Jump to content

Redfor's status in DCS


ResonantCard1

Recommended Posts

Hello, I've been thinking lately about the status of Redfor on DCS.

 

Yes, currently we got the Jeff (which has caused a lot of discussion, and we still don't know if it's 90% propaganda, and is also more Greenfor or even Bluefor than Redfor) and the MiG-19. But aside from that, we have the FC3 MiG-29s, Su-25s and Flankers. They're a fun experience but ultimately not what DCS is about, after all DCS goes for full fidelity simulations of the aircraft and FC3 are as far from that as it gets. We have the Ka-50, the original DCS module, and the Mi-8, which is amazing. The MiG-21, old as the 3rd party modules, the MiG-15, the Yak-52... I think that's about it. They're all good and fun on their own ways, but ultimately, do they bring anything to the simulator? The Mi-8 is amazing, yes. The Ka-50 started it all, yes. But then again the Ka-50 started it all...and DCS had to be rescued by the ANG asking for an A-10C simulation. That leads me to think that even in the days when the Ka-50 was the only thing around, it already wasn't very popular. The A-10C is loved up to this day and just got a massive update, on the other hand. The Ka-50 hangs around as the only attack helicopter in DCS, but will soon be completely killed by the Apache Longbow recently teased. The MiG-21 suffers from the same issues as the Ka-50, it was there when there was nothing else, so people kinda bought it. Nowadays it's almost forgotten. The MiG-15 is a very niche aircraft, but luckily it has the F-86 to fulfill the Korean War ethusiasts' wishes. The MiG-19 is basically a 0 on the left as it released too close to the Tomcat and in an state maybe not good enough, so everyone ignored it. FC3 has its players but, as I said, it's not what DCS is about and is doomed. As fun as they can be, the experience falls flat and feels bad when compared with the other modules. Hell some of the panels on the planes aren't even animated when they clearly should be (navigation panel on the MiG-29 for example). 

 

However, there's still hope for Redfor, right? The MiG-23MLA by Razbam is promising, and will bring something that is more modern than what we have now in terms of fixed wing and will serve as a tease for what a MiG-29 or Su-27 could bring to the table. ED has said they want to do a MiG-29 (which will come in at least 2040, after the F-35) and the Mi-24 is almost finished! 

Well, yes and no. The MiG-23 is made by a 3rd party, they can do whatever they want, it's their development time (you could argue the time used to develop the MiG-23 could be used to develop the objectively better and more popular F-15E but that's up to them). The Mi-24 is clearly a prototype for the Apache Longbow, so not much to say there. It's basically being done to polish the attack helicopter second seat's AI and multicrew, just so the Apache Longbow can come out with working AI and MC to rack up the maximum amount of hype and sales. It's smart, even though there were other choices in terms of helicopters to do this. For example a Cobra, which I believe would sell generally better and people has been asking for since BST announced it. 

 

However, the MiG-29 sits in a weird place. It's not a module that would push the boundaries of the game engine in any way, because it doesn't have a good radar, or FLIR pods, or TFR pods, or even guided munitions (I think they said they wanted to make the 9.12, which is the original model introduced in the early 80s). It doesn't bring new weapons to the table as pretty much all of them are already in the game and can be easily added. It doesn't add new capabilities, as IRST is something that FC3 already has and in any case, the F-15 will eventually bring the LEGION IRST pod to the table or the F-35 will get its DAS. The plane may be interesting, but it's still just a MiG-29. Some people may buy it, but it's not going to be the new Hornet. IRL it isn't much better either, as it was already barely comparable with the F-16 even if the F-16 started being deployed at around the same time, it would definitely get its ass kicked by the F-15, and further down the line would go on to become the US' plane of choice to shoot down in a conflict. In fact even Russia has fully dropped it already.

 

So it's not a plane that would bring new capabilities, systems or weapons to the game engine, it's not a plane with a remarkable service history IRL, and it's not a plane that would be a money printing machine. Why does ED want to do it? It'd be much better for ED to just forget about it, sweep it down the carpet, and keep making modules that bring new and more advanced things to the game engine. TFR pods with the F-16 Block 40, datalink-guided AIM-120D and LEGION pod with the F-15C, stealth and magic radar with the F-35, etc. At this point, it's been proven time and again that Redfor modules aren't really that popular, even if there's an small group of people that will scream to get a new one, any one. In the grand scheme of things, the most popular modules are still the Bluefor modules, they're the most capable, the coolest, and the newest. So why go against the current and develop a module that would surely flop? Why not just sticking to making Bluefor planes? They are the ones that help further the game engine's development, they're the ones that bring new capabilities to the table. Any Redfor module that you could possibly make is only going to profit from what other Bluefor modules have accomplished. And honestly, would it change much if ED decided to stop development of any Redfor module? DCS is clearly dominated by the Hornet, the F-16 and the A-10, both in terms of SP, and MP. In MP there's literally not a single PVE server focused on Redfor modules so it literally wouldn't matter if none were made, and PVP is already Hornet+F-16+Tomcat Vs. Hornet+F-16+Tomcat, and the addition of an old plane like the MiG-29 9.12 won't do anything to change that. So really, why bother? Why lose time and money making the MiG-29 or the Su-27 when ED could be doing modules that would actually improve the game's engine and do well economically?

Main: MiG-21bis, because pocket rockets are fun

 

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

REDFOR = Targets. 

 

 

No need for full fidelity targets.

Laptop Pilot. Alienware X17, i9 11980HK 5.0GHz, 16GB RTX 3080, 64GB DDR4 3200MHz, NVMe SSD. 2x TM Warthog, Hornet grip, Virpil CM2 & TPR pedals, FSSB-R3, Cougar throttle, Viper pit WIP (XBox360 when traveling). Rift S.

NTTR, SoH, Syria, Sinai, Channel, South Atlantic, CA, Supercarrier, FC3, A-10CII, F-5, F-14, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Harrier, M2000, F1, Viggen, MiG-21, Yak-52, L-39, MB-339, CE2, Gazelle, Ka-50, Mi-8, Mi-24, Huey, Apache, Spitfire, Mossie.  Wishlist: Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer, F-117 and F-111.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virtually everything in that collossal wall of text is conjecture that you have minimal basis for. The reason for making any aircraft is ultimately the same : because they want to. It is not about competitive advantage or ''game breaking new features''. They're going to spend several years of their life making it, needs to be something they're interested in.

 

Also, the notion it won't make money is objectively false as people have been clamoring for RedFor aircraft for years. Supply is somewhat limited by government regs and ED's location, but just because they can't do a 2000s MiG-35 or Su-35 does not mean they shouldn't still make some. This MinMax mentality has no real purpose in a product focused specifically on simulating aircraft in general rather than 1v1 deathmatchs.

 

Also, regarding the MiG-29 specifically, it's one of the most produced and most widely exported aircraft in the world. ''Why would you want to do one of THESE?'' @@


Edited by zhukov032186
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

As we have already mentioned we want to do the Mig-29, very early days and when we are ready we will confirm it or not. If you dont think it will " make a difference " that is fine that is your opinion, but I think you are wrong.

 

We want more redfor, we know most of you want it as well, the reality is to do these aircraft require information and permissions that are difficult to get. When we have news to share we will. 

 

thanks

 

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

Virtually everything in that collossal wall of text is conjecture that you have minimal basis for. The reason for making any aircraft is ultimately the same : because they want to. It is not about competitive advantage or ''game breaking new features''. They're going to spend several years of their life making it, needs to be something they're interested in.

 

However most of the new features in the core game have been added thanks to new planes that require them. That's a way of furthering the development of the core game, adding better FLIR simulation, actual A2G radar, better modelling for weapons, so on and so forth. By making an older russian plane they're not going to be furthering the development of new things as they don't have anything that doesn't exist on the simulator already. The only thing you could try doing would be actual RTX radar simulation but even for that, you could do it with a plane that has a radar that is actually good, not the MiG-29.

 

Quote

Also, the notion it won't make money is objectively false as people have been clamoring for RedFor aircraft for years. Supply is somewhat limited by government regs and ED's location, but just because they can't do a 2000s MiG-35 or Su-35 does not mean they shouldn't still make some.

 

While that's true, it still doesn't mean it has been a majority of people. There's plenty of people clamoring for a Super Hornet or an F-35 too, Red planes aren't the only ones being asked for. And according to sales numbers? They're objectively the least bought. The MiG-19 is the most recent russian plane added to DCS and how many of those do you actually see being played?

 

Quote

Also, regarding the MiG-29 specifically, it's one of the most produced and most widely exported aircraft in the world. ''Why would you want to do one of THESE?'' @@

 

Only around 1600 of them were produced, even the F-15, which is supposed to be a very Elite kind of plane with few fielded, has been produced in similar numbers (around 1200).

41 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

As we have already mentioned we want to do the Mig-29, very early days and when we are ready we will confirm it or not. If you dont think it will " make a difference " that is fine that is your opinion, but I think you are wrong.

 

We want more redfor, we know most of you want it as well, the reality is to do these aircraft require information and permissions that are difficult to get. When we have news to share we will. 

 

thanks

 

 

 

 

And seeing that it's way more difficult to make even a MiG-29 9.12, which also wouldn't offer anything significantly interesting and wouldn't help develop the simulator as a whole, isn't it better to just stick to US planes? They seem to be much easier to make, with less bureaucratic hassle and they're extremely popular and certainly much more capable (believe it or not this is a huge part when you're going to buy a plane)

Main: MiG-21bis, because pocket rockets are fun

 

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Whatever we do it is not possible to please everyone, and we can only do projects with the correct data, permissions and access to SME's, that is the reality of the situation. 

 

  • Like 4

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mention the mig23 as being a third party's choice to make this module: "they can do whatever they want, it's their development time"

So why wouldn't it apply to ED ? Like BIGNEWY said, ED just wants to do a mig29 so why wouldn't they ?

Not all revolves around making planes to develop new technologies for the sim.

The f16 doesn't really bring anything new in terms of totally new technologies because the hornet already has pretty much everything the f16 has in terms of those.

DCS WW2 is also a whole other side of DCS that you could argue against with the same arguments you used against the mig29 yet ED has released all those modules and will still continue to do so like the mosquito indicates because it works for them.  

 

Finally, I do think that there is indeed a big audience wanting any kind of redfor and of course me saying this would seem like I am biased and yes, I absolutely am, I have been craving for new redfor modules. Nevertheless you should've perhaps made a poll to your thread asking if people prefer what ED is doing right now or if they would want to get exclusively more modern American planes.

A new redfor module, while you might think doesn't add anything, I think adds immense possibilities and scenarios, firstly in terms of soviet systems that are a breath of fresh air when we already take the popular f/a-18, f16, f14 and even the a10c that do have similarities in their flight systems and overall cockpit philosophy and secondly in possible scenarios. I am starting to become bored of the repetitive nato vs X country fights with me playing the americans. I simply want to have a russia vs X country fight with me playing the russians or any other eastern block country.

In the end I could also imagine the mig29 becoming a foundation for other russian full fidelity fighters for DCS just as DCS WW2 is a thing.

 

This, is all my opinion, but so is your thread, we both have our own opinions on the matter and ED chose to do the mig 29, I fully support them in this decision. 

 

 

 

 

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9.12 from the 1980s is the best model possible in relation to western counterparts.

And it is lighter with higher acceleration, sustained turn rate and climb rate than more modern variants.

After dissolution of the Soviet Union finansing of military projects and developement of new systems also collapsed.

Classic Cold War boogeyman 9.12 was a real danger for NATO fighters when more modern variants - against AMRAAM armed modernised NATO fighters, not so much anymore. R-77 missile entered service in Russian Air Force in 2015...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want the MiG-29. It's very much a plane with a rich service history (East Germany and Poland used it, and the export versions fought many a battle in the Middle East) and it's an 80s plane, meaning you actually have to fly it, and not just fiddle with autopilot and pickle the JDAMs. It is a high performance dogfighter, the earliest plane with a HMS, and probably the last real heater+Fox 1 airframe. We don't need another Slammer boat, and while a Russian R-77 boat would have some novelty, it'd ultimately be in the same category.

 

Chasing the latest, shiniest technology is pointless. Give me a Fulcrum, and I'll be happy to go and make the fur fly off some Tomcats. 🙂 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bies said:

9.12 from the 1980s is the best model possible in relation to western counterparts.

And it is lighter with higher acceleration, sustained turn rate and climb rate than more modern variants.

After dissolution of the Soviet Union finansing of military projects and developement of new systems also collapsed.

Classic Cold War boogeyman 9.12 was a real danger for NATO fighters when more modern variants - against AMRAAM armed modernised NATO fighters, not so much anymore. R-77 missile entered service in Russian Air Force in 2015...

 

Keep in mind the radar of the 9.12 is awful. An F-15 will see you coming from at least twice the range you're going to see him, and the Sparrow was a pretty decent missile. The R-27 has barely seen any combat so we can't be sure, it's better to err on the side of "It's not as good as it seems" because it applies to every missile. The americans still have the better trainning and the better avionics and planes in general. 

 

46 minutes ago, notproplayer3 said:

You mention the mig23 as being a third party's choice to make this module: "they can do whatever they want, it's their development time"

So why wouldn't it apply to ED ? Like BIGNEWY said, ED just wants to do a mig29 so why wouldn't they ?

Not all revolves around making planes to develop new technologies for the sim.

The f16 doesn't really bring anything new in terms of totally new technologies because the hornet already has pretty much everything the f16 has in terms of those.

DCS WW2 is also a whole other side of DCS that you could argue against with the same arguments you used against the mig29 yet ED has released all those modules and will still continue to do so like the mosquito indicates because it works for them.  

 

Finally, I do think that there is indeed a big audience wanting any kind of redfor and of course me saying this would seem like I am biased and yes, I absolutely am, I have been craving for new redfor modules. Nevertheless you should've perhaps made a poll to your thread asking if people prefer what ED is doing right now or if they would want to get exclusively more modern American planes.

A new redfor module, while you might think doesn't add anything, I think adds immense possibilities and scenarios, firstly in terms of soviet systems that are a breath of fresh air when we already take the popular f/a-18, f16, f14 and even the a10c that do have similarities in their flight systems and overall cockpit philosophy and secondly in possible scenarios. I am starting to become bored of the repetitive nato vs X country fights with me playing the americans. I simply want to have a russia vs X country fight with me playing the russians or any other eastern block country.

In the end I could also imagine the mig29 becoming a foundation for other russian full fidelity fighters for DCS just as DCS WW2 is a thing.

 

This, is all my opinion, but so is your thread, we both have our own opinions on the matter and ED chose to do the mig 29, I fully support them in this decision. 

 

Because ED has to take care not just of the planes but also of the game itself. If they can move people to work on the core game, that'd be great. They've already biten more than they can chew with the Hornet and the F-16 being done simultaneously, the MiG-29 would add to the list of modules to do and I don't think that's smart, specially because the MiG-29 uses systems that are completely different so you have to spend more time decyphering them and then coding then, while western systems are generally more standardized and ED has already done like 3 very modern western jets. Doing a 4th one would be easier now. And yes, the F-16 does bring new things to DCS. First of all, fantasy loadouts. Secondly, the HTS for increased SEAD efficency. 

 

While I agree with your "variety of missions" bit, we also have to keep in mind people keeps playing that USA! Vs. Whatever scenario, so they probably aren't fed up with it. In fact I do believe there're enough modules to make a Russia Vs. Whatever scenario, but there's none. There's no scenario catering to that crowd, so 1) either DCS is really just a NATO sim (which it is) or 2) there's simply not enough people interested on it to make it worthwhile. If the second one is true, then a new module won't change anything. 

 

4 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I want the MiG-29. It's very much a plane with a rich service history (East Germany and Poland used it, and the export versions fought many a battle in the Middle East) and it's an 80s plane, meaning you actually have to fly it, and not just fiddle with autopilot and pickle the JDAMs. It is a high performance dogfighter, the earliest plane with a HMS, and probably the last real heater+Fox 1 airframe. We don't need another Slammer boat, and while a Russian R-77 boat would have some novelty, it'd ultimately be in the same category.

 

Chasing the latest, shiniest technology is pointless. Give me a Fulcrum, and I'll be happy to go and make the fur fly off some Tomcats. 🙂 

 

Except the 80s Fulcrums didn't get R-77s, obviously. In fact Russia didn't started to deploy R-77s in numbers until...2015. The service history of the MiG-29 may be extense but it's not great, it's definitely not the most shot down plane of the Russian side but it's certainly met the American weapons several times. It's not great. In the 80s it may have been serviceable but the truth is, it's not up to par and you can argue it wasn't even up to par in the 80s. To use the R-73 you need to be WVR. To be WVR you have to survive BVR, which the MiG-29 wouldn't do as it'd be facing F-15s.

Main: MiG-21bis, because pocket rockets are fun

 

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Except for bantering back and forth (which is perfectly fine) what exactly do you expect to accomplish with your thread?

 

Everyone's well aware of the 80's MiG shortcomings, which btw come back to how a server is set up. If both sides have AWACS or some sort of controller individual radar range is less relevant as you're just vectoring toward a contact anyway. For weapons, it's easy enough to accomodate an early MiG by restricting available weaponry, which is what most servers do anyway to level the playing field.  So what? The MiG-29 is superior to the F-86 in virtually every manner. So? That doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. The Eurofighter is apt to better than all the aircraft, BluFor AND RedFor. So what? Does that mean we shouldn't bother with anything else? Your points, while in general accurate, are also largely irrelevant.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, ResonantCard1 said:

Because ED has to take care not just of the planes but also of the game itself. If they can move people to work on the core game, that'd be great. They've already biten more than they can chew with the Hornet and the F-16 being done simultaneously, the MiG-29 would add to the list of modules to do and I don't think that's smart, specially because the MiG-29 uses systems that are completely different so you have to spend more time decyphering them and then coding then, while western systems are generally more standardized and ED has already done like 3 very modern western jets. Doing a 4th one would be easier now. And yes, the F-16 does bring new things to DCS. First of all, fantasy loadouts. Secondly, the HTS for increased SEAD efficency. 

 

These "exotic" systems are exactly why the mig29 is an interesting project, like I said, it could be used as a platform for other redfor planes and I want to believe ED sees it this way too.

Other than that what are you saying the f16 brings to the table ? Fantasy loadouts ? How does this add anything new to the core game engine ? HTS ? This is a system for the f16, it wouldn't add anything to the core game engine itself.

In any way I stand my point, ED doesn't need to make another 4th gen bluefor jet since, like you said, they are standardized and without any stretch of the truth I'd even say it would become very repetitive. F16, f/a-18, (f14) and f15e coming down the line. We've got the big three US planes so what else could ED do anyways ? 

That's exactly why the mig29 is very exciting, it's something else and it would be the only jet ED could really, logically, do in fact.

54 minutes ago, ResonantCard1 said:

While I agree with your "variety of missions" bit, we also have to keep in mind people keeps playing that USA! Vs. Whatever scenario, so they probably aren't fed up with it. In fact I do believe there're enough modules to make a Russia Vs. Whatever scenario, but there's none. There's no scenario catering to that crowd, so 1) either DCS is really just a NATO sim (which it is) or 2) there's simply not enough people interested on it to make it worthwhile. If the second one is true, then a new module won't change anything. 

There's no scenario because there aren't the appropriate Russian planes yet.

Also, that's why making a poll to this thread would be interesting, to get an idea of who would've wanted more russian stuff in DCS.

I personally believe that there is a big audience wanting russian stuff. Firstly the quite big russian community in DCS might like that and perhaps we do not realize since we are hanging around the english speaking part of the forums. Secondly I guess there would be guys just like me who really appreciate russian airplanes or who don't want to fly in american airplanes anymore.

 


Edited by notproplayer3
  • Like 3

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the DCS users can be divided in two groups: those for which DCS is just a competitive game, and then of course they prefer to fly the best fighter possible; and those for which DCS is mostly an aviation simulator, where you can experience and learn a variety of aircrafts and helicopters, not minding if one is from WW2, or if it has a HUD or not, or if it can be armed with 50 nm range missiles.

 

I currently have purchased all the RedFor aircrafts and helicopters .. even the I-16 .. because I enjoy to learn the intrincacies of each ... so, in my case I for sure would purchase a MiG-29 if ED does indeed manage to develop one. Hell, I will even purchase Razbam MiG-23 if it comes along, in spite that I didn't had a good experience with the MiG-19. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I would purchase the F-15E .. I already have the F-14, F-16 and F-18, too many gringos for me 😄

  • Like 8

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

In my opinion, the DCS users can be divided in two groups: those for which DCS is just a competitive game, and then of course they prefer to fly the best fighter possible; and those for which DCS is mostly an aviation simulator, where you can experience and learn a variety of aircrafts and helicopters, not minding if one is from WW2, or if it has a HUD or not, or if it can be armed with 50 nm range missiles.

 

I currently have purchased all the RedFor aircrafts and helicopters .. even the I-16 .. because I enjoy to learn the intrincacies of each ... so, in my case I for sure would purchase a MiG-29 if ED does indeed manage to develop one. Hell, I will even purchase Razbam MiG-23 if it comes along, in spite that I didn't had a good experience with the MiG-19. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I would purchase the F-15E .. I already have the F-14, F-16 and F-18, too many gringos for me 😄

 

I think you are making a great point. As a lifelong fan of aviation in general and military aviation in particular I absolutely adore the fact that we get to experience such a variety of planes in this amazing detail. To me, it is about learning and understanding these pieces of history and that also includes the art of flying and employing systems that are not state of the art but had a special place in history.

 

Yes, the 9.12 is not comparable to modern jets. But when it appeared on the stage it was ground breaking for Soviet military aviation in many ways and stunned western observers. And we might get to have a peak into this time in more detail than at least I have ever thought possible. I understand the appeal of the latest and greatest systems but since FBW aircraft of the modern era are deliberately designed to be as easy and unobtrusive to fly as possible with a clear focus on system management, they do not have the same appeal to me personally as screaming down a valley in a cold war warrior feet firmly on the rudder pedals. I sincerely hope that DCS will be able to strike a balance between modern and historic aviation so that we all get to enjoy our favourite era.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2020 at 9:19 PM, Hogges said:

Yes, the 9.12 is not comparable to modern jets. But when it appeared on the stage it was ground breaking for Soviet military aviation in many ways and stunned western observers.

Exactly. Plus 1980s air combat - without perfect situational awareness of datalinks and very reliable BVR AMRAAMs - when dogfights were still probable is simply more engaging/attractive/entertaining/fun, you name it.


Edited by bies
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ResonantCard1 said:

 

Keep in mind the radar of the 9.12 is awful. An F-15 will see you coming from at least twice the range you're going to see him, and the Sparrow was a pretty decent missile. The R-27 has barely seen any combat so we can't be sure, it's better to err on the side of "It's not as good as it seems" because it applies to every missile. The americans still have the better trainning and the better avionics and planes in general. 

They don't. The Soviet training was different, but back in the 80s it was just as good as their Western counterparts. Later on, it suffered like all of the military, first from the collapse of the USSR, then from blindly aping NATO concepts, but before that, the Soviets were very good at what they did. Also, while their avionics were indeed more primitive, some things, like displaying the radar on the HUD, the HMS or IRST were actually more advanced than in Western aircraft. Based on info I have, the R-27 should be comparable with the 80s versions of the AIM-7, with a slightly longer range. It wasn't used much, but I don't think it'd be any worse than the AIM-7.

 

The 9.12 isn't meant to duel the F-15 on equal terms. It's meant to be vectored towards it, radar off, preferably when the Eaglejets are busy with something else, and put IR-guided missiles up its tailpipe from WVR. Honestly, the F-15 isn't a good comparison, the F-16A is a better one. It also flew, for most part, with Sidewinders only, and its radar wasn't the best, either. The MiG-29A would kick its ass in WVR, thanks to the R-73, and without that it'd be a very close fight.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dragon1-1

Exactly, there's no reason he should be comparing it to an F-15 in the first place. The Eagle has better BVR by design, and it's counterpart is the Su-27 in every way. The MiG-29 is a literal counterpart to the F-16A, with similar capabilities and definitely a similar design philosophy of being cheap, light, and mass producible.

 

People often forget the ''techy USAF'' thing didn't exist until the 2000s really with all these smart bombs, GPS, blah blah. In the 90s and before, the two were much more closely matched. The Russians/Soviets didn't start falling behind until after their country completely collapsed, which obviously cost them 20 some years of disorganisation and stagnation.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

 Except for bantering back and forth (which is perfectly fine) what exactly do you expect to accomplish with your thread?

 

Everyone's well aware of the 80's MiG shortcomings, which btw come back to how a server is set up. If both sides have AWACS or some sort of controller individual radar range is less relevant as you're just vectoring toward a contact anyway. For weapons, it's easy enough to accomodate an early MiG by restricting available weaponry, which is what most servers do anyway to level the playing field.  So what? The MiG-29 is superior to the F-86 in virtually every manner. So? That doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. The Eurofighter is apt to better than all the aircraft, BluFor AND RedFor. So what? Does that mean we shouldn't bother with anything else? Your points, while in general accurate, are also largely irrelevant.

 

 

Honestly I kinda just wanted to talk about this and see what people thought. 

 

2 hours ago, notproplayer3 said:

These "exotic" systems are exactly why the mig29 is an interesting project, like I said, it could be used as a platform for other redfor planes and I want to believe ED sees it this way too.

Other than that what are you saying the f16 brings to the table ? Fantasy loadouts ? How does this add anything new to the core game engine ? HTS ? This is a system for the f16, it wouldn't add anything to the core game engine itself.

In any way I stand my point, ED doesn't need to make another 4th gen bluefor jet since, like you said, they are standardized and without any stretch of the truth I'd even say it would become very repetitive. F16, f/a-18, (f14) and f15e coming down the line. We've got the big three US planes so what else could ED do anyways ? 

That's exactly why the mig29 is very exciting, it's something else and it would be the only jet ED could really, logically, do in fact.

There's no scenario because there aren't the appropriate Russian planes yet.

Also, that's why making a poll to this thread would be interesting, to get an idea of who would've wanted more russian stuff in DCS.

I personally believe that there is a big audience wanting russian stuff. Firstly the quite big russian community in DCS might like that and perhaps we do not realize since we are hanging around the english speaking part of the forums. Secondly I guess there would be guys just like me who really appreciate russian airplanes or who don't want to fly in american airplanes anymore.

 

 

 

I don't think a poll would be accurate to the actual opinion of the community. The people who wants a red jet will come and vote, but at the end of the day most people doesn't care so they'd ignore the poll, heavily biasing it towards the red side. 

 

1 hour ago, Hogges said:

 

I think you are making a great point. As a lifelong fan of aviation in general and military aviation in particular I absolutely adore the fact that we get to experience such a variety of planes in this amazing detail. To me, it is about learning and understanding these pieces of history and that also includes the art of flying and employing systems that are not state of the art but had a special place in history.

 

Yes, the 9.12 is not comparable to modern jets. But when it appeared on the stage it was ground breaking for Soviet military aviation in many ways and stunned western observers. And we might get to have a peak into this time in more detail than at least I have ever thought possible. I understand the appeal of the latest and greatest systems but since FBW aircraft of the modern era are deliberately designed to be as easy and unobtrusive to fly as possible with a clear focus on system management, they do not have the same appeal to me personally as screaming down a valley in a cold war warrior feet firmly on the rudder pedals. I sincerely hope that DCS will be able to strike a balance between modern and historic aviation so that we all get to enjoy our favourite era.

 

I think DCS will remain a mostly modern jets-focused sim, because people wants the bestest shiniest most bombasticest of the planest. That's what the community loves and that's what the devs will do. ED will figure this out once they release the Mi-24 and then the Apache (at least) triples its sales. Or when they release the MiG-29 and it sells much less than the Hornet. They are a company and have to chase the money, they will stick to what sells.

 

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They don't. The Soviet training was different, but back in the 80s it was just as good as their Western counterparts. Later on, it suffered like all of the military, first from the collapse of the USSR, then from blindly aping NATO concepts, but before that, the Soviets were very good at what they did. Also, while their avionics were indeed more primitive, some things, like displaying the radar on the HUD, the HMS or IRST were actually more advanced than in Western aircraft. Based on info I have, the R-27 should be comparable with the 80s versions of the AIM-7, with a slightly longer range. It wasn't used much, but I don't think it'd be any worse than the AIM-7.

 

The 9.12 isn't meant to duel the F-15 on equal terms. It's meant to be vectored towards it, radar off, preferably when the Eaglejets are busy with something else, and put IR-guided missiles up its tailpipe from WVR. Honestly, the F-15 isn't a good comparison, the F-16A is a better one. It also flew, for most part, with Sidewinders only, and its radar wasn't the best, either. The MiG-29A would kick its ass in WVR, thanks to the R-73, and without that it'd be a very close fight.

 

Simply not true. The Soviets tried to clean their reputation during the War of Attrition...and managed to get their ass kicked by the Israelis 5-0. A damn Cessna also managed to land on the Red Square unimpeded. They shot down an airliner, on the other hand. Maybe that's a case for being able to follow an intercept course...

 

The R-27 is less advanced than the Sparrow, ask the devs that are supposedly working on its rework. That'd lead to worse performance even if the range is slightly longer.

 

About the F-15, you're forgetting that their AWACS will inevitably detect the MiG first and then vector the Eagles to destroy the MiGs. Which will invariably lead to the destruction of the MiGs because the Eagle is just superior. The F-15 has the upper hand on BVR and is more maneuverable on WVR. The F-16 had only Sidewinders, that's where the strength of the MiG lies as it had actual BVR missiles. In WVR the F-16 is also more maneuverable if not more than the MiG, and American pilots are known for being very good at air combat. The chances aren't stacked in the MiG's favor. They didn't even had the numbers advantage as the other MiGs were just pushovers.

 

Main: MiG-21bis, because pocket rockets are fun

 

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

@Dragon1-1

Exactly, there's no reason he should be comparing it to an F-15 in the first place. The Eagle has better BVR by design, and it's counterpart is the Su-27 in every way. The MiG-29 is a literal counterpart to the F-16A, with similar capabilities and definitely a similar design philosophy of being cheap, light, and mass producible.

 

People often forget the ''techy USAF'' thing didn't exist until the 2000s really with all these smart bombs, GPS, blah blah. In the 90s and before, the two were much more closely matched. The Russians/Soviets didn't start falling behind until after their country completely collapsed, which obviously cost them 20 some years of disorganisation and stagnation.

 

 

However the Russians already were behind even in the 80s. The F-15 appeared in 1976, the Su-27 in 1989. And the Su-27 wasn't as good as the F-15 (Worse radar, worse missiles, worse avionics and pilot interface, worse range, built in much smaller numbers). The F-16 at least showed up at around the same year as the MiG-29, but it was still much more advanced, with actual FBW, access to precision guided munitions and a much better radar. The Su-25 has never been comparable with the A-10, the A-10 is just much more advanced in most if not all aspects. The A-10 is also older than the Su-25. The only time they were somewhat equal to the US was with the Tu-4.

Main: MiG-21bis, because pocket rockets are fun

 

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Also, while their avionics were indeed more primitive, some things, like displaying the radar on the HUD, the HMS or IRST were actually more advanced than in Western aircraft.

 

That's very debateable on the HuD and the IRST side, it's not like radar display on the HUD is hard to do - and just no one else cares to do it, so was it really that more advanced?  Doubtful.  Same thing with the IRST, it's not a one sided thing and its job was to bridge a technology gap and an admission of the radar's vulnerability to ECM.

 

Quote

Based on info I have, the R-27 should be comparable with the 80s versions of the AIM-7, with a slightly longer range. It wasn't used much, but I don't think it'd be any worse than the AIM-7.

 

One's digital, one's not.  This has consequences.

 

Quote

It's meant to be vectored towards it, radar off, preferably when the Eaglejets are busy with something else, and put IR-guided missiles up its tailpipe from WVR.

 

... because it's not like the other side has any GCI/Battlespace control.   The MiGs would be running their radars and they would be datalinked to help them find targets that the GCI wanted them to attack.  The radar off thing is a huge deal in the game only, as the enemy would be very likely to know of their presence already.

 

Quote

Honestly, the F-15 isn't a good comparison, the F-16A is a better one. It also flew, for most part, with Sidewinders only, and its radar wasn't the best, either. The MiG-29A would kick its ass in WVR, thanks to the R-73, and without that it'd be a very close fight.

 

Problems with HMD HOBS missiles were identified in AIMVAL, and also in ACEVAL it turned out that despite the toys, you want to enter the fray of a furball if you must with a numerical advantage, and not so much a toy advantage as the exchange ratio gets closer to 1 in those situations.  So here the MiG's advantage is the R-27s (incidentally in real combat this fact was proven by MiG-23s taking on F-16s, the R-23/24s allowed them to take their shots first).

 

Dealing with HMS cues missiles is a matter of good IRCM, though it's absolutely an advantage ... you just have to have at minimum parity when you merge to make good use of this advantage.


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much nothing in that wall of text makes sense apart from "we western people want this and you have to make it for us because we have the MONEY".

All that nonsense abou the engine etc. is just hogwash to distract from that.

Narcissistic to the core, this attitude.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ResonantCard1 said:

... I think DCS will remain a mostly modern jets-focused sim, because people wants the bestest shiniest most bombasticest of the planest.

 

Not all the people, only the fraction that uses DCS as a game .. or ED would never had given us modules like the F-86, Mig-15 and UH-1. For sure, I would be bored to tears if all DCS offered were the american teen fighters.

  • Like 4

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

... because it's not like the other side has any GCI/Battlespace control.   The MiGs would be running their radars and they would be datalinked to help them find targets that the GCI wanted them to attack.  The radar off thing is a huge deal in the game only, as the enemy would be very likely to know of their presence already.

It's absolutely a thing IRL, too. There's a huge difference between knowing about their presence and having them on RWR. Especially if your radar is pointed one way, RWR is a major SA tool, more so than AWACS. A pilot has a lot to keep track of, and with only verbal callouts, AWACS would have been of limited utility (datalink won't help, aircraft of the era could only show datalink contacts on the radar screen). In general, when under GCI control, you turn on radar only when you know you will find the target. In PVO, they would tell you exactly when, in VVS probably not, but the radar wasn't the primary means of finding the enemy. Just like it wasn't on the Viper, BTW, early Vipers needed AWACS support until they were practically in WVR.

 

Remember that long BVR was a big question mark in the 70s and 80s, Vietnam showed that it was much less of a thing than previously thought, and so the next generation of aircraft was designed with the expectation that WVR combat will dominate. They did have AWACS in Vietnam, BTW, and it didn't solve all the problem of MiGs jumping the strike packages.

52 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

That's very debateable on the HuD and the IRST side, it's not like radar display on the HUD is hard to do - and just no one else cares to do it, so was it really that more advanced?  Doubtful.  Same thing with the IRST, it's not a one sided thing and its job was to bridge a technology gap and an admission of the radar's vulnerability to ECM.

IRST was a conscious decision to focus on different thing, particularly leveraging the R-27T. This ties into what I said above. If you can find the target with IRST, you can avoid using the radar, which gives your target no warning whatsoever. It made more sense than trying to one-up the Western ECM and radars.

 

The HUD was, perhaps, not the hardest thing to do, but a very clever invention nonetheless. It never caught on in the West, but some of the pilots who flew Soviet fighters praised it highly. It allows the pilot to spend less time heads down, which is good when your primary way of fighting is WVR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ResonantCard1 said:

(...)  I think DCS will remain a mostly modern jets-focused sim, because people wants the bestest shiniest most bombasticest of the planest. That's what the community loves and (..)

If you replace "think" with "hope", and "people" with "I", you'd probably be closer to the truth...

 

& I know this, because 100% of the people that think the same way I do agree with me...


Edited by Weta43
  • Like 3

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...