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

[draconus]

On 9/27/2023 at 6:07 PM, 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.

It is fantasy for the aircraft that are simulated in DCS. They would need software/hardware modifications to work with new weapons. AGM-88 probably couldn't even be attached to a MiG without a mod. Some newer russian weapons could fit but would either be dud, not fire or were not guided at all. That some of it were actually used on the aircraft is the modification work which we have zero details on.

[upyr1]

On 9/26/2023 at 2:34 PM, 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.

 

Eagle doens't have enough information to implement the weapons interface. Anyway, would you mind explaining why you are opposed to using a mod of some advanced version of the Flanker or Fulcrum? 

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

It is fantasy for the aircraft that are simulated in DCS. They would need software/hardware modifications to work with new weapons. AGM-88 probably couldn't even be attached to a MiG without a mod. Some newer russian weapons could fit but would either be dud, not fire or were not guided at all. That some of it were actually used on the aircraft is the modification work which we have zero details on.

As I have said multiple times I believe mods are the only answer to this argument. I would love to see the Fencer, Flanker and Fulcrum carry more advanced weapons. Hower there is not enough information for ED to implement them in an HI aircraft. If there is enough evidence to confirm that some weapon is carried by a variant of an aircraft, then it should be grounds for ED to consider adding that variant as an AI asset. As for flyable variants as I said before if there isn't enough information for ED to do it legally and you want to use it, then get a mod. 

[Smith]

On 9/27/2023 at 11:53 PM, Beacon6 said:

 

As far as singleplayer goes you can still edit the loadout .lua files to get weapons not supported by default on the FC3 aircraft.

Thank you Beacon, but as you say it, its just for singleplayer. I can't use it on a training server like 4YA-Servers.

And also i can't reload the weapons, so if i have more targets then i can not RTB and reload and fly another attack.

 

9 hours ago, draconus said:

It is fantasy for the aircraft that are simulated in DCS. They would need software/hardware modifications to work with new weapons. AGM-88 probably couldn't even be attached to a MiG without a mod. Some newer russian weapons could fit but would either be dud, not fire or were not guided at all. That some of it were actually used on the aircraft is the modification work which we have zero details on.

Since when do we need system details on FC3 planes. How to use any weapon is very simplified on all FC3 planes.

 

4 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Eagle doens't have enough information to implement the weapons interface. Anyway, would you mind explaining why you are opposed to using a mod of some advanced version of the Flanker or Fulcrum? 

For FC3 planes we don't need detailed informations for the weapon interface.

I m not against a working mod, but at the moment i can not reload the weapons or play on training servers. A official option just would work without a lot of bugs or restrictions.

 

4 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Hower there is not enough information for ED to implement them in an HI aircraft. If there is enough evidence to confirm that some weapon is carried by a variant of an aircraft, then it should be grounds for ED to consider adding that variant as an AI asset. As for flyable variants as I said before if there isn't enough information for ED to do it legally and you want to use it, then get a mod. 

As i said before, a FC3 plane doesn't need detailed information on how the weapon is deployed.

[Harlikwin]

On 9/28/2023 at 11:30 AM, 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.

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.

Still both the Ka-50 and 25T might as well be prototypes. The J-8PP while it did fly was a prototype etc. Its just if you have enough docs on hand. I'm sure Deka did the PP because they couldn't do the actual "in service" Chinese versions. But hey a an outdated airframe with outdated western avionics built in cooperation with the west? Yeah even the CCP can honestly say yeah, nothing sekrit there the west doesn't know about since they helped build the things.

And yeah I'm sure the recent political situation in russia is not great for developing much of anything.

 

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Smith said:

Since when do we need system details on FC3 planes. How to use any weapon is very simplified on all FC3 planes.

Fair enough, then FC3 planes simply can't use more advanced weapons.

[Harlikwin]

8 minutes ago, draconus said:

Fair enough, then FC3 planes simply can't use more advanced weapons.

I mean all of FC3 is oversimplified for the most part aside from maybe the FM's and there is still debates about those not being right. Honestly i half expect to laugh if/when ED releases the FF 9.12 version of the Mig-29 because literally it will be worse and harder to use if they actually model all the major systems right and all the big redfor guys will cry because its less capable than FC3 or because they can't exploit FC3isms in MP. Radar, will be far more janky with both look down issues as well as processing overloads and the controls if people use them realistically will be more difficult to use correctly. IRST, same thing, shouldn't see through clouds and really aside from HMS cueing was mostly worthelss due to limited processing abilities and having to deal with clutter etc but DCS doesn't model IR at all at this point. HMS actually needing time to lock and not displaying stuff etc. The only upside might be Lazur, but we will likely get that with the 23 and again, really depends on how well that is actually integrated into the core of DCS. Sadly I expect it to be some sort of simple point you at a target system like the M2k TAF, which basically ignores 90% of its actual capabilities and how it was used IRL. 

All the same would also be true for a FF Su-27 but add in DL stuff being more complex/worse for it.

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Exorcet]

12 hours ago, draconus said:

It is fantasy for the aircraft that are simulated in DCS. They would need software/hardware modifications to work with new weapons. AGM-88 probably couldn't even be attached to a MiG without a mod. Some newer russian weapons could fit but would either be dud, not fire or were not guided at all. That some of it were actually used on the aircraft is the modification work which we have zero details on.

The idea is that we have some kind of stand in using existing (as much as possible) code. In that case, the lack of details doesn't really matter. Realism is obviously important in DCS, but there is no denying that realism can be applies at various levels. Just for example, AI aircraft are going to be simpler than player planes. This is a necessity, and if done correctly it's not really obvious.

2 hours ago, Smith said:

A official option just would work without a lot of bugs or restrictions.

Exactly. I don't see why this should have to be a mod. It certainly can be (and has been done as a mod), however as an in game option, it makes it easiest for users and provides the most flexibility. It also allows the option to be curated (ie disabled when necessary). I feel like this is a pretty basic feature for a simulator, especially one that already provides options for special cases (previously mentioned unlimited health, fuel, ammo, etc).

[okopanja]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Still both the Ka-50 and 25T might as well be prototypes. The J-8PP while it did fly was a prototype etc. Its just if you have enough docs on hand. I'm sure Deka did the PP because they couldn't do the actual "in service" Chinese versions. But hey a an outdated airframe with outdated western avionics built in cooperation with the west? Yeah even the CCP can honestly say yeah, nothing sekrit there the west doesn't know about since they helped build the things.

You seam to dislike Deka and J-8PP?

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Fair enough, then FC3 planes simply can't use more advanced weapons.

In DCS or IRL?

[F-2]

13 hours ago, okopanja said:

You seam to dislike Deka and J-8PP?

 

Now I really want it

[draconus]

13 hours ago, okopanja said:

In DCS or IRL?

IRL. In DCS only with a mod.

[okopanja]

37 minutes ago, draconus said:

IRL. In DCS only with a mod.

Why would that not be possible with an upgrade?

[draconus]

14 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Why would that not be possible with an upgrade?

I never said that. The simulated FC3 aircraft are not upgraded to allow that - that's the point.