JunMcKill Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) https://warisboring.com/the-man-who-ruined-the-soviet-warplane-industry-b1bd3527e508#.u0ibkp13v Edited January 3, 2017 by JunMcKill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mtnbiker1998 Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Very interesting article! Come fly with me, lets fly, lets fly away! -Sinatra [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] My Specs: Lenovo Y50 with GTX 860m (2GB), i7 4700HQ 2.4GHz, 8GB Ram. Corsair K70(MX Blues are awesome!), Benq GW2760HS monitor, Steelseries V3 Prism headset, TM Warthog Hotas, Sidewinder FFB2 W/ FLCS grip, CH Pro pedals, TrackIR5, KW-908 Jetseat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javelina1 Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Wow, did not know anything about this. Thanks for the link, explains quite a bit. MSI MAG Z790 Carbon, i9-13900k, NH-D15 cooler, 64 GB CL40 6000mhz RAM, MSI RTX4090, Yamaha 5.1 A/V Receiver, 4x 2TB Samsung 980 Pro NVMe, 1x 2TB Samsung 870 EVO SSD, Win 11 Pro, TM Warthog, Virpil WarBRD, MFG Crosswinds, 43" Samsung 4K TV, 21.5 Acer VT touchscreen, TrackIR, Varjo Aero, Wheel Stand Pro Super Warthog, Phanteks Enthoo Pro2 Full Tower Case, Seasonic GX-1200 ATX3 PSU, PointCTRL, Buttkicker 2, K-51 Helicopter Collective Control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 That article is a bit gung-ho for US intelligence - even after they admit that in almost every case the opponents were flying downgraded export versions of old aircraft, and in the case of Iraq after years of sanctions and import restrictions, somehow it's the intelligence that sways the fight, not the lopsidedness of the contest. The Russians knew that their systems were compromised, and took measure to correct that problem. That's why the Russian's developed the MiG-31B - because they knew the US had bought information on the MiG-31 radar. Despite the caption saying Compromised and de-facto obsolete as soon as it entered service — an Su-27SM of the Russian air force, the Soviet government executed Tolkachev in 1986, The SM started entering service in 2004. 1 Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilWillis Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Indeed, it should be taken with a pinch of salt that US forces were effective as a result of intelligence. It is a little bit more complex than that, and superior training, tactics, elecrto magnetic spectrum analysis,and any number of other factors were involved too. Dumbing down stuff to the lowest common denominator is never to be relied on. A factor - possibly, but as the spy they talk about was executed in 1986, I'd say things had moved a long way since then, and to put it down to his activities alone is stretching the truth beyond reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probad Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 hecka stretched, wib's just another sensationalist content mill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunMcKill Posted January 4, 2017 Author Share Posted January 4, 2017 In this case, the spy leak was the one that gave to US, the radar EM pulse frequencies of ground and air platforms, and that's why the american RWR (TEWS) could detect the SARH missile launch from the very first moment, because they already knew the radar guidance freq!, which is a huge advantage in the battlefield in order to take evasive manuevers (and is simulated in DCS either!), beside of the US superior training, tactics and all the technology deployed in the battlefield (AWACS, JAMMERS, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oceandar Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) Its funny that ED can't make DCS Su-27 because Russian policy forbids them while most of their system already compromised based on this article (assuming its true and accurate) Edited January 5, 2017 by Oceandar Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaeagle Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Its funny that ED can't make DCS Su-27 because Russian policy forbids them. Whats funny is that people keep claiming such nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oceandar Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Whats funny is that people keep claiming such nonsense. Interesting, please elaborate Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaeagle Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Interesting, please elaborate Oceandar - when did ED ever say that Russian law forbids them from making a DCS Su-27 module? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuky Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Oceandar - when did ED ever say that Russian law forbids them from making a DCS Su-27 module? :) ED have said a few times that they cannot and will not make a DCS module for any plane that they are not able to get enough information on and of course they need approval to do so as well. The Su-27 is one of those aircraft... that was the case so far anyway, never know if ED will maybe sometime in future get hold of such information and be allowed to create it :) No longer active in DCS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted January 5, 2017 ED Team Share Posted January 5, 2017 Its funny that ED can't make DCS Su-27 because Russian policy forbids them while most of their system already compromised based on this article (assuming its true and accurate) I am not sure someone living and working in Russia would want to use compromised data to create a module, not sure how that still wouldnt get them in hot water ;) Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaeagle Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 ED have said a few times that they cannot and will not make a DCS module for any plane that they are not able to get enough information on Well of course. ... and of course they need approval to do so as well. Do they? :) The Su-27 is one of those aircraft... that was the case so far anyway, never know if ED will maybe sometime in future get hold of such information and be allowed to create it :) I don't believe thats the case Kuky - not when talking about the "baseline" Su-27 or MiG-29 anyway. Its a different story when it comes to upgraded versions(Su-27SM or MiG-29SMT) for which various systems are classified, but then thats always a limitation(not just in Russia). Anyway, there is a difference between being able to get enough documentation for a desired level of simulation and being outright "forbidden" to simulate an aircraft with the level of documentation available :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oceandar Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Oceandar - when did ED ever say that Russian law forbids them from making a DCS Su-27 module? :) You're right that I never read that statement from ED explicitly but I've seen quite lot of people posted about the restriction from Russian authority. I also read on this forum a rumor that ED actually made Su-35 simulation for RUAF and have asked to be allowed to make it game version but then denied. I merely refer to their posts which you think it was just nonsense. That's all Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oceandar Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I am not sure someone living and working in Russia would want to use compromised data to create a module, not sure how that still wouldnt get them in hot water ;) I honestly believe ED could make DCS Su-27 without using compromised data. If there's one software developer that capable of doing that its the only Eagle Dynamics. Just do what RB did with M2K would be enough. Some of its system is just a guessing. But that's not my point actually. My point is why so restricted with something that you knew it was already compromised which is nonsense according to Seaegle Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilWillis Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Chinese whispers regarding what ED can and cannot do with any government's consent is pointless. There are a lot of restrictions regarding modelling aircraft with the accuracy and fidelity demanded in DCS World. Intellectual property is a hurdle, as is access to de-classified data. Above all, there will be huge NDA clauses that will mean ED will probably never reveal what they have been stopped from replicating. But hey, have fun - it'll be conspiracy theories next no doubt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent90 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 There are a lot of restrictions regarding modelling aircraft with the accuracy and fidelity demanded in DCS World. Intellectual property is a hurdle, as is access to de-classified data. Above all, there will be huge NDA clauses that will mean ED will probably never reveal what they have been stopped from replicating. Absolute and utter tosh. There is not a single legal hurdle for anyone to make an aircraft computer game. Get a law degree or keep schtumm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 If you go to the Huey wallpaper in DCS you'll see written in big letters top right that this is an officially licensed product (Bell Helicopter, a Texron company). That's there because of a legal hurdle. Maybe you should do some revision on your law degree 1 Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent90 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) If you go to the Huey wallpaper in DCS you'll see written in big letters top right that this is an officially licensed product (Bell Helicopter, a Texron company). That's there because of a legal hurdle. Maybe you should do some revision on your law degree Ok, so what legal hurdle should that be? :music_whistling: Always great, these armchair experts around here... Edited January 7, 2017 by Vincent90 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oceandar Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 If you go to the Huey wallpaper in DCS you'll see written in big letters top right that this is an officially licensed product (Bell Helicopter, a Texron company). That's there because of a legal hurdle. Maybe you should do some revision on your law degree CMIIW, RB didn't get license or something like that from Dassault for M2K. That's why RB wouldn't want call it Mirage 2000C but rather M2000C. So license is not really an issue I guess Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Ok, so what legal hurdle should that be? :music_whistling: Always great, these armchair experts around here... I thought the phrase officially licensed product was a big clue. Licensing means renting or leasing of an intangible asset. It is a process of creating and managing contracts between the owner of a brand and a company or individual who wants to use the brand in association with a product, for an agreed period of time, within an agreed territory. For the purposes of this discussion, the need to enter into a contract could be taken to be a hurdle. Edited January 7, 2017 by Weta43 Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) CMIIW, RB didn't get license or something like that from Dassault for M2K. That's why RB wouldn't want call it Mirage 2000C but rather M2000C. So license is not really an issue I guess I think it all depends how aggressive the company is about their property rights. RB may be confident that Dassault are reasonably relaxed about protecting their intellectual property rights. Apparently BST thought that (& I believe history has shown) Textron / Bell to be quite aggressive about defending theirs. Perhaps Texron / Bell feel that the American taxpayer spent a lot of money on the development of that helicopter, and it would be a dereliction of their duty to their shareholders if the company weren't to extract the maximum value possible from that investment. <edit> Question - what does "CMIIW" stand for ? <edit> Edited January 7, 2017 by Weta43 Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Oceandar - when did ED ever say that Russian law forbids them from making a DCS Su-27 module? :) You're knocking down a straw man. E.D. have never said it would be illegal, the question is whether given the current climate, it is a sensible move to attempt to use all the available information (and make informed guesses) to create as realistic an outcome as you would want in a full fidelity DCS.Su-27SM module. Say for instance they get lucky and create a SIM of the Su-27SM that an active service pilot would recognise as 95% accurate to current operation. That might then put the company in a position of having to reassure - perhaps even try to prove in court to - the authorities that they came to that point only through legitimate open sources and guestimation, and were not handed information by well meaning people that shouldn't have... The West (with perhaps the exception of Bell / Texron) have traditionally been fairly laissez faire about depictions of their technology in games (there were Airfix kits of the F-117 on the shelves before Congress knew they were funding it). I don't think Russia has the same traditions. Edited January 7, 2017 by Weta43 Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) You really should get out of your basement, finish high school, change everything about yourself and maybe, MAYBE, you get a woman that is more than a 5/10 Thanks for the advice :) I probably should get out of the house - it's a sunny summer afternoon here, but I've got the place to myself for the afternoon so I'm grabbing a bit of computer time. I do get out from time to time though - I went to Bali for a week around August, and Vietnam for 3 weeks in November, and down to the South Island for Xmas / New Year. Looking back - some post-grad study might have been a good idea, but my job is interesting, I've been with the same woman for 16 years, She's definitely better than a 5 ;), we're still happy together which after 16 years is a good & increasingly rare thing, we're comfortable financially, and are thinking about maybe retiring early. I hope your life is as good. Edited January 7, 2017 by Weta43 2 Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts