More modern REDFOR planes!

[Buzzles]

Honestly, a clickable Mig-29 of any vintage will be a buy for me.

 

It'd also be a fairly solid match up against the current crop of blu-for. Sure, it's not exactly better or even really on par, but it is not so far behind that it's gonna get eaten for breakfast.

[truebrit]

Full Fidelity Mig-29 just announced!

 

[Tippis]

Full Fidelity Mig-29 just announced!

 

You're really going to need to provide a timestamp for that claim, seeing as how all the comments are about people wishing to see a full-fidelity MiG-29 since it's not likely to come any time soon…

[gavagai]

In the meantime, there are many ways to introduce some balance for fun. We don't have to have limitless Amraams on every server, but that is how it is done mostly. Or you can offer numerical advantage to red, or better air defenses, etc.

 

All of the multiplayer servers with "campaings" featuring blue vs blue make me cringe.

[musolo]

Full Fidelity Mig-29 just announced!

 

 

The whole point of this and many other related threads is to have More Modern Red fighters, not oldest ones. Clickable but completely useless outdated version. I`d prefer non clickable most recent one since that`s the only way to get it anyway. Please ED make MIGs ans SU versions that came after year 2000. Non study versions that is. We get it. That`s the only way you are allowed to make them. It`s ok. Bring them nonclickables please!

[DD_Fenrir]

The whole point of this and many other related threads is to have More Modern Red fighters, not oldest ones. Clickable but completely useless outdated version. I`d prefer non clickable most recent one since that`s the only way to get it anyway. Please ED make MIGs ans SU versions that came after year 2000. Non study versions that is. We get it. That`s the only way you are allowed to make them. It`s ok. Bring them nonclickables please!

 

Then you are going to be disappointed.

 

Time and time and time again ED have said that they won't be making full up Redfor fighters. And not because they don't want to. They have been "asked" not to by the Russian government. (If the inference escapes you asked = told).

 

How easy do you therefore think it is to glean any information on those very systems you have been instructed NOT to simulate when both the A-10, F/A-18 and F-16 required cooperation from both the USAF and the aircraft manufacturers in order to complete to a high level of fidelity?

[gavagai]

The whole point of this and many other related threads is to have More Modern Red fighters, not oldest ones. Clickable but completely useless outdated version. I`d prefer non clickable most recent one since that`s the only way to get it anyway. Please ED make MIGs ans SU versions that came after year 2000. Non study versions that is. We get it. That`s the only way you are allowed to make them. It`s ok. Bring them nonclickables please!

 

:disgust:

 

I prefer a full fidelity Mig-29A to an FC3 level SU-30MMK, or whatever... I would fly the former in multiplayer, it's OK if I lose. The latter I wouldn't touch.

[Smith]

:disgust:

 

I prefer a full fidelity Mig-29A to an FC3 level SU-30MMK, or whatever... I would fly the former in multiplayer, it's OK if I lose. The latter I wouldn't touch.

 

Me not

 

I mean ofcourse i would buy a full fidelity MiG-29A, but i really want a MIG or a Sukhoi that can drop guided bombs and missiles and can be air to air refuelled. So a MiG-29K low fidelity would be perfect. Or i also would like the possibility to get the multirole Su-33 back, like we had her in the early days of Lock Onand Flanker 2.0 (with the possibility to block it from Multiplayer because of realism). And for this MiG-29K or upgraded Su-33 i would be pleased when its just FC3 quality.

 

I just want to do carrier operations with some air to ground capabilities and air to air refueling for the red side combined in one plane. The Su-33 gives me carrier and air to air refuelling but only very limited and risky air to ground capabilities. And the Su-25T gives me good air to ground capabilities, but no carrier or air to air refueling

[Kazansky222]

I would't call a 1984 Mig-29A a "modern" redfor airplane in the era of ED's 2007ish F-16, F-18 20210ish JF-17 and EF2k.

 

I mean I'm gonna buy it 100%. But I really wish ED would have been more forward thinking about the DCS "World" and given us 80s versions of the F-16 and F-18, along with an 80s Mig-29 and 80s F-14 + the Mig-23 and F-8 in the oven. We ccould actually have a "world" to play in.

 

But no, we get a bunch of stuff from the Mid 2000s fighting stuff from the 60s 70s and 80s.

 

Whoo hoo.

[musolo]

Then you are going to be disappointed.

 

Time and time and time again ED have said that they won't be making full up Redfor fighters. And not because they don't want to. They have been "asked" not to by the Russian government. (If the inference escapes you asked = told).

 

How easy do you therefore think it is to glean any information on those very systems you have been instructed NOT to simulate when both the A-10, F/A-18 and F-16 required cooperation from both the USAF and the aircraft manufacturers in order to complete to a high level of fidelity?

Man what part of "Non Study Level" you diddn`t get. There`s a slight difference betwen"Non Study Level" and "Full Up Fighter"(whatever that means) don`t you think? As long as it "Non Study Level" - (you can`t operate real plane if you play this module) it`s not a bigger threat to national security than SU jets in "ICE COMBAT7".

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I'd be overjoyed at potentially getting and FC3/SSM Su-30MKK, Su-27SKM, Su-30MKI etc in MAC or what not

 

Seems like the only way to go for modern redair

[Nipil]

It's not directly related to this topic, but still has some relevance. Chizh said on Missiles in DCS thread that they have added to their plan R-73RMD-2, which was adopted in late 90's and has better off-boresight capability and probably better ECCM. Proof: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4448979&postcount=9121. It's going to be separate from R-73 we currently have and can be used by Su27 we currently have. The ETA is unknown. Though not really a game changer, it's a step in the right direction, isn't it?

[Evoman]

I would't call a 1984 Mig-29A a "modern" redfor airplane in the era of ED's 2007ish F-16, F-18 20210ish JF-17 and EF2k.

 

I mean I'm gonna buy it 100%. But I really wish ED would have been more forward thinking about the DCS "World" and given us 80s versions of the F-16 and F-18, along with an 80s Mig-29 and 80s F-14 + the Mig-23 and F-8 in the oven. We ccould actually have a "world" to play in.

 

But no, we get a bunch of stuff from the Mid 2000s fighting stuff from the 60s 70s and 80s.

 

Whoo hoo.

 

 

 

 

ED is a business first and foremost. And with any Business you have to keep producing a new product that will be popular to sustain it. And before ED can even consider selling a new product they must obtain a license that also grants them the necessary data to develop a high fidelity simulation. So if the the only licenses they can obtain at a time are out of their desired time frame they are going to have to take advantage of it regardless to keep themselves operating.

 

Heck the main reason we even got the A-10C so early on was because the Air National Guard had approached ED to contract them to develop a simulator to train their pilots. And as part of the deal the Gaurd granted them a license and data so that they could also produce a version of it for the civilian market with a few classified features omitted. Which by the way the Yak-52 was also done by a similar deal.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Evoman

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Yes, it certainly is

All that's needed is an Aero rework of the R family of missiles and some avionics tweaked like the Peer to Peer on the Sukhois and Lazur on the MiGs

[FoxHoundELite]

i wont complain if MAC will have more recent Russian jets like Su-30SM, Su-35, Mig-29K because of its more simplified nature so you dont have to go all full fidelity

[Nipil]

ED actually has a bit strange and ambivalent look at realism. While they declare "realism above all" principle requiring strong documental basis to model everything, and mostly adhere to this, there are some notable exceptions to this, not only from the old times of Lock-On, but even from nowadays. They decided to add a wider variety of weapons for Ka-50 with the planned paid update, those that were not found on real Ka-50's, but rather on Ka-52s...

 

And while we already have Ka-50 in full-fi, and modelling it's new weapons is probably not very much different from the old ones, it surely is not going to be as realistic as their standards go. But at the same time, modelling late R-77-1 isn't an option for them, because they can't make it as quality as they want. Strange, isn't it?

 

The same goes for simplified and full-fi models. They are going to make lo-fi MAC, but not to add lo-fi multirole Russian stuff because... They don't want to make lo-fi planes!

 

It seems that their approach to the extent of realism they accept as minimal is somewhat arbitrary, varying from plane to plane. But maybe I'm wrong, it may well be that I don't know or understand something, so no accusations here.

[jojyrocks]

i wont complain if MAC will have more recent Russian jets like Su-30SM, Su-35, Mig-29K because of its more simplified nature so you dont have to go all full fidelity

 

 

 

 

ED already knows about this...

 

 

This idea has been circulated before.But no one has put much thought into it. I think they wont be able to get even the materials or permission for even a low fidelity module. If that were possible. I think it would certainly have been done.

 

 

 

So...expecting Su-30 of early version even in low fidelity is very LOW. Thinking about Mig 29K is out of the question, then...Its still in full service with the RuAF.

 

 

So, we'll have to make do with the Super early Mig 29 in Full fidelity. We'll still be at a full disadvantage against majority of Bluefoce jets.

[FoxHoundELite]

ED already knows about this...

 

 

This idea has been circulated before.But no one has put much thought into it. I think they wont be able to get even the materials or permission for even a low fidelity module. If that were possible. I think it would certainly have been done.

 

 

 

So...expecting Su-30 of early version even in low fidelity is very LOW. Thinking about Mig 29K is out of the question, then...Its still in full service with the RuAF.

 

 

So, we'll have to make do with the Super early Mig 29 in Full fidelity. We'll still be at a full disadvantage against majority of Bluefoce jets.

 

well then make it AI only then, it's better than nothing right?

[jojyrocks]

well then make it AI only then, it's better than nothing right?

 

 

 

 

Well...for some reason, I do not see any roadmap update plans on that too. Maybe its hard to even update that.

 

 

I guess we'll be seeing Windows XP era AI Su-30 model for a loooooooong till 2024 and maybe even beyond. :lol:

 

 

So, no plans on updating our current 3D model of Su-30, Mig 27, Su-22, Tu-22M etc. There is even no indication in roadmaps either. Having those outdated assets in current graphics engine which is getting updated will be very odd and awkward...:noexpression:

Edited August 11, 2020 by jojyrocks

[Silver_Dragon]

So, no plans on updating our current 3D model of Su-30, Mig 27, Su-22, Tu-22M etc. There is even no indication in roadmaps either. Having those outdated assets in current graphics engine which is getting updated will be very odd and awkward...:noexpression:

 

Not sure what versions has use you, but Tu-22M has a High poly 3D model from some years ago.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Silver_Dragon

[jojyrocks]

Not sure what versions has use you, but Tu-22M has a High poly 3D model from some years ago.

 

 

 

 

Ah, my mistake...wrong example added in...:doh:

 

 

Tu-160 Blackjack and Mig 31 to name a few...can't name all.

[darklanov]

At least fix what we have. MIG-29S (9.13) is one of the few Russian aircraft of the 90s era and that can launch R-77. Yet, its radar is somewhat broken. Fix its radar to be more like its real counterpart and give it Data Link. There are already  lots of threads that talk about it and provide actual evidence. I know, probably nobody from ED is gonna listen, but what can a man do!

[Nipil]

10 hours ago, darklanov said:

At least fix what we have. MIG-29S (9.13) is one of the few Russian aircraft of the 90s era and that can launch R-77. Yet, its radar is somewhat broken. Fix its radar to be more like its real counterpart and give it Data Link. There are already  lots of threads that talk about it and provide actual evidence. I know, probably nobody from ED is gonna listen, but what can a man do!

FC-3 is unlikely to recieve any new functionality, it's already written off I guess since it's old, low fidelity, and it's going to be replaced by upcoming MAC anyways. Our best hope is that ED does make future full fidelity MiG-29 right, but its release is years away from now and it's not even officially confirmed. 

[F-2]

11 hours ago, darklanov said:

At least fix what we have. MIG-29S (9.13) is one of the few Russian aircraft of the 90s era and that can launch R-77. Yet, its radar is somewhat broken. Fix its radar to be more like its real counterpart and give it Data Link. There are already  lots of threads that talk about it and provide actual evidence. I know, probably nobody from ED is gonna listen, but what can a man do!

Completely support this!

 

their was that Graphland Su-27m simulator. It claimed to be accurate on its website. Apparently some employees when to work for On Flanker? If that’s true I would love that. Maybe it wouldn’t be balanced but it would be a good modern multirole.