Battle for Krasnodar 25 mission story driven campaign coming out soon.

[Jonne]

In the trailer a MiG-21bis can be seen launching a Kh-66. Is this part of the campaign? If so this is a big no for me due to the lack of realism.

[TLTeo]

I mean, I understand to some extent, but you can always change loadouts of any aircraft in the mission before flying it. Bring S24s instead if it really bugs you.

[SorelRo]

Weapons availability within the module is something that should be addressed by the module developer. There is a mission where you have to take down 2 ships. quite fast. As always, you can choose the weapons of your liking if this doesn't line up with the level of realism that you are looking for. You have to understand than more often than not we have to work with the constraints and limitations of the DCS platform when it comes to weapons, units available and so on, while still trying to tell what is in the end a story that adds a bit more to your experience than just flying around and blowing stuff up with an airplane. 

 

Cheers, 

 

[Jonne]

Okay, I am going to be a bit more specific on the question, as it is a decisive factor for me if I will buy the campaign or not:

 

Can the particular task be done with a different (non-fantasy) loadout than the one depicted in the video, or will I be stuck at this mission and thus unable to continue the campaign?

[SorelRo]

Yeah, you should be able to change your load out from the mission planning. Not to burst your bubble out there, but you know, this campaign is totally fiction, right? Based on events that never happened. I'm curious what triggered you about the Kh-66. 

[Jonne]

I know the campaign is fiction and I thank you very much for your answer.

 

The grief I have with the Kh-66 is, that it just does not belong on a MiG-21bis and was added to this module purely for gameplay reasons, which I find irritating in what is ment to be the most realistic combat flight sim available to the public. AFAIK it is also the only loadout option in any DCS module which is not even techincally feasible.

[Rudel_chw]

5 minutes ago, Jonne said:

AFAIK it is also the only loadout option in any DCS module which is not even techincally feasible.

 

Not the only case, the C-101CC can use an anti-shipping missile that was never actually carried by the aircraft, only a few test flight with an aerodynamic mock-up.

[Jonne]

Thats a bummer. But as this missile does not interface with anything but the launcher, I would still call it feasbile. The Kh-66 however, cannot even be guided by the MiG-21bis RP-22 radar.

[SorelRo]

1 hour ago, Jonne said:

Thats a bummer. But as this missile does not interface with anything but the launcher, I would still call it feasbile. The Kh-66 however, cannot even be guided by the MiG-21bis RP-22 radar.

Kh-66 worked with the PFM radar? I know it was used on the Romanian Mig's. It may be a case of close enough maybe.

[Bozon]

At what point does modeling accuracy becomes nit picking annoyance? I mean, does DCS model a “Mig21”? A “Mig21Bis”? A “Mig21Bis with tail number xxx”? A “Mig21Bis with tail number xxx after upgrade Y it had on October 1975”?

 

Since we are not getting every minor variation, some leeway is given, so we can use the 21Bis as a substitute for a slightly different version. I don’t mind if the shade of red on the release button does not match the correct shade on the version that carried this or that weapon.

We have the option not to use this leeway and not use mismatching loadouts.

 

Fantasy scenario can accept fantasy 21Bis loadout. The player may choose another loadout.

[TLTeo]

There are plenty other concessions in other DCS modules as well. Off the top of my head the Viggen never flew with four BK-90s (and NVGs were only trialled I think?), the US Viper doesn't really carry four HARMs, the Tomcat never deployed unguided rockets, by 2007 the Walleye wasn't used by the Hornet any more, our supposedly Korean-era Sabre has the avionics to fire Sidewinders and deliver nukes even though both of those came later in its life, the F-5E and Harrier are a mishmash of different variants/blocks. Some of these are more plausible than others, and admittedly the Grom on the Fishbed is on the more speculative side to say the least, but eh, finding where to draw the line is very subjective.

 

And again, you can always load S-24 rockets instead if you're really bothered, and your mission effectiveness won't be overly affected.

Edited February 12, 2021 by TLTeo

[schurem]

I for one relish the option of not just using grom in jy balalaika, but flying a 25 mission campaign! Yay!

[aleader]

Is the AI still 'superman' in DCS (i.e. the unrealistic flight models)?  Can the enemy be shot down in this one?

Edited February 13, 2021 by aleader

[SorelRo]

16 minutes ago, aleader said:

Is the AI still 'superman' in DCS (i.e. the unrealistic flight models)?  Can the enemy be shot down in this one?

 

Yes it can. The AI when put dumb in a quick mission is quite the superman, but when the flights is properly defined and the AI has a mission and some constraints around that mission it's quite doable. I don't consider myself a good pilot and I can do it. I'm sure all you aces here won't have a problem with it. Also on this one, the same like the F-5 campaign you have to take care of your flight, form up, dispatch them. ask them to help you, only this way you will be able to go through it. You may loose a few wingman in the process, but hey, better you than them.

[Jonne]

On 2/12/2021 at 2:36 PM, TLTeo said:

There are plenty other concessions in other DCS modules as well. Off the top of my head the Viggen never flew with four BK-90s (and NVGs were only trialled I think?), the US Viper doesn't really carry four HARMs, the Tomcat never deployed unguided rockets, by 2007 the Walleye wasn't used by the Hornet any more, our supposedly Korean-era Sabre has the avionics to fire Sidewinders and deliver nukes even though both of those came later in its life, the F-5E and Harrier are a mishmash of different variants/blocks. Some of these are more plausible than others, and admittedly the Grom on the Fishbed is on the more speculative side to say the least, but eh, finding where to draw the line is very subjective.

 

And again, you can always load S-24 rockets instead if you're really bothered, and your mission effectiveness won't be overly affected.

 

With whataboutism we can start putting AIM-54 on the 21. And no, the Grom is not even speculative, but just not possible at all.

[Fangs Out]

Though for the time being, I'll stick with bombs and rockets for those missions as I've heard reports that the Kh-66 is having trouble beam riding in DCS

[Bozon]

4 hours ago, Jonne said:

With whataboutism we can start putting AIM-54 on the 21. And no, the Grom is not even speculative, but just not possible at all.

Errr... no.

Mig 21 of a slightly different variant that was contemporary to the Bis variant could  carry the Grom. Since we are not getting that other slightly different variant, a concession was made.

 

[SorelRo]

yeah....about that....still working on re-doing the Russian voices, translation is not going fast enough

[Fangs Out]

speaking of this campaign, SorelRo, will we have a GCI type character similar to Overlord in Black sea resolve '79?

[SorelRo]

2 hours ago, Bravelink03 said:

speaking of this campaign, SorelRo, will we have a GCI type character similar to Overlord in Black sea resolve '79?

Remember that many times the Mig-21 was an extension of the GCI. There is a character that guides you through the early phase of the intercepts, and after that you will have to use the F7 menu. There are one or two radar stations that can guide you on your intercept. 

[rossmum]

On 2/17/2021 at 3:14 AM, Bozon said:

Errr... no.

Mig 21 of a slightly different variant that was contemporary to the Bis variant could  carry the Grom. Since we are not getting that other slightly different variant, a concession was made.

 

At risk of going further off-topic - no. The difference isn't just wiring in the pylons, or stores separation issues, like most DCS fantasy loadouts. The difference is an entirely different radar, operating on different principles. The RP-21 supports the Grom, the RP-22 physically cannot by means of its most basic operating principles - and in any case the ability to 'lock' the beam to a fixed point shouldn't really be a thing, either. The guidance system the weapon requires to function is not present on the aircraft, and the aircraft is not wired to carry and release the weapon. In any case, the Grom was not an especially successful or well-liked weapon, and that's likely why there wasn't a serious effort to adapt either it to the new RP-22, or the RP-22 to it.

 

To bring things back to the topic a little - given the fictional nature of the campaign and various other concessions, I'm not too worried about the Grom being present, to be honest - we also have an (upgraded) Bradley three years before its initial entry to service, and M1A2s two years before the IPM1 began rolling out (M1A2 coming much later), Strykers, and T72B3s complete with RPG cages and Relikt ERA packages. I suspect a few of these are gameplay concessions because of our relatively limited roster of ground vehicles, but the point is, the Grom is probably less immersion-shattering than 2016-model tanks rolling around. Just chalk it up to fiction - if the campaign was trying to be totally true to real events or correct procedures, etc., then I'd be more inclined to agree.

[SorelRo]

3 hours ago, rossmum said:

 

At risk of going further off-topic - no. The difference isn't just wiring in the pylons, or stores separation issues, like most DCS fantasy loadouts. The difference is an entirely different radar, operating on different principles. The RP-21 supports the Grom, the RP-22 physically cannot by means of its most basic operating principles - and in any case the ability to 'lock' the beam to a fixed point shouldn't really be a thing, either. The guidance system the weapon requires to function is not present on the aircraft, and the aircraft is not wired to carry and release the weapon. In any case, the Grom was not an especially successful or well-liked weapon, and that's likely why there wasn't a serious effort to adapt either it to the new RP-22, or the RP-22 to it.

 

To bring things back to the topic a little - given the fictional nature of the campaign and various other concessions, I'm not too worried about the Grom being present, to be honest - we also have an (upgraded) Bradley three years before its initial entry to service, and M1A2s two years before the IPM1 began rolling out (M1A2 coming much later), Strykers, and T72B3s complete with RPG cages and Relikt ERA packages. I suspect a few of these are gameplay concessions because of our relatively limited roster of ground vehicles, but the point is, the Grom is probably less immersion-shattering than 2016-model tanks rolling around. Just chalk it up to fiction - if the campaign was trying to be totally true to real events or correct procedures, etc., then I'd be more inclined to agree.

You are totally right, if I would be going by what ground units are available in DCS in 1979 there would be a lot of guys with just rifles on the blue side. I picked this year because the "teen" series wasn't fully in service.  

[SorelRo]

Hello everyone, 

 

I listened to the feedback received in the video and I went and re-did the voices in Russian to better capture Russian aviation brevity. I hope this is good now and can't thank enough to be members of the community that helped me with this. 

 

The campaign has been submitted to ED and hopefully it will be released soon after the 2.7 update. 

 

Cheers,

[Rudel_chw]

47 minutes ago, SorelRo said:

The campaign has been submitted to ED and hopefully it will be released soon after the 2.7 update. 

 

Thanks for the news ... looking forward to purchasing and flying it 

[SorelRo]

Just a quick update on this one. The campaign is with the ED team being prepped for launch. No date just yet. I'll know more when it's going to make it to the CB build. Thanks a lot for all the support and feedback with this one.