Competitive Full Fi, Multi role, SU or MIG for Multiplayer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jwbflyer]

Wishlist (NEED):

 

Full Fidelity Russian multi role jet (SU or MIG) with MP competitiveness in mind.

 

For example, the MiG-29K appears to have:

-Air refuel

- Carrier ops

- drop tanks

- Fox 1, 2, and 3 “Astra” and “Adders” 

- anti ship missiles

-anti radar missiles

- and precision bombs

 

This MiG-29K just being an example. WE NEED A FULL FI MULTIROLE RUSSIAN JET!!!!!!

 

”That’s classified”

Just build the darn jet on assumed data….what’s the big deal?

If you’re not “leaking” a real, true, classified number/data/info, then who cares?

If we put a “MiG-29K” in Top Gun2 and say it went Mach 4.2, is someone going to say “that was classified”?

I really don’t get this “classified” aspect DCS claims, respectfully. Just advertise it as “assumed” capabilities and maybe even place the capabilities in just a competitive state against current NATO fighters in DCS. If ED/DCS want to stick to an absolutely accurate model of a real airplane for its full fi inventory, then it will sacrifice the competitive online MP experience. 

 

Just get the jet competitive and based on assumed or existing unclassified data. because right now, there are 4 superior jets in MP, and none of them are Russian. This is sad since Su and MIG are great jets.

 

My 2c, respectfully. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by jwbflyer

[bies]

15 hours ago, jwbflyer said:

 

”That’s classified”

Just build the darn jet on assumed data….what’s the big deal?

If you’re not “leaking” a real, true, classified number/data/info, then who cares?

If we put a “MiG-29K” in Top Gun2 and say it went Mach 4.2, is someone going to say “that was classified”?

 

Considering what you wrote, WT or even better Ace Combat 7 is the game you are looking for, there you can fly a modern MiG or F-22 at a  "speed of Ma = 4.2" without any data, documentation, weapon systems data, SME input etc. - for fun. 

 

The whole hallmark of DCS is its strive for realism. Modeling a plane without documentation, without data, without a license, without the cooperation of any SME revealing aircraft data, avionics, performance in different flight states etc. would be absolutely a disaster for DCS opening Pandora's box to made up evening - thus losing DCS signature.

 

Such a plane would have fictional avionics, MFD pages, totally fictitious radar and other sensors modes and parameters with made up performance, fictional flight parameters without any EM charts, climb profiles, accelerations charts in certain configurations, FBW flight control with completely made up logic etc.

In short, it would be as (un)realistic as free-to-play fan made MOD is.

How professional company could demand money for such thing and how much? 10$?

 

It would be zero satisfaction to shoot down an enemy in such a totally unrealistic and made up MiG or other aircraft - knowing the enemy machine is on a completely different level of realism, documentation, simulation, SME input, real data etc.

 

And i'm saying this when Soviet MiG-29 9.12 is my most anticipated aircraft in DCS.

 

(PS: The victory or defeat of such a plane in the fight against the current Hornet or Viper would depend almost exclusively on what fictional data the creator would arbitrarily made up and enter into his strictly classified missile and sensors.)

Edited July 2, 2021 by bies

[kseremak]

First look at the number of exclamation marks in your title. I'm not sure if this is some kind of provocation or you are being serious.

On 7/2/2021 at 2:15 AM, jwbflyer said:

Full Fidelity Russian multi role jet (SU or MIG) with MP competitiveness in mind.

 

Competitiveness against what? Current Su-27S or MiG-29A are very competitive on '80s servers - their real life timeline. Like Mirage 2000 or F-14A. No '40s Spitfire IX nor '70s MiG-21bis or '80s Su-27S is going to be /competitive/ in decades different timeline. On a Cold War servers MiG-29A and Su-27S are at the top of food chain. ED plans to make full fidelity MiG-29A.

 

I also feel that choosing the '2000s version of the F/A-18 and F-16, while practically all the rest of the simulator consisted of equipment and technology from the '80s and Desert Storm 1991, was not the best choice. If ED would make Desert Storm F/A-18 and F-16 there will be no /balance, competitiveness, LACK OF REDFOR COUNTERPARTS/ issues at all. There would be one big coherent enviroment, balanced, realistic and filled with content and two sides flayable realistic aircrafts.

 

MiG-29K begin active service in Russian Navy about 2014 exactly when F/A-18C has beeing already practically phased out from US Navy.

Either way, adding some absolutely bogus, wild ass guess aircraft, having close to nothing in common with the real life jet, like MiG-29K (which is a decade newer even than DCS F/A-18) would be the worst possible option for the DCS as a project.

 

My 2c, respectfully.

Edited July 6, 2021 by kseremak

[jwbflyer]

6 hours ago, bies said:

 

Considering what you wrote, WT or even better Ace Combat 7 is the game you are looking for, there you can fly a modern MiG or F-22 at a  "speed of Ma = 4.2" without any data, documentation, weapon systems data, SME input etc. - for fun. 

 

The whole hallmark of DCS is its strive for realism. Modeling a plane without documentation, without data, without a license, without the cooperation of any SME revealing aircraft data, avionics, performance in different flight states etc. would be absolutely a disaster for DCS opening Pandora's box to made up evening - thus losing DCS signature.

 

Such a plane would have fictional avionics, MFD pages, totally fictitious radar and other sensors modes and parameters with made up performance, fictional flight parameters without any EM charts, climb profiles, accelerations charts in certain configurations, FBW flight control with completely made up logic etc.

In short, it would be as (un)realistic as free-to-play fan made MOD is.

How professional company could demand money for such thing and how much? 10$?

 

It would be zero satisfaction to shoot down an enemy in such a totally unrealistic and made up MiG or other aircraft - knowing the enemy machine is on a completely different level of realism, documentation, simulation, SME input, real sata etc.

 

And i'm saying this when Soviet MiG-29 9.12 is my most anticipated aircraft in DCS.

 

(PS: The victory or defeatof such a plane in the fight against the current Hornet or Viper would depend almost exclusively on what fictional data the creator would arbitrarily made up and enter into his strictly classified missile and sensors.)

 

So how realistic is the FC3 MiG29?

 

“Mach 4.2” was an exaggeration to say if you build or produce something that is not accurate, it cannot be considered a “leak”. If I build an F-22 in DCS and make it Mach 10, no one can ask me to remove it because I obviously didn’t produced something that’s classified. The point is speaking to being able to produce a fictional airplane without having to wait for it to be “unclassified”. My point was exaggerated, and NOT meant to say that’s how unrealistic I want it to be.

 

I also want realism, but having flown them in real life, DCS is far from it. I’m not advocating for unrealistic “ace combat”, I am simply saying, they could “estimate” capabilities and still produce something in their realm of realism which is better than most games, but still far from “mil sim”.

 

Heck, I think you could build almost every aspect of the MiG-29K from Wikipedia based on the existing FC3 mig29, adding Frankenstein pieces to complete those capabilities listed on Wikipedia, with exception to maybe the Astra missile. 

 

Again, don’t get me wrong, I want realism, but what this game is is far from what I would call a “mil sim”. ED has to balance realism with gameplay.

Edited July 2, 2021 by jwbflyer

[jwbflyer]

5 hours ago, kseremak said:

First look at the number of exclamation marks in your title. I'm not sure if this is some kind of provocation or you are being serious.

 

Competitiveness against what? Current Su-27S or MiG-29A are very competitive on '80s servers. Like Mirage 2000 or F-14A. Not '40s Spitfire IX nor '70s MiG-21bis or '80s Su-27S is going to be /competitive/ in decades different timeline. On a Cold War servers MiG-29A and Su-27S are at the top of food chain. ED plans to make full fidelity MiG-29A.

 

I also feel that choosing the '2000s version of the F/A-18 and F-16, while practically all the rest of the simulator consisted of equipment and technology from the 1980s and Desert Storm 1991, was not the best choice. If ED would make Desert Storm F/A-18 and F-16 there will be no /balance, competitiveness, LACK OF REDFOR COUNTERPARTS/ issues at all. There would be one big coherent enviroment, balanced, realistic and filled with content.

 

MiG-29K begin active service in Russian Navy about 2014 exactly when F/A-18C has beeing already practically phased out from US Navy.

Either way, adding some absolutely bogus, wild ass guess aircraft, having close to nothing in common with the real life jet, like MiG-29K (even a decade newer than DCS F/A-18) would be the worst possible option for the DCS as a project.

 

My 2c, respectfully.

 

 

The top competitive airplanes in DCS, without restricted servers (like 1980s), are 14/18/16/JF. No SU or Mig are competitive to those, sadly, with such great jets. 

 

now the subject becomes, can you make it? Well, if you’re going to say “we need realism”, coming from actually having flown mil jets, we are far from what I would call a “mil sim” even with the newest full fidelity jets. I would change my mind if I saw guys breaking their gear because they lowered them at 50^ Angle of bank and/or maybe 2.7 Gs. That’s an example, but my point is this - we are far from a “mil sim” and ED has to balance realism with gameplay. 

 

I am not advocating for arcade level gaming like ace combat, I am saying we can balance realism with gameplay. Perfect example, I think ED could take the current MiG-29 model and make estimated changes to it and call it the MiG-29K. I mean, in early access, developers are “guessing” at stuff anyway, we we this in later updates when things are COMPLETELY changed. Then, if you don’t like that, you can ask your server admins to ban “unrealistic” airplanes if you chose to. 

 

“It’s classified”

If you don’t have that classified info, and you guessed at capabilities, its not illegal IMO. Although I understand that I could be wrong.

In my mind its no different than when you see Growling Sidewinder having a (mod) F-22 dog fight an SU. I thought the F-22 was “classified”. Again, if its fictional, its not illegal, and every airplane in DCS has a degree to fiction about it. 

 

 

6 hours ago, bies said:

 

Considering what you wrote, WT or even better Ace Combat 7 is the game you are looking for, there you can fly a modern MiG or F-22 at a  "speed of Ma = 4.2" without any data, documentation, weapon systems data, SME input etc. - for fun. 

 

The whole hallmark of DCS is its strive for realism. Modeling a plane without documentation, without data, without a license, without the cooperation of any SME revealing aircraft data, avionics, performance in different flight states etc. would be absolutely a disaster for DCS opening Pandora's box to made up evening - thus losing DCS signature.

 

Such a plane would have fictional avionics, MFD pages, totally fictitious radar and other sensors modes and parameters with made up performance, fictional flight parameters without any EM charts, climb profiles, accelerations charts in certain configurations, FBW flight control with completely made up logic etc.

In short, it would be as (un)realistic as free-to-play fan made MOD is.

How professional company could demand money for such thing and how much? 10$?

 

It would be zero satisfaction to shoot down an enemy in such a totally unrealistic and made up MiG or other aircraft - knowing the enemy machine is on a completely different level of realism, documentation, simulation, SME input, real sata etc.

 

And i'm saying this when Soviet MiG-29 9.12 is my most anticipated aircraft in DCS.

 

(PS: The victory or defeatof such a plane in the fight against the current Hornet or Viper would depend almost exclusively on what fictional data the creator would arbitrarily made up and enter into his strictly classified missile and sensors.)

 

 

One last note. remember, in DCS, I can throw 30 aim 120Cs at an A-10 and we can all watch this player defeat every missile (not by terrain masking). This is the level of “realism” we are at. I and many others have seen this garbage first hand. Again, I am not an advocate for arcade level gaming, but I think there s a balance and we could hit that balance at creating such a jet. And hey, if you still don’t like the jet, ask your server admins to ban it. My server admins considered banning all FC3s. 

Thx

[GGTharos]

10 minutes ago, jwbflyer said:

The top competitive airplanes in DCS, without restricted servers (like 1980s), are 14/18/16/JF. No SU or Mig are competitive to those, sadly, with such great jets. 

 

Play on restricted servers.   ED has stated very clearly that no documentation = no module.

You can always ask your favorite server admins to permit use of community mods.

 

[jwbflyer]

2 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

Play on restricted servers.   ED has stated very clearly that no documentation = no module.

You can always ask your favorite server admins to permit use of community mods.

 

At a minimum I would accept the current SU-33 FC3 module to be upgraded to FF, and with its tested weapons.

 

If anyone posting here thinks SU/MiG under representation in DCS is NOT an issue, then please skip my post, since we are at a complete impasse.

[G.J.S]

You do seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit, you want full fidelity - yet advocate “just build the darn thing on assumed data”.

What arm were you, if you don’t mind me asking? 
 

Spanish?

Edited July 2, 2021 by G.J.S

[bies]

48 minutes ago, jwbflyer said:

At a minimum I would accept the current SU-33 FC3 module to be upgraded to FF, and with its tested weapons.

 

Su-27S is better than Su-33 (except for being carrier capable) with better T/W, lower wing loading, better acceleration, sustained turn, climb rate.

 

And yes, full fidelity original Su-27S would be my most anticipated module together with MiG-29A. Who knows, it may be possible to model in the future. It's a Soviet technology.

 

 

About 1980s servers - for me they are way more satisfying and enjoyable experience, with both symmetrical sides flyable aircrafts of the era and close dogfights instead of Fox3 AMRAAM spam on datalink.

Edited July 2, 2021 by bies

[jwbflyer]

13 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

You do seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit, you want full fidelity - yet advocate “just build the darn thing on assumed data”.

What arm were you, if you don’t mind me asking? 
 

Spanish?

 

If you think any full fidelity module in DCS is “accurate”, …well, I would disagree. Thanks. 

11 minutes ago, bies said:

 

Su-27S is better than Su-33 (except for being carrier capable) with better T/W, lower wing loading, better acceleration, sustained turn, climb rate.

 

And yes, original Su-27S would be my most anticipated module together with MiG-29A. Who knows, it may be possible to model in the future. It's a Soviet technology.

 

 

About 1980s servers - for me they are way more satisfying and enjoyable experience, with both symmetrical sides flyable aircrafts of the era and close dogfights instead of Fox3 AMRAAM spam on datalink.

 

I could get on board with all of that. I do like the 1980s servers but I like the up dated stuff a bit better. Just preferences. 

 

Ultimately I think we agree the FF version is overdue.

[Furiz]

Lol at this OP ;D

 

49 minutes ago, jwbflyer said:

At a minimum I would accept the current SU-33 FC3 module to be upgraded to FF, and with its tested weapons.

 

If anyone posting here thinks SU/MiG under representation in DCS is NOT an issue, then please skip my post, since we are at a complete impasse.

 

If you can post your opinion here so can everyone else,

 

Altho I do agree with you, we do need a Redfor fighter, Ill join the opposing team on this one, I don't think it would be good for this sim to make a module like that, based on assumptions.

[G.J.S]

I did not say that, you have. All I had typed was that you seem to be contradicting yourself, then asked which arm you were. That was all. 

[jwbflyer]

16 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

I did not say that, you have. All I had typed was that you seem to be contradicting yourself, then asked which arm you were. That was all. 

 

17 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Lol at this OP ;D

 

 

If you can post your opinion here so can everyone else,

 

Altho I do agree with you, we do need a Redfor fighter, Ill join the opposing team on this one, I don't think it would be good for this sim to make a module like that, based on assumptions.

Much of what we play with is already assumptions. 

17 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

I did not say that, you have. All I had typed was that you seem to be contradicting yourself, then asked which arm you were. That was all. 

Thanks for your constructive contribution.

[jwbflyer]

23 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Lol at this OP ;D

 

 

If you can post your opinion here so can everyone else,

 

Altho I do agree with you, we do need a Redfor fighter, Ill join the opposing team on this one, I don't think it would be good for this sim to make a module like that, based on assumptions.

Would you be opposed to a FF SU-33 or J-11 or 29S?

[Tank50us]

As much as I agree, I have to say that while it would be nice to have multiple high fidelity red jets in DCS, the key problem is that Eagle Dynamics is a Russian Company, and therefor, has to abide by Russian Law. And given that these laws are usually enforced by Makorovs, that's not something you can just 'ignore'.

 

If ED were an American company, they'd have no issues there. But then the problem comes from us. You see, we demand a 100% accurate sim (I know not everyone does, including myself, but the very vocal do), and to that end, if it's not a dead on representation, people will whine and moan about it, and yes, I have seen such comments, in this very forum of people complaining about things too small to really matter... but they do complain.

 

Our best bet right now is the Su30 guys. Sure, it's a mod, but those guys are working to make a full flight model and bring it to as close to a proper module as they can without the SDK, if they were to get the SDK, and make it a paid aircraft, I think we'd all benefit from it. Bonus points if they can get Multicrew and 'Jester' in it

[jwbflyer]

1 minute ago, Tank50us said:

As much as I agree, I have to say that while it would be nice to have multiple high fidelity red jets in DCS, the key problem is that Eagle Dynamics is a Russian Company, and therefor, has to abide by Russian Law. And given that these laws are usually enforced by Makorovs, that's not something you can just 'ignore'.

 

If ED were an American company, they'd have no issues there. But then the problem comes from us. You see, we demand a 100% accurate sim (I know not everyone does, including myself, but the very vocal do), and to that end, if it's not a dead on representation, people will whine and moan about it, and yes, I have seen such comments, in this very forum of people complaining about things too small to really matter... but they do complain.

 

Our best bet right now is the Su30 guys. Sure, it's a mod, but those guys are working to make a full flight model and bring it to as close to a proper module as they can without the SDK, if they were to get the SDK, and make it a paid aircraft, I think we'd all benefit from it. Bonus points if they can get Multicrew and 'Jester' in it

I agree with a lot of that except the realism “sim”. Coming from the real thing, DCS is far from it. The actual path DCS takes is some higher degree of realism somewhere between arcade and 100% simulated. I’d say DCS falls somewhere in the 50-60% accuracy. 

 

At a minimum I can get behind an SU-33 Full fidelity.

[GGTharos]

1 minute ago, jwbflyer said:

Would you be opposed to a FF SU-33 or J-11 or 29S?

 

No one is opposed to any of those modules, just your fantasy version of them.  Next thing we do is make F-22s because well, we can just guess at them.  Or Su-34s or F-35s, Gripens etc.

There are already community mods for some of those - so the solution remains to ask server owners to include them, wish fulfilled.  ED isn't going to do it and your arguments don't cut it.

Yep, there are things that aren't realistic in the current modules.  

They're as realistic as can be based on documentation.

You want to roll down the slow and ignore the 'based on documentation' part - your argument (that things in existing modules are already guessed at) is not valid because you want to ignore a major premise.

[jwbflyer]

2 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

No one is opposed to any of those modules, just your fantasy version of them.  Next thing we do is make F-22s because well, we can just guess at them.  Or Su-34s or F-35s, Gripens etc.

There are already community mods for some of those - so the solution remains to ask server owners to include them, wish fulfilled.  ED isn't going to do it and your arguments don't cut it.

Yep, there are things that aren't realistic in the current modules.  

They're as realistic as can be based on documentation.

You want to roll down the slow and ignore the 'based on documentation' part - your argument (that things in existing modules are already guessed at) is not valid because you want to ignore a major premise.

Please don’t get upset.

 

1) I would get behind a FF SU-33. I never said I wouldn’t and if you read the first post it says “as an example”. I am on record asking ed for 33 to be FF.

 

2) lets take a simple gear limitation. Whoops, DCS didn’t put it in the “MIL SIM” with overwhelming documentation. Pick a plane, it isn’t modeled.

[WinterH]

15 hours ago, jwbflyer said:

what’s the big deal?

As someone who is much more interested in red planes let me answer as constructively as I can:

EEeeeewwwwwwwwwww 

[jwbflyer]

10 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

No one is opposed to any of those modules, just your fantasy version of them.  Next thing we do is make F-22s because well, we can just guess at them.  Or Su-34s or F-35s, Gripens etc.

There are already community mods for some of those - so the solution remains to ask server owners to include them, wish fulfilled.  ED isn't going to do it and your arguments don't cut it.

Yep, there are things that aren't realistic in the current modules.  

They're as realistic as can be based on documentation.

You want to roll down the slow and ignore the 'based on documentation' part - your argument (that things in existing modules are already guessed at) is not valid because you want to ignore a major premise.

Let’s not even touch G limits and over G. That in itself is “fantasy version”.

[GGTharos]

16 minutes ago, jwbflyer said:

Please don’t get upset.

 

Who's upset?  It was a logical debunking of your argument.

 

Quote

1) I would get behind a FF SU-33. I never said I wouldn’t and if you read the first post it says “as an example”. I am on record asking ed for 33 to be FF.

 

Sure.  Which you'll never get because they either have no documentation or no permission to use it.  So, the FC3 Su-33 is as close as you get and frankly make it FF won't make a big competitive difference.  Same weapons, same capabilities in general - in fact, you may get a degraded RWR.  And if you mean the upgraded versions of the 33, then you know as well as anyone, that this is well in the 'keep dreaming' area.

 

Quote

2) lets take a simple gear limitation. Whoops, DCS didn’t put it in the “MIL SIM” with overwhelming documentation. Pick a plane, it isn’t modeled.

 

And?  Just because 'a thing' isn't modeled, we ignore everything else?  Slippery slopes are not logical arguments.

Edited July 2, 2021 by GGTharos

[jwbflyer]

Let’s not kid ourselves, DCS is somewhere between ace combat and a mil sim. 

 

To say its one of either is completely wrong or just naive as to what sim-level accuracy is.

 

Many of us want DCS to be as accurate as possible. But to be honest, 100% realism wouldn’t be fun for a large group out there, and therefore not sell that much. 

 

We have to accept a balance of realism and gameplay-ability. 

 

I will openly debate, publicly anyone who thinks any module is sim-level accuracy. And when I say sim, I mean the sim used to train the real deal…because that’s what a sim is. I will also debate my points about some levels of fantasy already existing in FF modules. 

 

When I flew the real deal, if I dropped my gear over 45^ Bank and/or over 2.5 Gs. THEY MALFUNCTIONED!!!!!! 

 

All that being said, what I implied in the first thread was an airplane that already exists in DCS minus one or two missile - the astra. And could be pieced together in what could be called the MiG-29K. yes, it wont be 100% realistic, but all its pieces already exist in the game minus a couple weapons.

10 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

Who's upset?  It was a logical debunking of your argument.

 

 

Sure.  Which you'll never get because they either have no documentation or no permission to use it.  So, the FC3 Su-33 is as close as you get and frankly make it FF won't make a big competitive difference.  Same weapons, same capabilities in general - in fact, you may get a degraded RWR.  And if you mean the upgraded versions of the 33, then you know as well as anyone, that this is well in the 'keep dreaming' area.

 

 

And?  Just because 'a thing' isn't modeled, we ignore everything else?  Slippery slopes are not logical arguments.

 

You win buddy

Edited July 2, 2021 by jwbflyer

[G.J.S]

Well, I’ve drawn my conclusion . . . . . . 

[jwbflyer]

 

 

I know ED is looking at a FF MIG-29.

 

I will say this- I’m happy with that progress, but its variant will determine its market.

 

An older MIG-29A will appeal to the “I just like to fly SP and do campaigns” group. (And yes, servers like the 1980s restrictions).

 

But anything other than a little more updated competitive multirole, won’t really be appreciated in the competitive PvP market. So, for us in this group, we will skip it like other modules.

 

Just my opinion.

 

[bies]

2 hours ago, jwbflyer said:

But anything other than a little more updated competitive multirole, won’t really be appreciated in the competitive PvP market. So, for us in this group, we will skip it like other modules.

 

(1) According to ED "competitive PvP" is only a tiny fraction of the DCS consumers, less than 10%. So it will not make any noticable difference when it comes to sales.

 

(2) Tell all other teams making A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair II, Mirage F.1, MiG-23MLA, Mi-24 Hind, F-8J Crusader, MiG-17, Fiat G.91, Bölkow-105, Su-17M, EE lighting etc. - to scrap their work because their modules would lose against F/A-18C if teleported 20-30 years in time to year 2005.

 

(3) F-16 and F/A-18 will stop being "competitive PvP" the moment Eurofighter coming out. EF supercruising at 50,000ft, with phenomenal acceleration will butcher F/A-18 and F-16 with ease having big kinematic advantage, even when restricted to AMRAAM. With 2017 classified Meteor missile it won't be any fight at all against F-16/18 just deleting some F blips on radar. So ED should abandon them when EF will come out? It's ridiculous...