New 3rd Party Sub - Red Star MiG-17…?

[rkk01]

I guess the 3rd party dev needs to request a sub-forum on here…

… but based on what’s on Facebook the Fresco is looking very good  
 

Will be a worthy addition to DCS: Cold War and a very good opponent for a range of the blue aircraft we have and have incoming 

image from Red Star Simulations Facebook page…

Edited March 28, 2022 by rkk01

[Snakepit92]

I'm sure they'll get a sub-forum if they ever become an official third party dev

Edited March 28, 2022 by Snakepit92

[Wacko_ZA]

Once they become 3rd party, I will buy this over the mig 19.

[rkk01]

Looking at the dogfight vids it looks like it will give anyone a run for their money if they’re careless enough to get into a close range fight…

The 1v1 with the F-5 looks like the Tiger driver would have trouble…. Will be interesting to see how the F-4 fares.

Also interesting that the vids are human F-5 and F-14 pilots vs AI MiG-17

Edited March 28, 2022 by rkk01

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Once they prove to ED they can deliver a product with the fidelity demanded and have a contractual obligation, we'll see a subforum.

[rkk01]

43 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Once they prove to ED they can deliver a product with the fidelity demanded and have a contractual obligation, we'll see a subforum.

Understandable…

 

… but sounds a little “chicken & egg”…?

from my understanding… aren’t a couple of the third party subs in that position at the moment??? 

[MAXsenna]

6 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

Understandable…

 

… but sounds a little “chicken & egg”…?

from my understanding… aren’t a couple of the third party subs in that position at the moment??? 

Not really. I understand what you mean though.
ED has to vet the 3rd parties first for us customers. Simple as that.

[Tank50us]

4 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Not really. I understand what you mean though.
ED has to vet the 3rd parties first for us customers. Simple as that.

Yup. And they have to keep a very tight leash on them as well. Right now the Mig21 is the only aircraft with Nukes, and they'd like to keep it that way. That leash also comes with an expected level of quality, and the ability to keep the module up to date. ED most certainly doesn't want another Hawk incident.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

20 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

Understandable…

 

… but sounds a little “chicken & egg”…?

from my understanding… aren’t a couple of the third party subs in that position at the moment??? 

It's a point of frustration for some and understandably so. But, from what I understand, the original MiG-17 model the presented was just taken from Turbosquid and no where near up to the sort of fidelity ED expects in the art department. It looks like they've made some big leaps since, however.

The process can seem a little arbitrary and even unfair to some, but at the same time this was the same standard Deka had to meet with its JF-17.

If this gets us more releases like the JF-17 and teams like Deka? I'm very okay with it.

[rkk01]

I guess what I meant was…

… for example IFE and MilTech-5 don’t have any full module track record (yet), but have a sub-forum to allow us all to track their progress.  
 

Granted the MB-339 has an established position as a mod, but that’s a big difference to a paid mod 

As for the MiG-17, it does look very good, and the dogfight AI demonstrated in those vids shows that a fair bit of effort has gone into programming and not just the visual model

[WinterH]

They have a 3rd party dev license agreement with ED, and access to DCS SDK.

Red Star Simulation doesn't have those yet, and that is the difference. Hopefully they will get it, and we will enjoy MiG-17 and more from them as they prove themselves up to the task

[MAXsenna]

Yup. And they have to keep a very tight leash on them as well. Right now the Mig21 is the only aircraft with Nukes, and they'd like to keep it that way. That leash also comes with an expected level of quality, and the ability to keep the module up to date. ED most certainly doesn't want another Hawk incident.

Amen!
I whole heartedly agree!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

It's a point of frustration for some and understandably so. But, from what I understand, the original MiG-17 model the presented was just taken from Turbosquid and no where near up to the sort of fidelity ED expects in the art department. It looks like they've made some big leaps since, however.
The process can seem a little arbitrary and even unfair to some, but at the same time this was the same standard Deka had to meet with its JF-17.
If this gets us more releases like the JF-17 and teams like Deka? I'm very okay with it.

Well, I'll take batter AI than some fancy 3D rendering any day. Did you watch the vid?

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

They have a 3rd party dev license agreement with ED, and access to DCS SDK.

Red Star Simulation doesn't have those yet, and that is the difference. Hopefully they will get it, and we will enjoy MiG-17 and more from them as they prove themselves up to the task

The Fragger was involved with the Gazelle to my knowledge. And now he's partnered up with Razbam (and True Grit too, right?) so that might facilitate things.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

6 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Well, I'll take batter AI than some fancy 3D rendering any day. Did you watch the vid?


 

It's been made quite clear that ED demands a certain level of visual fidelity in addition to all around accuracy. Also, pulling a relatively low polygon count model off of Turbosquid or another similar storefront for use in a DCS commercial release isn't a habit ED might appreciate. I suspect it was a merely a placeholder and not meant to be representative of an end product.

They don't want another VEAO in any semblance, primarily in FM programming but also in the art.

When they have something more substantive, I'm certainly they'll get a forum.

Edited March 29, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[MAXsenna]

It's been made quite clear that ED demands a certain level of visual fidelity in addition to all around accuracy. Also, pulling a relatively low polygon count model off of Turbosquid or another similar storefront for use in a DCS commercial release isn't a habit ED might appreciate. I suspect it was a merely a placeholder and not meant to be representative of an end product.
They don't want another VEAO in any semblance, primarily in FM programming but also in the art.

When they have something more substantive, I'm certainly they'll get a forum.

Oh! You're absolutely correct and I agree to a certain degree.
I just have no clue about 3D modelling (never really notice), and I just don't care as long it looks nice "inside"!
But fair points anyway, we're so spoiled!

Have a fantastic day!
Cheers

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[rkk01]

Well, it looks pretty good to my untrained eye…

images from Red Star Simulations Facebook page 

[SkateZilla]

3D Model and textures are the easiest part of a Module, the systems coding and flight model being the hardest.

[Mike_Romeo]

Official Red Star Simulations website: https://redstarsimulations.com/

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 3/29/2022 at 7:47 AM, rkk01 said:

Well, it looks pretty good to my untrained eye…

images from Red Star Simulations Facebook page 

Like I said, they were using another model as a placeholder. Their new model does look quite good. The model the originally showed off had a much lower polycount than ED wants to see, apparently.

Edited March 31, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Vapor_12]

I will take an FS2004 external polycount if the cockpit looks good, the flight model is well done and all the systems are 99.99% bug free. My graphics card agrees.

[F-2]

21 hours ago, Vapor_12 said:

I will take an FS2004 external polycount if the cockpit looks good, the flight model is well done and all the systems are 99.99% bug free. My graphics card agrees.

Fun fact the fs2004 Boeing Stearman has 315000 tris.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 4/30/2022 at 7:40 PM, Vapor_12 said:

I will take an FS2004 external polycount if the cockpit looks good, the flight model is well done and all the systems are 99.99% bug free. My graphics card agrees.

ED won't, though.

[Vapor_12]

On 5/1/2022 at 5:39 PM, F-2 said:

Fun fact the fs2004 Boeing Stearman has 315000 tris.

Yeah, and it probably runs smoother on my PC

19 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

ED won't, though.

Their product, their standards. Fine by me. I would enjoy a slight model poly reduction across the board though, I do not know how many others share my opinion. I fly DCS exclusively in VR, and with my card outputting to my monitor vs my headset the frames are ~150 fps and ~30 fps respectively.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Vapor_12

[SkateZilla]

42 minutes ago, Vapor_12 said:

Yeah, and it probably runs smoother on my PC

Their product, their standards. Fine by me. I would enjoy a slight model poly reduction across the board though, I do not know how many others share my opinion. I fly DCS exclusively in VR, and with my card outputting to my monitor vs my headset the frames are ~150 fps and ~30 fps respectively.

 

Draw Calls and DirectX11 Pattern Flow are the cause.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, Vapor_12 said:

Yeah, and it probably runs smoother on my PC

Their product, their standards. Fine by me. I would enjoy a slight model poly reduction across the board though, I do not know how many others share my opinion. I fly DCS exclusively in VR, and with my card outputting to my monitor vs my headset the frames are ~150 fps and ~30 fps respectively.

 

I think a lot of us are of the same mind. I certainly am to a degree.