Light an afterburner on the GFM project

[upyr1]

I'd love to get some updates here

[Richrach]

Anyone out there have actual experience with the MiG-21?  This plane was a situational awareness (SA) suck-hole.  Absolutely terrible visibility, a horrible radar, and missiles that were near worthless prior to the 1980s.

The MiG-21 in DCS SP missions is a far cry from real.  First, the computer pilot seems to have near-global SA.  This is evidenced by a) its ability to know where threats are at BVR ranges and b) its almost perfectly timed use of chaff/flares when shot at.  Second, the radar onboard (early variants had Spin Scan A/B) was designed for a tail aspect lock after receiving vectors from ground radars.  It had virtually no search capability whatsoever.  Correction, it HAD NO independent search.  Zero look down capability, either.  Additionally, as Wiki points out, its radar lock range even in its correct method of utilization was inside 5NM.

Later Russian/Soviet versions were equipped with the Jay Bird radar, but this radar was not on par with Western radars of the era.

This plane was designed as an interceptor.  As a result, it was fast, had incredibly short legs, and turned like a Buick. (The 1850km range the MiG-21BiS is credited with is not remotely accurate.)  The Soviet tactics of the time were based on central command and control with ground controllers basically directing the pilot like a drone to a stern conversion on its target.

In the perfect world according to Richrach, it would be great if ED took one month off trying to incorporate new items and spent that time correcting errors in models.  Gosh, look at the list of fixes on the F-4 in this latest update!  IT IS AWESOME THAT MUCH EFFORT IS BEING DIRECTED TO THE IDEA OF MAKING THIS AIRCRAFT INCREDIBLE!!!  THIS IS A WINNING IDEA!!!

Doing the same with the threat library would be a superb use time time.

One combat vet's opinion.- Richrach

[draconus]

8 hours ago, Richrach said:

...it would be great if ED took one month off trying to incorporate new items and spent that time correcting errors in models.  Gosh, look at the list of fixes on the F-4 in this latest update!  IT IS AWESOME THAT MUCH EFFORT IS BEING DIRECTED TO THE IDEA OF MAKING THIS AIRCRAFT INCREDIBLE!!!  THIS IS A WINNING IDEA!!!

This is terrible idea. The Viggen and Tomcat (both EA) are abandoned in the process to make one new shiny toy users happy.

ED has multiple departments like map devs, artists or gfx/vulkan/MT coders that have nothing to do with AI or FM. One month off for ED means wasted time for DCS and a work for only a few devs toward one specific goal.

[Richrach]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

This is terrible idea. The Viggen and Tomcat (both EA) are abandoned in the process to make one new shiny toy users happy.

ED has multiple departments like map devs, artists or gfx/vulkan/MT coders that have nothing to do with AI or FM. One month off for ED means wasted time for DCS and a work for only a few devs toward one specific goal.

Explain, Draconus.  I submit taking time to fix glaring problems instead of being focused on getting new things out is a good use of effort.  How does it make sense to pump more things out without fixing what is already on people's computers?  If DCS is a "simulation" is that billing not based on a certain expectation of fidelity and accuracy of the model?

 

During the Yom Kippur war, the IAF faced a new challenge, the SA-7.  It was killing aircraft left and right, especially the A-4.  IAF engineers immediately pivoted, designed a counter they called "the barrel" in less than 24 hours.  It was tested and they began installation on aircraft in three days.  Three days to make a life-saving modification to an already proven aircraft.  They put the right focus on the right problem, and it worked.

 

I submit fixing what is broken or inaccurate is better than piling on more items that will then also have to be worked on and corrected.  At some point the system will collapse on itself.  At that point, DCS and EA will be eclipsed by some other company that will do what it is doing, but better. - Richrach

 

If I am wrong, explain why?

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Richrach said:

If I am wrong, explain why?

I already did. I am all in for the fixes and improvements but the idea "Let's stop whole DCS development and do bug fixing instead" is not the first or last and it won't work at all as only a fraction of workers are responsible and able to fix any bugs, esp. AI related.

[Richrach]

Copy.  I will not weigh in here again. - Richrach

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, Richrach said:

Copy.  I will not weigh in here again. - Richrach

It's tempting to want to concentrate on something like the 21's AI being hilariously wrong, (it is, it needs to be fixed ASAP and will only grow further acute now that we have the F-4 and that is such a classic matchup) but with software development? You'd swear code is sapient and it wants to make you as miserable as possible. You're being asked to handle a dozen brush fires. So, there are limitations on how much attention certain issues do get. Those limitations scale with time, as well.

So, it is unfeasible to concentrate entirely on a singular issue akin to the AI MiG-21's denial of physics. However, this does not excuse ED's lackadaisical reaction to this issue existing. They really need to learn from this.

When you get an aircraft, you're always going to ask "What do I pit it against?" If it's something like the F-4? It has an established OpFor and match up of some notoriety. This basically means that we don't just use an intense magnifying glass on the F-4, but also the MiG-21. Expect similar scrutiny toward the MiG-17 when it drops and then once again when we get the F-8 Crusader.

It's as if you were to make a baseball game that had an emphasis on team rivalries, placed all your effort into creating the Yankees but then threw in the Red Sox as an after thought.