TaxDollarsAtWork

Do we know if the Su-27S and 33 ever received the Ts100M? It seems as if maybe a later production 90s model or during overhaul since the planes are still in service would be prime time to get it

I'm sorry OP but not all of us are airplane boomers. Some of us enjoy what you might consider a flying iPad.

I do wish some one made an MKI If I'm not mistaken its from about the same time but I'm not as well versed in all its variants and blocks certainly there must be an early one no longer in service that can be done. Albeit air to air exclusive sadly is my guess.

As long as its the P-38Ligma

F/A-18, wins almost all the tournaments and more forgiving to fly than the F-14

Recently uboats said that you guys would need a manual, I thought you guys had one what happened?

I don't know too much about this but good on you OP, it will give us something to compare the ED missile to and help keep them honest about its performance.

I remember when they promised the new Kuznetsov as free They could at least sell the Kuz separately

How about a MiG-29BM instead?

Would much rather have a Su-27SK of Su-27SM of some kind

Clearly not from the prime time television ads I can tell you that.

It sounds to me like you hate your money. I was not charged again when Peer to Peer and JHMCS was added to the F/A-18 or when a higher quality flight model was given to the MiG-29 Now, if ED suddenly decided it wants to take the 1985 spec Su-27S and change it to a 2004 Su-27SM1 or 2009 Su-27SM3 it would be much more comparable to the A-10C II upgrade and I'd be more than happy to give money for that paid upgrade. Right now it would be better if they completely model the baseline one they promised was feature complete years ago.

You've touched on radar detection ranges, but what about OLS-29/27 figures, do we have sources confirming the authenticity of the in game representation?

The main examples of which are the AGM-62 Walleye on the F/A-18C and the ability to bring and fire off four HARMs in the F-16 despite what actual USAF maintainers have said. Actions like this by ED really undermine the level of authenticity in my opinion especially with relation to the F-16's example and if that's as low a standard as ED would like to stoop to then it makes perfect sense to apply this to all planes in, like giving R-77s to RuAF Flankers and justifying it because export Su-27SK's can use it or AIM-132s & IRIS-Ts to the US F/A-18C despite Australia and Spain being among the only countries fielding such a modification, Harpoons on an F-16 because of their presence on say Greek and Taiwanese planes, Grom-Bs on a Russian Mi-8 etc etc Seems to me like a double standard and I'd like it for ED to go back to being by the book on every plane mostly.

No in this thread no one has posted figures on how they are underperforming but the Devs have been made aware in other threads It's not a thing of balance, I don't think a 2000s RuAF can really take on a 2000s USAF fielding F-22s and the like. It's a matter of representing the RuAFs capabilities in a given period. Take this as an example, you can't have a sim about the second battle of guadalcanal without giving the IJN long lance torpedo's and then replacing battleship Kirishima with the much older Mikasa or say with the total absence of the South Dakota and North Carolina class battleships. While replacing the Kirishima with an older pre Jutland battleship would probably yield the same results; a USN victory and yes it would still be an uneven match between the Mikasa and USS Washington in the latter's favour, it would cease to be a sim of the Second Battle of guadalcanal. As it no longer accurately depicts IJN strength in the engagement.

Chizh has said we currently have an RMD-1 though the -2 is said to come some time later. I'm curious as to when. Hopefully with the CFD R27s

No, you are mistaken. And I don't blame you, its hard to understand what some of these charlatans want since they argue for them in the most roundabout and stupid ways, such as these unneeded pseudo intellectual comparisons to psychology and hinting at notions of game balancing as if it were a MOBA. The problem is that the missiles available to the Su-27 namely the R-27s and R-77s in game are underperforming relative to their real life counterparts, in the same way the AIM-120 and AIM-7 once were. This means you obviously need to complain about the missiles to get them fixed. That is how bug reporting works, isn't it? The thread was quickly taken off the rails and it became awfully muddled, among other things people wanted the values and performance of existing planes and units to reflect real world behaviour and the inclusion of new contemporary units. Now, of course such unbalanced match ups can occur when the third world faces off with a first world army, but think about it like this, in Operation Inherent Resolve the US wouldn't be sending a Forestall class carrier with F-4s A-1s and A-7s it would be silly. Likewise most of Russia's air defense and fighters this day and age wouldn't be MiG-23s and SA-6s but instead Su-30SMs and Tor-M1/2s Russian forces in the sim lacking these units in a modern sim is a flaw I don't see why any would try and argue against it, let the mission designer have the tools to represent an 1989 Russia or a 2015 Russia if he so pleases

They've been asked a few times and have said no to a playable J-15

Why, that's mighty nice for those who don't think like me. I do believe they should suck a fat one. Might just be high time for them to start. Any reading through this thread you're not too far off the mark, it's not a matter of game balance it's a matter of sim authenticity. FC3 aircraft are missing a great deal of their capabilities, the Fighters being some of the hardest hit and they've been neglected by ED for sometime, I look in bewilderment as ED adds capabilities not present in real F/A-18Cs & F-16Cs, while the F-15C, Su-27S, and MiG-29s go without accurate performance of existing systems or without them present to begin with. The community has asked Devs about it and only received double talk like when @Chizh told us the Su-27 Fighter to Fighter DL would not be implemented as its a FC3 aircraft. Despite Kate & Bignewey saying it would in fact be added. So much for calling it a 'Finished Product' I suppose. But it extends past the FC3 aircrafts in my opinion. A major flaw is the implementation of assets such as SAMs and Ships etc. in the game and availability of the correct assets. Not only are many of the existing ones significantly under-performing in terms of lethality (I wonder why the community only thought the 120 was blighted by this) DCS also lacks a lot of modernised SAMs ground/naval units and Aircraft from the 2000s and 1990s. As far as I'm concerned I don't know why the mission editor even allows you to select 'Russia' in 2016 because all it has to offer in DCS is legacy equipment in service at the end of the Soviet Union, its one thing to not have a modernised redfor tactical fighter such as a Su-27SM, J-11B or MiG-29SMT available as a player module, but to not even have it present as an AI opponent along with say S-300PMUs really hurts one's ability to sim a 'what if' 2000s era show down between NATO, China and Russia. All we are asking for is a realistic depiction of aircraft and systems we have in game, and the inclusion of systems that would allow us to properly sim a turn of the century near peer adversary. Things like the Chinese asset pack are a step in the right direction hopefully ED learns a thing or two from them.

Does anyone know if the MFI-55 will allow for more Datalink Contacts to be displayed than with the TKS?

Have they said anything about JH-7s? Even an early one would be fun

I see, I think I have a 1-34 on an F-15C some where but I based the assumption on this; 'The All Aspect Gun sight: Returning Short Range Efficiency to the F-15' https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a192615.pdf

Why is reprogramming not planned? Is it because it was not part of the system or some other reason? How about other FC3 Aircrafts? Could the Eagle get the EEGS gun funnel perhaps? iirc they've had them since about 1988 and your manuals list it as having an APG-63v1 (plus the ability to use 120C5s and 120Bs) How about the Radar on the Eagle as well? Do you plan to use some estimates based of APG-63 baseline numbers to get near APG-63v1 estimated performance based of what Eagle SMEs can say? Or will it get 70s radar performance, that would be quite an anachronism

On the topic of Avionics briefly whats ED's opinion on allowing the SPO-15 to be reprogrammable through a kneeboard on the ground so that certain threats can be displayed differently?

Aside from Peer to Peer and Fighter to Fighter DL modes Will the SPO-15 threats also be re programmable as either an MFD page or on the ground in the knee board