announced DCS MiG-29A

[bies]

3 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Maybe that will happen but I sort of doubt that those modules will be removed.  We'll see.   They're adding F-5, MiG-21 I think?  Maybe something else.   I forget all that was listed in the announcement.

 

To FC3 or to MAC, because I've heard in two interviews ED stating they do not have plans to make any FC3 low fidelity planes in the future.

[GGTharos]

They are taking the FC3 planes, putting them in 'MAC' together with F-5, MiG-21, F-86 and MiG-15, last I saw which was a long time ago and as you know, things are always subject to change.

 

 

[Harlikwin]

Ah yes, I remember that. I just always thought they would different "worlds"

 

[Northstar98]

On 2/11/2021 at 7:55 PM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

FC3 as defined by ED'S own terms should be no more different in how authentically core capabilities are modeled from FF planes. The interaction with them though should be only through keybinds not actually clicking on it.

Well no, they might have the full flight model (PFM) but the systems are all simplified - again, it's LOMAC FC2 ported to DCS and given a graphical and flight model upgrade - that's it.

And LOMAC FC2? well that was an upgrade from LOMAC - in 2003, which in turn was a succession from flanker 2.5, which was an update of flanker 2.0 in 1999 - it's nearly as old as I am.

The aircraft are far more simplified than just how you interact with them - they're not an FF aircraft without a clickable cockpit...

Quote

They can fully model them by starting to Fix errors and bugs in FC3 and bring the planes up to the standard they promised.

Yes, they should fix the bugs, but I never remember them promising FF aircraft that are operated by the keyboard... Which being honest, is probably more difficult to operate them via they keyboard instead of with switches.

I even find just operating the lights difficult in the F-15C, 1 for formation lights, RAlt+RCtrl+L for the flashing red anti-collision lights, RCtrl+L for the navigation/position lights and RAlt+L for the landing-taxi light. I always end up fumbling around which one does what, whereas in the cockpit, I can look at the one panel and set them up as desired all intuitively.

Quote

If they couldn't do it right like they said the first time with FC3 why should I trust ED to do it right in FF?

Because FF aircraft have always had higher priority than simplified aircraft - look at the A-10Cs vs the A-10A.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Lurker]

12 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

Actually they're adding more.  And it's a silly notion too, to phase them out.  They're the gateway aircraft.

 

 

 

Last I heard, MAC will be a standalone "game" not related to DCS World. Did that change in the interim?

[Max1mus]

ED has no real concept for MAC, as Chizh has admitted in a recent interview. I doubt they have even started developing it.

 

ED keeps saying that low fidelity is exclusively intended for beginners, despite the fact that 8/10 of those planes are soviet, chinese or in one case even russian (Su-25T). FC3 is the only satisfying product for people that want to fly non-NATO 4th gens on the civilian simulator market. What else are we supposed to fly?

 

And believe it or not, most of these people will not be satisfied by a short range interceptor that is a GCI slave and can not build SA on its own (no tactical view/picture, only blips). And chances are it will be a blind and deaf slave. If you think that ED will release anything GCI related for the MiG-29A you have not learned anything.

 

Otherwise the F-14 and AIM-54 would have been released properly with the engine adjusted to support the missile and its more complex guidance by AWG-9. Instead we got a broken mess with missiles that tracked with no support and to this day (2 years after release) are the most desynced in DCS.

 

Fortunately, as i mentioned before, within 2 years ED will finally be put under pressure by competition wishing to fill the OPFOR gap that ED has left open for this long.

Many times now have ED members like Chizh mocked critics with the argument that there is no alternative (for now) for russian aviation fanatics, shooting down any complaints with "we provide the most realistic simulation of [planes like] Su-27 on the market".

 

The bad news is that no matter what, we will need to wait 2 years for anything to change. Until then i recommend you stick to solo and low pop cold war stuff, and if you get bored of that, just uninstall and take a break from DCS and check back on the entire simulator market in ~2 years.

[Northstar98]

On 2/12/2021 at 10:53 AM, Max1mus said:

And believe it or not, most of these people will not be satisfied by a short range interceptor that is a GCI slave and can not build SA on its own (no tactical view/picture, only blips). And chances are it will be a blind and deaf slave.

Absolute rubbish.

Quote

Fortunately, as i mentioned before, within 2 years ED will finally be put under pressure by competition wishing to fill the OPFOR gap that ED has left open for this long.

Many times now have ED members like Chizh mocked critics with the argument that there is no alternative (for now) for russian aviation fanatics, shooting down any complaints with "we provide the most realistic simulation of [planes like] Su-27 on the market".

Yeah right, just what part of Russian laws prohibit development of modern Russian aircraft don't you understand? How many times Max1mus? You can't just blame ED for this, as though they're a part of a conspiracy to deny REDFOR peer aircraft. There are IRL obstacles prohibiting the development of these modules - even if simplified (which they want to move away from).

For the 3rd, 4th? time already: BS3 got canned even though it's effectively a prototype/tech demo aircraft that never entered production. How do you think they're going to be able to do operational aircraft that are even more modern?

And I take it the only valid fans of REDFOR aviation are only those interested in modern aircraft?

Quote

The bad news is that no matter what, we will need to wait 2 years for anything to change. Until then i recommend you stick to solo and low pop cold war stuff, and if you get bored of that, just uninstall and take a break from DCS and check back on the entire simulator market in ~2 years.

The only place I'm going to fly the MiG-29 9-12 is in Cold War period scenarios and pretty much exclusively in SP. What's the problem?

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Mars Exulte]

Maximus is only interested in whining until he gets his way. He thinks this is a Walmart and if he screams and stomps his feet enough, ED will do what he wants, regardless of practicality, legality, or sensibleness of his demands. The ''customer is always right'' and by customer I mean ''him'' and by ''always right'' I mean ''only one that matters''. There's less point in talking to him than a Reddit mob.

Edited February 12, 2021 by zhukov032186

[ZHeN]

you guys care to point out a russian law that prohibits development of modern russian aircraft for a computer game ?

[Lurker]

36 minutes ago, ZHeN said:

you guys care to point out a russian law that prohibits development of modern russian aircraft for a computer game ?

 

I can actually point out 2. I won't though, since that would be going too much into the political sphere of things on the forums. I'll give you a hint though. One has to do with sharing state secrets with foreign organizations or governments, the other has to do with sharing state secrets with domestic but foreign-financed non-profit or profit organizations or companies. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Lurker

[Northstar98]

26 minutes ago, ZHeN said:

you guys care to point out a russian law that prohibits development of modern russian aircraft for a computer game ?

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/254461-official-news-2021/?do=findComment&comment=4532354

 

Quote

Note: Due to new Russian Federation laws pertaining to the gathering of information of Russian military equipment, we have had to reconsider our plans to add new systems to the Ka-50. We continue to update the cockpit, as well as a highly detailed updated external model. 

 

[Mars Exulte]

38 minutes ago, ZHeN said:

you guys care to point out a russian law that prohibits development of modern russian aircraft for a computer game ?

 

  Maybe you could like... not be lazy? Google search bar is just a click away! Also, ED have said so repeatedly, including in a recent newsletter. It's also pretty in character with their government overall, and has even been mentioned as an issue by other game devs (ie not ED).

 

 Also a tiny, tiny bit of common sense about everything we know about DCS modules and past controversies, namely that they require authorisation from defense contractors and, insome countries, the MoD itself. Razbam had to make concessions for the Mirage in the early days, although the French Air Force seems to be more onboard these days. Point is, it's not out of the realm of possibility, even setting aside ED EXPLICITLY HAVE INDICATED NEEDING RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERMISSION TO DO SO MULTIPLE TIMES.

 

 As I have said before, governments and militaries do not care about cheetos huffing gamers or their hobby when it comes to accessing information about weapon systems. There have been MULTIPLE PUBLIC CONTROVERSIES on these very forums about people getting in serious trouble for crossing the line even with ''publicly available information''. It is a hard and repeatedly demonstrated fact that the kind of ''high fidelity simulations'' and the related data for DCS fall into a gray zone actively policed by assorted governments. It is not that hard to understand, nor surprising that one of the most uptight, paranoid, authoritarian governments in the world would say ''No''.

[ZHeN]

37 минут назад, Northstar98 сказал:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/254461-official-news-2021/?do=findComment&comment=4532354

 

 

nice law, thanks

[Lurker]

3 minutes ago, ZHeN said:

nice law, thanks

 

It's also not just about the law, most countries have very similar laws. It's just that in most countries things eventually get de-classified. In Russia, that's very, very rare. Even with old Soviet-era military technology. A lot of it has to do with simply how much power the government has in interpreting those laws. 

You're Russian right? You probably know a lot about this already. So you can either be snarky here on the English language forums, or you can go ask on the Russian forums and I'm reasonably sure that most of the people there will explain it to you much better than we can. 

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Lurker

[ZHeN]

just wanted to make sure you guys know the subject you're ranting on maximus about

looks like you don't

[Northstar98]

3 minutes ago, ZHeN said:

just wanted to make sure you guys know the subject you're ranting on maximus about

looks like you don't

 

Look again...

 

And even so, it holds a lot more water than some unknown conspiracy by ED to deprive REDFOR of full fidelity modern peer contemporary aircraft.

 

I'm sure Mr. Putin would be all too happy to give away protected documentation on his fancy aircraft. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Northstar98

[Mars Exulte]

8 minutes ago, ZHeN said:

just wanted to make sure you guys know the subject you're ranting on maximus about

looks like you don't

 

  Haha, wow. Well, this brief little conversation tells a lot about you lol

[Lurker]

1 minute ago, ZHeN said:

just wanted to make sure you guys know the subject you're ranting on maximus about

looks like you don't

 

Troll level 2/10. Look up the Russian law on companies or non-profit organizations registered in the Russian Federation, with foreign ties or owners. There is even a law that states that any company or non-profit organization registered in the Russian Federation with foreign co-owners can be investigated simply based on the how much money invested into the company has come from non-Russian sources. I'm not making this up, all of this is publicly available information. It's actually pretty shameful how little you know of this and it's about your own country.

[ZHeN]

I still haven't seen the actual law, you keep rephrasing and rephrasing

give me the actual law number

[DD_Fenrir]

Oh my gosh, you guys are right!!!

 

All this time!

 

 

ED must be a part of the western global-nexus that drip feed capitalist propaganda to the masses! How did I not see that before?!?!?

[Cmptohocah]

6 minutes ago, ZHeN said:

I still haven't seen the actual law, you keep rephrasing and rephrasing

give me the actual law number

One thing that does not make sense to me is, how come the current FC3 modeling is allowed by that same law?

Also, does that law apply if the data obtained does not come from Russia but another MiG-29 operator? Like the US, for example? I mean F/A-18 and F-16 are fine to model. Why not model a US owned MiG-29?

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, Cmptohocah said:

One thing that does not make sense to me is, how come the current FC3 modeling is allowed by that same law?

 

They're much more simplified, the only real thing is the FDM, which can be inferred, there's also presumably enough publicly available documentation to model them to the extent they have. 

 

Don't forget the aircraft in FC3 are essentially first production variants from the 80s, with minimal differences. 

 

1 minute ago, Cmptohocah said:

Also, does that law apply if the data obtained does not come from Russia but another MiG-29 operator? Like the US, for example? I mean F/A-18 and F-16 are fine to model. Why not model a US owned MiG-29?

 

Which would most likely be an exported 9.12...

Edited February 12, 2021 by Northstar98

[Max1mus]

When the US and its satellites have better Su-27 and MiG-29 than all of OPFOR in a video game.

 

I remember how we used to joke about Uganda (or was it Angola?) having better Flankers than the russians in DCS, and that was years ago.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Max1mus

[Lurker]

1 minute ago, Max1mus said:

When the US and its satellites have better Su-27 and MiG-29 than all of OPFOR in a video game.

 

What the hell are you on about?! Seriously?

[DD_Fenrir]

The MiG-29A data could have come from any number of non-Russian sources; they were widely exported.

 

The MiG-29S could simply be an estimate based on the numbers generated for the -A; weight of fuel and avionics + publicly available figures on the uprated engines applied to what is essentially the same airframe.

 

As for avioinics, I don't think you get just how simplified the FC3 radars are... compare the FC3 F-15 to the DCS Hornet or F-16 radars, the latter are light years more complicated in both modelling, functionality and complexity, despite the F-15s being on a paper a more powerful and capable radar.

 

Yes they obey certain specific -but generic - principles (PD notches etc) but these radar characteristics are widely and publicly known.

 

1 minute ago, Lurker said:

 

What the hell are you on about?! Seriously?

 

Pigeon-chess analogy. And you ain't the pigeon...

Edited February 12, 2021 by DD_Fenrir