announced DCS MiG-29A

[Cmptohocah]

24 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

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. 

 

...

 

I highly doubt that is true. I mean the only reason why it has been simplified is because all of the FC/LOMAC airplanes were modeled in such a way. I can't really accept that they pulled all of this from public sources. There is just too much detail and systems modeling for this to be true. One thing I know for sure, is that MiG's roll rate was pulled straight out from the performance section of the RL manual.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Cmptohocah
Corrected typos

[Max1mus]

22 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

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.

 

Only on the surface. Heres why the full fi radars may even be less realistic than FC3.

 

Full fi radars only feature that is not modelled in FC3 are ability to change scanned bars and thus increase or decrease detection speed. In FC3 you get that delay too, though it is artificial.

 

F-18s difference between medium PRF, interleaved and HI is very low, its never worth switching between those modes. Real radars (like FC3) need to switch PRF a lot, increasing necessairy workload.

 

However, you dont get RWR nails with every radar sweep. As such, an F-18 can be set to 140 degrees and 6 bars, with easily 80+nm range. The target at that range gets nails immedeatly, even though the F-18 needs 16 seconds to even detect it, and may never see it at all if he moves the cone away early. The only thing that happens is that the target may get a different tick rate on RWR, but thats simulated on FC3 radars too.

 

Next up is memory mode, the FC3 aircraft all have trouble with it supporting missiles for a second or two when they are already off. However on the F-18, you can set that memory mode to horrendous lengths (32s) and until recently (may still work in stable), could not only fire and support an AMRAAM or AIM-7 using this memory mode while cold, but also fire a missile at a target that has disappeared off your radar since 30 seconds, yet the missile would make the turn and find the target. Making you obviously also find the target.

 

Then, there is the feature on FC3 radars that makes you loose the track or lock when a target is running away from you at the same speed (+-50kph). This is not simulated in the F-18. I believe the reason why this filter exists in realistically modelled aircraft is because of sidelobe clutter.

 

Then you have the fact that all full fi radars except F-18 are immune to jamming, FC3 ones are affected and it can actually make a good difference, especially without AWACS or EWR.

 

And last but not least you have things like JF-17 not having a radar notch until a recent patch, where when it was reported the devs were pretending that it was fine.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Max1mus

[Max1mus]

 

25 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

What the hell are you on about?! Seriously?

 

The US also operates S-300PMU1 and Pantsir S1 systems, which are early 2000s variants. DCS OPFOR could only dream to be equipped with such things. How come it isnt?

[probad]

this community was indeed better before nato 4thgens

 

we had fewer gamerbrain posts

Edited February 12, 2021 by probad

[Lurker]

2 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

 

The US also operates S-300PMU1 and Pantsir S1 systems, which are early 2000s variants. DCS OPFOR could only dream to be equipped with such things. How come it isnt?

 

I don't know. I do know that there are a lot of AI units missing from DCS World. I fail to see what this has to do with Eagle Dynamics securing permission to model the full fidelity modern variants of their opfor modules?  

[Tippis]

16 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

I highly doubt that is true. I mean the only reason why it's been simplified is because all of the FC/LOMAC airplanes were modeled in such a way. I can't really accept that they pulled all of this form public sources. There is just too much detail and systems modeling for this to be true. One thing I know for sure, is that MiG's roll rate was pulled straight out from the performance section of the RL manual.

There are two separate layers of simulation: the systems modelling and the flight dynamics modelling. Systems modelling exists in two tiers: standard (SSM) and advanced (ASM). Flight modelling has historically had five different tiers: standard (SFM), advanced (AFM), advanced+ (AFM+), professional (PFM), and external (EFM).

 

All FC3 aircraft use standard modelling, and fulfilling the demands for that is utterly trivial. You could do the data search on wikipedia and get enough data. It is very generic and comes down to just a few static data points. If you want to check out sensors, have a look in the DCS World\Scripts\Database\db_sensors.lua file and see how the baseline is defined: ranges, angles, sweep times.

Spoiler

Using the F-15 radar as an example…

        ["AN/APG-63"] =
        {
            type = RADAR_AS,
            scan_volume =
            {
                azimuth = {-60.0, 60.0},
                elevation = {-30.0, 30.0}
            },
            centered_scan_volume =
            {
                azimuth_sector = 30.0,
                elevation_sector = 30.0
            },
            max_measuring_distance = 265000.0,
            detection_distance =
            {
                [HEMISPHERE_UPPER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 88400.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 44000.0
                },
                [HEMISPHERE_LOWER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 88400.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 44200.0
                }
            },			
            lock_on_distance_coeff = 0.85,
			TWS_max_targets = 4,
            velocity_limits =
            {
                radial_velocity_min = 100.0 / 3.6,
                relative_radial_velocity_min = 100.0 / 3.6,
            },
            scan_period = 5.0,
        }

 

 

The flight modelling has been rationalised down to just AFM, PFM, and EFM — FC3 aircraft use the first two. AFM (and, some would argue, certain EFMs… no names mentioend) can again pretty trivially be inferred from standard aerodynamic models and public sources.

 

Now, the thing about that FAQ page is that is claims that PFM (which includes most FC3 aircraft these days) is based on

• Realistic simulation of Flight Control, CAS and Autopilot systems.
• Realistic simulation of Hydraulics, Fuel, Electrical, Engine and other systems influence flight characteristics.
• Unprecedented access to test data packs.

…which would suggest a lot more detail — especially that last line. But it is important to note that this was originally written back when FC3 meant AFM/AFM+, and full-fidelity modules used PFM/EFM. Only later, over time, were FC3 aircraft moved over to PFM, and there is very little to suggest that any of those things actually happened in the transition. Indeed, if you look at how the mentioned systems behave in-game, you can quite easily conclude that they don't work anywhere near to what the FAQ suggests: the effects of losing electrics in your F-15, or the autopilot modelling in the Su-33, or the ground handling of the MiG-29 (to pick a recently famous example) just… isn't there.

 

So no the systems modelling does not have a lot of detail, and definitely not details that aren't easy to find in public sources.

[Northstar98]

12 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

I don't know. I do know that there are a lot of AI units missing from DCS World. I fail to see what this has to do with Eagle Dynamics securing permission to model the full fidelity modern variants of their opfor modules?  

 

Pantsir-S1 is coming as per the 2021 big newsletter.

 

Quote

 

AI Units

New and Updated assets

Because DCS World is built on a project spanning almost two decades, some units now show their age and will be updated throughout the year. It is also important that we add new units to better fill the battlefields. Here are some of the items that we intend to create or update in 2021:

Large Aircraft: B-52H, Tu-95MS, Tu-142, B-1B, IL-38, and Tu-160

Carrier Aircraft: S-3B and SH-60B

Ground Units: M1A2, AMX-56 Leclerc, Wespe Sd.Kfz.124, KS-19 100mm ADA, Son-4 “Flap Wheel” radar, C1 Ariete, Pantsir SA-22 “Greyhound”, and S-300/SA-10 “Grumble”.

 

 

[Tippis]

27 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

The US also operates S-300PMU1 and Pantsir S1 systems, which are early 2000s variants. DCS OPFOR could only dream to be equipped with such things. How come it isnt?

1. Because neither is DCS BLUFOR.

2. Because they're not giving out that information either.

3. Because rule #1: you never let the opponent know what you know, even if you know that they know that you know and especially if you suspect that they only suspect that you know. You know.

 

Oh, and funnily enough, the most capable air defence system currently available in the game is a REDFOR system: the S-300FM on the Kirov-class. DCS BLUFOR could only  dream to be equipped with such things.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Tippis

[DD_Fenrir]

25 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

Only on the surface. Heres why the full fi radars may even be less realistic than FC3.

 

Full fi radars only feature that is not modelled in FC3 are ability to change scanned bars and thus increase or decrease detection speed. In FC3 you get that delay too, though it is artificial.

 

F-18s difference between medium PRF, interleaved and HI is very low, its never worth switching between those modes. Real radars (like FC3) need to switch PRF a lot, increasing necessairy workload.

 

However, you dont get RWR nails with every radar sweep. As such, an F-18 can be set to 140 degrees and 6 bars, with easily 80+nm range. The target at that range gets nails immedeatly, even though the F-18 needs 16 seconds to even detect it, and may never see it at all if he moves the cone away early. The only thing that happens is that the target may get a different tick rate on RWR, but thats simulated on FC3 radars too.

 

Next up is memory mode, the FC3 aircraft all have trouble with it supporting missiles for a second or two when they are already off. However on the F-18, you can set that memory mode to horrendous lengths (32s) and until recently (may still work in stable), could not only fire and support an AMRAAM or AIM-7 using this memory mode while cold, but also fire a missile at a target that has disappeared off your radar since 30 seconds, yet the missile would make the turn and find the target. Making you obviously also find the target.

 

Then, there is the feature on FC3 radars that makes you loose the track or lock when a target is running away from you at the same speed (+-50kph). This is not simulated in the F-18. I believe the reason why this filter exists in realistically modelled aircraft is because of sidelobe clutter.

 

Then you have the fact that all full fi radars except F-18 are immune to jamming, FC3 ones are affected and it can actually make a good difference, especially without AWACS or EWR.

 

And last but not least you have things like JF-17 not having a radar notch until a recent patch, where when it was reported the devs were pretending that it was fine.

 

 

You may have some fair points, but all of these have been answered elsewhere time and time and time again;

 

As for F/A-18 radar features/functionality the Hornet is still in EA right? Until they declare the module as complete and state definitively they have the radar finished, it is reasonable to assume that some of this requires polishing. You also claim a lot of things about the real radars capabilities or lack thereof but present no data to prove you're correct.

Time and again it comes down to supposition on your part.

 

As for EW, I think everyone round here understands that EW in DCS is a problem child and that, yes, that puts FC3 aircraft at a disadvantage currently. But jamming effects are on the roadmap for inclusion in the FF aircraft. Having siad that, I've never used it as it seemed to have such a negligible effect on the outcome of a fight (burn through was always achieved well before RMax giving plenty of time to make tactical decisions based on the emerging picture). 

[bies]

52 minutes ago, probad said:

this community was indeed better before nato 4thgens

 

we had fewer gamerbrain posts

 

It was clear right from the beginning, few years ago.

 

DCS before the Hornet was a sim for the military aviation enthusiasts - Ka-50 "niche/prototype hard to use helicopter", A-10C "not so exciting for kids" specialised CAS aircraft, MiG-21bis "too hard to fly not to menton to land".

 

 

With US 4th gen fighters Hornet and Viper some huge crowd of "gamers", often without the smallest knowledge about combat aviation, became attracted to DCS. They started to push "team", "balance", "competitive", "the best", "PvP", "nerf this", "buff that", "overpowered" - classic CounterStrike/WarThunder therminology - and maindset connected to that - to DCS community.

 

Additional factor was availability: totally fresh guy without sim background coming to our squadron is somewhat "competitive pilot" with 4th Gen Viper or Hornet in - literally - one day.

It is enough to tech them just simple 3 point instruction:

• go fast (FBW will not let you make something stupid)
• fire self guided AMRAAM right before MAR
• run

Obviously it's possible to make it slightly more efficient with some additional steps, but still this one-day instruction alone is allowing completely fresh guy to go, takeoff/land FBW jet and kill being somewhat competitive in combat after just one day training! (He won't land on a carrier or refuel but still...)

Kind of low level of difficlulty you could say (and not because it's significantly simplified or something, no - technology of 2000s simply allowed that, "JDAM Blues" press the pickle - target destroyed)

 

With non-FBW, non AMRAAM+datalink planes like Sabre, MiG-15, MiG-21bis or even Ka-50, Huey, Mi-8 etc. where you have to do everything manually or semi-manually - it takes some considerable training just not to stall/spin/crash/kill yourself without any enemy imput. Let alone any combat - you need to master maneuver air combat basics to have any chance to kill something. And experience.

 

That being said it was very easy to predict this kind of "GAMEY" mindset will come together with Hornet and Viper - mainstream US semi-modern fighters but we can't only take offense at reality and the "gamey - players" for whom which plane is the easiest to win in the most important, and realism in any shape or form in the last place.

It's not their fault, they often don't have the slightest idea how complicated any module is, how many things is going under the hood and "why the heck modelling this plane takes so much time?" "Why we don't have Su-35, Raptor, Rafale everything?"

 

They are necessary for the development of the DCS - Nick Grey said ED increased their customers base by some 100% in two years with Hornet and Viper and became financially stable.

They WILL try to convince or even enforce that everything can be guestimated, no data is needed and the WT level of realism is a sweet spot.

But we will have to be understanding and convincing rather than merely looking at them with contempt like some superior elite...

 

ED are passionate people simply proud of making the most realsitic combat simulator ever and making DCS is for them something more than money alone and i believe they will never allow this "new vocal crowd" to enforce some agenda and degrade DCS.

Edited February 12, 2021 by bies

[probad]

people could all simmer down on both sides a bit considering neither side actually has connections where it matters

Edited February 12, 2021 by probad

[SharkWizard]

Interestingly enough we could have western sources for (all the) data on the standard Soviet 9.12 (non-9.12A or 9.12B) since Slovakia apparently bought a few of those (soviet 9.12) from Russia in the 90s. 

 

Additionally the US bought quite a few (soviet) 9.13 from Moldova in the 90s. 

 

Maybe this has all been mentioned already in this topic but I didn't notice. 

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, SharkWizard said:

Interestingly enough we could have western sources for (all the) data on the standard Soviet 9.12 (non-9.12A or 9.12B) since Slovakia apparently bought a few of those (soviet 9.12) from Russia in the 90s. 

 

Additionally the US bought quite a few (soviet) 9.13 from Moldova in the 90s. 

 

Maybe this has all been mentioned already in this topic but I didn't notice. 

 

Yeah many people have brought it up. And that is probably how "its possible". The next trick is to see who has some aging export flankers they might share data on... Oh wait I know... China J11A... The other possibility is to do the 9.12 and then look around as to who made some older upgrade kits for it and see if you can get the data there. 

 

And boy did this thread go downhill since yesterday. 

43 minutes ago, probad said:

this community was indeed better before nato 4thgens

 

we had fewer gamerbrain posts

 

 

I agree to a point, but you need fresh players coming to DCS too. I think the hope is that they "mature".

Edited February 12, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Max1mus]

26 minutes ago, Tippis said:

 

Oh, and funnily enough, the most capable air defence system currently available in the game is a REDFOR system: the S-300FM on the Kirov-class. DCS BLUFOR could only  dream to be equipped with such things.

 

 

Ticonderoga class SM-2 burns through jammers at 10 miles further and has better CCM. So for defending against jamming targets (like a jamming F-14/F-15 attempting to kill an AWACS), Kirov is not better since it only shoots at 30nm or less. Im not sure the minimum altitude of S-300FM isn't worse either. Theyre both 90s ships.

[Tippis]

12 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Ticonderoga class SM-2 burns through jammers at 10 miles further and has better CCM. So for defending against jamming targets (like a jamming F-14/F-15 attempting to kill an AWACS), Kirov is not better since it only shoots at 30nm or less. Im not sure the minimum altitude of S-300FM isn't worse either. Theyre both 90s ships.

Fort-M flies farther, higher, faster, hits hard and engages smaller targets. It has a slightly longer minimum range, but that's ok because it is backed up by Kortiks, Kinzhal, and regular Forts. The only real advantage the US ships have is that they have more trackers, but they're also more easily defeated.

 

I'm sorry that the in-game definitions don't quite live up to your expectations of REDFOR scrappiness, but that's just how it is…

Edited February 12, 2021 by Tippis

[Cmptohocah]

29 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

...But jamming effects are on the roadmap for inclusion in the FF aircraft. Having siad that, I've never used it as it seemed to have such a negligible effect on the outcome of a fight (burn through was always achieved well before RMax giving plenty of time to make tactical decisions based on the emerging picture). 

On a Su-27, flying at 2000km/h TAS at 12.000m altitude, R-27ER has RMax greater than the current burn through distance.

[bies]

13 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

Ticonderoga class SM-2 burns through jammers at 10 miles further and has better CCM. So for defending against jamming targets (like a jamming F-14/F-15 attempting to kill an AWACS), Kirov is not better since it only shoots at 30nm or less. Im not sure the minimum altitude of S-300FM isn't worse either. Theyre both 90s ships.

 

And now some guy, in MiG-29A topic, is arguing viciously which warship will burn through ecm at bigger distance. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by bies

[Max1mus]

21 minutes ago, bies said:

But ED are passionate and simply proud of making the most realsitic combat simulator ever and making DCS is for them something more than money alone

 

Yes, ED is not making certain very necessairy low fidelity modules to fill gaps in the modern era, out of pride as you stated and as Bignewy/Nineline have told on EDs discord.

 

ED created the most realistic public cockpit simulator ever. However, most realistic combat simulator is very far-fetched given that both of these full fidelity modules they are so proud of cannot be used for anything else than bombing insurgents (which DCS also lacks by the way) and recreating turkey shoots like libya 2011. Even for turkey shoots like desert storm or yugoslavia, the F-18s and F-16s avionics are way out place.

[Tippis]

1 minute ago, Max1mus said:

[…] both of these full fidelity modules they are so proud of cannot be used for anything else than bombing insurgents (which DCS also lacks by the way)

That's odd. I just add them to my coalition list and, BAM!, there they are…

[bies]

On 2/12/2021 at 4:52 PM, Max1mus said:

However, most realistic combat simulator is very far-fetched given that both of these full fidelity modules they are so proud of cannot be used for anything else than bombing insurgents (which DCS also lacks by the way) and recreating turkey shoots like libya 2011. Even for turkey shoots like desert storm or yugoslavia, the F-18s and F-16s avionics are way out place.

 

Yes. And it will probably remain like that. They may add some AI Su-something as opfor with guestimated radar and misslies for obvious reasons but that's it.

 

In my humble opinion, and not only mine, it was small mistake to make 2000s Viper and Hornet instead of 1980s variants which would fit the current DCS enviroment and probably have possible to model full fidelity realistic Soviet opposition, like MiG-29A or maybe even Su-27S.

And which would sell identically (99% people don't have the slightest idea what is the difference between "F/A-18C Lot 20" and "Lot 10", they see Hornet - they buy)

And which would be A LOT faster to complete, like 1-2 years faster to complete.

Edited February 14, 2021 by bies

[Harlikwin]

2 minutes ago, bies said:

 

Yes. And it will probably remain like that. They may add some AI Su-something as opfor wth guestimated radar and misslies for obvious reasons but that's it.

 

In my humble opinion, and not only mine, it was small mistake to make 2000s Viper and Hornet instead of 1980s variants which would fit the current DCS enviroment and probably have possible to model full fidelity realistic Soviet opposition, like MiG-29A or maybe even Su-27S in the future.

And which would sell identically (99% people don't have the slightest idea what is the difference between Lot 20 and Lot 12, they see Hornet - they buy)

And which would be A LOT faster to complete, like 1-2 years faster to complete.

 

 

Now we are just quoting each other

[Max1mus]

2 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

On a Su-27, flying at 2000km/h TAS at 12.000m altitude, R-27ER has RMax greater than the current burn through distance.

 

R-27ER is still running on 6 year old code. Try AIM-120C from F-15. 50-55nm of range, ~23nm burnthrough range.

 

This reminds me of another reason why this MiG-29A is doing more harm than good: ED is known to delay bug fixes and updates and combine them with module releases for extry hype and revenue.

Example: MiG-29 RWR 2 1/2 years ago. Due to new 2.5 shaders, the RWR was bugged and unreadable for over a year, making the MiG-29 close to unusable. It had been long fixed on the Su-27. Guess when ED released the fix? When the PFM update for MiG-29 came out ...

 

The R-27 CFD research and update (AIM-120 has it since 1.5 years now) has been delayed over and over again since last year. Now Chizh from ED confirmed that it will not be released until after "work the Mi-24 and Apache is finished". I think ED is going to do this to us again, making us wait 1-2 years for an essential fix just to generate hype around this MiG-29A.

[bies]

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

Now we are just quoting each other

We are because the it is obvious. W didn't invent the wheel, marely describe things like they are.

[Max1mus]

6 minutes ago, bies said:

 

In my humble opinion, and not only mine, it was small mistake to make 2000s Viper and Hornet instead of 1980s variants which would fit the current DCS enviroment and probably have possible to model full fidelity realistic Soviet opposition, like MiG-29A or maybe even Su-27S in the future.

And which would sell identically (99% people don't have the slightest idea what is the difference between Lot 20 and Lot 12, they see Hornet - they buy)

And which would be A LOT faster to complete, like 1-2 years faster to complete.

 

 

Agreed. 90s versions would have been fine too. But ED can only limit the damage now. Which in my opinion is not possible without low fidelity on OPFOR, especially given that the upcoming dynamic campaigns are supposed to support PvP. And i believe even PVE groups like to have some client aggressor roles sometimes.

[bies]

30 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

Agreed. 90s versions would have been fine too. But ED can only limit the damage now. Which in my opinion is not possible without low fidelity on OPFOR, especially given that the upcoming dynamic campaigns are supposed to support PvP. And i believe even PVE groups like to have some client aggressor roles sometimes.

 

And that's raises only 2 questions:

1. Would i even like to see or have low fidelity, guestimated, made up i.e. MiG-29SMT, heavyweight, medicore performer, not exciting to fly, with fictional advanced and capable weapon system ONLY to make some artificial OPFOR balance?
2. Why ED, knowing perfectly how Russian law works in ths matter and being aware anything beyound Cold War 1980s will not be possible (and even 1980s Su-27S and MiG-31 will be extremally hard to negotiate for ED, MiG-31 maybe completely impossible) - still decided to make 2000s US Viper and Hornet instead of 1980s as counterparts compatible with the whole rest of DCS, selling identically and A LOT faster to complete?

If ED would make F-16C Block 30 and F/A-18 Lot 10:

• they wouldn't be all this argument,
• both would be complete already
• and people would fight 1980s / Desert Storm maneuver air combat with F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, MiG-29s, Su-27s, Mirages 2000, Viggns - being happy.

Edited February 12, 2021 by bies