zerO_crash

Where did you exactly check Igla-1 performance in DCS BaD? Sure, first generation of manpads have poor PK, that goes for Red Eye/Stinger as well as Igla-1. Surely you don't mean the strelets on Ka-50 which has 9M342?! That is Igla-S, also known as "Igla Super". Back when it was released, it had a unclassified PK of more than 95%. Classified is most definitely higher. It's hard to compare based on loose data, but Polish Piorun is the most efficient manpad in the west based on feedback from Ukraine. Igla-S plays in that realm, hence why aircraft tactics have changed to long range attacks on both sides. For the record, Verba is entering service for some time now, as a successor to Igla-S. They are pretty much the most efficient manpads in the world, bar none. As to Mistral, its claimed efficiency is 96% PK, however those are synthetic tests. I find no actual combat results confirming these statistics in the field. Assume them similar, since little information from wars ever reach disclosure, and plackards are all we have to go off in case of Mistral.

I imagine that it's the software-side of the suite, which is the bigger problem here. JF-17 was mainly designed by China, but one thing they absolutely did not want to export, was the software of the airplane (cockpit ecosystem). Same goes for pretty much all of their exports. They will sell you the hardware, minus software to control it all (and other components like IFF for example). With the J-8PP, you really have a western digital suite in the cockpit. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the main objection against J-8II. Also, the tricky part with such laws, is that they are written in abstract, meaning that they basically work as a mechanism for persecution. Pretty much anything that walks on legs can be persecuted, should the government/relevant governmental organ, decide so. That's really the problem in most countries overall.

This isn't really my trade at all, so your guess is as good as mine. One thing is fore sure, the models have been verified in multiple ways, and I guess 2 modules have so far in the history of DCS needed a slight correction on the exterior. They do get it right, that's for sure. They do use photgrammetry as well, it has been mentioned around. Beyond that, it's a digital artist's playfield. In VR for example, everything looks correct compared to the actual aircraft I have sat in the cockpit of. This is further confirmed by mixed reality, where overlapping of hommade cockpit and the virtual one, coincide. I wouldn't worry about anything related to this, there is a reason DCS and ED have the reputation they have. Afterall, their commercial side delivers on military contracts. That should grant credibility enough, though it's always important to have an open and critical mind. Don't worry, MiG-29 will be amazing, no doubt about it!

Well, I'd say that he is definitely worth mentioning, but then again, to keep it short. Ufimtsev was still the first recorded scientist (mathematician) to consider the concept of geometry stressing reduced observability. They both work though. I'm not too familiar with the laws surrounding military in China (specifics), but it could be something as simple as China still keeping those aircraft (J-8II) in the inventory for a dark hour. Much like the airplane graveyard in US (Texas I believe). Again, not sure of this, just guessing. I am somewhat sure that Deka would choose the more common J-8II if they could. Thinking of more accessible information, documents, pilots, etc... There is obviously a reason they didn't though. EDIT: Looking at it online, it seems that some later J-8F/H reconnaissance version is still in active use in the PLAAF. That could be a solid reason for why the J-8II (with homemade electronics/software) could be a touchy subject. Pure speculation here though.

Granted the nature of forums, and me attempting to keep multiple points short, no. Considering the whole topic at hand, yes. It's that story in a very rough outline, however, still to the point. To think of "stealth" as the next generational leap, would definitely not have been as obvious or accessible, if not for the hard work being done on beforehand. It is really the work of Ufimtsev, that gave US any ability to perform analysis on the viability of stealth, before even making it a demand for the next generation of attack platform. You might think that US would have its own engineers and scientists on the case and be done with it ASAP on their own. Truth is, even with the advancement of the west in certain particular fields, there are areas they objectively lag very far behind. A good example here would be rocket engines. The lag in rocket engine technology is stipulated to be roughly 20-25 years. When NASA first got access Russian rocket engines, they were amazed at how Russians managed to solve issues, which they themselves believed were in practical terms impossible with current technology, and near future. Keep in mind, space exploration and Saturn-V are considered smong the most expensive projects in US history. Point is, talking about "what ifs" is contemporary in nature, we will never know. What is known however, is that F-22/F-35 programs would not only cost more in money and manpower, but essentially in time. That is assuming that US would reach the same conclusions as they did with information available at hand. This is topic can be expanded left and right, but it does stand clear that whichever country you are from, you use technology available at hand. That, irrespective of where that technology comes from. WWII didn't happen too long ago, yet US was willing to forgive Von Braun snd his team of scientists their deeds, as long as they came and worked (lead) the US rocketry initative. Same with Japanese Unit 731 with Shirō Ishii ahead. None of these "people" ever saw justice, amnesty was granted in return for the data on experiments which they carried out. Again, the examples are endless. Don't think for a second that it's any different now. Let's not derail the thread too much. Should you wonder about more, or want to talk about the topic in makro/mikro, shoot me a PM. EDIT: To answer your edit, definitely the F-117 as well, which realy was nothing else than a live proof of concept. Effectively, both F-117 and B-2 opened the doors to the realm of "stealth", which is what US specifically builds its future capability for a high level conflict on. It only further underlines the point, as you mention. My point is, there really is no object built in this world, which is solely an invention of one nation. There is a mix of technologies, some dating back milleniums. In this respect, the J-8PP is thus no different.

When you perform an actual scan of an aircraft (or any object for that matter), you would have to take that file and process it further through 3DSMax for creating textures, animations, augumentations, etc... That does preserve the original scan, albeit with retouching. A cockpit is a relatively small part to scan though. While scanning a whole aircraft wouldn't be too difficult, again, the issue lies on the user-side. The modules would not be a couple of GB each, but rather an order of magnitude more. What I hear is a common technique instead, is to perform even a complete scan of an object, and then have that as a print for topology. An artist would then use this print, and redraw the neccessary polgyons, in order to conform with the geometry. The process is called "retopology". Again, this is what's commonly know, however what ED uses, you'd have to specifically ask them about. Purely size-wise though, a 1-4GB module is definitely not a complete 3D scan, not by a longshot.

No one does 3D scanning (laser scanning) of complete aircraft. That would be far more polygons to render, than actual hardware is capable of running at anything above 30 fps. Cockpits, however, do get 3D scanned. Heatblur was the first company to, at least publicly, disclose that they were doing. Nowadays, more 3rd parties are doing to so. ED hasn't yet admitted to doing it, but wouldn't be surprised if they did it anyways. I have used 2D + TrackIR (later on) from LOMAC to DCS, and now VR for 8 years. What is it exactly that isn't up to standard with the F-16 according to you? EDIT: Here is an example of 3D scanning being utilized to create realistic human pilot model:

There are many wrong statements being made here, as per open forum standards. Let's try and clean it up a bit: With regards to what the general idea and purpose of DCS is as a simulator, here is the extract from the welcoming page for www.dcsworld.com: "Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.9 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game. Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible. This free download includes a vast mission area of the Caucasus region and Black Sea that encompasses much of Georgia. It also includes a flyable Russian Sukhoi Su-25T ground attack aircraft and the famous WWII North American TF-51D fighter. An additional more than two dozen aircraft are available for purchase." I suggest everyone read the above very closely, to understand the spirit of the developers. If you want a module for which there is insufficient information for, I suggest you wait for ED's "game"-variant of DCS, or simply go for available games out there. This is afterall a simulator, as per definition, and its main interest lies in delivering an authentic experience. That's all there is to it, topic finished! Now, as to some comparisons being made earlier here: - The Ka-50 we have, was not only a prototype, but an actual variant ready for production. It was ready for full-scale production, if Soviet Union would have decided to go on ahead with the product (ultimately, financial matters, and the collapse of Soviet Union, decided on the matter). The Ka-50 we have has been tested and evaluated in combat (two of them, to be precise), and proved their worth. Again, this was a complete product ready for mass production. - There is only one IL-2 with a Alison V-1710-113 engine, a restored one residing in US. The original ones (non-restored) used Mikulin, with propositions for Shvetsov that never materialized. I get what the author tried to argue with, but frankly, it's not the best example. I will point out; while ED and their subordinates (3rd parties) have on occasion made dubious choices with regards to armaments/systems (something that has bit them in the tail in the aftermath - questions raised on the forums), most of these "artefacts" have been handled with "will be solved". For example, it took quite some time for the Mirage 2000C to be corrected based on input supplied by pilots from AdA (French Air Force), same with the Sa-342 (after initial developer reluctance). As to MiG-21Bis, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it is not neccessarily an abomination, but certainly a module with many faults in it (not bugs!). It has been confirmed that it will be redone in MiG-21Bis 2.0, and so far, let's stick to that. It just goes to show that if you screw up with realism initially, you are adding yourself work for later. Deka surely has no lack of ambition in wanting to bring more Chinese modules to the market, however as has been hinted earlier on, it's a matter of local laws granting persecution. For comparison, we will never have as modern aircraft modelled from Russia, as there currently are from US (F-16, F-18, F-15, etc...). Better accept that, and move on. Little can be done about it. If Deka feels that this is the most relevant aircraft that can be represented without infringing themselves, then I suppose that's an educated choice. Especially, if they are confident that they have enough information on the matter, and pilots, who even with approximation, can give a solid feedback. Be patient, I'm sure they'll deliver! Lastly, much has been mentioned about the "westernization" and "stealing" of tech, to then implement it in ones own. Well guess what, the western crowd might be the loudest on this side of the forum, but let me point out the following; US would not have had the F-22/F-35 and the concept for stealth, if not for Pyotr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev (father of modern mathematics behind stealth - his formulas were used by US to develop F-22 and F-35 stealth models). F-35 alone, was based mainly on Yak-141, which they participated in funding, as they saw benefit in it themselves. I guess flying an F-35 today, one cannot help but feel like flying a Yak-141, or? (Sarcasm). Maybe helmet mounted sight is original US? I guess not, actually, it was made originally by a private military subcontractor in South Africa. Datalink, another conecept which came originally from Russia (the way we see it as a system today). Automation in ships/submarines/aircraft, I won't even mention... US, Russia, China, any other country, the way it works is that each country steals technology from their peers. Let's not forget who was first to invent black powder, and how it magically ended up in the west without any credit being paid. When it comes to aerial warfare, due to China being a relatively new (but competent) player in the field, you'll see some mixed foreign components in their designs from 60s and all the way up to 2000s. This is common practice, afterall.

Iglas work great, they are not the problem - the uneven AI damage model is. An Igla missile will gladly take out a human-controlled or AI-controlled (albeit with realistic damage modelling) aircraft. However, certain older units, will take a multitude of even AT-missiles (that's not only a destruction due to pressure and minor parts penetrating, that is a AT penetrator going through them and exploding inside), and yet fly onwards with no damage. The most prominent units that come to mind are; Mi-28, Chinook, MiG-25, AH-1H Cobra, some of the bigger bombers/transporters, etc... If Iglas wouldn't work, Russians wouldn't use them. As for the rest of the topic, there are people here complaning on things which are not a matter of unit vs. unit, but rather ideology and strategy. It seems that the urge to create a new thread conplaining about lack of equal weaponry with a comparative opponent, is greater, than the urge to open any decent history book or machine-specific document. I will add a relatively short document (public distribution permitted) on mindset (basic analysis of qualities, operation, application, and mission-set) of AH-64A. Granted, it is the older Apache, but it will give insight into how to think about this platform. For example, the thinking presented here in the thread stipulates meeting every threat head on with a hammer, whilst the document might develop your thinking into being smart about who you pick your fights with, and where. Is it really smart to attempt to engage an Mi-24 or Ka-50, knowing they are faster and more agile at speed? Maybe it's better to hide instead, make use of the dual crew, advanced sensors and ability to choose whether to engage or not? Maybe the Mi-24 will land to deploy a squad of troops, maybe the Ka-50 will come to a hover in full visual. And hell, if they don't, no loss in not having engaged them. Maybe it was better to get on the radio and inform air traffic about it?! We have the modules, now virtual pilot quality must improve. Btw. I fly on the other side of the "curtain", so you are getting some gold info. here. ADA339637.pdf

Which manual are you refering to? (If you're unsure if it's legal, don't link it here, simply give me the name or version.). From the Russian Su-27SK manual: General PU (G-load) is 8G max below M=1.25. Above that, it's 6,5G max. There are more values to consider here, chief amongst - weight. However, for simplicity, it's what's stated above. However, the manual states shortly thereafter that for short durations, PU (G-load) of 9G max, is permitted. In other words, the manual makes a distinction between short overload bursts, and sustained. What's essential to keep in mind here, is that the sustained G-load restriction has nothing to do with steuctural design (Su-27 family of fighters is designed for 9G+), but rather extending the airframe life for as long as possible. Think of it as the soft limiter of US F-18, where non naval variants (Finnish for example), are rated at 9G. The briefly mentioned 8G sustained thus becomes merely a policy, not a technical/structural resteiction.

Flanker is rated as a 9G+ platform, same as MiG-29, both in all of their iterations. DCS and IRL alike.

"You completely FAILED to MISS the point that I made,...". Indeed I failed to miss the point, thus, I got it right. Going through the responses, you make no point at all, other than claiming that the manuals for F-16 and F-18 aren't 400+ pages long. Point being, even if they are too short and lacking material, which they are, it still compares favourably to the Mi-24P official manual which doesn't even contain the whole startup-procedure. JF-17 English manual is no better, seeing how JF-17 has been out a fair bit longer. It seems that you confused yourself, of all people, around here. Guess it happens. Point in case, the Mi-24 should by now have at least a decent manual explaining even the most rudimentary systems. There are many who don't have access, or even the will, to search for real world ones.

Normally, I don't revive threads from a former year, but seeing how this response isn't even a month old - you are in the wrong. Look again:

Yeah, saw it! Curious what else. The fact that we will finally get a proper semi-modern Russian jet, is beyond words! Great times ahead!

Splendid news! Couldn't be better! It's really about time that we got the MiG-29 as a full-fledged module, chief amongst ASM. Curious what new technologies will be implemented

We definitely do know the cause of why Ka-50 BS3 doesn't have the sling capability implemented. The aforementioned, was stated on the Russian side of the forums. The feature itself, shouldn't demand any individual maintenance, however that is something ED can answer. Still, this was not included in the argument reasoning to exclude it. I would absolutely question the notion of adultry on these forums, even compared to "games", or your average dotcom-forum. While the average age (mean age would offer a more relevant comparison) will be higher, the enthusiasm does show. The fact that multiple 3rd party devs, along with ED, have gone silent as to their updates, is because the crowd has a tendency to propell the train faster than it can be controlled. Whilst ED representatives have been far more open, back in the day, they have to think twice before posting anything nowadays, otherwise context gets altered or no respect is given to the possibility of changing geopolitics (what we deal with here, can often be of a very sensitive nature), and the next thing you see is "#TwoWeeks". The same goes for accepting highly relevant arguments against attempting to model with a lack of information. You'd be surprised how many people here want the F-35 in DCS, where, to be honest, you shouldn't possibly need ED to tell you that they won't get any relevant info about the module for the next half a millenium. I'm not going to mention all the wishes for sharks with lasers, but there are a fair amount of fairy tale conceptions here. Really, a quick swipe through forums, will reveal constant "When is it coming?"-type of topics. As to the above mentioned ability to sling load for Ka-50 BS3, it certainly is realistic, and an upgrade from BS2 to BS3, should be all about adding more realism, not forfeit on certain aspects. I'm sure we'll get it at some point.

There will always be people who create liveries for different aircraft. There are chaps on the forum who only do liveries, they don't even fly themselves. Having a regular schedule, would mean that they could focus on different aircraft around. The previous competitions have certainly yielded results. The Mi-24P for example, has far too few liveries for too long. This is an essential part of the simulator, as it permits the recreation of different scenarios, and that, in a believable fashion. ED can win big time here.

I am writing this specifically with Ka-50 and Mi-24P in mind, albeit there are more modules that will apply here: Seeing how the assortment for liveries (tactical camouflage really) for certain of your modules is somewhat limitied, I thought about using the community here more actively. In order for ED to save on manpower, cost and time, besides the couple liveries introduced upon the release of each module; why don't you run more competition on the forums. There is more than enough talent to draw from, and it seems like a win-win for ED and the community. The specifics can be discussed on how to do this, however as an initial thought - why not organize such contests roughly one to two years after the release of a module where the virtual artists provide their artwork within certain specification (only realistic liveries or very close approximations (Ka50<->Ka52), certain symbols only partly represented (WWII<->Swastika), etc...)? You have done such competitions before, however, not consecutively. My proposition is to work it into your business model, and as such, both satisfy the community by delivering more and faster (quality being priority), and having to spend less time and money on your side. I imagine that if you could incorporate such a practice within your business, more 3rd parties would follow along, thus allowing each snd every of you to focus more on central matters/issues/bugs at hand. Consider it, as it could become of great benefit to us all! zerO

It ought to be said; until the AI damage model is more uniform and consistent across, we will have to live with Igla not granting a successful outcome. With that said, if you engage a human-controlled aircraft, the worst case scenario (for you), is the subject having to RTB due to damage (fuel leak, irresponsive or degraded flight control authority, optics/systems damaged, etc...). Let's hope the damage model gets improved in not too long

EDIT: Correction. In that case, you didn't wait long enough for PNK-800 (K-041 switch) to finish alignment.

Preciesely! I honestly hope that they change their minds at some point, and while there are more important tasks at hand (pilot body, custom amount of Vikhrs per pylon and more), the decision whether to include systems or not, shouldn`t be based off the usefulness-factor. Taking manpower into consideration, the primary selling point of this simulator, is its authenticity and ability to truthfully recreate.

(Besides demonstrating the capability.) The system will be used very seldomly, if at all IRL. There are other helicopters specifically tailored for utility/lift/cargo that are cheaper to operate and better equipped for the task (crew chief assisting in the physical work) - Mi-8/Mi-26/Ka-26/Ka-27/Ka-29/Ka-32/etc... EDIT: About the most you will see a Ka-52 transporting, other than weapons and fuel tanks, are travel pods (which I have requested for our Ka-50).

Here is an example from the cockpit of Ka-50 #23 (blue cockpit): "ТРОС" - CABLE (This button is for releasing the load.) "ТРОС" - CABLE (This button is for activating the sling stabilization system.) This is known however from before, that's why manual lists those buttons as well. The problem really is, this doesn't constitute a proof in itself. Pretty much every Ka-50 cockpit that I have seen poctures of, has the A-A button on the collective, yet no evidence exists of any heat-seeking rocket being tested on it. Quite the contrary, the switch isn't even wired in the contemporary machines. Supposedly, the Ka-50 had sling-capability, however ED deemed the helicopter too exclusive IRL, in order to ever be used for this (have you ever seen a Ka-52 sling load something, other than proof of concept? - nope). That said, if the helicopter had sling-capability (it had), then it should be included in the module.

Certain parts of the manual are either outdated, wrong or undercommunicating. This is one of them. Don't worry though, there aren't many of the above mentioned overall. In certain cases, one can notice that the manual was written first in Russian, then translated to English, as the syntax in a given sentence is off.