Realistic or Balance - J-11A Datalink

[Stuge]

Whatever you do.. please don't just remove the datalink like what happened to the Mig-29S (MFD only has HUD repeater). This approach causes "collateral damage" as there is no top-down radar view once a target has been locked which causes BIG problems in combat...

[microvax]

If the plane didn't have the hardware at all as I understand it, remove the functionality.

[Mars Exulte]

edit

Edited May 11, 2018 by zhukov032186

[Oceandar]

I agree this need clarification. If the plane itself has DL equipment then keep it, if not then remove it. It could make it unique gameplay with J-11, kinda like 29SM with few advantages. R-77 but no DL.

[Tello]

Ad a 3rd option to the vote. "Realism to best possible degree" should be the goal.

 

If any module in DCS World can have gamechanging features voted in/out. Well then we are back to DC and have to work hard to get the S back in the sentence.

[L0op8ack]

As I understood,

Update 1: add R-77 shooting capability;

Update 2: replace old MFD with MFI-55;

Update 3: install Made-In-China DL

 

It's a bit confusing to keep U1 and U3, without U2.

 

My suggestion:

1) if DIS will/can not finish U2, remove U3, J-11A stay as U1, for realistic

or

2) if DIS decide to finish U2, keep U1 and U3, eventually, we will get J-11A U3. Still, it's realistic

Edited May 11, 2018 by L0op8ack

[*Rage*]

If the plane didn't have the hardware at all as I understand it, remove the functionality.

 

D2M....

[Dudikoff]

As I understood,

Update 1: add R-77 shooting capability;

Update 2: replace old MFD with MFI-55;

Update 3: install Made-In-China DL

 

It's a bit confusing to keep U1 and U3, without U2.

 

There are additional aspects here, IMHO, already mentioned.

 

So, again:

1) did the plane keep the Russian export-level DL equipment (as it is apparently mentioned in the Su-27SK manual) which would work with Russian ground stations/AWACS (e.g. if they're in the same coalition in the mission), and

2) if this Russian export-level DL equipment is kept in J11A, than in-flight DL between J11A's of the same flight group (up to 4 would be RL limitation, I presume?) should still work.

 

Still waiting for a comment on this from the OP.

 

Not sure what Chinese ground equipment is included, but if the original DL equipment is still there in the early J11A, then I would prefer to keep the DL functionality and add required Russian ground units to the Chinese coalition making them optional for the scenario creator.

 

But, I presume that currently, the DL functionality is not tied to specific equipment (as we don't have these ground stations in the game), but more to unit types of either EWR or AWACS to be present in the mission, right? Are there any Chinese specific EWR and AWACS units in the game at the moment, anyway?

Edited May 11, 2018 by Dudikoff

[uboats]

no, not installed in exported 27SK to China nor 11A

[DarksydeRob]

D2M....

 

 

Haha was waiting for someone to mention that. If this gets removed for realism as it dosent have it IRL (If it doesnt have DL built in). Then I want that to be removed as well from the mirage.

[Esac_mirmidon]

In the Mirage is an option. Not mandatory

[DarksydeRob]

In the Mirage is an option. Not mandatory

 

Still funny how they added it while being obvious the M2C we have didnt have it. Plus not like every server has it enabled or anything...

[_e10]

Meh, had to vote for realism.

Would be nice to have a better redfor fighter but... at the end DCS is (and should be) still a simulator.

When we now start to trade realism for balance what will come next? Remove the aim-120c? ;)

[GrizzlyVzla]

Keep it as realistic as possible

[probad]

this shouldnt even be left up to a vote

 

ask yourself what points of merit sets dcs apart from its competition and you will find your answer

[Schmidtfire]

Keep current capability!

 

1. The chinese modified the J-11A, this might be some "interim variant" where data-link was possible. I think it is at least a plausible situation.

 

2. It adds capability. Now for all you realism hardcore guys, think a sec. Aircrafts are often exstensively modified IRL. While realism is great, DCS is pretty far away in a lot of areas. How about all the fantasy systems on the Su-25T? I hear no complains about that It can do SEAD and stuff. And people in MP are lobbing tripple racked AGM-65s from their A-10C in force correlate mode, that is also not very realistic. This is a minor thing that actually brings Redfor aircraft up in capability and that is a good thing.

 

EDIT.

 

Changed my mind. Remove and keep it close to realistic as possible. Chinese only cockpit etc. You did a good job on the J-11A so let's defferentiate it from the other RU aircraft

 

@uboats Won't the MiG-29S avionics be closer to the J-11A?

Edited May 12, 2018 by Schmidtfire

[OxideMako]

If the J-11A we have modeled, does NOT have a datalink, how is this even a question? Remove it. It hurts as a REDFOR player sure, but realism takes priority over all other aspects, this is a simulation! Model the J-11A as it is nin reality, not as we wish it was. We still have the Su-27 and it's datalink if we want that capability.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Again, you all know DL is not working in MP?

[Coxy_99]

Its like giving the spitfire bombs.......... Oh no wait. But really lets keep modules realistic, Its like giving the hawk aim 120C it didnt happen.

[Insonia]

Happy jail time.

Bring the real(guesswork) data link.

Come on baby.

I promise i will pay visit to dev every year, in jail ofc.

[Dudikoff]

no, not installed in exported 27SK to China nor 11A

 

Ah, I see. Thanks for the answer. That's an interesting question then.

 

The most flexible option then would be to make it as an option by the mission designer, so that if Chinese EWR/AWACS units are present in the mission, it might work if activated in the mission options. It's not that far fetched if the later J-11A U3 upgrade has it and the lack of a proper MFD could be considered an FC3 limitation anyway.

 

So, I'd vote for c) Make it an option for the mission designer.

[Zergburger]

If Deka's intent was to create the J11a late but they dont have access to all the information, then let the current iteration slide until they have a better solution.

 

LOL @ realism. You guys are arguing about realism in an FC3 aircraft, the whole purpose of which is to not be realistic.

 

If realism nazi's ruled DCS:

we'd have no early access because the flight models are incomplete and "not realistic".

There'd be no A2A missiles because they're "not realistic"

No d2m, no FC3.

 

If we wanted to go over every module with a fine tooth comb and check for capabilities that do not correspond with the current cockpit layout, we'd probably get rid of the f15's 120c, because we're using an 80s cockpit and a mid-90's missile.

 

I wonder why all these people that fly blufor even care about whether the J11a has datalink....

[Schmidtfire]

Again, you all know DL is not working in MP?

 

Yes It partially does. But no datalink from other fighters only AWACS. Everything that AWACS sees on it's radar (enemy aircraft, friendly aircraft and their heading) is on the HDD in multiplayer. Very helpful as you can do IRST intercepts with radar off and still maintain great situational awareness and position yourself in a favourable position for a sneaky shot.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Schmidtfire

[Esac_mirmidon]

True, but the main benefit from the DL is beeing able to share contacts between wingmen without turning on the radar and also knowing where are your wingmen at any time, all without an Awacs.

 

But if the real J-11A doesnt have DL, then remove it.

[pyromaniac4002]

LOL @ realism. You guys are arguing about realism in an FC3 aircraft, the whole purpose of which is to not be realistic.

 

FC forgoes the realistic depth of systems modeling, not realism in its entirety. The "end goal" of combat is meant to be relatively realistic and the datalink plays a big role in combat. It's not hypocritical at all to discuss it when it has that capacity to affect the combat experience, especially if the aircraft that's being most closely modeled doesn't have the capability.

 

Even compared with the massive, realism-shattering anachronism that is the D2M on the M2kC this datalink has much greater capacity to affect combat on a fundamental level while the D2M is kind of a creature comfort for people who are too lazy to watch for IR missile launches. And of course being able to disable it at the mission designer's discretion makes the whole thing a non-issue. I'd bet the current state of the J-11 having the datalink is more a result of convenience than anything, being one more thing to be modified from the original Su-27, but that's not a reason for it to stay as it is. Should be removed or at least made an option to disable like D2M.