SU-35S

[skywalker22]

Irbis radar: 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by mitja_bonca

[Kev2go]

On 2/24/2021 at 10:14 AM, Northstar98 said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Here's just a comparison between the P-19, a legacy mechanically scanned 2D RADAR, and the MPQ-53, the STR/FCR of our Patriot PAC-2

["p-19 s-125 sr"] =
        {
            type = RADAR_AS,
            scan_volume =
            {
                azimuth = {-180.0, 180.0},
                elevation = {-15.0, 45.0}
            },
            max_measuring_distance = 160000.0,
            detection_distance =
            {
                [HEMISPHERE_UPPER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 160000.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 160000.0
                },
                [HEMISPHERE_LOWER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 160000.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 160000.0
                }
            },
            lock_on_distance_coeff = 0.85,
            velocity_limits =
            {
                radial_velocity_min = 15,
            },
            scan_period = 6.0,
        },
        ["Patriot str"] =
        {
            type = RADAR_AS,
            scan_volume =
            {
                azimuth = {-180.0, 180.0},
                elevation = {-15.0, 60.0}
            },
            max_measuring_distance = 260000.0,
            detection_distance =
            {
                [HEMISPHERE_UPPER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 260000.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 260000.0
                },
                [HEMISPHERE_LOWER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 260000.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 260000.0
                }
            },
            lock_on_distance_coeff = 0.85,
            velocity_limits =
            {
                radial_velocity_min = 15,
            },
            scan_period = 1.0,
        },

 

 

 

 

It doesn't and it's irrelevant, as I said before (though I got my quote wrong), BN said that they don't have any plans to do more FC3 aircraft. So that probably takes the Su-35S out of the realm of possibility for DCS - which is what this thread concerns.

 

 

 

They wont be making FC3 aircraft, but thats because MAC will be a thing, and what it will amount to is a FC4.

 

(Not that i would expect su35 for mac, but just pointing out, that having simpler modules will still be a thing)

[skywalker22]

I noticed there was a downloadable link on 21.2.2021 (so 2 weeks ago) for this airplane, but apparently got deleted.

Screenshot from Google:

 

 

Anyone knows why? And if there is any other link? 

 

PS: I found it, and its no good.

Edited March 7, 2021 by mitja_bonca

[SUBS17]

For the Pirouette IRL you use FBW only like the Hornet not TVN. The SU35S is an awesome aircraft.

[Mike_Romeo]

21 hours ago, mitja_bonca said:

I noticed there was a downloadable link on 21.2.2021 (so 2 weeks ago) for this airplane, but apparently got deleted.

Screenshot from Google:

 

 

Anyone knows why? And if there is any other link? 

 

PS: I found it, and its no good.

 

 

This is the downloadlink from the latest growling Sidewinder video https://drive.google.com/file/d/129uZQsJBRo___-jn8kLNso896F7LC2Hp/view

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Mike_Romeo

[F-2]

 Old topic with hud info

 

Mig-35 hud

 

 

ED is done with FC3 but it might be ok for a third party, The J-11 is only a few years old.

[Nipil]

Time and time again, people ask for modern Russian stuff, at least FC3. Time and time again they are told that ED won't do this. This cycle will keep running forever, until either DCS dies or year 2040 comes and ED manages to do Su-27SM or other fighter which would have been retired 15 years ago by then.

[Northstar98]

Just now, Nipil said:

Time and time again, people ask for modern Russian stuff, at least FC3. Time and time again they are told that ED won't do this. This cycle will keep running forever, until either DCS dies or year 2040 comes and ED manages to do Su-27SM or other fighter which would have been retired 15 years ago by then.

 

Personally, the much more feasible solution is to do older BLUFOR aircraft which are contemporaries of REDFOR aircraft that are actually doable.

 

And list of potential candidates isn't exactly small.

[Nipil]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Personally, the much more feasible solution is to do older BLUFOR aircraft which are contemporaries of REDFOR aircraft that are actually doable.

 

And list of potential candidates isn't exactly small.

 

It would be nice too, but it seems that ED has delegated this to 3rd party devs. And they are not too much eager to go this way either, though there are some goos developments. 

 

BTW, this is yet another topic that would be brought up over and over again on DCS forums for years to come :) 

[F-2]

 A surprisingly informative news story on the SU-35 cockpit. Are third parties allowed to do fc3 modules? 

[Poulopot]

Doing research among available public material and adding a bit of guesswork to fill the gaps has never frightened ED when they were adding US modern planes and missiles and of course they modelled classified material without having the complete technical documentation because in any country possessing such documents leads you in prison.
For example a developper from ED (Oleg Tishchenko) has been tried and imprisoned for possessing a more than 20 years old F16 manual. Yet we have a full fidelity F-16 (and I am sure it is not full fidelity, just ask a real pilot, some gaps have been filled by guessworking).
 

It's incredible that Redfor players are still there, politely asking for something that will never come. You'll only have 40 years old relics because "Russians lag behind" and "Classified documents are classified in Russia"

[Northstar98]

 

24 minutes ago, Poulopot said:

For example a developper from ED (Oleg Tishchenko) has been tried and imprisoned for possessing a more than 20 years old F16 manual. Yet we have a full fidelity F-16 (and I am sure it is not full fidelity, just ask a real pilot, some gaps have been filled by guessworking).

 

He was convicted for trying to smuggle an ITAR protected source. The document was available in the states but it is still a protected document. And that was for the F-16A if I remember rightly, and had nothing to do with the F-16CM Block 50 module (for which documentation exists and is publicly available).

 

I'm sure we'll never get something 100%, but the goal should be as realistic as possible.

 

And like I've said before, the solution is to do more historical BLUFOR aircraft, that actually fit with REDFOR aircraft that is actually doable.

 

[Poulopot]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm sure we'll never get something 100%, but the goal should be as realistic as possible.

 

Exactly my point and unfortunately there is absolutely no will from ED to do modern russian planes as realistic as possible, even if it is not 100%.
The lack of information is just something they hide behind, especially since the players are more focused on the accuracy of flight models than the accuracy of electronic systems and the sensitive intel is about the systems. The flight model is displayed in airshows, not the accuracy of radars or the range of effective jamming.
They prefer to do the guesswork with modern US missiles to shoot down 80s russian planes.
 

[skywalker22]

Hasn`t Su-27 been originally made by ED, 1stly for Lock-On sim (2003). Then it has been improved in FC2 (2010) and an improved version from there, we have now here in DCS (since 2013), if I`m correct. And it hasn`t changed much since.

Btw, and where does Mig-29 come from, also from ED, made from scratch for DCS in 2013?

Edited April 23, 2021 by mitja_bonca

[F-2]

2 hours ago, Poulopot said:

Exactly my point and unfortunately there is absolutely no will from ED to do modern russian planes as realistic as possible, even if it is not 100%.
The lack of information is just something they hide behind, especially since the players are more focused on the accuracy of flight models than the accuracy of electronic systems and the sensitive intel is about the systems. The flight model is displayed in airshows, not the accuracy of radars or the range of effective jamming.
They prefer to do the guesswork with modern US missiles to shoot down 80s russian planes.
 

Since DCS World came it’s become illegal for Russian citizens and companies to distribute information on military system. Even now ED has mentioned they are going through a long process of getting Permission to build an early Mig-29. In the world of military systems guessing to close to the right answer could still be considered a leak, especially when you have had access to classified information in the past. I doubt ED can do much, rather it would be better if a new third party came about to develop red aircraft, Deka sort of kinda Does this.

[Seaeagle]

34 minutes ago, mitja_bonca said:

Hasn`t Su-27 been originally made by ED, 1stly for Lock-On sim (2003). Then it has been improved in FC2 (2010) and an improved version from there, we have now here in DCS (since 2013), if I`m correct. And it hasn`t changed much since.

Btw, and where does Mig-29 come from, also from ED, made from scratch for DCS in 2013?

 

No the Su-27 was the very first ED product in "Su-27 Flanker" from 1995, then updated in "Flanker 2.0"(+Su-33 added)/Flanker 2.5(MiG-29K added), then in "Lock-on", FC, FC2 and now FC3 - with gradual improvements(radar modes, external 3D model, 3D cockpit and flight model etc). 

 

The flyable MiG-29 and MiG-29S were first introduced with "Lock-on" and have had similar improvements along the way.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Seaeagle

[AvgeekJoe]

Reading this, it seems to me that it's going to take third party developers like ropkena + @Growling Sidewinder to get and keep a Su-35 in here.  Grateful to have the option to dogfight the latest & greatest Russian jets later this summer.

 

(Right now/RN I'm focused on the A-10C Tank Killer II!)

[F-2]

https://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35_su-27m/videos/29kKxgykUhw.html Some early su-35 marketing with some symbology.

[skywalker22]

6 hours ago, F-2 said:

https://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-35_su-27m/videos/29kKxgykUhw.html Some early su-35 marketing with some symbology.

Worse then fairy-tales.

[upyr1]

On 4/22/2021 at 10:32 PM, F-2 said:

 A surprisingly informative news story on the SU-35 cockpit. Are third parties allowed to do fc3 modules? 

They are working on the Su-30 but there is a group working on Flanker modules and there is a Su-35 module available.

https://www.facebook.com/FlankerEX

[F-2]

7 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

Worse then fairy-tales.

But useful for our purposes

[SUBS17]

The SU35S performs better with Super Hornet Engines and FBW.

[skywalker22]

Anyone knows where can I download from Su-35S? The downloadable link which was active last year, is dead now.

[rkk01]

On 4/23/2021 at 10:52 AM, Poulopot said:

Doing research among available public material and adding a bit of guesswork to fill the gaps has never frightened ED when they were adding US modern planes and missiles and of course they modelled classified material without having the complete technical documentation because in any country possessing such documents leads you in prison.
For example a developper from ED (Oleg Tishchenko) has been tried and imprisoned for possessing a more than 20 years old F16 manual. Yet we have a full fidelity F-16 (and I am sure it is not full fidelity, just ask a real pilot, some gaps have been filled by guessworking).
 

It's incredible that Redfor players are still there, politely asking for something that will never come. You'll only have 40 years old relics because "Russians lag behind" and "Classified documents are classified in Russia"

Dangerous ground for a post, especially at the current time, but doesn’t this whole “modern REDFOR” debate stray firmly into the arena of “geopolitics”?

The cynical might suggest that a Nation State limits access to information, or downright prevents development of simulated military hardware of National Security sensitive status on their side - seems fair enough…

OTOH, the developer, at least partly based in that Nation, has / has gained access to develop high(ish?) level simulation of OPFOR equipment…. Does that mean that one side can train against a reasonably simulated OPFOR, using an affordable civilian company sim, whilst the other cannot??? - does this still seem fair enough???

And to counter “it’s only a game”, isn’t it correct that A de l’A use the M2000C module???

Perhaps you see where I’m going here???

(not suggesting anything untoward on ED behalf, but the imbalance looks strange under current situation…!)

Edited March 3, 2022 by rkk01

[F-2]

Gee if what I’ve been hearing as of late is true we already have the best Russian flanker. Guess we ought to wish for a J-11b instead.