Jump to content

Su-22M4 comming to DCS


Go to solution Solved by SVKSniper,

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team
1 minute ago, Hammer1-1 said:

All I am suggesting is that there absolutely needs to be a conversation between these two parties and/or with ED because quite obviously there is a conflict of interest.

and all I am saying is people need to dial it back with the accusations. 

  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

and all I am saying is people need to dial it back with the accusations. 

I am reminded heavily of the L-39 and this exact situation. Im sorry, but that wasnt a good look. There needs to be conversation...not accusing anyone, just stating an obvious fact that people need to consider.


Edited by Hammer1-1
  • Thanks 1

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Ive said what I needed to say, and you have said what you wanted to say, I suggest moving on for now. 

thanks

  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Fromthedeep said:

Isn't a Su-17M4 under the legal limitiation that affects all fixed wing Soviet platforms?

Su-17 hasnt fixed wings honestly :grin:.

Btw.

The „ban” is on the planes used Today (modern planes as I know, not historical). Su-17 was used in Russia to 1998.


Edited by YoYo
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Webmaster of http://www.yoyosims.pl

Yoyosimsbanner.gif

Win 10 64, i9-13900 KF, RTX  4090 24Gb OC, RAM 64Gb Corsair Vengeance LED OC@3600MHz,, 3xSSD+3xSSD M.2 NVMe, Predator XB271HU res.2560x1440 27'' G-sync, Sound Blaster Z + 5.1, TiR5, [MSFS, P3Dv5, DCS, RoF, Condor2, IL-2 CoD/BoX] VR fly only: Meta Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Fromthedeep said:

Isn't a Su-17M4 under the legal limitiation that affects all fixed wing Soviet platforms?

Considering that even an early MiG-29 is on cards for ED, no. Besides upcoming MiG-23MLA isn't too much older, and AFAIK the Mi-24P we have is in use even today among (a lot) more advanced helos/variants.

  • Thanks 1

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

2 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Suppose it was your 3 years that you get to toss down the toilet. AFAIK this mod has been in the works quite publicly; if a 3rd party came by and claimed rights to the A-4E3 made by DCS Community, wouldnt you be upset that their hard work gets to be tossed out without any discussion?

Not at all.  The A-4 Community mod is an exceptional mod; it's not, however, a full on module, built with SDK access and the systems and flight model benefits that provides.  There are systems and aerodynamic properties of the Skyhawk that the Community team  cannot access due to lack of contractual terms.  They admitted that up front, and are comfortable in not having made a module for sale; it was never their intent, and they worked within those limitations.  And what the current A-4E mod offers makes me, as a fan of the Skyhawk, want for an actual module, as it does for most everyone who enjoys it.   For the rest, they would suffice with the mod. 

As to the hyperbole, the work done thus far has not been tossed aside or wasted.  The only one who can determine if he wants to move forward is OP, and anyone else who signs on to assist.  The diversity in interest and income in the community is such that a mod would still be welcome to many.  What matters is if he wants to push ahead; a full module has a long window to release.  There's nothing stopping him. 

2 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

I understand that the only way to protect against intellectual theft is a copywrite or a patent, but just because it doesnt doesnt make it right. Lets be realistic - it kind of is intellectual theft. No, at the very least someone should have said something.

That's not remotely how IP theft works, and if anyone holds the IP it's Sukhoi.  OctopusG didn't hack OP's PC to illicitly secure the model from him, thus stealing its recipe and intrinsic qualities from him to announce their release.  That's a claim that has no basis in reality regarding this situation- unless, of course, we want to get a vertice to vertice comparison to confirm whether the actual work was stolen.  It's akin to saying that because one artist painted the sunset at the Grand Canyon, no one can ever rightfully do so again, because somebody's feelings might get hurt since one is better than the other, sold for a higher price, etc.  To whit:

Monogram Revell has a F-14A in 1/48 scale.

Hasegawa has a F-14A in 1/48 scale.

Avant-Garde has a F-14A in 1/48 scale.

Tamiya has a F-14A in 1/48 scale.

Nobody stole anyone else's IP.  The market is broad, and the qualitative versus cost diversity makes a place for all of them, nobody is complaining about a market glut, and none of them backed away from making a model for release because they all felt they brought something of value to the table. 

Same rule applies here. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Considering that even an early MiG-29 is on cards for ED, no. Besides upcoming MiG-23MLA isn't too much older, and AFAIK the Mi-24P we have is in use even today among (a lot) more advanced helos/variants.

The last I checked, the Mig-29 is something that they would like to do but they don't have the necessary clearances. Considering how things are today, I woudn't be surprised if it never materialized. The 24 is not a fixed wing platform, and the Mig-23MLA is stuck in development hell, having gone through a cancellation previously due to similar concerns. AFAIK, it's only done through a Cuban loophole. (As in, the data comes from Cuba and it's made by Cuban devs.) 

If we got a Su-22M4 as operated by Poland, I could see that happening, but actual Soviet one, I'm very skeptical. Same thing goes for the Mig-29 I guess. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

Not at all.  The A-4 Community mod is an exceptional mod; it's not, however, a full on module, built with SDK access and the systems and flight model benefits that provides.  There are systems and aerodynamic properties of the Skyhawk that the Community team  cannot access due to lack of contractual terms.  They admitted that up front, and are comfortable in not having made a module for sale; it was never their intent, and they worked within those limitations.  And what the current A-4E mod offers makes me, as a fan of the Skyhawk, want for an actual module, as it does for most everyone who enjoys it.   For the rest, they would suffice with the mod. 

As to the hyperbole, the work done thus far has not been tossed aside or wasted.  The only one who can determine if he wants to move forward is OP, and anyone else who signs on to assist.  The diversity in interest and income in the community is such that a mod would still be welcome to many.  What matters is if he wants to push ahead; a full module has a long window to release.  There's nothing stopping him. 

That's not remotely how IP theft works, and if anyone holds the IP it's Sukhoi.  OctopusG didn't hack OP's PC to illicitly secure the model from him, thus stealing its recipe and intrinsic qualities from him to announce their release.  That's a claim that has no basis in reality regarding this situation- unless, of course, we want to get a vertice to vertice comparison to confirm whether the actual work was stolen.  It's akin to saying that because one artist painted the sunset at the Grand Canyon, no one can ever rightfully do so again, because somebody's feelings might get hurt since one is better than the other, sold for a higher price, etc.  To whit:

 

If I tell a joke that I got from another comedian and I made a profit from it, that comedian can sue for damages. Likewise if I post an idea that is well received and to be made free and someone else took my idea and made a profit from it, you're stealing potential profit from them should they wish to go that route. Nobody claimed that OG stole anything other than the idea, Im stating that maybe he took that idea form SVK in bad form or bad faith, and much the same can be stated with the L-39 project which the Patriot team was working on. As far as Monogram, Itali, HK and other plastic model makers, they never took someones idea away from them for profit without royalties - they are in direct competition with one another. I can go on amazon all day long and point out cheaply made chinese alternatives to good ideas stolen from other companies. Again - just because its not illegal doesnt make it right : THATS what I am alluding to.

 


Edited by Hammer1-1
  • Thanks 1

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

If I tell a joke that I got from another comedian and I made a profit from it, that comedian can sue for damages

Your entire outrage is based on nothing but assumptions.

1.) You assume that the OctoG Su-17 model is going to be coming for DCS, even though there's no evidence that indicates it.

2.) You assume that OctoG/M3 got the idea from OP even though nothing proves that they were aware of a project like this in the first place.

3.) Even if they were aware, it does not mean anything, because working on a 3D model doesn't give OP any sort of exclusive rights. If you choose to make a model/mod (especially of such a highly coveted and requested aircraft like a Fitter), you're always running the risk that a full fidelity module may render your work obsolete to some degree. There are literal hundreds of mods in various stages of development and the vast majority of them will stop abruptly, lead to nothing but a 3D model (that's unlikely to be up to par to be directly utilized by a licensed developer) or end up being a Su-25T, with a different cockpit. You can count on one hand the amount of mods that this doesn't apply to. 

 

Modders choose highly popular, heavily requested and great modules for DCS, it can't be a surprised to anyone that a 3rd party will also become interested. If the modder has the ability and desire, they can also get a license by ED, become a legitimate 3rd party developer and finish the project that way. It's been done by the MB-339 guys, and the C-130 mod is heavily rumored to end up that way. The Fitter would fill the niche of full fidelity redfor strike aircraft, something that we do not have in the game at all. If a modder wants to minimize the risk of a 3rd party ever showing up with a module that replicates the same aircraft, they should choose something incredibly niche that is very unlikely to end up being turned into a module, preferably something from the Korean era so that it can be replicated decently without SDK access.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
16 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

If I tell a joke that I got from another comedian and I made a profit from it, that comedian can sue for damages. Likewise if I post an idea that is well received and to be made free and someone else took my idea and made a profit from it, you're stealing potential profit from them should they wish to go that route. Nobody claimed that OG stole anything other than the idea, Im stating that maybe he took that idea form SVK in bad form or bad faith, and much the same can be stated with the L-39 project which the Patriot team was working on. As far as Monogram, Itali, HK and other plastic model makers, they never took someones idea away from them for profit without royalties - they are in direct competition with one another. I can go on amazon all day long and point out cheaply made chinese alternatives to good ideas stolen from other companies. Again - just because its not illegal doesnt make it right : THATS what I am alluding to.

 

 

 

I will tell you now how things work. Dev teams that want to create a module for DCS require a licence to do so, if they dont have a licence they can not create an official mod for DCS. 

You dont have any inside knowledge of any of the agreements any team has you are only assuming. 

If a 3rd party gets an official licence to create the Su-17 we will let everyone know, but that is not the case currently. 

Anyone can create private mods as they wish to.

So for the last time, please stop insinuating there is some wrong doing now or in the past.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only some details here:
- The A-4C module was planned first by two 3rd parties (one disapear (Coretex Designs) and the other discard the project VEAO) some years ago, and the main problem was getting a lincence agretment with the A-4 owners (Douglas Aircraft Company / McDonnell Douglas / Boeing), That was alway "prohibitibe" and No was a ED problem.
- Two 3rd parties start to make F-15E module (RAZBAM and IRIS) on 2012. IRIS disapear as 3rd party and RAZBAM maintain your project to reach today.
- MBB339 module projects appears from 2012 with some 3rd parties (Mil Sim Projets / VBS).
- Tornados was claimed by VEAO, VBS and RAZBAM from 2012.
- F-14 was claimed by IRIS on 2012, before HB appears
- IRIS claimed a DB-5J, F-22 and T-38C Talon module previouly disapear on 2013.
- RAZBAM claimed a T-6 Texan II on 2013 and a T-2 Buckeye on 2014, A-7 on 2015, late that projects was rejected.
- Kyney interctive 3rd party clamied a F-35 module previously disapear on 2013.
- VEAO claimed a Short Tucano, Grov Tutor, H1112 Buchon and a Spitfire MkXIV on 2014, F-8F2 Bearcat on 2015, F4F Bearcar, Sea Fury, Goster Meteor F3, Eurofighter, Vampire Fb5 on 2016, the never complete P-40F, before 3rd party disolved.
- Delz-Aviation claimed a Mig-19PM on 2014 before disapear.
- Virtual Patriot L-39 modules on 2014, and ED star your module on 2016, ED realease first your module, and Virtual Patriot not continue your module develop, disapear after.
- Belsimtek claimed a AH-1G, F-4E on 2014, before disapear and reintegrate into ED team.
- Coretex claimed a F/A-18E module on 2014, but the team was split, and 3rd party was disolved some time after.
- Red wing claimed a NH-90 and a Dornier Alpha Jet on 2016, after, the project was rejected and team disolved.on 2016.
- Polychop claimed a Ju-87 Stuka on 2016, late, the project was rejected.
- Leatherneck claimed Iwo Jima map on 2016, after move to M3, they never has confirm them and actually has none about a map in progress.
- Tailored Radials claimed a DHC-4 Caribou on 2016, that never was completed or turn on a oficial module to DCS.
- Black Cat Simulations claimed a Tu-22M3 on 2017, the team was disolved.
And meanwhile, always has been mods creators.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

 

You dont have any inside knowledge of any of the agreements any team has you are only assuming. 

 

You're right, I am assuming. I wonder why....I just want a conversation as to when and why they picked that specific model which someone else was working on. Again, need a conversation because of previous cases where it left bad blood in the water. The ONLY thing I am asking for is to make it right. You are looking at one mans passion poured out to the community for almost 3 years being taken from him, at the very least an explanation would be nice. Dont see how thats unreasonable.

 

27 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Only some details here:
- The A-4C module was planned first by two 3rd parties (one disapear (Coretex Designs) and the other discard the project VEAO) some years ago, and the main problem was getting a lincence agretment with the A-4 owners (Douglas Aircraft Company / McDonnell Douglas / Boeing), That was alway "prohibitibe" and No was a ED problem.
- Two 3rd parties start to make F-15E module (RAZBAM and IRIS) on 2012. IRIS disapear as 3rd party and RAZBAM maintain your project to reach today.
- MBB339 module projects appears from 2012 with some 3rd parties (Mil Sim Projets / VBS).
- Tornados was claimed by VEAO, VBS and RAZBAM from 2012.
- F-14 was claimed by IRIS on 2012, before HB appears
- IRIS claimed a DB-5J, F-22 and T-38C Talon module previouly disapear on 2013.
- RAZBAM claimed a T-6 Texan II on 2013 and a T-2 Buckeye on 2014, A-7 on 2015, late that projects was rejected.
- Kyney interctive 3rd party clamied a F-35 module previously disapear on 2013.
- VEAO claimed a Short Tucano, Grov Tutor, H1112 Buchon and a Spitfire MkXIV on 2014, F-8F2 Bearcat on 2015, F4F Bearcar, Sea Fury, Goster Meteor F3, Eurofighter, Vampire Fb5 on 2016, the never complete P-40F, before 3rd party disolved.
- Delz-Aviation claimed a Mig-19PM on 2014 before disapear.
- Virtual Patriot L-39 modules on 2014, and ED star your module on 2016, ED realease first your module, and Virtual Patriot not continue your module develop, disapear after.
- Belsimtek claimed a AH-1G, F-4E on 2014, before disapear and reintegrate into ED team.
- Coretex claimed a F/A-18E module on 2014, but the team was split, and 3rd party was disolved some time after.
- Red wing claimed a NH-90 on 2016, but team disolved.
- Polychop claimed a Ju-87 Stuka on 2016, late, the project was rejected.
- Red Wing Simulator claimed a Dornier Alpha Jet on 2016, after, the project was rejected and team disolved.
- Leatherneck claimed Iwo Jima map on 2016
- Tailored Radials claimed a DHC-4 Caribou on 2016, that never was completed.
- Black Cat Simulations claimed a Tu-22M3 on 2017, the team was disolved.
And meanwhile, always has been mods.

A lot of these 3rd party manufacturers came from the Microsoft universe - Kinney, IRIS, VEAO, Razbam, possibly a few others on this list - I understand why the vast majority of them left, and nobody is missing out.


Edited by Hammer1-1
  • Thanks 2

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
2 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

You're right, I am assuming. I wonder why....I just want a conversation as to when and why they picked that specific model which someone else was working on. Again, need a conversation because of previous cases where it left bad blood in the water. The ONLY thing I am asking for is to make it right. You are looking at one mans passion poured out to the community for almost 3 years being taken from him, at the very least an explanation would be nice.

They dont have to talk to each other, anyone can create a mod this is what you are failing to understand. You are also ignoring the people saying that what was shown may not even be for DCS. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

They dont have to talk to each other, anyone can create a mod this is what you are failing to understand. You are also ignoring the people saying that what was shown may not even be for DCS. 

🙄

Like I asked: a conversation? Adults do do that to resolve conflict from time to time. Again, I dont see how thats a bad idea.


Edited by Hammer1-1
  • Thanks 1

Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE| Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VKB Gunfighter Mk3 MCE Ultimate + STECS/ Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | K-51 Collective + custom AH64D TEDAC | HP Reverb G2 | Windows 11 Pro | |Samsung Odyssey G9 | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro

The Boeing MQ-25A Sting Ray = Dirt Devil with wings
 My wallpaper and skins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
15 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Like I asked: a conversation? Adults do do that to resolve conflict from time to time. Again, I dont see how thats a bad idea.

If they want to talk they can, its up to them, and nothing to do with anyone else, its not a conversion to be had in public. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Please get back on topic now. 

Off topic post will be removed 

thanks

  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why M4? I'd presume it's because it was the last and the most widespread-used variant amongst USSR-allies, still operated today and the easiest one to get reference data about. If OP and Octopus lived without internet and never heard of each other it's obvious for me both would choose the M4, as any other 3rd party most likely would for aforementioned reasons. I really don't see any conspiracy here.

Besides, even IF (and that's a big "if" at this moment) Octopus model is intended for DCS:

a) anyone is free to develop any aircraft he wants and push the project either towards free or commercial side;

b) if Octopus guy decided not to contact OP (it seems?), well, he might have his reasons, that's his decision and he's also free to do so.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Yes, just to expand on the above, and hopefully give SVK his thread back:

1) There is no officially licensed Su-17 for DCS World as of today. As in no signed agreements at this time.

2) Creating a thread, posting some images or expressing you want to do something doesn't reserve it for you (or else all planes on the planet would be reserved by a now defunct team)

3) Nobody has to do anything if they are creating their own assets they don't need to seek permission or anything else from any other team or individual. It may makes sense to do so, it may not. But it is their decision.

Let's not make conflict where there is none.

Let's please let this thread be about SVK and his work.

Thanks

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2022 at 10:15 AM, Fromthedeep said:

Isn't a Su-17M4 under the legal limitiation that affects all fixed wing Soviet platforms?

 

*edit* It appears to be an M4 so my comment below probably doesn't apply:

It appears that the OctopusG model may be a Su-22M2... so I can't help but wonder if there might be room for both modules (Su-22M2 and Su-17M4)? Something for ED to decide I guess? It would be good if ED could provide official word as to whether they would be open to that.

 


Edited by Avimimus
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2022 at 11:11 PM, Avimimus said:

 

*edit* It appears to be an M4 so my comment below probably doesn't apply:

It appears that the OctopusG model may be a Su-22M2... so I can't help but wonder if there might be room for both modules (Su-22M2 and Su-17M4)? Something for ED to decide I guess? It would be good if ED could provide official word as to whether they would be open to that.

 

 

it cleary says M4 in the video

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This update will be a bit longer...

In the first place I would like to thank you for your support and your opinions on the situation that has happened. I do not want to start another discussion about my thoughts on this situation and I don't think my personal opinion regarding this is important. I'd like to also thank Nineline and BigNewy for clearing the situation for everyone interested. Now, let's talk about the topic everyone is interested in in this thread.

After all what has happened I was considering what to do next and decided that I want to continue on the work no matter what and see what the future brings. The work continues as much as my time allows. With the Summer in progress everything will slow down a bit but I believe that everything will continue as planned. At this moment the work is divided into two topics. The former is creation of UV maps and textures in the cockpit. The latter is model of the ejection seat. The seat is not ready enough to bring you guys any renders yet, instead of that here are a few textures of the cocckpit for your viewing.

One more thing. Following the latest events I have decided that this will be my last update / news until all is done and ready, and only then I will show you the final result. I hope you'll understand...

In the end let me thank you, the whole community, for the support, I really appreciate it!

Now let's enjoy the summer and here are the promised screenshots of my work😊😉

O1st68v.jpg

rniW0Op.jpg

FpBh4r0.jpg

  • Like 24
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Sniper, it will be pleaser to fly in your model whatever this situation may bring in the future. :punk:

  • Like 1

Webmaster of http://www.yoyosims.pl

Yoyosimsbanner.gif

Win 10 64, i9-13900 KF, RTX  4090 24Gb OC, RAM 64Gb Corsair Vengeance LED OC@3600MHz,, 3xSSD+3xSSD M.2 NVMe, Predator XB271HU res.2560x1440 27'' G-sync, Sound Blaster Z + 5.1, TiR5, [MSFS, P3Dv5, DCS, RoF, Condor2, IL-2 CoD/BoX] VR fly only: Meta Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...