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

[Max1mus]

On 7/2/2021 at 11:37 AM, 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 - 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.

 

 

Stop using the Russian Air Force as an example for the 2000s. It was shit. And it was allied with the west in an entirely different kind of war.

 

The MiG-29K entered Indian service in 2009. Thats 2 years after the DCS F-16.

 

The Su-30MKI is a beefed up SU-30SM, and its from 2003, thats 1 year before the DCS hornet and 4 years before the DCS viper. The SU-30MK2 from 2005, with the mix of russian missiles and PL-12, is arguably superior to any AMRAAM bus in the game right now.

 

Lots of stuff that the sim is lacking.

 

Apart from laws, there are 2 main reasons why ED is not going to add modern opfor fighters to DCS:

 

1 - They despise low fidelity and do not wish to make any low fidelity modules for artistic reasons. I have had this confirmed by ED guys. Since thats the only way to ever get anything modern, the flyable module option is out of the window.

 

2 - Politics. In short: ED is seeking an artificial imbalance in DCS World. 

 

People from ED like Chizh have been getting heavily into political discussions on the forums, and if you follow their posts, you can see it heavily affecting their judgement. Why does the DCS AI not have modern SAMs, and modern red fighters? Because people like Chizh from ED think that the current units "represent the units in service at the beginning of the 21st century".

 

Chizh from ED (but certainly others too) has mis-identified the dates introduction of US datalinks and aircraft by decades, for example claiming that the DCS F-16 is a 1991 variant. Spoiler, its from 2007.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Max1mus

[Max1mus]

On 7/2/2021 at 5:12 PM, jwbflyer said:

Again, if its fictional, its not illegal, and every airplane in DCS has a degree to fiction about it. 

 

I would go further. All of the full fidelity, 4th gen fighters are unrealistic in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the fight. Apart from switches in the cockpit, theyre mostly worse than Flaming Cliffs. Some Modules are worse, but none of them truly represent the true weaknesses of the real things avionics. Lets take the F-18 as an example:

 

RWR: Way too accurate and reliable, even with multiple incoming missiles/locks. You can precisely notch an active missile with a 5 m/s filter using it.

 

Radar: Immune to jamming apart from the letter J showing up. Missiles guide and loft while radar jammed. Radar lock not breakable by ECM. Detection range almost halved a while ago. Radar strength is stronger than F-14. 32s memory mode allows to guide missiles while cold. This is known and has been a thing for over a year. The missiles will also immedeately find a target that has been lost half a minute ago, just because of memory mode. This is mostly because the radar works like the FC3 ones. But those have memory modes that work no more than 4 seconds.

 

Missiles: Radar can target and shoot down incoming air to air missiles with ease. The way to win fights is to load 10 missiles and just pretend to be an AEGIS. ED allegedly considers this accurate.

 

Datalink: Position of enemy AA units, even MANPADs and little guns are either perfectly marked or fully hidden. No ambiguity.

 

 

JF-17:

 

Radar: Immune to jamming. Infinite tracking range on a cold target. Immune to notching and ground clutter at certain ranges, no matter what the backround of the target is and if its flying at stall speed at 90 degs at 5 feet of altitude. Pickup is faster than FC3.

 

MWS: No false warnings or undetected launches.

 

Missiles: Should be energetically between 120B and 120C, are severely longer ranged and faster than 120C.

 

F-14

 

Radar: Immune to jamming and chaff, even with filter off. Desync between RIO and Pilot make the experience unrealistic and sometimes unacceptable for both the crew and the target.

 

Missiles: Reaquire from CM better than AIM-120C, follow entirely different chaff rejection standard than the other missiles.

 

Datalink: Limited to 8 targets, yet the selection is completely random, instead of being prioritized by a controller. A target 5 miles ahead might be randomly missing.

 

RIO: Jester spots missiles, including ones he cannot physically see.

 

I can go on and on. The avionics of all these planes are only a rough parody of the real, classified systems.

 

Apart from modelling the contents of MFD pages and cockpit switches, any modern flanker or fulcrum variant are absolutely no issue. At least anything short of a Su-30SM2 or Su-35.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Max1mus

[Max1mus]

On 7/6/2021 at 2:12 AM, DaWu said:

Nobody could tell what is realistic and what is fantasy in terms of red ac. I would love to have a modern mig or su even if it’s not accurate in every detail. The A variant they are making without mfds is something they can put Into a museum but not on my disk...

 

Honestly this. Who gives a crap about PvP. People want to fly a capable machine with multirole capabilities. They want to play with MFDs, they want to be able to fly in a modern Syria etc. scenario like a normal fighter - and not some guerilla cockroach. That gets boring pretty fast. Especially with dynamic campaigns coming.

 

Lets be real, how many people who have no clue about variants will try the soviet MiG for free, see that it has trouble taking on an AIM-7 carrier one on one and be like - hey, im gonna spend 80 dollars on this!

 

I would be interested to know how many people bought the old soviet Mi-24 vs the Ka-50. Especially when the upgraded BS3 comes out.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Max1mus

[Mars Exulte]

On 7/2/2021 at 3:15 AM, 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?

  #1 use search. This is a well worn topic and you can find the issues bandied about thoroughly. In short it's not about ''classification'', and never has been. It's about needing licensing and permission from the manufacturer and government, which is difficult to get from Russia. See, this is the real world, and they have real laws they have to contend with just like every other company, and none of these companies give a rats A about our video game hobby.

 

On 7/2/2021 at 3:15 AM, jwbflyer said:

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

 No, because it's not about that.

 

On 7/2/2021 at 3:15 AM, jwbflyer said:

I really don’t get this “classified” aspect DCS claims, respectfully.

 Again, it's not about classification, you need the owner's permission, and you need actual ready access to technical information on the aircraft itself.

 

On 7/2/2021 at 3:15 AM, jwbflyer said:

Just advertise it as “assumed” capabilities and maybe even place the capabilities in just a competitive state against current NATO fighters in DCS.

  That is literally anti-thetical to the whole concept behind DCS.

 

On 7/2/2021 at 3:15 AM, jwbflyer said:

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. 

  You have now discovered the one thing that is not a core focus of the game : air quake. That said, competitive air quake does not require representative aircraft from Russia to work, it just needs a (preferably) variety of roughly comparable aircraft... which it has. If you're so ready to throw out the core simulation principle driving DCS entire MO, then it shouldn't be that big a leap to use a stand in aircraft either.

 

On 7/2/2021 at 3:15 AM, jwbflyer said:

Just get the jet competitive and based on assumed or existing unclassified data.

  Again, that's counter to the entire concept of DCS to wholesale ''make stuff up''. It also doesn't get around needing manufacturer and government permission, which is again, not particularly forthcoming. Whether you like it or not (or understand it or not), politics and commercial law are both influences on the situation.

 

On 7/2/2021 at 3:15 AM, jwbflyer said:

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.

  True, and there's not a whole helluva lot to be done about it right now. Deka are supposedly considering a Chinese Su-30 variant, IF they can get data, and IF they can get permission. Again, political and commercial realities because the government and industry do not really care about hobbiests.

 

 

-edit

In case you don't think these are really factors, poke around a bit for the multiple instances of people and/or ED getting tangled up in legal issues with various Ministries of Defense even from NATO countries. It IS an issue, those people ARE aware of DCS and they DO watch them closely.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[jwbflyer]

50 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  #1 use search. This is a well worn topic and you can find the issues bandied about thoroughly. In short it's not about ''classification'', and never has been. It's about needing licensing and permission from the manufacturer and government, which is difficult to get from Russia. See, this is the real world, and they have real laws they have to contend with just like every other company, and none of these companies give a rats A about our video game hobby.

 

 No, because it's not about that.

 

 Again, it's not about classification, you need the owner's permission, and you need actual ready access to technical information on the aircraft itself.

 

  That is literally anti-thetical to the whole concept behind DCS.

 

  You have now discovered the one thing that is not a core focus of the game : air quake. That said, competitive air quake does not require representative aircraft from Russia to work, it just needs a (preferably) variety of roughly comparable aircraft... which it has. If you're so ready to throw out the core simulation principle driving DCS entire MO, then it shouldn't be that big a leap to use a stand in aircraft either.

 

  Again, that's counter to the entire concept of DCS to wholesale ''make stuff up''. It also doesn't get around needing manufacturer and government permission, which is again, not particularly forthcoming. Whether you like it or not (or understand it or not), politics and commercial law are both influences on the situation.

 

  True, and there's not a whole helluva lot to be done about it right now. Deka are supposedly considering a Chinese Su-30 variant, IF they can get data, and IF they can get permission. Again, political and commercial realities because the government and industry do not really care about hobbiests.

 

 

-edit

In case you don't think these are really factors, poke around a bit for the multiple instances of people and/or ED getting tangled up in legal issues with various Ministries of Defense even from NATO countries. It IS an issue, those people ARE aware of DCS and they DO watch them closely.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your post.

[Max1mus]

13 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

You have now discovered the one thing that is not a core focus of the game : air quake. That said, competitive air quake does not require representative aircraft from Russia to work, it just needs a (preferably) variety of roughly comparable aircraft... which it has. If you're so ready to throw out the core simulation principle driving DCS entire MO, then it shouldn't be that big a leap to use a stand in aircraft either.

 

Air to Air is not any different in SP/PVE than in multiplayer. Just easier. And usually more scripted, since dynamic campaigns dont exist in SP yet.

 

The sim is all around air to air, since thats the very first thing that will be done in any campaign before other tasks are started. You need some sort of air superiority. Also, which youtube videos of DCS get tens and hundrets of thousands of views - not ones of someone doing a startup procedure or an ILS landing.

 

Stand in aircraft dont work because the fight is too symmetrical and you cannot recreate real time lines. Part of that problem is also EDs double standard with russian missiles, they claim that all the real sources are wrong and thus severely undermodel it (true story, check out "ракеты в DCS" thread). But even with realistic missiles, more modern aircraft are needed to fix the lack of historical opponents. Dont forget that the 2nd most used fighter in the world (after F-16) is the modernized flanker - something DCS does not have.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Max1mus