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

[bies]

35 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

How about the Su-22 variant which I believe Octopus G is working on? 

Still not clear, we have to wait for the official announcement.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

How about the Su-22 variant which I believe Octopus G is working on? 

We need the exact Su-17/22 version. No has the same a Su-17 as a Su-22, on fact, not sure what version has show on Su Octopus-G video.

[okopanja]

Just a gentle reminder that Su-17/22 is not 4th generation fighter, and that this goes outside of the topic...

[upyr1]

6 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

We need the exact Su-17/22 version. No has the same a Su-17 as a Su-22, on fact, not sure what version has show on Su Octopus-G video.

A simple "I don't know could have worked" anyhow as neither of us know what they are working on, could you at least comment on the latest version used by Russia vs the latest version used by other former WP pact members? 

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I'll just say that a clearly defined option for this really should satisfy 100% of people. I can see why people would be opposed to just letting any plane load anything in the regular menu:

It makes it hard to determine what is historic in single player

It prevents control of the features in MP (well not really since we added loadout restrictions, but then you'd have to figure out what is historic or not, etc)

With a clearly labeled checkbox, everyone who wants a historic single player has it enforced. And I'd also say the checkbox should be disabled by default (ie all limits are in place without work on the part of users). This also means that MP servers are historic with weapons by default. Then anyone wanting to expand from there has the option to do so on their own in single player where no one else is effected or on their own MP server where joining is a consensual decision. I don't see the problem here, but if someone does have an issue maybe they can enlighten me.

People can vote however, but if a no vote just comes down not wanting other people to have something (and I'm not making statements on how the vote options were interpreted here, if), I think that devalues that vote a bit.

As I have said before, this really looks like an argument for better MOD support ED doesn't have enough information to do the SM models would would have guided A2G weapons however there is a large minority of people interested in them 

[upyr1]

8 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Just a gentle reminder that Su-17/22 is not 4th generation fighter, and that this goes outside of the topic...

I know, however I brought it up as Octopus G is working on the Fitter and the main reason people want to bring back these weapons is to give Red For players precision strike and SEAD from a fast fighter. I expect the numbers will be even lower with the right fitter. 

[Seaeagle]

4 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Flanker 2.5 was no Lomac... on fact FC-3 has only on Lomac aircrafts.

I know . whats your point?

4 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

About MiG-29K [Fulcrum D], Model 9.31. ‘Korabelnyy’ or shipboard version of MiG-29M was canceled on 1992, meanwhile, MiG-29KR [Fulcrum D] Fighter, the Model 9.41R on 2015 has de actual "Mig-29K" on Russian and Inidia fleet.

Again  . We been there earlier in this thread, so I don't know why you want to keep telling me this.  I know the history of the MiG-29K, that the 9.31 didn't make it into production and that this was the version that was simulated in F2.5. But while the cockpit was incorrecty modelled, the weapon's capabilities and payloads were correct for that version.

Btw. the version currently operated by the Indian navy is just called MiG-29K(9.41) - MiG-29KR (9.41R) is the "Russianized" version of this and therefore somewhat different from the Indian original. 

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@upyr1 The video suggests he's making M4, which means potentially it can carry anti radiation missiles (with ELINT pod), TV guided missiles (it has optional TV screen for just that purpose), it can deploy laser guided missiles in the same way FC3 Su-25A does.

As far as availability of information goes, former WP countries like Germany or Poland operated that variant and Russia retired it decades ago so it shouldn't be an issue

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

@upyr1 The video suggests he's making M4, which means potentially it can carry anti radiation missiles (with ELINT pod), TV guided missiles (it has optional TV screen for just that purpose), it can deploy laser guided missiles in the same way FC3 Su-25A does.

As far as availability of information goes, former WP countries like Germany or Poland operated that variant and Russia retired it decades ago so it shouldn't be an issue

I hope we get the module soon I would love  to fly sead 

[Smith]

On 9/24/2023 at 3:36 PM, upyr1 said:

So 3/4 people don't want the weapons. That's a super majority. My question is which of these weapons might we see on a Fitter.

That is why it shoud be a option. ED has 122000 followers on youtube. So maybe 30000 would be very happy about this option. There are options in the sim that are used by a lot less people.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Smith

[Silver_Dragon]

31 minutes ago, Smith said:

That is why it shoud be a option. ED has 122000 followers on youtube. So maybe 30000 would be very happy about this option. There are options in the sim that are used by a lot less people.

 

Don't cheat solitaire... only 17 people have said yes... please be consistent.

On 9/24/2023 at 8:15 PM, Seaeagle said:

I know . whats your point?

Again  . We been there earlier in this thread, so I don't know why you want to keep telling me this.  I know the history of the MiG-29K, that the 9.31 didn't make it into production and that this was the version that was simulated in F2.5. But while the cockpit was incorrecty modelled, the weapon's capabilities and payloads were correct for that version.

Btw. the version currently operated by the Indian navy is just called MiG-29K(9.41) - MiG-29KR (9.41R) is the "Russianized" version of this and therefore somewhat different from the Indian original. 

Comparing an old Mig-29K 9.31 with the current Mig-29KR 9.41 is nonsense, different performance, engines, systems, radar and weapons.

[okopanja]

7 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Don't cheat solitaire... only 17 people have said yes... please be consistent.

Exactly both positive and negative votes are meaningless.

ED will do what they think it's the best.

[Silver_Dragon]

3 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Exactly both positive and negative votes are meaningless.

ED will do what they think it's the best.

ED is going to seek to make reality... not fantasies. He's already taken care of removing a lot of the fantasy weaponry from LOMAC, FC. Now he's not going to add it back in. They do not seek "balance".
In addition, whenever someone wants a weapon, ED asks for official documentation, papers, SMEs, etc. that the weaponry is operational on the aircraft in question.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Seaeagle]

16 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Comparing an old Mig-29K 9.31 with the current Mig-29KR 9.41 is nonsense, different performance, engines, systems, radar and weapons.

Who's comparing them? - you are the one constantly bringing up the new 9.41 version whenever someone talks about the old 9.31.

 

 

 

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Smith said:

That is why it shoud be a option. ED has 122000 followers on youtube. So maybe 30000 would be very happy about this option. There are options in the sim that are used by a lot less people.

 

You still have to convince Eagle to sacrifice realism in this aspect. This is one of the reasons that I like mods. There are more advanced versions of the Flanker and Fulcrum, which we can't get as flyable assets due to Russian and Chinese laws. Eagle is reluctant to do a Franken plane as it would sacrifice realism too much. So unless some political upheaval happens its up to the mod community to come up with a workable modern Flanker or Fulcrum. Though I really want ED to add the advanced variants as AI assets

[Exorcet]

24 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

You still have to convince Eagle to sacrifice realism in this aspect.

There is no sacrifice to be made here, just as there isn't with invulnerability, unlimited ammo, all the units in the CJTF countries, respawns, etc. As long as the game doesn't preclude you from using a realistic option, realism is preserved.

[Silver_Dragon]

14 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

Who's comparing them? - you are the one constantly bringing up the new 9.41 version whenever someone talks about the old 9.31.

Even if we did not compare it, the same problem remains with 9.31 (Naval version of Mig-29M 9.15):
- No open data or SMEs, no documentation.
- ED will require data to make the PFM flight model.
- The actual capabilities of its armament, including whether there are any not modelled in DCS World.
- The parameters of the N-010 Zhuk radar, systems and so on.
- Operability on aircraft carriers (there were load limitations).

[Nipil]

3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Even if we did not compare it, the same problem remains with 9.31 (Naval version of Mig-29M 9.15):
- No open data or SMEs, no documentation.
- ED will require data to make the PFM flight model.
- The actual capabilities of its armament, including whether there are any not modelled in DCS World.
- The parameters of the N-010 Zhuk radar, systems and so on.
- Operability on aircraft carriers (there were load limitations).

This. I can't understand why some people think that making an obscure prototype jet, which hasn't ever entered production, without any documentation publically available, which has it's own unique set of systems, which has only been flown by maybe a couple men, is somehow easier than doing an airplane which actually went into production, has been flown by relatively many, can be seen flying on more videos etc. Just why on earth? That something is 10 years older and is more primitive doesn't mean it is easier to model.

Inb4 "but it was present in F2.5". It didn't even have it's IRL cockpit, the way it's MFD functioned was pure fantasy, and it's FM and systems quality were, naturally, waaay below today's standards. And making 9-31 to today's standards is not any easier than making 9-41. Might be even harder, for reasons explained above.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Nipil
Typos

[Smith]

13 hours ago, Exorcet said:

There is no sacrifice to be made here, just as there isn't with invulnerability, unlimited ammo, all the units in the CJTF countries, respawns, etc. As long as the game doesn't preclude you from using a realistic option, realism is preserved.

Thank you Exorcet, that is what I am thinking.
 

 

19 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED is going to seek to make reality... not fantasies. He's already taken care of removing a lot of the fantasy weaponry from LOMAC, FC. Now he's not going to add it back in. They do not seek "balance".
In addition, whenever someone wants a weapon, ED asks for official documentation, papers, SMEs, etc. that the weaponry is operational on the aircraft in question.

 

Where is a AGM-88 on a MiG-29 fantasy. And because it is FC3 we don't need to know how it is used or how the missile is wired to the plane. Just Launch Override and there it goes would be enough for FC3 standard. The same goes for Kh-31P for Su-27/33.

I don't ask for fantasy loadout or that ED has to put a lot of effort into it.

 

14 hours ago, upyr1 said:

You still have to convince Eagle to sacrifice realism in this aspect.

This is what I am  trying with this poll



I really think that the FC3 planes would sell more and would be flown much more if they had a few more capapilities. And that would mean more money for ED.

Or ED would let me mod these weapons to the plane, that would already be enough for me. But they encrypted the needed LUA-Files, so that is not possible for the moment.

[Seaeagle]

4 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Even if we did not compare it, the same problem remains with 9.31 (Naval version of Mig-29M 9.15):
- No open data or SMEs, no documentation.
- ED will require data to make the PFM flight model.
- The actual capabilities of its armament, including whether there are any not modelled in DCS World.
- The parameters of the N-010 Zhuk radar, systems and so on.
- Operability on aircraft carriers (there were load limitations).

Did I ever say otherwise?

[Seaeagle]

1 hour ago, Nipil said:

This. I can't understand why some people think that making an obscure prototype jet, which hasn't ever entered production, without any documentation publically available, which has it's own unique set of systems, which has only been flown by maybe a couple men, is somehow easier than doing an airplane which actually went into production, has been flown by relatively many, can be seen flying on more videos etc. Just why on earth? That something is 10 years older and is more primitive doesn't mean it is easier to model.

Inb4 "but it was present in F2.5". It didn't even have it's IRL cockpit, the way it's MFD functioned was pure fantasy, and it's FM and systems quality were, naturally, waaay below today's standards. And making 9-31 to today's standards is not any easier than making 9-41. Might be even harder, for reasons explained above.

 

This discussion between Silver_Dragon and I, started by him saying that a possible MiG-29K representation for DCS would necessarily need to be the new 9.41, because the old 9.31 never went into production/service, to which I merely replied that neither did the Su-25T and Ka-50 - i.e. that prototype/test status alone shouldn't be anymore of a disqualifying factor for the 9.31 than it was for those.

But I never suggested that a 9.31 would be "easier to do" than the 9.41, or that documentation wuould be easier to come by just because its older. It sounds more like you think that a 9.41 should be easier to do becausei it "went into production" and "has been flown by relatively many".......yeah good luck with that  .

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Seaeagle

[Silver_Dragon]

4 hours ago, Smith said:

Where is a AGM-88 on a MiG-29 fantasy. And because it is FC3 we don't need to know how it is used or how the missile is wired to the plane. Just Launch Override and there it goes would be enough for FC3 standard. The same goes for Kh-31P for Su-27/33.

I don't ask for fantasy loadout or that ED has to put a lot of effort into it.

Sorry, but some of that loadouts has realistic actualy and no fantasy, as AGM-88, JDAMS, AIM-9? on a Mig-29 and Su-27P, Storm Shadows on Su-24, or Zunni and FARR on Su-25A and Mi-24. The problem very sensible war situation actually.... and, no, you dong get Kh-31 on Su-27/33....

[Beacon6]

5 hours ago, Smith said:

Or ED would let me mod these weapons to the plane, that would already be enough for me. But they encrypted the needed LUA-Files, so that is not possible for the moment.

 

As far as singleplayer goes you can still edit the loadout .lua files to get weapons not supported by default on the FC3 aircraft. I did this to add the R-77-1 from the Su-30 mod to the FC3 MiG-29 for my personal BVR training scenario. All you need to know is the CLSID of the weapon.

 

1. Spawn two planes, the SOURCE aircraft and the aircraft you wish to add weapons to (OUTPUT).

2. Create a new weapon loadout for the SOURCE aircraft containing the weapons you are interested in

3. Create a new weapon loadout for the OUTPUT aircraft and populate desired weapons stations with whatever you want.

4. Exit DCS.

5. Go to User > Saved Games > DCS > Mission Editor > (there should be a folder containing all the custom loadouts, i'm not currently at my PC and can't recall the exact name)

6. Open the 2 newly created .lua files

7. Copy the CLSID number of the weapon from the SOURCE aircraft file to the desired stations in the OUTPUT aircraft file and save.

8. Relaunch DCS and reselect the loadouts in the ME to refresh.

9. Enjoy!

 

Personally I have only tried this with air to air weapons and it worked perfectly (even the AI used them) but i don't see any reason why it wouldn't work on air to ground. And I believe GrowlingSiderwinder has a video where he uses the AGM-88 on a MiG-29 so it's definitely possible one way or the other.

 

Cheers!

Beacon

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, Nipil said:

This. I can't understand why some people think that making an obscure prototype jet, which hasn't ever entered production, without any documentation publically available, which has it's own unique set of systems, which has only been flown by maybe a couple men, is somehow easier than doing an airplane which actually went into production, has been flown by relatively many, can be seen flying on more videos etc. Just why on earth? That something is 10 years older and is more primitive doesn't mean it is easier to model.

Inb4 "but it was present in F2.5". It didn't even have it's IRL cockpit, the way it's MFD functioned was pure fantasy, and it's FM and systems quality were, naturally, waaay below today's standards. And making 9-31 to today's standards is not any easier than making 9-41. Might be even harder, for reasons explained above.

 

People think that, because thats exactly what ED did with the Ka-50 and the Su-25T. And what Deka will do with the J-8PP.  So its certainly within the realm of possibility for DCS. 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Nipil]

17 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

People think that, because thats exactly what ED did with the Ka-50 and the Su-25T. And what Deka will do with the J-8PP.  So its certainly within the realm of possibility for DCS.

First of all, Ka-50 and Su-25T are not entirely the same as 9-31. Around a dozen of both was produced, both saw some limited combat service in Chechnya. It's already better than a couple of prototypes. You have somewhat more data from SMEs and media in that case.

Secondly, times were different when they first came out. The 2000's Russia was much more liberal. ED has mentioned that work on Ka-50 was assisted by Kamov. Today it's not possible in Russia. Dunno about Chinese situation.

On 9/28/2023 at 1:01 AM, Seaeagle said:

It sounds more like you think that a 9.41 should be easier to do becausei it "went into production" and "has been flown by relatively many".......yeah good luck with that  .

I guess it should be somewhat easier. But still 99% impossible in foreseeble future.

On 9/28/2023 at 1:01 AM, Seaeagle said:

But I never suggested that a 9.31 would be "easier to do" than the 9.41, or that documentation wuould be easier to come by just because its older.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, my apologies if that was offensive. But there have been a few occasions when people on that forum supposed a 9-31 could be done because of the reasons I listed. I thought the discussion was going in the same direction. And I just find it weird that people keep proposing planes like 9-15, 9-31, Su-37 etc. thinking that somehow they are going to be easier to do simply because they aren't in service.

[Seaeagle]

1 minute ago, Nipil said:

First of all, Ka-50 and Su-25T are not entirely the same as 9-31. Around a dozen of both was produced, both saw some limited combat service in Chechnya. It's already better than a couple of prototypes. You have somewhat more data from SMEs and media in that case.

On the contrary its exactly the same situation - the usual batch of 8(sometimes 12) test aircraft for testing and evaluation prior to serial production and acceptance to service. Since the 9.15 and 9.31 shared most features including the system's complex, they were considered by MIG as a combined develpment effort - the rationale being that testing of the further naval modifications to the airframe of the 9.31 could be achieved with just two airframes. So it was really a case of six( 9.15) + two (9.31) = 8. Also only the first of each type were considered actual prototypes(i.e. initially lacking various elements of the intended equipment and systems), while the remaining were fully configured test aircraft. It was a similar situation with the Su-27K(Su-33), where the first two(T10K-1 and -2) were prototypes, while a follow-on batch of 7(T10K-3 to T10K-9) were test aircraft built and configured as intended for final serial production. More recently the same approach was taken with the new Su-57.

It was also not uncomon to send some test aircraft to frontline units for testing in operational conditions - I guess that in the case of the Su-25T and Ka-50, it just so happened that there was an actual ongoing conflict in Chechnya at the time and since the nature of the two types in question matched the requirements for that, they decided to use them to some limited extend. But IMO the significance of this is exagerated and doesn't change the fact that, just like many other prospective types of the time, they didn't make it into production/service in the end.......either because post-Soviet Russia no longer had the requirements for them or simply because the economic realities at the time made it impossible.

But my point about the operational status(or lack thereof) being the same was only in connection with the percieved  legitimacy of one type versus another for DCS. ED can obviously only do an aircraft to the extend they can obtain the necessary documentaton for the purpose and I am not suggesting that this would be the case for all such aircraft just because they are old and they were able to do it for the Su-25T and Ka-50.

1 minute ago, Nipil said:

Secondly, times were different when they first came out. The 2000's Russia was much more liberal. ED has mentioned that work on Ka-50 was assisted by Kamov. Today it's not possible in Russia.

No I think you are right about that.

1 minute ago, Nipil said:

Dunno about Chinese situation.

I seriously doubt it would be any different.

1 minute ago, Nipil said:

I guess it should be somewhat easier. But still 99% impossible in foreseeble future.

I don't think so - one is unachieavable because its a new classified aircraft in operational service and the other because, altough being obsolete by this day and age, is apparently still considered "secret".

1 minute ago, Nipil said:

I wasn't referring to you specifically, my apologies if that was offensive.

No problem  

1 minute ago, Nipil said:

But there have been a few occasions when people on that forum supposed a 9-31 could be done because of the reasons I listed. I thought the discussion was going in the same direction. And I just find it weird that people keep proposing planes like 9-15, 9-31, Su-37 etc. thinking that somehow they are going to be easier to do simply because they aren't in service.

Well its just a simplification I guess - its true that very recent types that have just entered service aren't going to be possible for obvious reasons, but I agree that being old/out of service doesn't automatically mean that documentation will be available - there are lots of examples of this.....and not just Russian ones.