Would you like more modern weapons on russian 4th gen fighters even if its not realistic?

[Smith]

Hello Friends,

I wanted to ask how you guys think about the current situation, that we have a lot of blufor multirole fighters but not a single redfor multirole fighter.
 

My favorite plane is the Su-33 since Flanker 2.0 and i m a little sad that because of the lack of modern weapons the plane is not very usefull in a complex mission. In Flanker 2.5 the Su-33 was able to carry the smart russian weapons like KAB-500Kr, KH-31, KH-35, R-77 and more.

 

Eagle Dynamics used Air to Ground modes like the ones from the Su-25T for the Su-33 so it could fire these weapons. I know that these weapons on these planes are not realistic, but it made a good gameplay. For me its not very unrealistic because if these planes would have been modernized in the '90s it could have been that these planes could have carried these weapons. Or shooting HARMS or KH-31 in "launch override" would already make these planes more usefull.

I think it should be a option, so if someone wants only real loadouts he could disable these weapons for these planes in his missions or servers.

So, as long as we can't get true redfor multirole fighters i think this option would be cool

What do you think? Should it stay as it is or would you like the Flanker 2.5 abilities back.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Smith

[upyr1]

As I said in the "Is MAC Alive" thread?

The answer for more capable human flyable Red For is better mod support. Eagle won't sacrifice realism nor would they be getting into trouble. What I would like would be to have the most up-to-date AI RedFor aircraft possible, next add a line of code to assign an asset from DCS core as a stand in. For example if a server has a Su-35 mod and you don't the su-27 might be used as a visual stand-in

[Silver_Dragon]

That weaponry is unrealistic and ED is not going to add it back just because someone wants fantasy weaponry with no capability on a red device just to have some "balance"... there are no plans and ED does not approve it.

 

[Ironhand]

I would prefer not to see this option in DCS as it runs counter to DCS’s philosophy. In MAC, when it arrives? As an option, I’d have no problem.

[Northstar98]

Yeah, as Ironhand said, this runs counter to DCS' entire philosophy. If you're developing a Su-27S, it should be a Su-27S.

I would agree that not having modern REDFOR aircraft when we have modern BLUFOR aircraft is problematic, but personally I think that's more of an argument for developing modules for which its complementary opposite is viable to be developed, allowing us to have coherent, historically consistent set ups.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Northstar98

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

What do you mean it runs counter to dcs philosophy?

Probably referring to this:

Quote

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.

 

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

DCS MiG-21bis has Kh-23s that it couldn't carry, for example

Yes and it also runs counter to DCS' philosophy.

[Temetre]

Normally Id be fine to have reasonable upgraded versions fitting the timeframe, and where implementation is obvious (software/controls wise). Eg if were flying a flanker in a 2010 DCS scenario, then its only realistic to have R-77/77-1.

Just limiting yourself to exact historical gear at one point isnt really any more realistic, when you put the aircraft into different settings and timeframe. 'Purist' are way too eager to ignore that reality.

 

That said, afaik we dont really got much data on 77-1, and I dont really want more magical overpowered weapons based on brochure numbers. Eg the JF-17 might be a cool module, but its got a history of being overmodeled, both in weapons and flight performance. FC3s SU-27/33 also seems a bit too good to be true, according to some tests of ITR+STR values. Let alone the IRST "radar".

Am 14.8.2023 um 15:28 schrieb Ironhand:

I would prefer not to see this option in DCS as it runs counter to DCS’s philosophy

DCS isnt perfectly replicating planes, that should be obvious. Already for military secrecy reasons. Wags in an interview even recently said theyre sometimes putting aircraft/gear more in the ballpark numbers, to make sure it cant be used for military purposes by "bad guys". Left out features from declassified documents for that reason.

Also called it a simulator game btw.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Temetre

[Temetre]

vor 57 Minuten schrieb Northstar98:

Yes and it also runs counter to DCS' philosophy.

  DCS itself runs counter to that philosophy. You cannot cite that statement and tell me you think thats serious word for word. 

[Silver_Dragon]

And who is going to give the data on 77-1 and other "wonderful" Russian weapons? Let's remember that in the Russian forum has already been said this same request, and Chizh and other has said "NO" because it was not active in the Russian air force, because it was not in service and even less, in a Su-27S. Let's remember that what certain companies and/or propaganda say is one thing, and what happens in reality is quite another. And the problem with "reality" is that there is no "balance", and ED is not interested...

 

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

DCS isnt perfectly replicating planes, that should be obvious.

Yes, but this doesn't rebut anything I or Ironhand have said.

The goal of DCS, as stated in its own product description, is to try and simulate modules, vehicles and ships as accurately as possible to do so. Even if they only get 10% of the way there, that's fully consistent with that goal. They're not always that great at achieving that goal (especially if it's related to ships and the naval environment), I'll grant you, but I don't see how that justifies why DCS shouldn't adhere to it, where it's possible to do so.

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

'Purist' are way too eager to ignore that reality.

Probably because the purists think it's not all that relevant. Saying "if something fictional happens, it's realistic" is kind of oxymoronic. After all, the Su-27 in DCS is a Su-27S Flanker B, i.e the first poduction variant for the VVS circa mid 80s. AFAIK, it's capability as it stands (with regard to what weapons get carried) is accurate, regardless of its the mid 80s or the mid 2020s, this is because changing timeframe doesn't change an aircraft variant or modification by itself.

You'd probably be looking for a Su-27SM for R-77 capability.

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

DCS itself runs counter to that philosophy.

Does it?

So far the trajectory seems to be better aligning itself with that goal (even if it only gets a fraction of the way there), not going against it.

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

You cannot cite that statement and tell me you think thats serious word for word.

Why not? What part of that statement is invalid?

If DCS gets closer to achieving that goal, even by just a teensy, tiny bit (as is the case here), I don't how that's in any way poblematic. I think people who do find that problematic, might be playing the wrong game - something that is absolutely fine, we all have our preferences I don't think that any is more valid than any other (well so long as it isn't unethical at least).

EDIT, in the latest newsletter, how is the new F-104 being advertised:

Quote

The Aerges Team is excited to present their upcoming DCS: F-104 module. Using the experience gained developing the DCS: C-101 Aviojet and the DCS: Mirage F1 modules, they will certainly deliver the most accurate simulation of this exceptional and iconic machine.

Why should Aerges not try to achieve exactly that?

Edited August 25, 2023 by Northstar98

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Gahab141 said:

Do we have any proper data for aim-120C? I mean, we at least have a few hud footages for R-77-1, but for the amraam, iirc, - pure imagination

 

If you have better unclassified public evidence than we do I am happy to take a look at it. 

thanks

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Northstar98:

Yes, but this doesn't rebut anything I or Ironhand have said.

The goal of DCS, as stated in its own product description, is to try and simulate modules, vehicles and ships as accurately as possible to do so. Even if they only get 10% of the way there, that's fully consistent with that goal. They're not always that great at achieving that goal (especially if it's related to ships and the naval environment), I'll grant you, but I don't see how that justifies why DCS shouldn't adhere to it, where it's possible to do so.

DCS is not doing trying to simulate as accurately as possible. 

As evidence, just watch the show with wags, where he talks about ballpark numbers, leaving out declassified features, that kinda stuff. He says they dont want a sim that "bad guys" can use for planning.

vor einer Stunde schrieb Northstar98:

Probably because the purists think it's not all that relevant. Saying "if something fictional happens, it's realistic" is kind of oxymoronic.

 

Yet pretty much every scenario in DCS is fictional. Those specific SU-27s flying in DCS are almost always in places and times they dont belong.

That shows that the purist view ignores the reality of the game. The use of "realism" is almost parody, when "this exact aircraft configuration" is presented as the hight of realism, and the scenario is just handwaved away. Let alone how the SU-27S is a simplified module, so it doesnt even hold up to the limited realism of FF modules.

 

As said, Im not saying the missiles should be added to the plane, but the idea of adding them being a bigger breach of realism than anything else doesnt make sense. It might even be more believable in the common fictional conflicts in DCS, thats a context where fictional upgrades make more sense than outdated variants.

vor einer Stunde schrieb Northstar98:

Does it?

So far the trajectory seems to be better aligning itself with that goal (even if it only gets a fraction of the way there), not going against it.

You think ED is trying to make realistic tanks and ships in DCS?

You can make an argument where planes and game system take shortcuts, but tanks/ships should be much more obivous.

vor einer Stunde schrieb Northstar98:

If DCS gets closer to achieving that goal, even by just a teensy, tiny bit (as is the case here), I don't how that's in any way poblematic. I think people who do find that problematic, might be playing the wrong game - something that is absolutely fine, we all have our preferences I don't think that any is more valid than any other (well so long as it isn't unethical at least).

 

Who said that its problematic? My point was that this view of the game doesnt add up.

If anything, I would turn your point around: People pretending DCS is trying to be an ultra realistic simulator are the ones who dont understand the game. Its the most realistic game simulating those planes in combat, maybe.

But its clearly a game, even ED representatives are saying so. All those instant action missions, the comfort options like airstarts, the fast tutorials, air-pause, all that stuff is sign of a game trying to make learning and flying fun and accessible. Not just have the most super realistic sim.

Wags talked about features they cant add or dont want to. And its not the "most realistic simulator", already because commercial sims exist. Let alone there being some big holes even in recent official modules.

Isnt it telling that people even made this argument about FC3 planes, which are not even trying to be super realistic?

vor einer Stunde schrieb Northstar98:

Why should Aerges not try to achieve exactly that?

They can do so if they want. But Im pretty sure theyd lose to commercial/military simulators. Eg the Mirage F-1s radar? Thats not realistic at all, they clearly made compromises.

Frankly, "the most realistic simulation" is marketing speech, that only works compared to games. Not compared to simulators.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Temetre

[Silver_Dragon]

Su-27S han none "simplified".... has the first branch of Su-27 with limited weapons / radar and other, no a Su-30/-35, and the history of Su-27 versions has very problematic before was depleted vs more avanced versions and none was a "balance" version. The same situation with a Su-33.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Harlikwin]

On 8/14/2023 at 5:22 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

That weaponry is unrealistic and ED is not going to add it back just because someone wants fantasy weaponry with no capability on a red device just to have some "balance"... there are no plans and ED does not approve it.

 

I mean we have whole paid module that is made up. BS3... 

And another module that was basically a prototype in the J-8II-PP

 

Also I think ED and other devs should start thinking about adding ways to either enhance or degrade capabilities of existing modules. I.e. One "fully realistic" module is fine. But the ability to say turn off a JHMC's, or an RWR to represent an earlier version would be pretty welcome. Or possibly adding a weapon used by a different AF. Just make it all MP server side lockable.

 

Another brilliant thing ED could do is add a % reliability number to all munitions, and by default leave it at 100% since as wags said DCS players don't like to deal with reliability. But let it be editable by MP server owners. So you can set an aim9B to 50% or whatever to get a bit closer agreement to reality. And ED can stay out of the whole "realism" debate.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Silver_Dragon]

27 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Also I think ED and other devs should start thinking about adding ways to either enhance or degrade capabilities of existing modules. I.e. One "fully realistic" module is fine. But the ability to say turn off a JHMC's, or an RWR to represent an earlier version would be pretty welcome. Or possibly adding a weapon used by a different AF. Just make it all MP server side lockable.

Another brilliant thing ED could do is add a % reliability number to all munitions, and by default leave it at 100% since as wags said DCS players don't like to deal with reliability. But let it be editable by MP server owners. So you can set an aim9B to 50% or whatever to get a bit closer agreement to reality. And ED can stay out of the whole "realism" debate.

I dont like see DCS World convert on W*/W*T only to a "balance"...

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

I mean we have whole paid module that is made up. BS3... 

And another module that was basically a prototype in the J-8II-PP

 

If the information is available to create them then they are 1) not made up and 2) welcome additions in a world where certain countries' aircraft are hard to come by information. I know you have been around long enough to know this. 

If someone can find the information wrong legal sources and it can be used to create a module then we are ok with it as is the case with the J-8II-PP.

As for weapon reliability, I think it would be interesting to have weapon failures and such, but also many people think it sounds cool until they are lined up for that epic kill and they have such a failure. 

[Harlikwin]

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

If the information is available to create them then they are 1) not made up and 2) welcome additions in a world where certain countries' aircraft are hard to come by information. I know you have been around long enough to know this. 

If someone can find the information wrong legal sources and it can be used to create a module then we are ok with it as is the case with the J-8II-PP.

As for weapon reliability, I think it would be interesting to have weapon failures and such, but also many people think it sounds cool until they are lined up for that epic kill and they have such a failure. 

No offense man,  but there is no such thing as a BS3. Its your guy's interpretation/guess (i.e. made up) what a Blackshark might look like. 

I would personally like to see like a FC3 mig29K with some modern weapons both AA/AG since you guys obviously can't do a FF one. 

 

As for the weapons stuff, its simple to add and maybe let the community decide.

[NineLine]

3 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

No offense man,  but there is no such thing as a BS3. Its your guy's interpretation/guess (i.e. made up) what a Blackshark might look like. 

You are Right Black Shark 3 is an ED Product but the Ka-50 did make it to prototype and did even see a hint of combat. While ours has been tweaked and tuned to make it interesting in a DCS sandbox, it was a real aircraft. 

There are no plans to make any more FC3-level aircraft for DCS, and we have stated we would like to do a FF MiG-29 at some point. 

6 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

As for the weapons stuff, its simple to add and maybe let the community decide.

[Silver_Dragon]

31 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

I would personally like to see like a FC3 mig29K with some modern weapons both AA/AG since you guys obviously can't do a FF one. 

You need build a MiG-29KR [Fulcrum D] Fighter (9.41R) from 2017... has a little problem about them, include a FC-3 (MAC) version. New Radar, Weapons, Systems, etc. The old Mig-29K (9.31) from 1998, never past from testing.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Northstar98]

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

DCS is not doing trying to simulate as accurately as possible. 

As evidence, just watch the show with wags, where he talks about ballpark numbers, leaving out declassified features, that kinda stuff. He says they dont want a sim that "bad guys" can use for planning.

I'm not seeing the contradiction here. You can have stuff be left out and reach the end of what's possible. I swear I said this is my previous reply. How if even if you only get 20% of the way there, you'd still be fulfilling the goal if it's all you could do.

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

Yet pretty much every scenario in DCS is fictional. Those specific SU-27s flying in DCS are almost always in places and times they dont belong.

Yes, because DCS is a sandbox - the idea is that the building blocks should be realistic but what you do with them and what scenarios you build with them is totally up to you. This is a quite clear design principle of the game - it doesn't rebut anything that was said - it's just whataboutism.

And for the record, I think that's absolutely fine, I think it's the best balance between realism and sandbox. Besides, it's not like you can do much else with what DCS gives you. But then, DCS isn't necessarily about recreating realistic scenarios - again, it's up to you. Of course, I would like to be able to make more historically coherent scenarios, but that's solely dependent in what modules and assets get developed - nothing is necessarily contradictory here.

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

That shows that the purist view ignores the reality of the game.

Oh really? Or does it show that actually this realism thing has a level of nuance? And that it isn't this binary, black or white, all or nothing thing where either everything has to be 100% realistic or realism is somehow pointless, not worth considering, silly or otherwise a fools' errand.

People are allowed to believe that some things should be realistic and some not - the same goes for this wishlist, but here it's more evident because the whole design and description of DCS makes it clear that the things that should be realistic are the modules and assets, but what you do with them however is sandbox and up to you (at least within the confines of what you have to work with).

Again, I personally think this strikes the best balance between realism and sandbox - I wouldn't have it any other way. As I said above, it's not like you can really do otherwise when DCS lacks the coherency to do anything else. Then there's the fact that to facilitate this, it would probably mandate the mission editor being locked out or made much more limited - both sound like awful ideas.

That's why the scenario gets "handwaved away" - because by design, it's up to you; wanna fly the most realistic, hardcore missions you can make? Go ahead - it gives you that choice; wanna have F-16s in your WWII scenario on the NTTR map, set before the first manned, powered aircraft flew? Again, if that's what you want to do, go right ahead - how realistic the scenario is, is irrelevant to how to realistic a module is - one doesn't necessarily follow the other and that's by design.

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

As said, Im not saying the missiles should be added to the plane, but the idea of adding them being a bigger breach of realism than anything else doesnt make sense.

I don't remember anyone mentioning that this being a bigger breach of realism than anything else, so what point is this rebutting?

The point was that this runs counter to DCS' philosophy as stated, which it does. That's it.

It's very simple? Should a Su-27S, represent a Su-27S, given the stated goals of the product?

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

You think ED is trying to make realistic tanks and ships in DCS?

More realistic? Yes.

They have talked about making full fidelity vehicle modules in the past, they plan to improve the damage model of both... They've brought up how they want to improve ship physics and effects.

Sounds to me like they're trying to improve the realism, exactly in line with their goal as stated...

And you don't need to convince me of what's unrealistic with tanks or ships, especially ships.

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

My point was that this view of the game doesnt add up.

All you've done so far is highlight items that are unrealistic (even when most don't actually have much bearing on what was actually said) and DCS is a game.

For the former, if you're going to make that argument, you must realise that someone can just state "well, x, y and z are realistic, so it does add up"?

For the latter, it's a straight-up non-sequitur. Nothing about being game (which for the record, DCS is) necessarily contradicts modelling this stuff accurately - this should be obvious as DCS already does this.

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

People pretending DCS is trying to be an ultra realistic simulator are the ones who dont understand the game. Its the most realistic game simulating those planes in combat, maybe.

So people who think DCS is trying to be an ultra-realistic simulator don't understand the game, but DCS is maybe the most realistic game in this regard? What? Do you not see the contradiction here? Do you think it's "maybe the most realistic simulator" because of what? An accident? Coincidence? Or could it be that this is in fact the goal and that's why we've seen improved realism and fidelity, not less.

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

But its clearly a game, even ED representatives are saying so. All those instant action missions, the comfort options like airstarts, the fast tutorials, air-pause, all that stuff is sign of a game trying to make learning and flying fun and accessible. Not just have the most super realistic sim.

But that's not what the quoted statement said. It never said anything about how you operate the aircraft, only that the aircraft themselves are as accurate as they can manage to the real thing.

None of what you listed is relevant to that - the 2 can coexist, it doesn't contradict anything I've said or quoted.

You can still have instant action, tool tips, [insert difficulty option here] and still have the thing you're flying accurately represent it's real life counterpart (i.e the 3D model, the systems behaving as the real ones do (or as close to), the flight model, etc etc etc).

Not only that, but things like air-starts are useful tools for making tracks to report issues, seeing as tracks become less representative with time, not to mention being much more time efficient.

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

Wags talked about features they cant add or dont want to.

"Can't add" fits perfectly with the goal as described. If you're trying to make something as accurate as possible and you come across something that isn't possible for whatever reason and you can do no more, then you've still satisfied that goal.

I don't know, perhaps we have different interpretations on what "as possible" means.

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

And its not the "most realistic simulator", already because commercial sims exist.

Nobody said otherwise, again, this doesn't rebut any point that was made, nor does it render the statement I quoted invalid or false. Ironically, you were the one who said "Its the most realistic game simulating those planes in combat, maybe." Which is more-or-less exactly what it's trying to be.

There are plenty of things where it isn't realistic and where other titles do better, I'm sure most of us are aware of that.

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

Let alone there being some big holes even in recent official modules.

Again (I'm going to end up saying this in my sleep at this rate), you can still have "big holes" and still have something be as accurate as possible for developers to achieve.

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

Frankly, "the most realistic simulation" is marketing speech

So glad you brought that up. Here's a question for you - would it be better if products better conformed to their marketing, or if they didn't?

On 8/25/2023 at 4:53 PM, Temetre said:

that only works compared to games. Not compared to simulators.

Well, seeing as we're talking about a game, I guess it's on the table isn't it?

And again, I'm not seeing how simulator and game are these 2 mutually distinct terms.

On 8/25/2023 at 9:31 PM, NineLine said:

As for weapon reliability, I think it would be interesting to have weapon failures and such, but also many people think it sounds cool until they are lined up for that epic kill and they have such a failure.

What about having it work in the same way that aircraft failures are currently handled? You could have a list of weapons somewhere in the mission editor with user defined/randomised/preset failure probabilities, even better if it was coalition or country specific.

This way people can have realistic weapon failures if they want to but can turn it off if need be (and it would be necessary to be able to turn failures off for testing alone).

Edited September 27, 2023 by Northstar98
grammar, expanded a point

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

You need build a MiG-29KR [Fulcrum D] Fighter (9.41R) from 2017... has a little problem about them, include a FC-3 (MAC) version. New Radar, Weapons, Systems, etc. The old Mig-29K (9.31) from 1998, never past from testing.

 

Yeah I was just saying, since its impossible for ED/3rd parties to do FF versions anything red and modern, well, FC3 level is better than nothing. But I guess at the current time thats a no-go.

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

You are Right Black Shark 3 is an ED Product but the Ka-50 did make it to prototype and did even see a hint of combat. While ours has been tweaked and tuned to make it interesting in a DCS sandbox, it was a real aircraft. 

There are no plans to make any more FC3-level aircraft for DCS, and we have stated we would like to do a FF MiG-29 at some point. 

 

Yeah Ka-50's ala BS2 were built and flew some. Not many, but they did exist and did fly. The BS3 upgrade not so much, that was my point. IDK, frankly I think more devs should just fill out the 60's, 70's and 80's since thats not restricted and its inherently balanced. Instead of chasing "modern" stuff that is hard to model, and even when its in DCS its questionably implemented. 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah I was just saying, since its impossible for ED/3rd parties to do FF versions anything red and modern, well, FC3 level is better than nothing. But I guess at the current time thats a no-go.

ED standards still need to be met, as with Dekka and FC-3 J-11A... without open source information it's going to be a "No Go".

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED standards still need to be met, as with Dekka and FC-3 J-11A... without open source information it's going to be a "No Go".

99% sure you can strap an LGB to any airframe. Maybe the migs can't lase it themselves but that would be an improvment.

 

[BIGNEWY]

2 hours ago, Gahab141 said:

Mr Chizh, log in from your account. 

thanks

 

I spent some time looking for what was posted on the forum and accepted by developers. "Imagination" is of course an overstatement, there are some calculations based on engine size, burn, type of fuel and etc. No hud footage though

 

Keep it civil please. 

Again if you have better public unclassified information than we do message me. 

[exhausted]

The rule should be simple: If it's been mounted on a Su- or MiG- in Ukraine, then it should be included. Period.