, but none have volunteered to do any modern Russian planes yet. So it is just an "S" for now, and that's not a bad thing.

Got those sitting on my HD as well. I agree that an FC3 module could be made from these, though some of those screens will still be guesses - like how the right and center screens work and if there is anything special shown on them at different times. I'm guessing they are in navigation mode, but what do they look like in A2A and A2G modes? How is the radar displayed on them? I'm also sure some educated guesses could be done as far as what pages can be included that you don't see - you check to see what instrumentation is missing in the SM cockpit that can be found in the standard 27, and you can reasonably assume the screens will display that information somewhere on a page. Unfortunately an FC3 version is likely all that can be done with this information at the moment. Which if that is all we can get so be it (better than nothing ED, hint hint), I had just believed in the beginning that they had the info for a high-fidelity 27SM and got excited for that. If they could take the 27S high fidelity they will create and just added in the screens and the extra weaponry, I could live with that even if some of the screens are just guesses. But I can understand if ED wouldn't want to do that, since they have a specific standard for their high-fi modules. That matches with some of the videos I've seen where you get brief glances, though while you still don't get an eye full of screen at all times, it does have a little more detail then the ones I have. Problem is, both in this video and the ones I have, you can clearly see the left screen, but you really can't tell how the right screen is operating. One can easily figure out the left screen from still images, but the right screen would be a nice one to see in operation. Would be nice if ED can get seat time with it, but I have a feeling that won't happen. I can't understand what they are saying in the video so I don't know who the man is in the pilot seat, but I imagine a one time demonstration or a news reporter getting a story might be one thing. Saying that you'd like to get seat time with this so you can replicate it in a video game - that might be a different story.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/Raw-F-35-fighter-jet-simulation/-/9837878/20701634/-/119i1c3z/-/index.html The F-35 has simulators and demonstrators that they have shown off publicly, including youtube vids showing some of the things they can do. Granted none of these are going to show the classified stuff and some of the symbols, etc, may change for the military version - but you can still get an idea of what the designers intend the screens to do for the pilot. There isn't anything like that for the SM screens. Trust me I looked. Other than still images I've found a couple videos where you get brief glimpses over the pilot's shoulder, but nothing you can make a sim from. Russian military companies seems to be better at keeping their lips sealed than USA ones. As a flight simulator player I'm on the one hand glad we get that info, but as a military contractor I also shake my head at some of the things we announce to the public.

Rather bleak and incorrect view, think you are selling the Flanker quite short. F-22 and F-35A should be taken out of the equation because even a Gen 4+ fighter will be given a run for their money, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of server admins and missions designers will not allow the use of these fighters - especially if there are older aircraft being used. There are people complaining about the Huey and MiG-21, but these individuals are missing the glaring point that DCS will cover all eras. You simply fly missions and servers that include planes from that era. If you want to fly outside that fighter's generation you do so with the understanding that it'll be more of a challenge. The only thing from your list that I don't see ending up in an Su-27S is the smart A2G munitions - and smart bombs have no bearing on whether this aircraft can be a good fighter against the ones you listed. Everything else should be there with an accurate simulation. I know this thread turned to garbage over the cobra (and I don't want to see that nonsense start up again), but the point that seemed to be missed is that no flight model of the Flanker is going to be accurate if you can't do the same maneuvers that the real thing can. Doesn't matter whether or not it is useful in combat - all this arguing missed the real point that if they make DCS: Su-27S and you can't do the maneuver the flight model is not accurate. End of story. So I can't see ED leaving out something like that, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. Whether the cobra makes it into the FC3 Su-27 AFM I can't say and it may or may not make it in. But if they slap DCS: Su-27S on the title and advertise it as being like A-10C that is a different story - the cobra should be there in that case. I think a good pilot can do just fine in combat against the aircraft you listed with an Su-27S (again barring the F22 and F35). Especially since from what I understand the average DCS multiplayer pilot (circle one): 1. Flies like a drunken orangutan 2. Doesn't know what the hell they are doing (I fall into this category at the moment) 3. All of the above While it is disappointing to not have an SM in the works, things aren't as bleak for flanker fans as the picture you are painting. No need to start sorting your firearms by barrel flavor.

Like Hans mentioned, the screens are likely one of the issues. GG had mentioned that there isn't any material at the moment to demonstrate how the MFDs display information for the pilot. There are still photos, but you need more than still images, especially since you don't get to see all the pages accessible to the pilot from a still image. As for whether there are any plans later, Wags would have to answer that, but I'm sure there is always a chance for it to be developed if they are able to get the necessary information down the road. Fingers crossed.

In terms of the simulation approaching 100% with low speculation (which I'm assuming you meant) - yes, though a painful and reluctant yes. *Sigh* Was really hoping for a R-77 equipped SEAD capable Flanker.:(

At this point I think you are just trolling, but whatever I'll bite. The fact is your statement here is a ridiculous exaggeration. ED didn't just hand over serial numbers for giggles or because Steam just asked for the hell of it. There were plenty of people who asked if they could activate their existing purchased DCS products on Steam. That can't be done without serial numbers to ensure someone isn't just activating something they never purchased. A programmer at Steam then enabled the registration feature that will compare the serials you enter to what is on the list. That guy then probably went to go look at tits on the internet instead of rubbing his hands and cackling that he accomplished his master plan. They are going to destroy everything you love... These are serial numbers, nobody knows you are attached to a serial number until you actually register the product on Steam. If you don't register on Steam, then nobody there knows whether you or Gary Coleman owns that serial number.

I'm skipping the credibility argument because P*Funk already addressed that quite well and I don't feel like stepping into that one anyway. Moving to your Su-33 statement: GG's original post: You said the exact same thing as GG, so what exactly did you hate to break it to him about? It doesn't matter that Sukhoi said they wanted to make the Su-33 at the level of the Su-35 - GG made no comment as to the content of the systems or bashed the plans for it, he just said that these upgrades had never been funded as far as he knew. Which is the exact same thing you said at the end. I'm not understanding what argument you have with him on his Su-33 comment considering you both said the same thing.

Thanks Wags and ED, I'm sure there was some head bangs against a wall trying to figure out how to get that done, it is appreciated.

I've had the same AI issues, apparently being on my side turns them into lushes, while opposing AI has a habit of defeating my incompetent wingman. I do hate the attack chopper AI using the A2G ordinance, they caught me by surprise with that when first starting out on DCS. Was in a Toad and some Apaches were not far from my flight path. I thought "Meh, they don't have any A2A missiles, I'll let those fighters handle it". Don't think I've heard of air-to-ground missiles taking out flying aircraft before in real life, so I didn't think there was a danger. Turns out they shot down both the AI MiGs with their hellfires, then sent one my way. Completely oblivious, my wake-up call was a hellfire taking my tail assembly off, which started the falling leaf routine and I ejected (into the ground unfortunately). At first I was not amused.

Thanks for the info GG. While I'm dismayed to see the 33 go, I am not surprised. 29K already does what they want to upgrade the 33 to do, and the 29K doesn't take up as much deck real estate. While a MiG-29K DCS module would be great, I'm sure we have the same issue as you mentioned for the 27SM (in not knowing how the avionics display information to the pilot). So Su-27S it is.

At this point for me any Flanker with full A-10C level would make me happy. Just a few general questions: I believe it has been mentioned that Su-27S does not have ability to use anti-ship missiles, A2G missiles and ARMs correct? I believe I had read that there are updated Su-33's in service that have systems allowing SEAD, anti-ship missiles and ability to use R-77. Is this information correct? If so would the possibility exist to model this Su-33 in DCS with A-10C level fidelity?

Definitely would like an F-4. A "G" because you have the SEAD option but she still has everything the "E" has (just with upgraded radar/avionics and HARMs for the SEAD role). Granted the "G" wasn't in Vietnam, but neither was the Bis and I think the "G" model would be a better opponent for the Bis. In addition to Vietnam scenarios, when ED puts out the Nevada map mission designers can do Arab-Israeli conflict scenarios (obviously using one's imagination of Nevada being the middle east). Granted we need a real ME map, but I can make do with Nevada until that happens. Might there be a work around for that? Maybe with the really thick jungle have them modeled as a large single object over the terrain that just looks like a mass of trees from the top and sides? Can't land a helicopter or move vehicles through the really thick stuff anyway, just have infantry go through it and make it to where ordinance can still hit them inside the tree object (with decreased damage and dispersion to simulate terrain and trees getting in the way). Chopper landings and vehicles could be done on roads, clearing and paddies. This is of course coming from someone who has only taken a few Java and C# classes, I'm probably completely off on this approach doing any good.