announced DCS MiG-29A

[draconus]

16 hours ago, upyr1 said:

If someone outside Russia could do all three FC MiGs without any legal problems, then I really hope that ED can hand the project off to them.

No, the same restrictions apply to DCS 3rd party devs.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

4 minutes ago, draconus said:

No, the same restrictions apply to DCS 3rd party devs.

They have stated a third party is able, in the recent past.

Of course, that might have changed, full admission on my part. I've been told that the MiG-29 is totally, super duper possible by certain posters here and none have ever come back with any proof when asked. So, I'm just providing my own disclaimer!

[draconus]

2 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

They have stated a third party is able, in the recent past.

Yes, I remember it too, but in the latest interview Wags answered to that exact question - and it's a no.

[Wizard_03]

A third party would have to obtain the data for the aircraft they want to do legally and prove that It comes from publicly available resources. Which was always the case.

MiG-29 data is available because of the German versions. 

 

it's not a question of where the developer is, it's where the data is sourced from. 

[Nipil]

44 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

A third party would have to obtain the data for the aircraft they want to do legally and prove that It comes from publicly available resources. Which was always the case.

MiG-29 data is available because of the German versions. 

 

it's not a question of where the developer is, it's where the data is sourced from. 

The problem is, if data is considered still to be secret by Russia's authorities, than it doesn't matter if it's been made public elsewhere. And here in Russia, especially in light of war-time legislation that has been passed since last Febuary, no one would like to give our law enforcement officials a slightest excuse for starting a persecution. 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Nipil

[Seaeagle]

I think Nipil just hit the nail on the head.

My own impression (and also what I have heard from ED) is that documentation isn't the problem as far as the 9.12 is concerned, but getting the legal rights to do it is.

So I must admit I never understood the talk about it being a possibiity for a (supposedly foreign) third party to develop it for DCS - I mean it would still be distributed via ED's software, so it not like they could just claim to have no involvement in it.

 

[GGTharos]

There's a significant difference in terms of distributing something via EDSA that the programmers in Russia did not program, and them actually programming it.   

[Silver_Dragon]

21 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

There's a significant difference in terms of distributing something via EDSA that the programmers in Russia did not program, and them actually programming it.   

Weapons and some systems has build by the ED core team. The problem has the same, Russia autorities will put on jail ED team only as declare ED has a "exterior agent" by build a Mig-29 or more advanced version and the situation has turning worse... remember the problems to build a "advanced" Ka-50 (a Ka-52 with a none aproval?).

[upyr1]

On 8/21/2023 at 12:28 AM, draconus said:

No, the same restrictions apply to DCS 3rd party devs.

Thanks, I wasn't sure what would stop us from getting NATO upgrades 

[Seaeagle]

14 hours ago, GGTharos said:

There's a significant difference in terms of distributing something via EDSA that the programmers in Russia did not program, and them actually programming it.   

Right, but we both know that a "full fidelity" module cannot be made like some "user mod".

[Wizard_03]

On 8/21/2023 at 11:26 AM, Nipil said:

The problem is, if data is considered still to be secret by Russia's authorities, than it doesn't matter if it's been made public elsewhere. And here in Russia, especially in light of war-time legislation that has been passed since last Febuary, no one would like to give our law enforcement officials a slightest excuse for starting a persecution. 

 

If they consider it secret, then it has not been made public because Russian government in this case may actually own the data.  So just because you may be able to find something for it on the internet doesn't mean that the information was lawfully obtained and has the blessing of the people who own the data to be redistributed or used in any manner. Which is what matters for the safety of the devs. I wouldn't want them to risk breaking a law for the sake of game play.

These legal issues are very important and have led to serious problems for both ED and other military focused games in the past.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Wizard_03

[Harlikwin]

On 8/20/2023 at 9:49 AM, SkateZilla said:

Eagle is an SA Company now..

SA? South Africa?

[SkateZilla]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

SA? South Africa?

 The company moved its official main base of operations to Lausanne, Switzerland in 2017

[Harlikwin]

19 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

 The company moved its official main base of operations to Lausanne, Switzerland in 2017

Wouldn't that be SZ...

 

At any rate everyone knows thats a polite fiction. With the main devs all being in russia unfortunately.

10 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

If they consider it secret, then it has not been made public because Russian government in this case may actually own the data.  So just because you may be able to find something for it on the internet doesn't mean that the information was lawfully obtained and has the blessing of the people who own the data to be redistributed or used in any manner. Which is what matters for the safety of the devs. I wouldn't want them to risk breaking a law for the sake of game play.

These legal issues are very important and have led to serious problems for both ED and other military focused games in the past.

 

Legally, they don't own soviet docs AFAIK... But I don't think ED particularly wants to mess with them.

[SkateZilla]

A Switzerland Corporation =  S.A.

[Harlikwin]

On 8/23/2023 at 8:33 PM, SkateZilla said:

A Switzerland Corporation =  S.A.

Good to know I guess. It doesn't really do much to change the structural reality of ED in russia tho.

 

[Nipil]

On 8/24/2023 at 10:03 AM, Harlikwin said:

Legally, they don't own soviet docs AFAIK... But I don't think ED particularly wants to mess with them.

It's not about "ownership", it's about the "military/state secret" status given to certain docs and information itself. Accessing these without clearance, as well as dissipating them, is a crime, regardless of which entity owns them. And yeah, the Russian Federation is the legal successor to the USSR, so ownership per se of any papers was also inherited from the Soviets.

[FoxAlfa]

For the documents, there are books that give information per example:
https://www.amazon.com/MIG-29-Flight-Schiffer-Military-History/dp/0764313894
and others...

ISBN number and Library of Congress number and all... so you make MiG-29ED according to that book, and not any document.

I don't think virtual pilots would be disappointed

 

[Tavo89]

I do not understand why so much restriction, NATO already knows in depth the characteristics of the Mig-29A, many of the air forces of the world have simulators where the Mig-29 is represented in a very realistic way (and other Russian fighters).

Unnecessary schizophrenia haha.

[Gunfreak]

8 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

I do not understand why so much restriction, NATO already knows in depth the characteristics of the Mig-29A, many of the air forces of the world have simulators where the Mig-29 is represented in a very realistic way (and other Russian fighters).

Unnecessary schizophrenia haha.

It's Russia, they probably think nato is trying to get big secrets about the Tsar Cannon from the 16th century.

[Thamiel]

8 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

I do not understand why so much restriction, NATO already knows in depth the characteristics of the Mig-29A, many of the air forces of the world have simulators where the Mig-29 is represented in a very realistic way (and other Russian fighters).

Unnecessary schizophrenia haha.

More than that, why putting so much emphasis on the authenticity of available source data instead of using "educated guesses" real close to the parameters your are forbidden to use? Discussions will happen anyway by people using and comparing the module to its counterparts.

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, as far as information goes, the MiG-29A was in NATO use, with German documentation for it openly, legally available. That shouldn't be a problem. The problem is Russians potentially getting annoyed, which would be bad for ED devs. Russia has not exactly been acting rationally lately.

That is, if the Russian team didn't move to Saudi Arabia, which I heard rumors they might have. MiG-29 moved from "impossible" to "possible, but not planned" quite a few times. I suspect ED devs have their own plans and are simply hoping a 3rd party will show up to handle the MiG. Myself, I wouldn't mind seeing the German birds and maybe the Polish upgrade as an option. That should not be a problem.

[Harlikwin]

13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Actually, as far as information goes, the MiG-29A was in NATO use, with German documentation for it openly, legally available. That shouldn't be a problem. The problem is Russians potentially getting annoyed, which would be bad for ED devs. Russia has not exactly been acting rationally lately.

That is, if the Russian team didn't move to Saudi Arabia, which I heard rumors they might have. MiG-29 moved from "impossible" to "possible, but not planned" quite a few times. I suspect ED devs have their own plans and are simply hoping a 3rd party will show up to handle the MiG. Myself, I wouldn't mind seeing the German birds and maybe the Polish upgrade as an option. That should not be a problem.

Honestly Razbam could likely do it. Cuba had 9.12, Overstratos worked on em IIRC. And document wise, literally the 29 is an open book for all of its systems and FM in detail from German, Czech, Slovak, Polish sources.

Honestly it would be good to get a Razbam high quality Radar and maybe even IRST models. ala the F15E. But I guess we will see how the mig23 goes first and I think they might have a mig25 on their plate coming soon too. 

 

[GGTharos]

On 10/1/2023 at 7:42 PM, Tavo89 said:

I do not understand why so much restriction, NATO already knows in depth the characteristics of the Mig-29A, many of the air forces of the world have simulators where the Mig-29 is represented in a very realistic way (and other Russian fighters).

Unnecessary schizophrenia haha.

It isn't schizophrenia (paranoia at worst) and I'm not convinced that you're qualified to judge people's fears for their safety in a situation that you aren't experiencing.

[Wizard_03]

On 10/2/2023 at 1:59 AM, Gunfreak said:

It's Russia, they probably think nato is trying to get big secrets about the Tsar Cannon from the 16th century.

I wouldn't be surprised, since Lots of modern weapons made in Russia turn out to be so powerful and effective that no one, not even the Russians can buy them.