Can something be done with russian aircraft before they're all upgraded!?!?

[Worrazen]

( I might have made such threads in the past, apologies, but I believe I didn't post 2 drafts I made I think, so I guess no issue then)

 

Hey

 

By the time some of these aircraft are considered old enough to be more relaxed or possibly partially declassified, or at least some kind of a deal like the one where ED has NDA and but it's some kind of a hybrid-partial-declassification where the public get's to play closer-to-authentic simulation without having that info declassified to the public at large except the development necessary.

 

So maybe the Russian Government doesn't UNDERSTAND that they don't need to declassify things to the public and only partially and to the developers so it's all as strict it can be, but we can still just properly fly them at least, if nothing else.

 

Additionaly, there is a TON OF STUFF that probably shouldn't need that much sensetive info and it's the info that would at least make AI's a lot better if not flyable enough for whorthwile humans, the external model, textures, sounds, that shouldn't be that hard, Russia routinely uploads various videos to youtube where you even see the console, display screens and buttons uncensored, even on NEWEST stuff. All ED has to do is get there with professional equipment and capture it in high quality, then all of the material goes to the review process by the military/govt and they decide what is to be ommited from those images, etc, usually missile launches are REALLY CRAP because they use GOPro or some crappy remote camera with horrible audio.

 

http://tass.com/defense/1017020

http://tass.com/defense/1011446

http://tass.com/defense/1016167

http://tass.com/defense/1016338

 

So many aircraft are getting upgraded, now contract is being completed for Tu-95MS and Tu-160 upgrades. The old models may be okay to let ED to do something, but they may CEASE TO EXIST, so then it would go back to square one because they won't let anyone in on the newest stuff, much difficult.

 

But also HISTORICAL VALUE, it would be great if we have more variations of the same aircraft available to choose ingame, where it's worthwhile, that's a great extra offer for DCS players and ofcourse makes game more deeper, potential real-life pilots would be able enjoy their exact model they have flown in real-life == more satisfied community, less splits in opinions, everyone happier.

 

Something has to turn in this regard, what about sending a letter directly to Putin, I've heard he does read such letters from the public, I've watched the 3-4 hour debates where he takes questions from the public about domestic infrastructure stuff and other things, why doesn't ED try that then, he and others may be denying this requests because the military folks may don't get it or they don't message it properly to the heads, it's not about full declassification of the whole thing, no, they don't need to declassify the key weapon stuff, just get us the base so the aircraft is flyable, destructable, sounds, textures, missiles/radars/ECM can come later, that said, these big tankers and bombers, they don't even have any advanced stuff on them anyway, it's mostly in the payload they carry which is IMO the sensitive part.

 

It would be a huge pity if the whole aircraft doesn't get simulated just because there's a few stoppers blocking it that aren't really that important, sure it would be less complete without bombs, but heck that's a lot better than nothing, you can still do it lesser authentic and speculative, like a lot of other stuff already in DCS.

 

The big thing is that the assets could be harvested anyway even if the aircraft can't or won't be done, at this

 

The last resort is that some of the old models go to museum or storage, but that's as reliable as ... keeps everyone trembling on toes it's just not safe to rely on that, plus the leftover old models that Russia doesn't intend to upgrade could go for donation to other ally countries like Serbia last year, for smaller countries those old models represent the most capable things in their arsenal so for that reason there's low chance that they'll let access IMO.

 

What if there's only one specimen left in the future and the museum could have ownership and while you could snap photoes they may not allow it to be powered up to capture the sounds, or it may not be in working order anyway, that would be such a blow. This stuff should be captured even if there's not plans to develop it, or else it'll be gone and then there really won't be any chance left in future where most key aircraft would be more or less done.

 

When a lot of popular fighters are covered in future, there might come a time with lack of work, it's a finite resource, this is actually an investment to secure future work, even if it's just for AI aircaft, similar to not overfishing a pond, you don't want all the fish gone and have nothing after 5 years.

 

EDIT: The equipment Serbia got was as-is, but I forgot, they are to be modernized AFTER ARRIVAL, sooo there you go ...

 

Six MiG-29 fighter jets reached Serbia in October 2017. Now the warplanes are to be modernized in three stages.

....

In April 2018, Serbia received four MiG-29 fighter jets from Belarus.

http://tass.com/world/1015283

 

This things don't go fast so that's why I'm raising this alarm here right now before it's too late!!!

Edited August 13, 2018 by Worrazen

[Mars Exulte]

That's not the problem. MiG-29s of various flavors have been controlled by western parties or even in private ownership for decades. You still legally have to get the IP owners and government agencies to give you permission to use their IP and simulate their systems. Access and classification is not the issue with any of this stuff. There are classified systems on the A-10C and F/A-18C. They need PERMISSION from relevant parties. That's the first step. Can't get permission, having a mint condition airworthy MiG-29A sitting in your front yard won't help you.

 

The Russians are less free with their permission. Nothing more, nothing less. Other concerns are secondary to that simple fact.

[nessuno0505]

Neither the permissions are the real problem, ED stated that in previous interviews: western jets sell more, it's a matter of fact. So they prefer to put time and resources needed for a full module in ones that sell well once finished. Easterns jets have a narrower audience, so you have to settle for low fidelity modules.

[Mars Exulte]

He's not asking about Eastern jets generally, but specifically MODERN Eastern jets like the MiG-29, and yeah, they're more finicky about that stuff. They're working on a MiG-23MLA right now, but they're still difficult to work with in comparison to some others. Gaijin used to complain about having to get security clearance to access data about 1940s prop planes, an issue you don't have here at all.

 

It's a combination of all, really.

[DirkLarien]

It is really interesting, Sukhoi and RAC-MiG could benefit from this.

DCS attract enthusiasts, but don't tell me it doesn't attract people from military or even political background.

Presence in such a high tech simulation could translate to exposure and advertising.

It is not like they don't export these airframes.

[Ironhand]

It is really interesting, Sukhoi and RAC-MiG could benefit from this.

DCS attract enthusiasts, but don't tell me it doesn't attract people from military or even political background.

Presence in such a high tech simulation could translate to exposure and advertising.

It is not like they don't export these airframes.

:) Ahhh...can see it now. The chief buyer for the company standing before the board of directors: “Sirs, we have to get our hands on this aircraft. I flew it last night in DCS and it’s awesome!”

[Esac_mirmidon]

LOL ¡¡¡

[Mars Exulte]

Oh, I'm sure we have politicians who make decisions like that, as in literally certain of it.

[Ironhand]

Oh, I'm sure we have politicians who make decisions like that, as in literally certain of it.

 

:) At least they’re relying on a good sim... Could be worse and usually is.

[Oceandar]

:) Ahhh...can see it now. The chief buyer for the company standing before the board of directors: “Sirs, we have to get our hands on this aircraft. I flew it last night in DCS and it’s awesome!”

Well, one of our Su-27SK squadron commander (I believe he's now a Marshal) did play and enjoy Flanker 2.5 and Lomac

[DirkLarien]

:) Ahhh...can see it now. The chief buyer for the company standing before the board of directors: “Sirs, we have to get our hands on this aircraft. I flew it last night in DCS and it’s awesome!”

You taking it too literal. :megalol:

I am talking about creation of informational field. Like it or not, we all are nudged to certain direction if we are bombarded by certain information long enough. This is well established for almost a century.

Don't make the mistake of giving people too much credit. They are after all, just people. :smilewink:

[Ironhand]

You taking it too literal. :megalol:

I am talking about creation of informational field. Like it or not, we all are nudged to certain direction if we are bombarded by certain information long enough. This is well established for almost a century.

Don't make the mistake of giving people too much credit. They are after all, just people. :smilewink:

:) Oh, I knew what you meant. But that image immediately came to mind and I just couldn't resist.

[nessuno0505]

They're working on a MiG-23MLA right now

 

Razbam is working on Mig-23, isn't it? Or am I missing something?

[Mars Exulte]

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. Same stuff all applies to them, and they still have to go through ED.

[Worrazen]

That's not the problem. MiG-29s of various flavors have been controlled by western parties or even in private ownership for decades. You still legally have to get the IP owners and government agencies to give you permission to use their IP and simulate their systems. Access and classification is not the issue with any of this stuff. There are classified systems on the A-10C and F/A-18C. They need PERMISSION from relevant parties. That's the first step. Can't get permission, having a mint condition airworthy MiG-29A sitting in your front yard won't help you.

 

The Russians are less free with their permission. Nothing more, nothing less. Other concerns are secondary to that simple fact.

 

Okay that's fine, I definitely don't have the whole picture myself but maybe I just pointed out one of the factors but unintendedly made it sound like the biggest problem, I was actually talking about two things, one is permission and the other is preservation, it's the preservation that's actually more important, you know licenses expire and when so many years happen you simply don't need to ask anymore after what ... +50 years, you can't DE-UPGRADE once it's all upgraded, you'll never get that particular submodel spiritually-accurate represented in the game if it's gone,

 

Unless there is some kind of actual history-preservation law specifically for this purpose to prevent military from destroying all specimens and reserve parts then there is no guarantee, even if the scrap old parts are kept after upgrade, they may be improperly stored or simply not guarded for actual longterm preservation in mind and they may be damaged as time goes on.

 

 

 

Neither the permissions are the real problem, ED stated that in previous interviews: western jets sell more, it's a matter of fact. So they prefer to put time and resources needed for a full module in ones that sell well once finished. Easterns jets have a narrower audience, so you have to settle for low fidelity modules.

 

That's really weird you know, I actually bought FC3 after I realized Su-27 was part of it, originally just wanted to get Su-27 (ontop of other western modules) and how can the eastern jet's sell less, if there's no proper comparable module in existence, you may be right in general, but you can't call it unless they actually produce it and see the comparison in actuality.

 

It's similar to estimating the cost of a really big tunnel project, or estimating how long, this is a pretty big deal in our country been going on for a decade about "the second track" (railway section to the shipping port), the price has changed wildly so many times up and down, who the heck knows at this point.

 

 

 

He's not asking about Eastern jets generally, but specifically MODERN Eastern jets like the MiG-29, and yeah, they're more finicky about that stuff. They're working on a MiG-23MLA right now, but they're still difficult to work with in comparison to some others. Gaijin used to complain about having to get security clearance to access data about 1940s prop planes, an issue you don't have here at all.

 

It's a combination of all, really.

 

That's it, see, there should be some kind of law that relaxes security stuff around old stuff that really poses zero risk and it's only the civilian populations that are continually kept in the dark that only want to fly in a game, and would only then be an IP thing, not state security ontop.

 

 

 

It is really interesting, Sukhoi and RAC-MiG could benefit from this.

DCS attract enthusiasts, but don't tell me it doesn't attract people from military or even political background.

Presence in such a high tech simulation could translate to exposure and advertising.

It is not like they don't export these airframes.

 

Ahhh...can see it now. The chief buyer for the company standing before the board of directors: “Sirs, we have to get our hands on this aircraft. I flew it last night in DCS and it’s awesome!”

 

Well, one of our Su-27SK squadron commander (I believe he's now a Marshal) did play and enjoy Flanker 2.5 and Lomac

 

Yep, Ironhand, he flew it last night, finally found the video:

 

Starts at 0:35

 

Objective 1 Complete: Get president into a simulator

Objective 2 Pending: ...

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

But also, it's not about them directly playing DCS or such simulators, it's their friends outside military and family, that's a big deal that, that might make things moving, these decisions probably not made by aircraft type people , it's the other older office-type military and/or industry personnel that probably don't have much familiarity with flight simulators for entertainment at home PC, the ones that do testing probably get their fix on the real-deal simulators so they don't have to seek out other areas, it's not their fault, it's just how minds works, they just have to be approached and explained !!!

 

You taking it too literal. :megalol:

I am talking about creation of informational field. Like it or not, we all are nudged to certain direction if we are bombarded by certain information long enough. This is well established for almost a century.

Don't make the mistake of giving people too much credit. They are after all, just people. :smilewink:

 

Well, the bombardment from information field from the public is what in this case, because it's a niche, IS NOT ENOUGH IMO, these key people who make or who could make permission/historical preservation/security clearance/declass decisions simply need to be explained more directly via some kind of process, the general public opinion will not reach them that easily, flight simulators aren't mainstream exactly, but the family and friend part would help,

 

Still a polite letter would do a lot more IMO, it's direct, no need to bombard, and you can do it right now, but it would help if there's any actual people within the industry that aren't the big decision makers or influencers that play DCS and see this thread, they may have a better idea to whom specifically to direct and accurately explain the message, as enthusiasts and fans, without representing any company or anything ; rather than from people abroad.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Worrazen

[Mars Exulte]

You keep saying 'some law', most countries don't regard their weapons and national security as an entertainment medium and do not CARE if people want to play video games about them. We're also talking at present about what, a dozen different countries have tech in DCS now? They each have different laws.

 

There is no international 'preservation for video games society', there are museums and they store and repair things at great cost. Again, most countries do not care, they are concerned with budgets and warfighting. The fate of an obsolete warplane is typically not a concern. For that matter, you're always going to be threading the bureaucratic needle with something that's still in service.

 

As for making them accurate, as no F-18s or A-10s are in private service, it's safe to say ED reconstructed them via test papers and 3rd party feedback.

 

-edit

I get what you mean, btw ;) It's just the way things are. Ideally we wouldn't build planes with weapons or have 'national security' but we do, such is life

Edited August 20, 2018 by zhukov032186

[Worrazen]

You keep saying 'some law', most countries don't regard their weapons and national security as an entertainment medium and do not CARE if people want to play video games about them. We're also talking at present about what, a dozen different countries have tech in DCS now? They each have different laws.

 

There is no international 'preservation for video games society', there are museums and they store and repair things at great cost. Again, most countries do not care, they are concerned with budgets and warfighting. The fate of an obsolete warplane is typically not a concern. For that matter, you're always going to be threading the bureaucratic needle with something that's still in service.

 

As for making them accurate, as no F-18s or A-10s are in private service, it's safe to say ED reconstructed them via test papers and 3rd party feedback.

 

-edit

I get what you mean, btw ;) It's just the way things are. Ideally we wouldn't build planes with weapons or have 'national security' but we do, such is life

 

Yes I understand ... and the this is the big idea we get to right now:

Build an airplane in real life just so you can put it in DCS, the development of the airplane would be basically concurrent with the development of the digital version, it would be considered as one project.

But the feasability ... first it wouldn't be military that's for sure because private secondly, not some big plane, but maybe something like a new design of a Pipistrel or other small aircraft maker out there.

 

Or maybe, well, with non-combat stuff, even already-built stuff if they provide all the paperwork and engineer explanation, might be ... althought still such a company would want to protect their trade secrets.

 

Maybe not exactly the flagship models, maybe something like a community built thing even, let's say a bunch of RC plane enthusiasts and real-life small-mid-plane pilots come together, along with some likeminded programmers, wouldn't that be nice, it doesn't even have to be ED project, simple, as a 3rd-party module.

 

The other thing is, we already have somewhat of an example with Yak-52 non-combat and relaxed security/info, so it's not that far fetched.

 

 

Another report on the ongoing upgrades, posted like just yesterday.

DJMha-veGBY

Edited August 21, 2018 by Worrazen

[DarkFire]

There's some precedent for ED having official support for modules - this is after all how we got to fly the Ka-50 with support from Kamov. I'd love to see a full fidelity Su-27SM and a mid-1990's MiG-29. I do worry though about how many DCS players would be interested in them. The Russian jets seem to have a much smaller user / fan base than the NATO aircraft.

[Worrazen]

The Russian jets seem to have a much smaller user / fan base than the NATO aircraft.

 

I don't really understand because I don't come from any kind of real life aviation background, purely gaming actually, more of a workshop mehanical and electrical background, I don't prefer either one, if I could afford I would get all the modules, true I did choose airplanes vs helicopters but that's another comparison.

[Mars Exulte]

It's real simple, ED have sales figures we don't have access to.

 

UH-1 vs Mi-8

F-86 vs MiG-15

MiG-21 vs F-5

And yes, even breakdowns of individual FC3 aircraft.

 

If column A consistently outsells column B, then they have a logical basis to go by. We'll be getting MiG-23 and F-4 eventually (two very comparable aircraft) as well as AH-1 vs Mi-24 and Ka-50, also JF-17 vs F-16. It's important considering the time, expense, and difficulty in creating modules, that they're sure it will pay for itself, pay for the next one, pay wages and upkeep, and ALSO turn at least a mild profit (they are a business, not a charity).

 

Whether we like it or not, they would know better than us. So, if you want more red air, buy more red air. They're being built, so there's nonsense in saying 'oh they don't/won't because' since they already ARE building them. If they're not building the specific one you want, wait in line, or accept the possibility there are other factors in play as well. That all but one red air full sim to date (and only one in dev) are 1970s or older implies there are factors beyond what people want or what would sell.

 

Most ED staff are IN Russia. You think they don't want to see their flagship favorite airvraft? Of course they do. But they have to be profitable and they have to get government permission. ED have specofically said government resistance and saleability are the primary reasons this hasn't happened. THEY WOULD KNOW.

Edited August 24, 2018 by zhukov032186

[jojyrocks]

Neither the permissions are the real problem, ED stated that in previous interviews: western jets sell more, it's a matter of fact. So they prefer to put time and resources needed for a full module in ones that sell well once finished. Easterns jets have a narrower audience, so you have to settle for low fidelity modules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really?!

 

 

You mean EASTERN planes like Mig 29 and Sukhoi 27 series won't more have buyers?? Especially on full fidelity ...

 

 

So far we just got latest module being Yak 52, which is a civilian plane on this DCS franchise (Digital COMBAT simulator). I'd say civilian planes would have less buyers than combat types, especially on DCS franchise.

Edited August 26, 2018 by jojyrocks

[David OC]

Really?!

 

You mean EASTERN planes like Mig 29 and Sukhoi 27 series won't more have buyers?? Especially on full fidelity ...

 

So far we just got latest module being Yak 52, which is a civilian plane on this DCS franchise (Digital COMBAT simulator). I'd say civilian planes would have less buyers than combat types, especially on DCS franchise.

 

There is no limiting factor when it comes to 3rd parties building civi aircraft, except perhaps the potential sale figures, data and licensing. The Yak on the other hand was a commercial project first, that was released for consumer use in a deal as a discounted build cost possibly? I.E. They recoup some $ on the consumer side forever and that would be configured into the build price.

 

Third parties can do the same with ED etc. Belsimtek is now apart of ED.

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by David OC

[nessuno0505]

UH-1 vs Mi-8

 

I have Uh-1

 

F-86 vs MiG-15

 

None of them but if I had to choose one I'd go for the sabre

 

MiG-21 vs F-5

 

I have f-5

 

I have nothing against Mi-8 or Mig-21, but Uh-1 and F-5 have western cockpits and I do not have to deal with cyrillic. Once I have Uh-1, I do not feel the need to try a Mi-8. Mig-21 is more interesting, but it is an early access 3rd party module - beside the cyrillic problem. Nevertheless, I have l-39 and ka-50 (but I fly both with western cockpit), so if an eastern module is interesting I buy despite the cyrillic. Would I buy a mig-29? Yes of course! What would I choose between a mig-29 and a f-16? Well, maybe the latter. I think ED is aware of this.

[twistking]

I really do think not developing more redfor because of sales is a misscalculation by ED.

I can very well imagine, that blufor aircraft sold better in the past and to this point i myself haven't bought any redfor aircraft.

However with so many blufors in development, there will be some saturation soon. For me the upcoming f-14 is the last "must have" (my other potential must haves, are not on the roadmap currently: F-117, A-6 Intruder).

 

I'm also excited for other upcoming blufors, but i am not sure, that i would pick them over an iconic russian aircraft, especially if upcoming blufors are starting to get less different from already released ones (f-18 vs f-16 vs f-15e; f-14 vs f-4, harrier vs sea harrier).

 

I would imagine that sales will pitch towards redfor as soon as the blufor segemt reaches some kind of saturation and it might be wise to start developing some redfor aircraft before that saturation really hits.

Additionaly more redfors would benefit the MP scene for obvious reason, but that is not, what my point is about.

Edited August 27, 2018 by twistking

[Worrazen]

I would imagine that sales will pitch towards redfor as soon as the blufor segemt reaches some kind of saturation and it might be wise to start developing some redfor aircraft before that saturation really hits.

Additionaly more redfors would benefit the MP scene for obvious reason, but that is not, what my point is about.

 

Exactly, don't want to oversaturate one side, because then the next 20 years will shift to exclusively on the other side, then all the focus would be there and the bluefor might get less updates and fall behind.

 

Still, compared to the standard western gaming model, all of DCS modules are treated with respect and updated as the core DCS World improves, so the updates are part of normal operating procedure, sort of.