john_X Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 if you guys need a 3D model for the Lancer version and a teammate... btw i'm from Romania, i understand you guys have a teammate from Romania too, maybe it could be a good sign: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3079687#post3079687 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyforDCS Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 I think a Lancer upgrade for the Mig21 BIS, maybe sold as an addon DLC, would make short term financial sense for Leatherneck. It would also be a great addition the sim in general, as there are really no confirmed OPFOR planes on the horizon. I hardly fly the Mig21 anymore, though I will probably go back to it at some point. I would definitely buy a Lancer -C upgrade. (or any variant really) I guess it all depends on how much time/resources LN can devote to a project like that. There is also the problem of getting information on the plane itself. Don't know how much of it is classified, Im pretty sure the Serbian air force has no Lancers in their fleet so I doubt Novak has access to any info on it. Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Dragon Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) I think a Lancer upgrade for the Mig21 BIS, maybe sold as an addon DLC, would make short term financial sense for Leatherneck. It would also be a great addition the sim in general, as there are really no confirmed OPFOR planes on the horizon. I hardly fly the Mig21 anymore, though I will probably go back to it at some point. I would definitely buy a Lancer -C upgrade. (or any variant really) I guess it all depends on how much time/resources LN can devote to a project like that. There is also the problem of getting information on the plane itself. Don't know how much of it is classified, Im pretty sure the Serbian air force has no Lancers in their fleet so I doubt Novak has access to any info on it. A Lancer upgrade require a IP and renegotiate the Module License or get a new. And review what part has "classified" by the russian goverment. Edited March 14, 2017 by Silver_Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Dragon Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Nowhere in this thread did anyone suggest more maps. I only make a recommendation based on that conclusion... I think many developers, including ED themselves, need to re-think their strategy. Pretty soon we will have ALOT of airplanes (several really good ones in the pipeline), but we still have very little good content for many modules. All developers need to shift their main focus to content creation in the future (both maps and campaigns). Great content will lift DCS to awesomeness, not another 10-20 aircraft modules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyforDCS Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 A Lancer upgrade require a IP and renegotiate the Module License or get a new. And review what part has "classified" by the russian goverment. As far as I know the Lancer upgrade is done in Romania. It has nothing to do with the Mikoyan-Gurevich design biro. Perhaps if it was done by Eagle Dynamics directly it would require some sort of special deal or at least premission from the Russian government, however Leatherneck is not based in Russia, and since it is based on an upgrade variant that is not used by the Russian Air Force, with an existing module I don't believe an IP renegotiation would be necessary. I believe ED would easily grant permission for an upgraded module, or even a new module, based on LN's previous quality of work. All of this is pure speculation at the moment. Just because we want something doesn't mean it will get done. However I believe if Novak got hold of a Lancer manual, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of impossibility. Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Dragon Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) As far as I know the Lancer upgrade is done in Romania. It has nothing to do with the Mikoyan-Gurevich design biro. Perhaps if it was done by Eagle Dynamics directly it would require some sort of special deal or at least premission from the Russian government, however Leatherneck is not based in Russia, and since it is based on an upgrade variant that is not used by the Russian Air Force, with an existing module I don't believe an IP renegotiation would be necessary. I believe ED would easily grant permission for an upgraded module, or even a new module, based on LN's previous quality of work. All of this is pure speculation at the moment. Just because we want something doesn't mean it will get done. However I believe if Novak got hold of a Lancer manual, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of impossibility. ED has based on Russia....... Do you think ED can "approve" a module and immerse after on a "military law violation" without a proper IP and / or some type military clearance (Russian / Romanian / Israel.... etc) approved? . A "manual" dont get you a approval..... and a "upgrade" module can require a IP if the initial version (Bis) exceed the "contract" signed with the 3rd party and ED. Has a same situation if I intent build a T-72B3 module and move to build a "upgrade" with a PT-91 Twardy, the based module has the same, but the systems has not similar (can require different IPs and / or approvals). Other example, A-10C has only approval the Suite 3 (I remember) to the "entertainment" version, if ED like build a Suite 8, need renegotiate the contract and get a "clearance". Edited March 14, 2017 by Silver_Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyforDCS Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) Not sure what you are getting at Silver Dragon. Are you telling me that ED needs to get approval from the Russian government for every module planned or released in DCS? Im pretty sure that this is false in all cases that don't involve Russian or Soviet planes still in service today. (Or maybe planes that used techonology that is still in service today). If what you wrote here were true, we wouldn't have the M2000C. The Dessault company did not allow Razbam to make a fully licenced model, so they changed the name. ED approved . Problem solved. I very much doubt the company that does Lancer upgrades would have a problem with an ingame version of a "Lancer". But even if it did, there are way around those obstacles. The biggest problem is not obtaining permission, but getting correct information and actually deciding to budget and build the module. Edited March 14, 2017 by OnlyforDCS Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterH Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Lancer doesn't have upgraded Russian origin equipment as far as I know. Upgrades are mainly of Israeli origin. Baseline airframes are earlier versions thanbthe Bis we already have. So SilverDragon, frombthis point of view your argument of approval from Russian MoD for LanceR does seem to be moot. But overall issue of finding the info and approvals is indeed valid for it, just not from Russia in my opinion. Sent from my ASUS_Z00ED using Tapatalk Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V DCS-Dismounts Script Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Dragon Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) ED need have some type of legal security with the modules build by 3rd parties to get a "clearance" (some forgiven very fast the old Douglas - IL-2 legal issue or others). That is not only: 3rd Party: "I go to make a Mig-25" ED: "Approved" And some week and / or year later.... "legal citation on the court by violation of IP / etc...." and demand with fee or worse. From a old post on 2016 I make a recompilation of "approvals" and IPs Issues. About IP.... some facts.... - The previous A-10C approval with the DTT ANG. Ka-50 was based on a "technological demonstrator" with Kamov. - Belsimtek need some months of negotiation with Bell Trexton to get a approval to release the UH-1H. Mi-8 was based on a professional flight simulator trainer (AVIA LTD/Concord XXI), approved to release some years after professional version was release. - VEAO was initial plans to make a A-4 Skyhawk but deplete them with the licence money request to the IP was prohibitive expensive. The Hawk T.1 was require Royal Air Force (RAF) approval to release (2+ years legal negotiation about a specific version). Now work with RAF on a Eurofighter Trainer, but the "approval" version to entertainment version has heavy restricted (actually on progress but not release date). Has other "military project" approved but not news about what model or if we can see them. - Polychop required a EADS / German government approval to release the Sa342 Gazelle project and now await the approval to the Bo-105. - Russian aircraft's has restricted by the "official secret military law", and actually has none russian confirmed as "hardcore" modules. - ED require to all 3rd parties some type of gubernamental / professional and / or military "approval" to get a module develop into DCS: World. RAZBAM surely get some type of "approval" IP or similar to ED accept the module develop and cover them about a legal issue. Edited March 14, 2017 by Silver_Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_X Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Lancers A and C, are M and MF versions of the Mig-21, the C models are in fact MF-75 version. These versions have very little in common with the Bis version regarding the flight dynamics, although there is a commonality in original cockpit architecture of the Bis and MF-75. So, the Lancer flies like a MF but fights like an israeli F-16. The avionics are israeli made and they are made by Elbit to be as close as they would be to the F-16. I have much information about the Lancers and i want to form a Lancer team somewhere in the future. For now, i'm finishing the external model, next is the cockpit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drag0nWIng Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 well, digital western combat world, it's a pity to hear no team work on mig23. sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 the C models are in fact MF-75 version To LanceR C standard were brought 2 MFs and 24 MF-75s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts