announced DCS MiG-29A

[bies]

Making some prototype or niche MiG-29 variant and omitting classic 9.12 used in real wars and being operated by the half of the world would be like omitting P-51D which did the heavy lifting during WW2 and modeling some H or L instead, which were too late for WW2 and decommissioned before Korea or produced in some tiny numbers without any significance.

Edited June 28, 2021 by bies

[bies]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Frankly ED should have done A versions of both first, they would be done by now feature wise, and ED could charge more for an advanced module with all the PGM goodness.

 

Amen. Plus F-16A (and to lesser degree F/A-18A as well) was much more maneuverable than sophisticated but very heavy 2000s C variant thus more fun to actually "fly".

 

Both F-16 and F/A-18 modeled as 1980s/Desert Storm variants would have proper historical realistic flyable opponents in DCS from this timeframe and from real air wars MiG-29A, Su-27S, MiG-21bis, MiG-23MLA, Su-17M, Su-25A, Mirage F.1, Mi-24P, Mi-8 and allied F-14, Viggen, Huey, Mirage 2000, Gazelle, F-15C, A-6E, A-7E, F-5E, A-10A, Bo-105 and nearly all DCS assets, SAMs, radars etc.

Edited June 28, 2021 by bies

[pepin1234]

8 hours ago, draconus said:

So instead of posting proper bug reports in relevant subforums you decided it's a good thread to pour your complaints? Why still flying against AMRAAMs with 29 if it's that bad?

 

hoho seem you want go personal. It is very worrisome you have been included in a special group in this forum and now you feel so powerful to attack the expression of freedom of redforce pilots. So the question is, have you been included in that forum group because you don’t like Russian Aircraft??

 

because you are attacking my post when I explain some limitation in AWACS for Mig-29. You show anti redforce openly while you are part of a official group in this official forum…?

 

This is very remarkable.

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

I wish ED would also add the older nitehawk pods that were still somewhat in use in the early 2000's as well. 

 

Nitehawk was primary targeting pod in 2006 for hornet.

In 2005 the fleet admiral in whatever combat sit front of the congress telling how badly things were. Super Hornets had the ATFLIR, the whole F/A-18C fleet had only two ATFLIR for testing purposes. The USMC F/A-18D Hornets had Litening but C models and Spanish ones had none.

 

It was just two ATFLIR for all C hornets, and rest used Nitehawk. 

 

What we should have is the old setup, requiring two pods for operation. And then leave the ATFLIR and LITENING to future 2007-2008 missions.

 

If someone has problem with that, they could stick their mission to dated 2005 and fly with terrible Nitehawk that requires another pod for self designation and isn't allowed to even do that because it is so inaccurate that you can't make out do you target enemy or friendly, and do you even get bomb in that location.

 

 

[Cmptohocah]

I think people keep forgetting that LOMAC planes were a kind of compromise as well as being very well balanced. Now, the Flanker we have in DCS is missing some RL features like: DL with GCI, navigation etc., but on the other hand it has features that don't exist IRL like: RWR, snapping "shlem" sight, radar-based EOS ranging...

 

Coming back to balancing: I think the only thing that can keep the red side competetive is to create LOMAC-like modern airplanes that simulate systems and are not 100% based on classified manuals. I mean this is how DCS started after all.

I would personally love to give MiG-31 a spin - that is a beast!

[Gunnar81]

4 hours ago, bies said:

 

Amen. Plus F-16A (and to lesser degree F/A-18A as well) was much more maneuverable than sophisticated but very heavy 2000s C variant thus more fun to actually "fly".

 

Both F-16 and F/A-18 modeled as 1980s/Desert Storm variants would have proper historical realistic flyable opponents in DCS from this timeframe and from real air wars MiG-29A, Su-27S, MiG-21bis, MiG-23MLA, Su-17M, Su-25A, Mirage F.1, Mi-24P, Mi-8 and allied F-14, Viggen, Huey, Mirage 2000, Gazelle, F-15C, A-6E, A-7E, F-5E, A-10A, Bo-105 and nearly all DCS assets, SAMs, radars etc.

 

Double Amen

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

I think people keep forgetting that LOMAC planes were a kind of compromise as well as being very well balanced. Now, the Flanker we have in DCS is missing some RL features like: DL with GCI, navigation etc.,

 

The datalink with the GCI is not the main problem as that is updated only every 10 seconds. The problem is that the group of 4 fighters can not have fast datalink capability (and four groups can connect to each others) where target data is shared, so you see where each flight member is aiming, located and what targets each is suppose to have. This as well allows visually to triangulate ECM targets as each knows the vector to them but not the range, and you would see the missile ranges in display so you would know when to launch.   

 

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

but on the other hand it has features that don't exist IRL like: RWR, snapping "shlem" sight, radar-based EOS ranging...

 

So you say that SU-27S shouldn't have a RWR at all?

Are you saying that IRST shouldn't have range information?

The sight reticle is trace of the limitation of FC3. It should be fixed to your view like in a KA-50 with similar symbols and only direct your sensors or missile on that direction. It is annoying that it stays "locked on" like a JHMCS on F/A-18C, but ED doesn't make even a simple fix by removing that "lock-on" capability and make it stay fixed in camera. 

 

[bies]

Instead of proposing to make some totally unrealistic Frankenstein modern Russian classified FC3 low fidelity aircrafts with fictional avionics and made up systems it would be incomparably easier to simply make 1980s/Desert Storm variants of F-16A or C block 30 and F/A-18A or C Lot 10.

 

With one move F-16 and F-18 would fit perfectly whole DCS environment, same timeframe flyable REDFOR Soviet opponents we have like Su-27S, MiG-29A, MiG-21bis, soon MiG-23MLA, Su-25A, soon Su-17M, Mi-24P, Mi-8 + all DCS AI REDFOR aircrafts MiG-25PD, MiG-31, Su-24M etc.

 

With more maneuverable F-16 and F-18 variants with engaging and exciting close combat and natural realistic balance due to aircrafts being from the same timeframe.

Edited June 28, 2021 by bies

[Harlikwin]

Just now, Silver_Dragon said:

DCS World has no a "balance" or centred on a time period.
 

 

 

Yeah, but it would be a way better sim if ED did spend a few minutes to think about that TBH...

 

I actually thought the PG map was a brilliant end run around the whole limitation of "redfor" planes. Iran is a "blue" bad guy. But then ED porked it by not doing the F4E.

 

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

F-4E can get on a future, by ED or other 3rd party. In PG times, ED / BLTK was other modules on progress before the F-4E and AH-1.

 

 

Yes... Those were a good plan... Key word on "were"

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The same situation previously with "where are my Hornet, Tomcat, Viper, Hind, Apache, etc"

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk
 

 

Yeah, it just felt like there was a cohesive plan at one point years ago and its gone all rando... I mean the Marianas? for a modern scenario? Really? I mean I get someone really needed to take a vacation on the company dime, but its an absurd choice for a modern theatre.

 

[Wizard_03]

25 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

its an absurd choice for a modern theatre.

 

Well without Chinese assets right now sure, but for supercarrier tomcat and hornet modules, I do think its better then just some random square of water in the pacific or Indian oceans and we absolutely need a BIG ole ocean map for proper Naval scenarios. I'm much more upset with Channel map, since you know we already have Normandy and there are exactly zero Battle of Britain assets in the game.

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Well without Chinese assets right now sure, but for supercarrier tomcat and hornet modules, I do think its better then just some random square of water in the pacific or Indian oceans and we absolutely need a BIG ole ocean map for proper Naval scenarios. I'm much more upset with Channel map, since you know we already have Normandy and there are exactly zero Battle of Britain assets in the game.

 

The point  is there are NO Chinese assets, there will be NO player usable modern Chinese assets. Any "credible" scenario where the marianas are threatened by china is a decade out anyway. I mean I get it if they want to WW2 and put it some effort there. But for modern it makes 0 sense given the restrictions in place. I mean I'd love to see a FF J-15 in the game, but I'll bet good money I don't. 

 

Any credible scenario with marianas is 1000% irrelevant with a 2007 hornet or a 1990's tomcat. Its even dumber if you want to try theory craft the Soviet Navy doing it in the 80's or earlier. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Harlikwin

[pepin1234]

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

DCS World has no a "balance" or centred on a time period.
 

 

 

I think the balance we are talking about is about give to every module at least the minimum to get a decent user friendly taking account IRL How to in battlefield. we are talking about some improvements in Ruforces. example, if Wag and Nick ordered to ED team to build F-16 block 50 module with extra unrealistic add as Aim-9X (not even the 10% of block 50 use that helmet or Aim-9X), how come Mig-29S still struggle without GCI or at least an improved AWACS experience. That is unbalance and not real simulation. Also sound a little biased in my opinion

Edited June 29, 2021 by pepin1234

[Wizard_03]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

The point  is there are NO Chinese assets, there will be NO player usable modern Chinese assets. Any "credible" scenario where the marianas are threatened by china is a decade out anyway. I mean I get it if they want to WW2 and put it some effort there. But for modern it makes 0 sense given the restrictions in place. I mean I'd love to see a FF J-15 in the game, but I'll bet good money I don't. 

 

Any credible scenario with marianas is 1000% irrelevant with a 2007 hornet or a 1990's tomcat. Its even dumber if you want to try theory craft the Soviet Navy doing it in the 80's or earlier. 

 

Not yet there isn't yet. But in any case they are adding a WW2 version, and it is in fact realistic for training on any of those assets. Just like NTTR is for a bunch of other jets and yet has pretty much zero relevance to any of that stuff you mentioned, and however dumb the marianas is for modern or cold war naval action involving US super carriers Its double dumb for the black sea map.

 

Marianas however is free, the channel map is not, and it literally overlaps Normandy   

[Cmptohocah]

7 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

The datalink with the GCI is not the main problem as that is updated only every 10 seconds. The problem is that the group of 4 fighters can not have fast datalink capability (and four groups can connect to each others) where target data is shared, so you see where each flight member is aiming, located and what targets each is suppose to have. This as well allows visually to triangulate ECM targets as each knows the vector to them but not the range, and you would see the missile ranges in display so you would know when to launch.   

 

 

So you say that SU-27S shouldn't have a RWR at all?

Are you saying that IRST shouldn't have range information?

The sight reticle is trace of the limitation of FC3. It should be fixed to your view like in a KA-50 with similar symbols and only direct your sensors or missile on that direction. It is annoying that it stays "locked on" like a JHMCS on F/A-18C, but ED doesn't make even a simple fix by removing that "lock-on" capability and make it stay fixed in camera. 

 

This is not what I meant. I was typing the message from my phone, so I didn't provide much detail. I will try to explain here:
1. GCI DL - real Flanker A can receive target information from GCI and it shows on the HUD
2. RWR - in DCS Flanker's RWR categorizes radiation as "airborne", (long, medium, short) SAM, long-range search, AWACS". This is not how the real RWR classifies radar energy
3. IRST ranging - in real MiG-29A the ranging information comes from a laser which has limited max range (can't remember now exact numbers, but not more than 10km). In DCS that information seems to come from the radar as we can range targets well over 10km

 

 

7 hours ago, bies said:

Instead of proposing to make some totally unrealistic Frankenstein modern Russian classified FC3 low fidelity aircrafts with fictional avionics and made up systems...

 

You just described most if not all of LOMAC (FC3) airplanes and we still fly 'em today, so I don't see where the problem is. You can have a look at my post above, as an example.

 

 

7 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

DCS World has no a "balance" or centred on a time period.

Yes, this is the case currently. When LOMAC first came out, it was almost perfectly balanced: blue side had F-15C with AIM-120C and TWS and A-10A; red side had Su-27 with DL and MiG-29S with R-77s as well as Su-25T.

Both sides had advantages and disadvantages, but on average it was somewhat balanced. What we have today is effectively blue planes that are allowed to be modeled and the red side which can't be modeled (due to what ever reasons), so the red planes are left with the last century capabilities and systems. 
 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Cmptohocah
added more detail

[bies]

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

Both sides had advantages and disadvantages, but on average it was somewhat balanced. What we have today is effectively blue planes that are allowed to be modeled and the red side which can't be modeled (due to what ever reasons), so the red planes are left with the last century capabilities and systems. 

 

Agree, FC3 1980s Cold War and Desert Storm era was very well balanced naturally just because the aircraft represents the same timeframe.

 

I was really surprised when ED announced Hornet will be some 15 years later 2005 variant, not fitting anything in DCS/FC3, without any proper timeframe opponents. First i was sure it's going to be a Desert Storm variant like Lot 10.

 

(I wouldn't say FC3 was totally unrealistic, yes it's heavily simplified compared to DCS but not plain made up fiction without data. It was good for it's time.)

Edited June 29, 2021 by bies

[Fri13]

52 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

This is not what I meant. I was typing the message from my phone, so I didn't provide much detail. I will try to explain here:
1. GCI DL - real Flanker A can receive target information from GCI and it shows on the HUD

 

The Flanker A that we have, the Su-27S, shows the target information on the display as well. You get the tactical data just like we have now in Single Player when using the couple EWR units or you have a wingman with you. What does it show in the HUD is another case, as designers opted to freen HUD and MFD instead the original color (red, green and yellow) HUD and CRT display. Showing datalink and radar contacts, missile ranges, who is targeting what etc.

 

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/development-of-the-su-27-cockpit.35031/

 

 

 

Quote

2. RWR - in DCS Flanker's RWR categorizes radiation as "airborne", (long, medium, short) SAM, long-range search, AWACS". This is not how the real RWR classifies radar energy

 

Yes it is wrong what we have now, but it does have SPO-15. The wrong part is that it is suppose to be programmable by switching the frequency boards by ground crew, where each category type can be separated. This way when you have ELINT intelligence that what type of radars enemy has in the area, you can combine various radars behind one type as you are not going to have them all at once from same place. As well we don't have the blinking (secondary) that would assist you to separate that what radar is in what direction and mode, and then primary threat as the yellow one with signal strength with logic for its range and main direction. 

 

Quote

3. IRST ranging - in real MiG-29A the ranging information comes from a laser which has limited max range (can't remember now exact numbers, but not more than 10km). In DCS that information seems to come from the radar as we can range targets well over 10km

 

The laser range is to 10 km for dogfight mode and silent attack. And when you have radar active you get range from it. You get as well range information by triangulation with wingmen as the lock angles are sent over datalink to the rest of the group. So in search spread you can see lock lines cross each others and when it is inside the missile range area, you know it range. 

 

Quote

Both sides had advantages and disadvantages, but on average it was somewhat balanced. What we have today is effectively blue planes that are allowed to be modeled and the red side which can't be modeled (due to what ever reasons), so the red planes are left with the last century capabilities and systems. 

 

The balance doesn't come from "They have AIM-120 so we need R-77". The balance comes from that you make a systems work properly. In the reality the systems were already designed to counter each others even with a 10 year difference, there other does have some advantages and disadvantages, but you learn to deal with them by the limitations. 

 

Example the R-27 missile is still in operational use today, only now it has been started to be phased out, even when the R-77 has been available for very long time (at the early DCS times it was claimed that Russia didn't have R-77 in service, but years later it was found that it was available and in-service but just not used as people thought that of course R-77 would replace R-27 like AIM-120 did replace the AIM-7). But when we do not have a proper systems modeling and such, the technology can't be used correctly. And that causes the problem. 

Example the SPO-15 modeling that makes it very limited because very illogical modeling in the first place (just like how SPO-10 was done for the Mig-21Bis, when you get locked you have all lights to light up. The correct logic is still in the experimental mode that can't be forced!). 

 

Example the Su-27 datalink for multiplayer. Why can't ED just fix it by implementing the proper group logic that Su-27 pilots get to know each other targeting data by proximity? As we can't group the random people flying all over the places and link them with proper codes, make it distance dependent. Even that would be far better than nothing. Let's say that any flanker that is inside a 50 km radius will link with each other. And zadam, now you have a working datalink where one can extend other radar range or you can actually fly in a good spread and share data. Sure it is not a ~200 km, but it would be far better than now for linking. 

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MIG-31Datalink.jpg

 

If ED would implement a proper IFF system and virtual grouping (as now we are getting in-game VoIP system as well) where IFF code is required to be set properly to be ID as friend across the side, and then set a group ID to mark the players belong to same group (and only possible to be done before take-off and support proper amount). Then we could have proper datalink operations and even IFF (even if a perfect one without possibilities to receive no reply or distorted reply marking target as non-friendly). 

 

DCS is unbalanced because one side have proper modeling and other side doesn't.

The Mig-29A would improve this situation, even when it is comparably worse in technology, but it would offer at least many of the systems to be usable.

But nothing works properly until ED starts to take Electronic Warfare seriously, not by placing it for a second party task to do - it needs to be ED itself so it is their responsibility and in their hands to make the framework for it all.

We have serious limitations with the basic radios, even when working with the AI as wingman and now even more serious limitations when working with ground units in helicopters. This hopefully gets fixed soon, but as Mig-29 is the tactical frontline fighter it needs to have it communications working correctly with the ground forces as well. 

[Northstar98]

Personally, I'd rather start off with an older airframe (like the 9-12) and then when it's approaching completion then try the more upgraded versions.

They could've done that with the F/A-18C lot 20 and F-16CM Block 50 - start with an older variant and then work up, instead of just doing one aircraft that's the latest and greatest and leaving it at that. Hell, even if it was a pre CCIP F-16CJ Block 50D.

Personally, I would've preferred a set of aircraft, assets and maps that fit a particular decade, get that fleshed out (at least to the level of WWII) and then move on. Given that the existing assets mostly fit the mid-to-late Cold War (barring a load of BLUFOR modules, all but one BLUFOR ship, and a few others), that would be the era I'd personally focus on.

But back to the MiG-29 (9-12), when/if we get it, how hard would it be to do say a 9-13 after the fact? It doesn't add a lot, sure, but if a variant should be fairly easy to do then I don't see why not, unless it's taking development resources away from more big ticket items. Ultimately it's the same situation with the Tomcats offered by HB (of which 4 are planned).

I'm fine with hypothetical/prototype stuff like the 9-15 MiG-29M, but only if we get something more in line with real/projected capabilities that a real MiG-29M would have had (I'd even say the same about stuff like a Yak-141). That being said, I'll prefer production aircraft any day of the week.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[bies]

7 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah, it just felt like there was a cohesive plan at one point years ago and its gone all rando... I mean the Marianas? for a modern scenario? Really? I mean I get someone really needed to take a vacation on the company dime, but its an absurd choice for a modern theatre.

 

7 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

The point  is there are NO Chinese assets, there will be NO player usable modern Chinese assets. Any "credible" scenario where the marianas are threatened by china is a decade out anyway. I mean I get it if they want to WW2 and put it some effort there. But for modern it makes 0 sense given the restrictions in place.

 

Any credible scenario with marianas is 1000% irrelevant with a 2007 hornet or a 1990's tomcat. Its even dumber if you want to try theory craft the Soviet Navy doing it in the 80's or earlier. 

 

I have my theory why things went this way.

ED probably understand sticking to some cohesive realistic timeframe like i.e. operation Desert Storm or late 1980s NATO vs. WARPAC with fairly declassified aircrafts and technology, somewhat symmetrical warfare with F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, A-10A, MiG-29, Su-27, MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-25, Tornado IDS, Mirage 2000, Viggen etc. would be way more entertaining (and realistic) and faster to make than 2000s mud hut JDAM bombing without any credible opposition.

 

But the reason they made "War on terror" A-10C, F-16C and F/A-18C variants, knowing there will be no realistic environment, some necessary systems simplifications, no timeframe Russian or Chinese opposition aircrafts or SAMs - is their military contract.

 

First USAF pilots needed some affordable training equipment to convert from analog "Desert Storm" A-10A to digital "Afghanistan" A-10C, it was mostly about memorizing HOTAS functions and basic procedures.

 

Then, even if 1980s F-16, MiG-29 or F/A-18 would be much more "enjoyable" for the statistical simulator consumer fighting symmetrical opponents in close maneuver air combat, USAF pilots prefered to have later semi-outdated ~2005 Hornet or Viper variants to train some basic stuff since it still has something in common with what they have in units.

[Cmptohocah]

39 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

The Flanker A that we have, the Su-27S, shows the target information on the display as well. You get the tactical data just like we have now in Single Player when using the couple EWR units or you have a wingman with you...

My bad again: I meant to write Fulcrum and not Flanker. I was trying to reference MiG-29B. 
 

39 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Yes it is wrong what we have now, but it does have SPO-15. The wrong part is that it is suppose to be programmable by switching the frequency boards by ground crew, where each category type can be separated...

MiG-29B manual mentions no such capability for the SPO-15 - just the fixed radar types like Hawk, F-15/14, etc.
 

39 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

The laser range is to 10 km for dogfight mode and silent attack. And when you have radar active you get range from it. You get as well range information by triangulation with wingmen as the lock angles are sent over datalink to the rest of the group. So in search spread you can see lock lines cross each others and when it is inside the missile range area, you know it range...

In DCS we get ranging information in EOS mode while the radar is off.
 

39 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Example the SPO-15 modeling that makes it very limited because very illogical modeling in the first place (just like how SPO-10 was done for the Mig-21Bis, when you get locked you have all lights to light up. The correct logic is still in the experimental mode that can't be forced!). 

I didn't really understand this one. Could you please explain this one in more detail?

 

39 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

If ED would implement a proper IFF system and virtual grouping (as now we are getting in-game VoIP system as well) where IFF code is required to be set properly to be ID as friend across the side, and then set a group ID to mark the players belong to same group (and only possible to be done before take-off and support proper amount). Then we could have proper datalink operations and even IFF (even if a perfect one without possibilities to receive no reply or distorted reply marking target as non-friendly). 

People have their mouths full of realism and what not, but no one even mentions IFF. The IFF we have now is "Ace Combat" at best and it's such an important aspect of air combat. How many fights degenerated into close encounters 'cause of IFF issues...

[draconus]

13 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

hoho seem you want go personal. It is very worrisome you have been included in a special group in this forum and now you feel so powerful to attack the expression of freedom of redforce pilots. So the question is, have you been included in that forum group because you don’t like Russian Aircraft??

 

because you are attacking my post when I explain some limitation in AWACS for Mig-29. You show anti redforce openly while you are part of a official group in this official forum…?

 

This is very remarkable.

I'm not going personal nor attacking you or redfor pilots. Don't be so fragile. Sorry, if you take it as an attack on you. You can read here about DCS Ground Crew to know better:

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/218422-dcs-ground-crew/

It does not mean I have any more rights or access than normal users. It also does not stop me from expressing my own opinions as I have no obligations toward ED.

 

Since we talk about opinions here's mine to remind you: I don't find that balance in a sim has any place but the more assets from the same time frame we have modeled the better as feasible as it can be. I like redfor side and would like to have it simulated more (FF modules plus AI and assets). I would also like to have all the bug fixed and get missing features like Su-27/33 MP DL or proper GCI.

 

Look, some players like the challenge of flying older russian birds against modern blue forces. They're good pilots, usually can employ team tactics and win over more modern advantaged oppponents. They take pride and fun from that. You otoh try the same and constantly come with your complaints. Obviously it is no fun for you so let me understand why do you keep tormenting yourself and still fly against AMRAAM equipped aircraft in your 80s Mig-29 and blaming DCS for your failure?

 

What I don't find productive is making complaints and bug reports here - these will be simply ignored. Please, make proper threads in appropriate subforums to expect any change:

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/474-general-bugs/

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/540-weapon-bugs/

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/332-mig-29-for-dcs-world/

 

@bies Having AIM-120C makes our F-15C more like 2000s aircraft.

 

It might have been a problem then when F/A-18C was first introduced but DCS is constantly feeded with more aircraft and assests which changes the situation. As for redfor side unbalance it is totally mission creation matter.

[Fri13]

56 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

My bad again: I meant to write Fulcrum and not Flanker. I was trying to reference MiG-29B. 

 

The Su-27 and Mig-29 share a lot of choices. Example in the forum I linked is mentions from the Sukhoi designers how they were instructed to look the Mig-29 cockpit design that's design was completed, to share the systems and functions. Like why the color displays were as well abandoned and used the same etc.

 

56 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

MiG-29B manual mentions no such capability for the SPO-15 - just the fixed radar types like Hawk, F-15/14, etc.

 

It is not in the manual as it is in the SPO-15 maintenance manual and its blow-up charts. 

 

56 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

In DCS we get ranging information in EOS mode while the radar is off.

 

Well that is the limitation of the FC3, but it is still incorrect to say that you can't have a range information without radar, or that it only gets range information using laser range finder.

I think you will get the point. 

 

56 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

I didn't really understand this one. Could you please explain this one in more detail?

 

In a Mig-21Bis the SPO-10 at the moment is simulated such way that when ever you get locked on - ALL the lights will turn On. You have zero situational awareness that in which direction you are locked on, or is there other threats around you because you just have "full panic mode". 

This was for years, and after countless bug reports and discussions about how illogical it is and what the maintenance manuals say, developer finally implemented a more proper functionality, but they put it behind "Experimental" tab in the game settings, that is not respected in the multiplayer.

 

 

The proper function is that when you get locked, only the light from that direction is illuminated. So you have situational awareness that from where you are being engaged and you can maneuver properly.

 

When you take information about the systems, you learn their logical reason to exist and what is their purpose and functionality. If you start question something, you can find out is it logical or not based your information. And when you find out that something is illogical that is clearly against the purpose of the device, you can start to search for the answer to "why" and "how" questions. 

 

You need to first ask from yourself that if you are given a RWR system that has means to tell you the type and direction of the threat, do you think it is logical that those capabilities are not used at all in it but it is just functioning as with just one or two sources at the time?

Even when you don't know the specifications, but when someone does something then there is a logic in it. Even when the doing is idiotic (that is why there is no such answer as "I don't know" when asked about why did someone do something completely stupid/wrong, because there is always something in the person mind to do something based to some idea and information).

And when you start to look at the more complex devices that are built and designed, you start to see there the logic and the functions even if you are not directly stated something, and they can be found to be so later on with the actual devices and engineering manuals. 

 

56 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

People have their mouths full of realism and what not, but no one even mentions IFF. The IFF we have now is "Ace Combat" at best and it's such an important aspect of air combat. How many fights degenerated into close encounters 'cause of IFF issues...

 

There are many who talks about lack of IFF and when implemented then its perfect capability to tell is target a friend, hostile or unknown.

Example the Razbam might be first one to actually model IFF properly for its inaccuracy to be useful decide who is friend and who is not in the close proximity. 

 

 

 

[pepin1234]

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

The Flanker A that we have, the Su-27S, shows the target information on the display as well. You get the tactical data just like we have now in Single Player when using the couple EWR units or you have a wingman with you. What does it show in the HUD is another case, as designers opted to freen HUD and MFD instead the original color (red, green and yellow) HUD and CRT display. Showing datalink and radar contacts, missile ranges, who is targeting what etc.

 

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/development-of-the-su-27-cockpit.35031/

 

 

 

 

Yes it is wrong what we have now, but it does have SPO-15. The wrong part is that it is suppose to be programmable by switching the frequency boards by ground crew, where each category type can be separated. This way when you have ELINT intelligence that what type of radars enemy has in the area, you can combine various radars behind one type as you are not going to have them all at once from same place. As well we don't have the blinking (secondary) that would assist you to separate that what radar is in what direction and mode, and then primary threat as the yellow one with signal strength with logic for its range and main direction. 

 

 

The laser range is to 10 km for dogfight mode and silent attack. And when you have radar active you get range from it. You get as well range information by triangulation with wingmen as the lock angles are sent over datalink to the rest of the group. So in search spread you can see lock lines cross each others and when it is inside the missile range area, you know it range. 

 

 

The balance doesn't come from "They have AIM-120 so we need R-77". The balance comes from that you make a systems work properly. In the reality the systems were already designed to counter each others even with a 10 year difference, there other does have some advantages and disadvantages, but you learn to deal with them by the limitations. 

 

Example the R-27 missile is still in operational use today, only now it has been started to be phased out, even when the R-77 has been available for very long time (at the early DCS times it was claimed that Russia didn't have R-77 in service, but years later it was found that it was available and in-service but just not used as people thought that of course R-77 would replace R-27 like AIM-120 did replace the AIM-7). But when we do not have a proper systems modeling and such, the technology can't be used correctly. And that causes the problem. 

Example the SPO-15 modeling that makes it very limited because very illogical modeling in the first place (just like how SPO-10 was done for the Mig-21Bis, when you get locked you have all lights to light up. The correct logic is still in the experimental mode that can't be forced!). 

 

Example the Su-27 datalink for multiplayer. Why can't ED just fix it by implementing the proper group logic that Su-27 pilots get to know each other targeting data by proximity? As we can't group the random people flying all over the places and link them with proper codes, make it distance dependent. Even that would be far better than nothing. Let's say that any flanker that is inside a 50 km radius will link with each other. And zadam, now you have a working datalink where one can extend other radar range or you can actually fly in a good spread and share data. Sure it is not a ~200 km, but it would be far better than now for linking. 

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MIG-31Datalink.jpg

 

If ED would implement a proper IFF system and virtual grouping (as now we are getting in-game VoIP system as well) where IFF code is required to be set properly to be ID as friend across the side, and then set a group ID to mark the players belong to same group (and only possible to be done before take-off and support proper amount). Then we could have proper datalink operations and even IFF (even if a perfect one without possibilities to receive no reply or distorted reply marking target as non-friendly). 

 

DCS is unbalanced because one side have proper modeling and other side doesn't.

The Mig-29A would improve this situation, even when it is comparably worse in technology, but it would offer at least many of the systems to be usable.

But nothing works properly until ED starts to take Electronic Warfare seriously, not by placing it for a second party task to do - it needs to be ED itself so it is their responsibility and in their hands to make the framework for it all.

We have serious limitations with the basic radios, even when working with the AI as wingman and now even more serious limitations when working with ground units in helicopters. This hopefully gets fixed soon, but as Mig-29 is the tactical frontline fighter it needs to have it communications working correctly with the ground forces as well. 

nice picture about Datalink.
 

Ho well… I hope someday they give some love to Migs and Su. They say a military contract to do modules but this is a business between they and military part. of course if there are not proof for the community about those contract for advanced military contract, how come another Air Force will truth on that move. That will be as giving the military information to someone only ask for proof about secret detailed information. While in the same time they bring to the table a OP scenery without giving the fair balance to the opposite side. Like that the rest of official manufactures will not truth so easily or not at all.

Edited June 29, 2021 by pepin1234

[pepin1234]

49 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

Perfec balanced? LOMAC was a December 2003 game.

- F-15C has 120Cs on 2002, Mising Link-16 data links (2002), AIM-9X-1 (Aug 2003) and HMDs. The actual F-15C missing that capability.
- F-15E has 120Cs on 2001, Missing Link-16 data links (2002)
- F/A-18C missing AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR (2003)
- Missing JDAMs (2001) and JSOWs (98) on all USAF/UsNavy Aircrafts as other weapons as AGM-129 and Air Launcher Decoys.

- E-3 Sentry receive NCTR on 98, Link 4, Link 11 and Link 16 (84-88)

 

 

the thread is about Mig-29…

 

Seem you are here to only remarking what is wrong or missed in F fighters instead to support the aircraft we are talking about. 
 

plus all the information you throw is inaccurate or misleading.

 

if you have flown Mig-29 you will notice it is not right the interception with such a simulation. 
 

no mention the level of retard has the Mig-29 AI. They not even know how evade a missile. and the dogfight is like fight against the new cadet of the military school. Now try the same with F AI.

 

I hope you understand now what mean balance in a simulator. Because to do a simulator developers must simulate the real stuff, not giving only candies to one side and porked the other side…

Edited June 29, 2021 by pepin1234