Can I ask why?

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

As for 4th gen red air, I think many people would be interested, and I'm not 100% sure I buy the whole careful with the Russian government story. I'm sure there are sensitivities, but the KA50 probably has more advanced systems than an 80's era Mig-29 (especially an export version like the 29G).

 

 

Thing is there are only like 32 Ka-50s in service vs more than 100 Ka-52s & other Russian aircraft.

 

I'd love to see some Falklands based mods/plane set. I think someone should make the Mirage III as well. Good matchup for the mig21 in the ME, and it fits the falklands.

 

RAZBAM already plans to to Falklands aircraft, including the Mirage III, Dassault Super Etendard, IA-58 Pucara, & Sea Harrier FRS.1

Edited November 29, 2018 by Dr.SquirrelBoy12

[Harlikwin]

Great to see a potential Falklands map/ships/planes! I'm all over that once its out.

 

My only problem is that I can barely fly the AV8B... The Original Harrier was harder....

 

As for the KA50 the point isn't so much how many are flying, if the issue is "technology" then the older Mig29 or SU27 shouldn't be as big of a hurdle. I can totally see "modern" variants and not having access to various information. But you can "buy" a mig29 in the states so the basic aircraft operation shouldn't be a problem, and ok, you have to do the research on the radar/nav and other weapons system related procedures, but given that they managed it for the more "advanced" KA50...

[Jester986]

Well I think the A6 is going to be a later variant than what was used in VN, at least thats my guess.

 

I'd love to see some Falklands based mods/plane set. I think someone should make the Mirage III as well. Good matchup for the mig21 in the ME, and it fits the falklands.

 

As for the VN mod, I think it would be popular, but most of the current plane set doesn't really fit, the Mig19 would be the only one that would be accurate, and maybe the F4E depending on the version. The 21bis is a later model.

 

The other obvious theater to me is the Arab Israeli wars. Which could be relevant to modern times for hypothetical stuff as well as Syria.

 

I know you're right... But I'll still happily use the not quite right versions for vietnam scenarios since were unlikely to get multiple models of a single typee of aircraft.

[sniperpr1]

Well, I just think, "Why not?"

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

As for the KA50 the point isn't so much how many are flying, if the issue is "technology" then the older Mig29 or SU27 shouldn't be as big of a hurdle. I can totally see "modern" variants and not having access to various information. But you can "buy" a mig29 in the states so the basic aircraft operation shouldn't be a problem, and ok, you have to do the research on the radar/nav and other weapons system related procedures, but given that they managed it for the more "advanced" KA50...

 

I told you. It is about how many there are.

 

The Russian government allowed the Ka-50 to be simulated at least in part because there are only 32 of them. It isnt like the MiG-29 that still sees wide use. Allowing information about a rarely used aircraft of which there are only 32 wont hurt Russian Defense the same way allowing information about a common frontline fighter could even if that figher is older than the Ka-50. It doesnt matter if private citizens in the US own MiG-29s, ED is a Russian company. Also the Ka-50 was developed for DCS at a time when relations between East & West were better than they are now. In the end ED has to listen to the Russian Government & probably companies like MiG & Sukhoi too.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Dr.SquirrelBoy12

[Jetguy06]

But you can "buy" a mig29 in the states so the basic aircraft operation shouldn't be a problem, and ok, you have to do the research on the radar/nav and other weapons system related procedures, but given that they managed it for the more "advanced" KA50...

 

 

I've asked the same question regarding the MiG-29 before. It's not nearly as simple as, "Oh, Germany has a few G variants, so we could get the necessary tech from them," or a similar argument about Fulcrums in the States.

 

 

The problem is that regardless of who owns the actual aircraft (say, Germany and their G fleet, for instance), you'd still need to get the permission and applicable rights to model the aircraft up to full-fidelity standards, and Mikoyan-Gurevich has put a firm "NO" clamp on that idea.

[Kev2go]

I've asked the same question regarding the MiG-29 before. It's not nearly as simple as, "Oh, Germany has a few G variants, so we could get the necessary tech from them," or a similar argument about Fulcrums in the States.

 

 

The problem is that regardless of who owns the actual aircraft (say, Germany and their G fleet, for instance), you'd still need to get the permission and applicable rights to model the aircraft up to full-fidelity standards, and Mikoyan-Gurevich has put a firm "NO" clamp on that idea.

 

Source?

 

Because i dont ever recall wags stating anything on the mig29. If anything the only red aircraft that was confirmed denied from development the SU27SM, Back to some post in 2013, because it was a 21st century modernized version of the Flanker.

 

 

 

 

Just because it hasn't been done yet in dcs doesn't mean Mikoyan said nyet. ( or that they were even approached yet)Otherwise one has to take into consideration profit margin. It's been said that western Europe and NA market being the most prominent there isnt as much potential sales going for it.

 

A mig29 simply isnt happening in the near future because es has prioritized other modules. After the Hornets done them it's the f16. After f16. Mi24 and f4 phantom have to be completed along with the ah1s. Ed has thier work cut out for the next few years. They dont have time for a mig29 even if they really wanted to until they get all that already planned stuff done

Edited December 1, 2018 by Kev2go

[rrohde]

+1 on the question about the source on statements like these.

 

Seems as if the "no Russian jets possible in DCS-level detail" meme has taken on a life of its own without anybody questioning its relevance.

[Pikey]

Wags Q+A:

"there is no plans for any at this time, and that being a Russian company makes it complicated, I'll just leave it at that."

 

 

Construing why is open to debate, it is a case of adding 2 and 2 and making 5. However there are more complexities with Russia's current mood. This is a country that are more active in controlling knowledge in a heavy handed way. Recently they imposed rules on Internet service suppliers and social media that they demand the servers private certificate key is handed over or get cumulative fines of % revenue. It's just not an easy place to work with and that's before we get into sanctions and military.

But the "why" doesn't matter, all you need to know is that it's not ED that would be delivering, at the very least.

[Harlikwin]

I dunno, Razbam is doing the 23, maybe they or Heatblur could do an early 29, neither are Russia based. I basically take wags comment as we could probably do it, but it would be a pain in the ass, and there are other things we can do that are probably more profitable (more gen4 blufor planes) and less of a pain in the ass.

 

Also, rather than the tech argument, maybe there is more of a political we don't want the mig to look bad relative to western aircraft because we still sell/export them aspect to the argument from the Russian govt/mig/su. Then again, it might be good from a PR standpoint too, you could argue that either way as well.

 

I mean as it stands, there hasn't really been much in the way modern AA conflict since the Iran-Iraq war or the falklands. Sure you have had a few shootdowns in the gulf and the balkans etc. but its basically been a Blufor bombing fest for the last 30 years of "air combat". I think the draw for the redfor aircraft is to have something "credible" for modern what if scenarios. Personally I'd be perfectly happy with Gen3 red/blue planes as long as there is a decent mix of them, but its currently Gen4 blue and Gen1-2 red which isn't really interesting aside from the classic Mig15vF86 matchup and even thats lacking due to terrain and other period aircraft.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Harlikwin

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

I dunno, Razbam is doing the 23, maybe they or Heatblur could do an early 29, neither are Russia based.

 

Doesnt matter because ED is based in Russia.

[Kev2go]

Wags Q+A:

"there is no plans for any at this time, and that being a Russian company makes it complicated, I'll just leave it at that."

 

 

Construing why is open to debate, it is a case of adding 2 and 2 and making 5. However there are more complexities with Russia's current mood. This is a country that are more active in controlling knowledge in a heavy handed way. Recently they imposed rules on Internet service suppliers and social media that they demand the servers private certificate key is handed over or get cumulative fines of % revenue. It's just not an easy place to work with and that's before we get into sanctions and military.

But the "why" doesn't matter, all you need to know is that it's not ED that would be delivering, at the very least.

 

 

link to the original post where this was quoted from?

[Kev2go]

I dunno, Razbam is doing the 23, maybe they or Heatblur could do an early 29, neither are Russia based. I basically take wags comment as we could probably do it, but it would be a pain in the ass, and there are other things we can do that are probably more profitable (more gen4 blufor planes) and less of a pain in the ass.

 

Also, rather than the tech argument, maybe there is more of a political we don't want the mig to look bad relative to western aircraft because we still sell/export them aspect to the argument from the Russian govt/mig/su. Then again, it might be good from a PR standpoint too, you could argue that either way as well.

 

I mean as it stands, there hasn't really been much in the way modern AA conflict since the Iran-Iraq war or the falklands. Sure you have had a few shootdowns in the gulf and the balkans etc. but its basically been a Blufor bombing fest for the last 30 years of "air combat". I think the draw for the redfor aircraft is to have something "credible" for modern what if scenarios. Personally I'd be perfectly happy with Gen3 red/blue planes as long as there is a decent mix of them, but its currently Gen4 blue and Gen1-2 red which isn't really interesting aside from the classic Mig15vF86 matchup and even thats lacking due to terrain and other period aircraft.

 

 

IKR, Who knows what the exact reasoning is.

 

IN contrast we have a Chinese team that are working on a full fidelity modern 4th generation export tactical fighter developed in partnership by China and Pakistan=, license built in Pakistan, and ultimately for sale for general export market. ( and China is basically known as one of the biggest internet censors)

 

 

the JF17 Thunder. Guess thatl have to do as a stand in for 2000s modernized fulcrum Variants.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Kev2go

[Varis]

A difference is that JF-17 is not flown (source: Wikipedia) by China and the developers (I guess) don't live in Pakistan. The aircraft maker may prefer a simulator rendition for marketing purposes as well.

 

The Mig-19 has been operated by various nations including Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Vietnam... sounds like it would have a place in the DCS portfolio.

 

Ok. Then tell me one thing. Where are the pvp missions? Team vs team where you have to conquer the other team's airfield while defending your own like F-22 ADF had? Oh wait, I know what you want to say. Of course there is operation blue flag. But this was made by the community. And these players want it to be a fair red vs blue arena.

Of course we get more and more aurcraft, and of course you get matching pairs. Like F-5 vs Mig-21 or the Warbirds. But they were made, because the creators love those birds, not because "oh we need a fair counterpart for aircraft xy".

 

DCS is a study sim in the first place. Not a red vs blue pvp wargame. That is a thing players make dcs to be.

 

Don't get me wrong, this is fine and I wish I could raise some interest for pvp in my squadron. But it is not the first aim when modules are implemented.

 

It's possible that the focus of DCS is shifting with new clienteles and a more full feature set of the platform itself. High fidelity simulation would still remain a main quality criterion of DCS as the clickable cockpits etc are a trademark of DCS.

 

If players want to take the platform in the direction of Red vs Blue scenarios then there is a commercial interest to cater to that. Still you don't need 1:1 matchups especially if there is a large number of different aircraft available, and also it's not an absolute requirement to make it modern day. Balance is left to the mission creator not the one implementing aircraft - but both sides should usually be the same generation or the gap is too large. That said DCS as a PvP game is thought of as a simulator and not a symmetrically balanced arena.

 

There are probably some purely marketing reasons to make Blue-Red pairs so you can create the illusion that you are modeling the complete conflict. These can be single player based like much of DCS at the time being (AND a major format of multiplayer will be coop for a good time to come I think). Looking at the current selection of aircraft there must be various peculiar factors at play as explaining the what and why is not quite straightforward.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Varis

[Kev2go]

A difference is that JF-17 is not flown (source: Wikipedia) by China and the developers (I guess) don't live in Pakistan. The aircraft maker may prefer a simulator rendition for marketing purposes as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If going by that line of thought, the Mig29G isnt flown by Russia either. And even if looking at the closest variation the question is how many (if any) are still Mig29A v 9.12 standards . The Lot are a mix of Mig29S and post cold war modernized versions like the Mig29SMT or Mig29M/M2.

 

According to various open sources Russia only has 240-260 Mig29's in total compared to 1000+ they had by the end of the cold war.

 

Even assuming ED would have issues, There are many 3rd parties that arent in Russia.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Kev2go

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

IN contrast we have a Chinese team that are working on a full fidelity modern 4th generation export tactical fighter developed in partnership by China and Pakistan=, license built in Pakistan, and ultimately for sale for general export market. ( and China is basically known as one of the biggest internet censors)

 

China doesnt actually use the JF-17. They dont care about it. It is dated compared to their new jets anyway. Also China isnt Russia, each nation might have a different policy for different reasons.

 

If going by that line of thought, the Mig29G isnt flown by Russia either. And even if looking at the closest variation the question is how many (if any) are still Mig29A v 9.12 standards . The Lot are a mix of Mig29S and post cold war modernized versions like the Mig29SMT or Mig29M/M2.

 

According to various open sources Russia only has 240-260 Mig29's in total compared to 1000+ they had by the end of the cold war.

 

Even assuming ED would have issues, There are many 3rd parties that arent in Russia.

 

There is no other variant of the JF-17 that China uses. Russia still flies MiG-29 variants. Also 240-260 is still a lot. It isnt like 32 Ka-50s. The US has ~230 active F-15s in service.

 

Also ED produces DCS World. They are based in Russia. It doesnt matter if "MiG-29 Dev" is based in "FREEDOMLAND" or any other nation. ED controls the sim and what aircraft are allowed. On top of that it seems they are requiring licenses from the companies to use their intellectual property. This is a reason you see Boeing licensing the F/A-18 & F-15E for DCS & also something preventing the A-4 mod from becoming a module.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Dr.SquirrelBoy12

[Kev2go]

China doesnt actually use the JF-17. They dont care about it. It is dated compared to their new jets anyway. Also China isnt Russia, each nation might have a different policy for different reasons.

 

 

 

There is no other variant of the JF-17 that China uses. Russia still flies MiG-29 variants. Also 240-260 is still a lot. It isnt like 32 Ka-50s. The US has ~230 active F-15s in service.

 

Also ED produces DCS World. They are based in Russia. It doesnt matter if "MiG-29 Dev" is based in "FREEDOMLAND" or any other nation. ED controls the sim and what aircraft are allowed. On top of that it seems they are requiring licenses from the companies to use their intellectual property. This is a reason you see Boeing licensing the F/A-18 & F-15E for DCS & also something preventing the A-4 mod from becoming a module.

 

 

Again you cannot compare a Mig29 to the F15. F15C eagle is AS, its closest Russian contemporary is the Su27.

 

Mig29 is a lighter, and more economical fighter like the F16 even if designed around a different philosophy , so 240-260 is pretty small amount when US uses 1400 F16's and compared to when the USSR had over 1000 mig29's by the end of the cold war.

 

 

According to what I was told via youtube comments from someone from the A4 team, it is a community mod made by a few enthusiasts not made by an actually business registered team. The dont have a license because its a small team that feel their module would not be up to ED DCS standards.

 

 

The fact that to make a realistic simulation requires license from the defense contractor is a known fact ( and its more of akin to requesting a Cash handout really just like Parking tickets are ). Your logic doesn't make sense . IF ED could get license for F/A18 or 3rd Party for an F15E, no reason any given development team would be denied for an A4 seeing as its a much older aircraft, far less sophisticated, and its no longer in service in any form unlike the F/A18 and F15 in US service. The consideration is cost of licensing fees vs profit margin expected from a developed module.

 

Dont make assumptions and confuse to fact on what the reasons are including on the mig29. None of know the exact reason for why Mig29A hasn't been made yet. Besides this is all kinda OT, there was a mig29A thread exactly for this sort of speculation.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Kev2go

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

It doesnt matter if there were 2000 at one time and only 230 now.

There are enough of them that it could be a valid concern for Russia.

It may be illogical for them to not allow it, but humans are illogical.

 

Often the simplest answer is the true one, and in this case the most simple answer is that Russia doesnt want to let ED allow a simulation of some modern Russian fighter jets.

 

Also I never said the A4 Team was anything more than a Mod made by members from the community, I am not stupid. I said one of the things preventing it from becoming a module is the fact that if they wanted to make it a module they would need to get permission to use the Intellectual Property of McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, and while they would probably be able to get it, there are likely other reasons preventing the mod team from seeking a license agreement.

[Kev2go]

It doesnt matter if there were 2000 at one time and only 230 now.

There are enough of them that it could be a valid concern for Russia.

It may be illogical for them to not allow it, but humans are illogical.

 

Often the simplest answer is the true one, and in this case the most simple answer is that Russia doesnt want to let ED allow a simulation of some modern Russian fighter jets.

 

Also I never said the A4 Team was anything more than a Mod made by members from the community, I am not stupid. I said one of the things preventing it from becoming a module is the fact that if they wanted to make it a module they would need to get permission to use the Intellectual Property of McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, and while they would probably be able to get it, there are likely other reasons preventing the mod team from seeking a license agreement.

 

 

Again thats speculation on your behalf. YOu also have to consider profit margin. We may very well see a Mig29 at some point. you dont know that. or maybe we wont simply because its not deemed profitable enough based on cost of License and R&D ( developers have to feed thier families)

 

 

 

LIke i sad last post its about "Profit Margin". SOme simply want to maximize it to greater degree than other developers.

 

 

 

 

Again with the A4 skyhawk its was just matter Money. The team that cancelled the payware licensed A4 was VEAO. hell even ED it was said they they only expected to "break even" with ther F/A18 pre sales.

 

 

VEAO as per thier statement

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2214751&postcount=223

 

quoted the relevant bit:

 

"Sadly the terms offered to us in exchange for the licence are not economically viable for the project to continue"

 

basically that translates to they didn't have enough money to pay for the License fees and simply didn't think it was worth the investment for a 3rd party module based on profit gains they estimated. They probably didn't think they'd to make a large enough profit to thier liking for A4 skyhawk sales based on the Cost of developing the module and the Liscense fees they would need to pay Boeing to get their permission.

 

 

Honestly it was for the best given the whole boondogle that was the BAE hawk and the P40, the A4C/M would have been butcher work.

 

The community modders that Did the A4E were in no way associated with VEAO AFAIK. and they gave thier reason in one of thier youtube comments section:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltqRRY-qK7E&t=5s

 

"Licencing and remodelling things under the new licences would take a lot of time unfortunately. Quality-wise I don't think we'd be good enough to be a full fledged module even at the FC3 levels due what is and isn't enabled at the moment. Thank you for your support though!"

 

 

 

a team with some $$ to back ( or with greater passion and less interest in Profits) would be able to afford the licensing fee and create an A4E.

 

 

 

Because another team for another sim did in fact make an payware licensed A4 simulation :music_whistling:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so its not true that Boeing " wont allow" a licence(s) for the A4.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Kev2go

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

You dont need to treat me like an idiot. Why would I assume the A-4 Mod team was associated with VEAO?

 

I never said Boeing wouldn't allow a license for an A-4, I dont know why you keep putting words in my mouth.

 

You can clearly see in their comment is that they didnt want to invest the time into the project that would be required to get it licensed etc.

 

Anyway you can stop generating fake hype for a MiG-29 like you did for JHMCS in the F-15E thread where you argued with a pilot about when JHMCS was added.

 

For the foreseeable future we are not going to get a MiG-29. That is the plain truth, no amount of speculation or excuses will change that. Until ED or some other third party says they have permission from ED & the necessary authorities to produce a Fulcrum you are better off focusing on the modules that actually are confirmed like the F-14, F-15E, F-18C, F-4E, F-16C, Mi-24P, & the topic of this subforum the MiG-19.

[Kev2go]

You dont need to treat me like an idiot. Why would I assume the A-4 Mod team was associated with VEAO?

 

I never said Boeing wouldn't allow a license for an A-4, I dont know why you keep putting words in my mouth.

 

You can clearly see in their comment is that they didnt want to invest the time into the project that would be required to get it licensed etc.

 

Anyway you can stop generating fake hype for a MiG-29 like you did for JHMCS in the F-15E thread where you argued with a pilot about when JHMCS was added.

 

For the foreseeable future we are not going to get a MiG-29. That is the plain truth, no amount of speculation or excuses will change that. Until ED or some other third party says they have permission from ED & the necessary authorities to produce a Fulcrum you are better off focusing on the modules that actually are confirmed like the F-14, F-15E, F-18C, F-4E, F-16C, Mi-24P, & the topic of this subforum the MiG-19.

 

 

 

 

 

Then perhaps make it more clear instead of implying they wouldnt. You did seem confused as you said the reason a4 isnt a mod is because a liscense wouldnt ne granted. I pointed ou that wasnt the case with the community mod

 

 

No one is creating fake hype for anything so stop trying to misinterpret the posts just because its contrary to what you think. Your opinions arent gospel, and have already pointed out holes in your reasoning , and various other alternatives why it wouldn't. S

 

and fake hype? lol you cant crate fake hype around something that isnt in development. And i never implied otherwise that a mig29 would be. right now or the foreseeable future. AS mentioned ED already has thier hands full with various other things, and already confiremd modules for the future

 

As with the f15e it was a fair discussion as jhmcs potential was simply a non confirmed feature, and I was right to point out that just because A feature isnt standard doesn't mean it wouldn't be there for a particular year for at least some planes ( like is the case for the Hornet) . Besides Sniper pod , there are no exact list of confimred feature or exact year of the F15E. So it was fair discussion and fair to entertain the possibility. No fake hype there, but apparently someone here cant tolerate any sort of discussion. So you can stop with in uncalled for attacks, because I'm not the one posting the, " where is th jhmcs switch" located based on rl cockpit photos from airshow. Besides the guy wasnt a Pilot, maintenance man, ultimately its Razbam not Him who decides what features get added or what exact year of Strike eagle they are making Seeing as no one from Razbam steeped in to confirm or deny features, then it doesn't make him correct to tell us what features will be present. in the module.

 

. And on the other hand it's easy to use the excuse use of its mig19 subforum to back out of an argument that you have lost when you included in it yourself.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Kev2go

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

I never implied they wouldnt, I just pointed out the fact that licensing is an issue among many they would need to resolve if they were going to go full fidelity.

 

Also can you stop treating people like they are stupid? I literally listed several modules ED has planned so it isnt like I think they have an empty schedule.

 

You are claiming that 3rd parties can do any Russian jet without worrying about the Russian government:

 

Even assuming ED would have issues, There are many 3rd parties that arent in Russia.

 

Despite ED being the arbiters of what goes in the sim & the fact that they are based in Russia.

 

You then went on a tangent about profit margin for the A4 that nobody asked for that doesnt invalidate my claim that they would need to get a license. Do I have to write a book to list every possible factor out for you to be satisfied?

 

As for the F-15E, RAZBAM has said they want to do JHMCS but I dont see that happening on a circa 2005 jet. Maybe they can model a newer block but it is hard to say because they dont seem to have the information necessary for the time being if their update video is anything to go by. I think the person you were arguing with is more than qualified to explain when certain features were added & what we are likely to see if the jet modeled in DCS is say circa 2005.

 

Also I dont want to be banned for OT posts, if you want to continue alone so you can win the argument be my guest.

[Coxy_99]

You really want to know why? Does the mig-19 have air to ground radar? Does the F-15E require air to ground radar? It could be a test bed for there own air to ground radar think about it before comparing it to the f-15 mig-29 su-27 blah blah blah as normal.

[Schmidtfire]

FFS! The original question was answered on the first page of this derailed thread. It was a small team with MiG-19 and MiG-23 plans that got picked up by Razbam.

 

Much like the Viggen-team got picked up by Heatblur. Passion for the aircraft, avalible documentation, skill and likelyhood of finishing are probably all contributing facrors to "why?". Not every module can be a broad audience "blockbuster" like the Hornet or Tomcat. DCS community have different tastes and Im sure that MiG-19 will find it's audience. More Redfor jets are more than welcome.

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

FFS! The original question was answered on the first page of this derailed thread. It was a small team with MiG-19 and MiG-23 plans that got picked up by Razbam.

 

This thread should be locked.