announced DCS MiG-29A

[Harlikwin]

2 minutes ago, bies said:

 

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?
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 possibly completely impossible) - still decided to make 2000s US Viper and Hornet instead of 1980s as counterparts compatible with the whole rest of DCS?

 

 

Honestly I think they did the more modern stuff to show that they could to "other" customers. Basically they want the money from Air forces, which probably is a more reliable stream of revenue and probably a larger one. I.e. The ADA is now using the M2k module for some stuff, the USAF is using the A10C/C2. I wouldn't be surprised if the Viper gets picked up by someone or some more "apropos" version of it. The odd one out is the F18C, since its basically headed to the scrap yard globally. 

 

Plus, I do think that the new "wunderwaffle" modules make some sense in terms of "Accessibility", we all might mock the idea of the point and click ground attack, but really, for new players they get a god complex doing it and its easy, and TBH probably easier to code in some ways (i.e. a modern TGP is easy to code vs the complexity to build one), wheras coding a old finicky system like the ARBS/DMT on the harrier is probably harder to realistically code. Plus based on what I've heard, dumb bomb deliver "logic" doesn't work like we would think in DCS.

 

[bies]

10 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Honestly I think they did the more modern stuff to show that they could to "other" customers.

 

Yes, now I am putting together some facts: 

• ED wanted to make full fidelity A-10A, fitting DCS timeframe, simpler, far quicker to make, ofering "attractive" manual skill-based close combat - but military wanted to retrain their A-10 pilots from analog A-10A to digital A-10C (the main goal was to train the hotas muscle memory and systems) - i've heard A-10 pilots from US squadron talking about it
• ED wanted to make some, even generic at the beginning, AHR BVR mainstream missile planes for the pilots to train some basic concepts - Simon Pearson said something suggesting that in the interview

Edited February 12, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

30 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Now we are just quoting each other

 

Seconded!

[Gierasimov]

On 8/2/2020 at 9:14 PM, FoxAlfa said:

Fulcrum

Oh well... another weekend newsletter without news on Fulcrum...

[Seaeagle]

18 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.

 

Yes but instead of just adding simplified versions of current FF modules, it would IMHO have been more intersting and a better use of FC3/MAC level of simulation to look at the possibility of doing aircraft types that are curretly out of reach for FF modules.

 

That way there would be a broader appeal beyond the "casual player" target group.

 

I still think ED is jumping to conclusions with the notion that the popularity of FC3 is solely down to its "shallow learning curve" - I think a lot of people bought and played FC3 despite the entry level representation, because it gave them access to the MiG-29, the Su-27, the Su-33 and F-15C :) .

[bies]

  

14 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

Oh well... another weekend newsletter without news on Fulcrum...

 

There will be like that untill Mi-24P will be released.

News are dictated by commercial cycle.

Opportunity to fly 1980s non-FBW full fidelity realistic MiG-29A for close maneuver air combat - a dream come true. I can wait. Im patient.

Edited February 12, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

13 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

I still think ED is jumping to conclusions with the notion that the popularity of FC3 is solely down to its "shallow learning curve" - I think a lot of people bought and played FC3 despite the entry level representation, because it gave them access to the MiG-29, the Su-27, the Su-33 and F-15C .

 

I'm certainly in that camp.

 

I actually prefer using the mouse to operate switches rather than fumbling around with various keyboard commands, I can just look at the switch and read what it says. There's also things like the radios, which is a nightmare in FC3 SP as you have every single AI aircraft stepping on each others communications. And because they all have the same voices I can't tell who is who unless I pick-up their callsign each and every time.

 

Obviously the start-up procedures are much more simple as well as enabling certain things, but you only really need to do that once, and usually (for me at least), they're pretty simple to remember after I've done it a few times and they're all basically the same anyway.

 

1. Get electrical power (may involve ground power, or circuit breakers or whatever)
2. Enable fuel pumps (more modern aircraft typically skip this step)
3. Enable starter (may involve an APU or GTS)
4. Throttle to idle
5. Power/set-up avionics

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fangs Out]

Yea , while something like the A-10C or Mig-21 may be complicated at first, it becomes muscle memory after a while. Also I'm excited for the 9.12 so wecan finally have a 80s era red for module ( Bis was a 72 or 73 upgrade to the Fishbed)

[bies]

13 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

I think a lot of people bought and played FC3 despite the entry level representation, because it gave them access to the MiG-29, the Su-27, the Su-33 and F-15C .

 

Me also. I hate they are simplified low fidelity but sometimes i simply want to fly a MiG-29A, Su-27S, F-15C, or simple analog A-10A where i don't have to program doezen of electronic gizmos in computer to fire unguided rocket. Or simple not even analog, i would say mechanical, Su-25A - jet powered IL-2 on steroids.

I would buy any of that as full fidelity without slightest hesitation.

Edited February 12, 2021 by bies

[Harlikwin]

13 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Yes but instead of just adding simplified versions of current FF modules, it would IMHO have been more intersting and a better use of FC3/MAC level of simulation to look at the possibility of doing aircraft types that are curretly out of reach for FF modules.

 

That way there would be a broader appeal beyond the "casual player" target group.

 

I still think ED is jumping to conclusions with the notion that the popularity of FC3 is solely down to its "shallow learning curve" - I think a lot of people bought and played FC3 despite the entry level representation, because it gave them access to the MiG-29, the Su-27, the Su-33 and F-15C .

 

Nah, I think you're right about that. I mean currently other sims more or less supply a FC3 like experience, and frankly a better one than FC3. Thats what I think Max was getting at anyway with his comments. And I certainly bought FC3 not for "simple" models or to get into DCS, I bought it cuz I wanted fly the mig29 amusingly enough.

 

1 minute ago, bies said:

 

Me also. I hate they are simplified low fidelity but sometimes i simply want to fly a MiG-29A, Su-27S, F-15C, or simple analog A-10A where i don't have to program doezen of gizmos to fire unguided rocket. Or simple not even analog, i would say mechanical, Su-25A - jet powered IL-2 on steroids.

I would buy any of that as full fidelity without slightest hesitation.

 

Yeah I really think the basic Su-25 should be done by someone. It was exported and used ALOT in various historical conflicts. Day 1 buy for me as well. But DCS also needs some crappier manpads and some "less laser like" ai gunners for things like the bofors.... 

[bies]

When i think about that some of them would be extremally simple for ED to make as full fidelity. If they really want to slowly get rid of FC3 and transfer it to MAC.

 

I.e. A-10A: they already have professional high quality flight model, high quality external model, all it's weapon types, high quality cockpit needed only some changes - analog panel instead of DDI. And simple rudimentary declassified analog avionics as complicated as F-5. It would be like some ~20% of the work remain.

 

The they could sell it as a variant just like "A-10C II Tank Killer" for some adequate price they would consider appropriate.

 

 

Similar with Su-25, refreshing the 3d model and cockpit and programming an extremely simple mechanical weapon system.

 

EDIT:

To be honest they would be even better "entry level" modules than FC3 - first being full fidelity - so a lot more commecrial value without the stigma of "low fidelity simplification", second being even simpler to learn without the need to remember some dozens of keyboard shortcuts. Forgot something? Just click in the cockpit.

Edited February 12, 2021 by bies

[Gierasimov]

29 minutes ago, bies said:

  

 

There will be like that untill Mi-24P will be released.

News are dictated by commercial cycle.

Opportunity to fly 1980s non-FBW full fidelity realistic MiG-29A for close maneuver air combat - a dream come true. I can wait. Im patient.

 

True true. Same here. I just wish they announced it officially already.

[Harlikwin]

29 minutes ago, bies said:

When i think about that some of them would be extremally simple for ED to make as full fidelity. If they really want to slowly get rid of FC3 and transfer it to MAC.

 

I.e. A-10A: they already have professional high quality flight model, high quality external model, all it's weapon types, high quality cockpit needed only some changes - analog panel instead of DDI. And simple rudimentary declassified analog avionics as complicated as F-5. It would be like some ~20% of the work remain.

 

The they could sell it as a variant just like "A-10C II Tank Killer" for some adequate price they would consider appropriate.

 

 

Similar with Su-25, refreshing the 3d model and cockpit and programming an extremely simple mechanical weapon system.

 

EDIT:

To be honest they would be even better "entry level" modules than FC3 - first being full fidelity - so a lot more commecrial value without the stigma of "low fidelity simplification", second being even simpler to learn without the need to remember some dozens of keyboard shortcuts. Forgot something? Just click.

 

 

Yeah I totally agree. With the A10A they mostly already have all the hydraulics/engine etc done anyway. They would more or less have to have a new pit model, and then redo the weapons avionics. And actually based on my chats with certain coders that may be the actual problem, the way the A10A solves the bombing triangle might not be "compatible" with DCS, same issue with the harrier.

 

The 25 would be the same thing really, the sight complex in that case would be more compatible because it does get a direct slant range from the LRF too. But they would have to put in time on engine/hydro/damage model etc.

 

The main question would be how much effort vs return. I think for the Su-25 it would be a "new" FF module, while the A10A I go back and forth on since we already have 2 later A10C's so not sure how much it would sell. Of course the hardcore hog guys might buy it, but who knows.

[bies]

So i just made a suggestion not to go offtopic here.

 

 

[Lurker]

2 hours 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. 

 

It's not about the data. I'm reasonably sure that Eagle Dynamics has all the data they need, and then some. It's about whether they are even allowed to make and sell the module. If they do it without permission they are opening up a whole can of worms they don't want to open.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Lurker

[bies]

11 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

It's not about the data. I'm reasonably sure that Eagle Dynamics has all the data they need, and then some. It's about whether they are even allowed to make and sell the module. If they do it without permission they are opening up a whole can of worms they don't want to open.

 

 

This.

When it comes to i.e. 1980s Su-27S ED may not have everything but they surely have significant data.

When it comes to i.e. 1980s iG-31 it can be really hard to obtain reliable data.

 

But when it comes to MiG-29A - they probably had most data needed, it was, as Lurker said, law and permission to make it.

Edited February 12, 2021 by bies

[Harlikwin]

2 minutes ago, bies said:

 

This.

When it comes to i.e. 1980s Su-27S ED may not have everything but they surely have significant data.

When it comes to i.e. M1980s iG-31 it can be really hard to obtain reliable data.

 

But when it comes to MiG-29A - they have most data needed, it was, as Lurker said, law and permission to make it.

 

And really, while we can all debate about how "good" or "smart" a law is, its still a law and ED has to follow it. Maybe they can skirt it but still. 

[ZHeN]

it's always so amusing to read foreigners discussing russian laws and/or how they work

[Harlikwin]

6 minutes ago, ZHeN said:

it's always so amusing to read foreigners discussing russian laws and/or how they work

 

Enlighten us. 

[Gierasimov]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Enlighten us. 

No. Don't. Interested parties should discuss this elsewhere. Let's keep this focused on the specific aircraft. 

 

Honestly I am not getting why is this so hard not to go off topic here.

 

C'mon people, lets talk MiG-29 here only. Please.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Gierasimov

[Teknetinium]

4 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Yes but instead of just adding simplified versions of current FF modules, it would IMHO have been more intersting and a better use of FC3/MAC level of simulation to look at the possibility of doing aircraft types that are curretly out of reach for FF modules.

 

That way there would be a broader appeal beyond the "casual player" target group.

 

I still think ED is jumping to conclusions with the notion that the popularity of FC3 is solely down to its "shallow learning curve" - I think a lot of people bought and played FC3 despite the entry level representation, because it gave them access to the MiG-29, the Su-27, the Su-33 and F-15C .

Most of us are here since it started with Flanker and F-15, Thats how it all started and where the main core is if you ask me. That core has been lost because of different actions made by ED and outside factors.  

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

And really, while we can all debate about how "good" or "smart" a law is, its still a law and ED has to follow it. Maybe they can skirt it but still. 

It is sanctions by US taking effect around 2014, before then ED had plans for modern airframes from Russia, how was the Ka-50 possible regarding your law talk! Now back to MIG-29,

Edited February 12, 2021 by Teknetinium

[Mars Exulte]

8 hours 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?

  Same reason the Ka-50 as stands is allowed : it was already done. It's also a lot more abstracted and based primarily on code from 10-15 years ago, aside from the 3d model and PFM itself.

 

  All bs aside, the Ka-50 was made during much less ''politically tense'' times, when Russia was on semi-good terms with everyone and looking to make a buck wherever they could. In the current environment, the Ka-50 would PROBABLY not be permissible. Either way, it's right on the edge of the 80s/90s cutoff they seem to focus on.

 

 

Quote

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?

  The issue is only partially about the law itself. The REAL issue, is that the bulk of Eagle Dynamics is situated in Russia, meaning they are 100% subject to Russian politics, opinion, and law. If they were located elsewhere, they could pretty much give no sh*ts. For them, being located RIGHT THERE, getting crosswise with the political bodies there could easily result in jail time, persecution, sudden ''tax issues'' etc etc. THAT'S the real problem. It's not ''lack of access to information'' it's ''not wanting to burn bridges you can't easily rebuild from inside a jail cell''.

 

It's also why 3rd parties located outside Russia have been said to be potential avenues for this stuff, because THEY don't live there, and are somewhat insulated from the politics of it all. ED in that case could potentially fall back on ''we're just a platform''. They've always said THEY can't do one, not that one CAN'T BE DONE period. It's still potentially tricky, but it's a lot easier when the people most likely to be frowned at have an ocean's worth of buffer.

Edited February 12, 2021 by zhukov032186

[Harlikwin]

9 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

 

It's also why 3rd parties located outside Russia have been said to be potential avenues for this stuff, because THEY don't live there, and are somewhat insulated from the politics of it all. ED in that case could potentially fall back on ''we're just a platform''. They've always said THEY can't do one, not that one CAN'T BE DONE period. It's still potentially tricky, but it's a lot easier when the people most likely to be frowned at have an ocean's worth of buffer.

 

 

I've never really understood the "we're a platform" argument. They OBVIOUSLY control what goes into DCS, control the API's etc. So if a "sukhoi" is "illegal" for them to do. Its gonna be "illegal" regardless of who does it. Unless some lawyer wants to correct me.

 

[Mars Exulte]

4 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I've never really understood the "we're a platform" argument. They OBVIOUSLY control what goes into DCS, control the API's etc. So if a "sukhoi" is "illegal" for them to do. Its gonna be "illegal" regardless of who does it. Unless some lawyer wants to correct me.

 

  Dunno, it's just what ED themselves have said. They have repeatedly stated a 3rd party can do it if they want, but they're not touching it. I absolutely get your reasoning. Maybe that's why there aren't any 3rd parties stepping forward to do it.

 

  Could even be a Catch 22. Can't get permission if not in Russia. Can't get permission, or simply a minefield of liability if IN Russia.

 

  Still makes more sense than the guys who can't seem to understand that if we need Western companies/govs permission, it stands to reason we need Eastern/Russian companies/govs permission, and that some groups are more forthcoming than others.

Edited February 12, 2021 by zhukov032186

[Harlikwin]

Just now, zhukov032186 said:

  Dunno, it's just what ED themselves have said. They have repeatedly stated a 3rd party can do it if they want, but they're not touching it. I absolutely get your reasoning. Maybe that's why there aren't any 3rd parties stepping forward to do it.

 

  Could even be a Catch 22. Can't get permission if not in Russia. Can't get permission, or simply a minefield of liability if IN Russia.

 

Yeah, IDK, I know what ED has said as well as you. It just doesn't make much sense frankly. The comments about cost vs. profit/danger are far more believable to me. At any rate I'm glad they are willing/able to do the 9.12