need track replay Russian ECM not working.

[Sol 1 Mihaly]

46 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

You hit the nail on the head, there is a reason ED chose to do the F-16 and F/A-18, and that is those are the main planes in a certain sim named after a bird of prey of the Falconidae family.

 

It was because of constant comparisons to this game through out the years that ED was forced to acknowledge their mismodeling of missile aerodynamics and poor guidance law.

 

Maybe what is needed is some good spirited capitalist competition (ED as a Russian company might not like that but) where a community of programmers takes a certain 1998 Novalogic flight sim named after an ancient greek simple machine. And give it a face lift bringing it into the 21st century offering high end red for aircraft simulation.

 

That would certainly stimulate ED to finish modeling their own lot of Russian planes maybe even add more.

 

On that note some have said here that ECM isn't useful to begin with in DCS, that might have been so a long time ago like in 2018 or 2017 when the missiles were flying air breaks with the range of a spud gun on a maneuvering bandit.

 

But now with missiles like the AIM-54s and AMRAAMs that loft and retain their energy a thousand times better in turns than before it would massively help if ECM functioned a little more like it should. It would let you get closer and start a fight higher very important factors in BVR.

 

 

Agreed. 

 

After the Eurofighter was announced, and listening to the devs basically say they will reverse engineer the aircraft based off of manuals and public info, the whole ED defense of big bad putin doesn't fly. 

 

Also, if anyone is familar with Russian law, there is a right to know request process. Westerners eat up the excuse that getting military info is impossible and gonna land you in prison. That actually happened in the US for an american plane (How easy we forget) I wont mention the case so I dont get banned. 

 

The devs dont have access to a eurofighter but its being made. They also dont have other various aircraft in hangers. The point is, you dont need every single detail to make an accurate simulation, the eurofighter is proof of that. 

 

Again, theres gonna be shills going to try to dispute this, so its what ever. 

 

But updating the mig and flanker models, adding fixes, quality of life changes, adding tech to them that we know exists, fixing the underpreforming radars, fixing the missles etc etc isnt asking for alot. 

 

We fly these FC3 planes because we dont have a choice. There is an elite toxic culture here that says that if you dont fly full fid planes, you are a joke. 

 

Thats funny because the majority of these players autostart anyways and act like redfor pilots dont own full fid models. We fly these planes because there isnt anything else. We have MIGs and Flankers untouched, with inaccurate data, bugs and features missing with tech stuck in 1986. 

 

I also hear an excuse that FC3 is "finished". And thats why. If thats the case, thats BS because the F15C got an update technically as the 120C was updated. Thats a pretty big fucking deal. So if you can update the F15C's weapons, why cant you do that for russian planes. 

 

They dont even hide their lack of giving a fuck about russian planes and give this false illusion that they are shit, giving blue pilots this high of  Dopamine thinking they are very skilled pilots shooting down broken buggy Russian planes from the eighties and fifties. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2021 by Sol 1 Mihaly

[Cmptohocah]

6 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

That isn't needed at all.  It allows you to use the ECM strategically and prevents the exploit (and why did ED insert the timer?  because they agreed it creates an exploit) that the timer was implemented to tame.  What's needed is a general overhaul of electronic warfare across DCS World, and there you could remove this timer because it wouldn't create a 100% no-lock/no-shoot exploit.

 

Let's be honest: this all comes from the old LOMAC/FC era when the F-15 drivers started complaining. And if it really was an exploit, why are the AI not affected by this? They happilly alternate it on 'n' off and one can't really get a valid lock until burn through. I see nothing wrong with that. Oh wait, TWS and HOJ were affected by this.

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[GGTharos]

19 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Let's be honest: this all comes from the old LOMAC/FC era when the F-15 drivers started complaining. And if it really was an exploit, why are the AI not affected by this? They happilly alternate it on 'n' off and one can't really get a valid lock until burn through. I see nothing wrong with that. Oh wait, TWS and HOJ were affected by this.

 

Of course you see nothing wrong with that.  You also don't see anything wrong with the current R-27 Pk given that it matches IRL records, and you wouldn't see anything wrong with your flanker/mig radar never being able to lock onto a modern fighter with a more modern jammer at any range, right?

 

PS:  ED put it in there because they considered it an exploit.  They never meant anyone to not be able to get a lock at all, but feel free to ask them why the AI is inconsistent with this idea.

 

We can do this dance all night, you can whine about how it's all about bluefor, and I can keep telling you that you're where you should be.   Do we need to keep doing the bias dance, or do you want some actual progress?

 

Also, the ability of an eagle to attack a jamming target while in TWS is right there in the -34 ... at least the game forces STT here, which it shouldn't.

Edited January 12, 2021 by GGTharos

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 hour ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

Also, if anyone is familar with Russian law, there is a right to know request process. Westerners eat up the excuse that getting military info is impossible and gonna land you in prison. That actually happened in the US for an american plane (How easy we forget) I wont mention the case so I dont get banned.

Yes I remember how that happened, the Dev was a Russian national, not american and wanted to take F-16 manuals outside of the country to Georgia, this would be an ITAR violation.

There was also talk of him having F-35 and F-22 manuals 'just as a hobby thing' he put it more or less and he certainly didn't make a FOIA request for that one more likely than not it would have been denied if he could. Seems like a reasonable enough pretext to send him to federal prison as that does sound like espionage.

 

17 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

We can do this dance all night, you can whine about how it's all about bluefor, and I can keep telling you that you're where you should be.   Do we need to keep doing the bias dance, or do you want some actual progress?

Can we really say the Redfor or FC3 planes are where they should be? We can make a huge laundry list of demands with all the bugs and features lacking not even just to the playable stuff but also about the lack of AI assets for both blue and red to fit a 2000s or 2010s battlefield. 

 

The problem is more one of neglect of the sim environment and older modules on behalf of ED.

They've fallen into the same trap common to Russian Military MMOs I need not name where they rather add a new shiny toy to wave in the customers face and when they realise it is incomplete buggy and broken, release yet another one and abandon the old one rinse and repeat.

 

I'd say the Eagle and Flanker are more a victim of the Boom bust Hype cycle than any secretive cabal of RED/BLUEfor boogiemen.

Regardless, neglecting their past projects doesn't reflect well on ED what ever their reasons may be.

[GGTharos]

 

Quote

Can we really say the Redfor or FC3 planes are where they should be? We can make a huge laundry list of demands with all the bugs and features lacking not even just to the playable stuff but also about the lack of AI assets for both blue and red to fit a 2000s or 2010s battlefield. 

 

I didn't have an appropriate emoji in mind but I was rolling my eyes while writing that.  This constant whining is tiresome.  There are solutions, ED isn't jumping on them, but people want to invent some non-existent 'wah blufor' 'wah redfor' (yes, this happens too) thing.

This is a flight sim, not a political arena.

 

Quote

The problem is more one of neglect of the sim environment and older modules on behalf of ED.

They've fallen into the same trap common to Russian Military MMOs I need not name where they rather add a new shiny toy to wave in the customers face and when they realise it is incomplete buggy and broken, release yet another one and abandon the old one rinse and repeat.

 

I think it's really a manpower issue.  Fixing 'world' doesn't make money.  It's needed, but it doesn't do that directly - it's the new modules that sell, and they target markets that make them more money.  I think that's fine as a business, but kinda sucks for us in certain specific ways.

 

Quote

I'd say the Eagle and Flanker are more a victim of the Boom bust Hype cycle than any secretive cabal of RED/BLUEfor boogiemen.

Regardless, neglecting their past projects doesn't reflect well on ED what ever their reasons may be.

 

Those FC3 aircraft are special ... in the sense that they get less attention for a number of reasons - older codebase being a very real issue IMHO.   Personally I had some hope that they'd be upgraded/bettered come MAC, but given where that seems to be going, I don't know.

 

One thing is for sure - even if ED is really slow to do things for the FC3 planes, they do listen.  If you can present something good, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes not.

 

If you sit around whining about blufor/redfor, you probably won't get looked at a lot - they get plenty of this on the Russian side already IMHO.

Edited January 12, 2021 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

I also hear an excuse that FC3 is "finished". And thats why. If thats the case, thats BS because the F15C got an update technically as the 120C was updated. Thats a pretty big fucking deal. So if you can update the F15C's weapons, why cant you do that for russian planes. 

 

They did update the R-77s and R-27s by giving them more lift.   This is a similar change to what the AIM-7/120 got, though not the advanced autopilot, which requires a change from the old to the new FM - that's waiting for the CFD and AFAIK it's in line for it next.  It won't have change the main complaint for the R-27.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

15 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

One thing is for sure - even if ED is really slow to do things for the FC3 planes, they do listen.  If you can present something good, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes not.

I mean sounds good but I think we've tried showing them all the info possible and so far I've only seen empty promises from the devs I think I've lost my patience for reporting bugsand what not but maybe thats because I haven't been with the game as long as you.

[Sol 1 Mihaly]

20 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

 

I didn't have an appropriate emoji in mind but I was rolling my eyes while writing that.  This constant whining is tiresome.  There are solutions, ED isn't jumping on them, but people want to invent some non-existent 'wah blufor' 'wah redfor' (yes, this happens too) thing.

This is a flight sim, not a political arena.

 

 

I think it's really a manpower issue.  Fixing 'world' doesn't make money.  It's needed, but it doesn't do that directly - it's the new modules that sell, and they target markets that make them more money.  I think that's fine as a business, but kinda sucks for us in certain specific ways.

 

 

Those FC3 aircraft are special ... in the sense that they get less attention for a number of reasons - older codebase being a very real issue IMHO.   Personally I had some hope that they'd be upgraded/bettered come MAC, but given where that seems to be going, I don't know.

 

One thing is for sure - even if ED is really slow to do things for the FC3 planes, they do listen.  If you can present something good, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes not.

 

If you sit around whining about blufor/redfor, you probably won't get looked at a lot - they get plenty of this on the Russian side already IMHO.

 

 

You can call it whining, we can call it holding ED accountable for bias and other various bullshit. It's what ever.

 

I'm going back to last year when the SD-10 was released and performed better than the 120c. The entire bluefor community cried and whined, it was non-stop like children. After all the crying, ED bent over backwards to get the 120c updated. I also want to mention the part that PRIOR to the release of the JF-17, people complained about the 120c and ED told everyone to pound sand and that the "data" they had was accurate. 

 

Seems like crying and whining is the way to go to get the attention of ED as saying nothing about it doesn't do anything and if you cry enough, eventually they might decide to actually touch these broken modules and fix them. Updating american missles but not working on the russian missles is a bias. The 120c was fixed quickly and ED promised to update russian missles, only to then dial it back and say they will work on them when they will.

 

That's a bias, a prejudice. You can call it business, you can try and use verbal gymnastics all you want to try and defend it, but the bottom line is there is a large community of redfor that feel disenfranchised and feel like ED doesn't care about them. They feel like this for a reason and it's not out of the blue. Stop justifying being a shitty developer as business. 

 

You can sit here and tell us to leave and go bitch someone else, and sure we can and we absolutely will leave when a competitor enters the market. I think I can speak for most Redfor pilots right now that if there was a similar flight sim that treated redfor the way ED treats bluefor, we would all be gone yesterday. 

 

 Until then, we are trying to make this sim better and are asking for improvements.  We are tired of constant deflection, excuses and untruthful replies and the lack of basically giving a shit about russian aircraft.

 

Prove to us these things. Also, the putin meme is funny around here. Can ED release a credible source where the RU government denied them information that they asked for? Oh that's right, they never will. Companies lie, businesses lie all the time, when the community asks for credible evidence (IE: Official Sukhoi Response) and explanations that go beyond the forum post of "Big bad putin", that's not a bad thing. 

 

The Russian Community complaining about their aircraft being broken, buggy and lacking of many features and quality isn't a bad thing.

 

You just don't care because it's not your cup of tea. People are passionate about these planes and not everybody worships NATO / Western aviation culture. We want the same treatment that ED gives to NATO and western aviation communities here. 

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Sol 1 Mihaly

[GGTharos]

56 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

I mean sounds good but I think we've tried showing them all the info possible and so far I've only seen empty promises from the devs I think I've lost my patience for reporting bugsand what not but maybe thats because I haven't been with the game as long as you.

 

It's not surprising that you've lost your patience.  This is how things have been and will continue to be until something changes.  AFAIK we have no effect on this.

[Cmptohocah]

9 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

Of course you see nothing wrong with that.  You also don't see anything wrong with the current R-27 Pk given that it matches IRL records, and you wouldn't see anything wrong with your flanker/mig radar never being able to lock onto a modern fighter with a more modern jammer at any range, right?

 

PS:  ED put it in there because they considered it an exploit.  They never meant anyone to not be able to get a lock at all, but feel free to ask them why the AI is inconsistent with this idea.

 

We can do this dance all night, you can whine about how it's all about bluefor, and I can keep telling you that you're where you should be.   Do we need to keep doing the bias dance, or do you want some actual progress?

 

Also, the ability of an eagle to attack a jamming target while in TWS is right there in the -34 ... at least the game forces STT here, which it shouldn't.

 

First of all it affects my radar too. I can't get a valid lock until the burn-through distance, so I don't really have any information on the target at all until that point. Or does the AI stop flickin' it past the burn through? I am not sure, hence the question.

I will politely ignore what you called "whining" and even more that part where "you will keep telling me something". I don't see this being productive at all.

 

I agree, if the real Eagle does not go into STT then it should not do so in DCS either.

 

Having said that, I do believe that this "annoying" behavior just contributes to ECM 'cause it makes it even more harder to gather info about the enemy. Last sentence is under the premise that the lock is possible at distances past the burn through.

 

Slight blue bias is apparent, but I don't see it as a conspiracy or anything like that. Its just that the developers chose to prioritize western airframes and weapons over the eastern ones. 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[BIGNEWY]

If you have short track replays showing examples of issues I will be happy to look at them. 

[Teknetinium]

Chiz/BIGNEWY can you tell me why 15sec jammer warm up was implemented on Flanker? 

Cmptohocah, Taxdollaratwork spot on on the bias approach by ED!

 

The community might look bigger and you might get more profit but in reality A2A has become less realistic and fun if you ask me. 

BMS 2.0, 30Gs with tanks and magic INS where F-16/18 have more play time then Flanker regarding fuel  

 

But hey ED had time to add inverted lock loss below 1500m on Flanker to make it more realistic  

Dont forget the hud repeater for MIG-29 and and DL for Flanker with AI

 

I did get all EDs models in order to support ED with updates. I have to stop and get only what I fly for obvious reasons. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Teknetinium

[QuiGon]

26 minutes ago, Teknetinium said:

Chiz/BIGNEWY can you tell me why 15sec jammer warm up was implemented on Flanker? 

Cmptohocah, Taxdollaratwork spot on on the bias approach by ED!

 

The community might look bigger and you might get more profit but in reality A2A has become less realistic and fun if you ask me. 

BMS 2.0, 30Gs with tanks and magic INS where F-16/18 have more play time then Flanker regarding fuel  

 

But hey ED had time to add inverted lock loss below 1500m on Flanker to make it more realistic  

Dont forget the hud repeater for MIG-29 and and DL for Flanker with AI

 

 

It's not just the russian aircraft that have this! It's a "feature" of ALL FC3 fighters, including the american F-15 Eagle, which has the 15sec jammer warm up as well!

Edited January 26, 2021 by QuiGon

[Teknetinium]

3 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

It's not just the russian aircraft that have this! It's a "feature" of ALL FC3 fighters, including the american F-15 Eagle, which has the 15sec jammer warm up as well!

 

It was lobbied by those who flew F-15s back then in order to stop the blinking that broke the TWS lock. I just want to hear the realism behind it now when we have blinking to the left and right. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Teknetinium