Low Fidelity / FC 2024 - Bring more low fidelity jets - Suggestions

[Mr_sukebe]

If additional FC3 aircraft were to be introduced, I wonder if first generation F16 and F18 would be viable, such that they could be limited to Cold War (mostly) dumb weapons?

For that matter, some other Cold War jets might be interesting, eg:

- Hawker hunter

- BAC Lightning

- Mirage 3

- Bucaneer

- F100

[Irisz]

I'll show you what FC2024 needs!

ED is itself a limit to its development, because it makes senseless decisions, while there is a need for something other than the production of NATO equipment on an assembly line!

I think that for the existing Su-27 - Su-25 and MiG-29 aircraft, only the cockpit should be modified and a completely new product could be produced. There is no need to develop an external model of the aircraft. There is no need to develop new aircraft flight models because they are already ready.

Look at what kind of gaming experience the modernized Su-25 would give to the FC2024 product!

A new plane?
Would it generate revenue for the ED?
Entertaining?
Will it advance the development of DCS World?
Attracting new players to DCS World?
A refresher for those who don't fly with NATO equipment and want something new?
Is ED deliberately limiting the development of such aircraft in order to lose money?

These are interesting thoughts!

[draconus]

30 minutes ago, Irisz said:

I'll show you what FC2024 needs!

As we have already seen, you're the only person who knows what is needed for DCS.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/351538-suggestion-to-ed-to-make-the-fc2024-product-attractive-with-little-effort-and-generate-even-more-desire-to-buy-for-users/

[Irisz]

8 perccel ezelőtt Draconus azt mondta:

Ahogy már láttuk, Ön az egyetlen személy, aki tudja, mi kell a DCS-hez.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/351538-suggestion-to-ed-to-make-the-fc2024-product-attractive-with-little-effort-and-generate-even-more-desire-to-buy-for-users/

At least I'm trying to change something! In that topic, the NATO fans nicely decide what is needed and what is not.

Those who don't like NATO equipment have a slightly different opinion about what ED does and where it is going! There are people whose thoughts are not guided by the marketing text written by ED and who can think independently about what they want!

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

If additional FC3 aircraft were to be introduced, I wonder if first generation F16 and F18 would be viable, such that they could be limited to Cold War (mostly) dumb weapons?

The A model Hornet could probably be derived from the one we have, and in FF, too. The biggest difference in the cockpit is the mechanical HSI and monochrome MFDs, it's otherwise really similar, including tricky weapons like Walleye, and the Nite Hawk TGP (which we should also have for our Hornet). The real difference is that it used APG-65, which was somewhat meh compared to what we have (and it can't guide the AIM-120), but it did have most of the modes our radar does. 

The A model Viper, meanwhile, would be a viable FF module, though it'd have to be made from scratch. ED is aware of that, I think, seeing how many people clamor for it in the wishlist.

[draconus]

30 minutes ago, Irisz said:

At least I'm trying to change something! In that topic, the NATO fans nicely decide what is needed and what is not.

Those who don't like NATO equipment have a slightly different opinion about what ED does and where it is going! There are people whose thoughts are not guided by the marketing text written by ED and who can think independently about what they want!

You just wouldn't listen, would you? Both forum users and ED are telling you that as much as we really would like to have more modern Redfor aircraft there's no such possibility because of multiple reasons:

• problems with licenses, law, agreements, SMEs and cooperation with russian manufacturers and/or government
• trying to workaround the above can put russia-living developers in serious danger
• problems with good enough public doumentation for the DCS quality product, mainly details for FMs, avionics and weapon systems
• problems with feasibility of making russian modules (yes, they sell worse than US aircraft)

That's why coming FF module MiG-29A is all what we can get for now. Can you understand that? Can you believe I and many users here, as well as ED, would like to see more modern Redfor jets in DCS? Will you stop with your conspiracy theories?

Edited June 18, 2024 by draconus

[Irisz]

47 minutes ago, draconus said:

You just wouldn't listen, would you? Both forum users and ED are telling you that as much as we really would like to have more modern Redfor aircraft there's no such possibility because of multiple reasons:

• problems with licenses, law, agreements, SMEs and cooperation with russian manufacturers and/or government
• trying to workaround the above can put russia-living developers in serious danger
• problems with good enough public doumentation for the DCS quality product, mainly details for FMs, avionics and weapon systems
• problems with feasibility of making russian modules (yes, they sell worse than US aircraft)

That's why coming FF module MiG-29A is all what we can get for now. Can you understand that? Can you believe I and many users here, as well as ED, would like to see more modern Redfor jets in DCS? Will you stop with your conspiracy theories?

 

I've been a DCS World Flanker dedicated user since 2013, since I'm new to registration, don't you think I've read what you wrote enough times?

The J-11A does not need to violate any military secrets, modify the range of the radar as they did with the F-15C and give it the TWS2 mode that is in the MiG-29C. We have been waiting for this for 6 years! If you write to Deka, he points to Chizh, if you write to Chizh what Deka said, he replies that Deka is the developer of the J-11A and nothing will happen. I report elsewhere that within 1 month, with 2 classified pieces of information, the J-11A was given a N001VE radar and MAWS sensors. Since Deka is the developer of the J-11A and not ED, no one knows why it has been going on for 6 years that they simply look at those who are their customers as air. And I will write it down many times, I have bought FC3 products twice since 2013 and Su-27 products once because this situation is so frustrating that they look like air that I deleted my account several times along with all the purchased products!

Tragicomedy going on here! To change the detection distance from 100 km to 120 km and copy a TWS2 mode from the MiG-29C, you do not need a military document. The description of what the radar knows was copied from the manufacturer of the radar itself to the forum and it is still available now. This is what the ED does when it comes to R-27 rockets, it shows the manufacturer's website what the range of the rocket is! Both are done with the same procedure that if someone wants to talk about it. The difference is that in one of them the changes were made, in the other they simply laugh at the one who holds them accountable or they talk back and pass the blame, meanwhile Deka brought the J-11A Flanker and promised modifications because people gave money in the E shop!

At the moment, no one on the forum has the courage to say this except me. I don't think I wrote anything that is fantasy or doesn't exist!
The J-11A uses a N001VE radar and can attack two targets simultaneously with an R-77 missile in TWS2 mode!

 J-11A: License produced Su-27SK with N-001VE radar. 45 delivered
Nov 04? - 06. Estimated in service 2005.
• Su-27SK, J-11 units: CTC - 19th Zhangjiakou 2003 - 16, 55th Jining
2016; ETC - 9th Wuhu 1992 - 2001, 40th Nanchang ? - 2016; NTC
-1st Anshan 1992 - 20; STC - 4th Foshan, 6th Suixi 1996 - 2017; WTC
- 98th Chongqing ? - 2008, 16th Yinchuan, 18th Lintao Mar 21.
• J-11A units: CTC - 21st Zhangjiako ? - 2016; ETC - 41st Wuyishan
Apr 12?; 86th Quzhou 2008-12; NTC - 1st Anshan ? - 2008; WTC -
98th Chongqing 2008, 111th Korla 2016.
• 1996: L-203 Gardeniya-F1UE jammer pods available. Two pods
replace two R-73 in above loadouts.
• Apr 97: Three were lost and 14 others damaged when they were
caught in a typhoon at Fujian airbase.
• 2000: R-27ER and R-27ET available.
• 2002: RVV-AE available. Can replace R-27 in above loadouts.
• 2004: Su-27SK and J-11 updated to N-001VE radar from this date.
More than 60 converted by Dec 2006. Estimated KL-609A pods
replace L-203.
• 25 May 14: First exercises using highway as runway.

Elsewhere this source is accepted and implemented on the J-11A Flanker to have N001VE radar, here in DCS World you are paying for a reskinned Su-27 R-77 missile option that has nothing to do with the J-11A: chinas-navy-ships-and-aircraft-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-1955-2021_compress.pdf

I'll get an ED marketing text for this as well, and until then I'll have to stand on one leg and nobody cares!

[Silver_Dragon]

5 minutes ago, Irisz said:

I've been a DCS World Flanker dedicated user since 2013, since I'm new to registration, don't you think I've read what you wrote enough times?

The J-11A does not need to violate any military secrets, modify the range of the radar as they did with the F-15C and give it the TWS2 mode that is in the MiG-29C. We have been waiting for this for 6 years! If you write to Deka, he points to Chizh, if you write to Chizh what Deka said, he replies that Deka is the developer of the J-11A and nothing will happen. I report elsewhere that within 1 month, with 2 classified pieces of information, the J-11A was given a N001VE radar and MAWS sensors. Since Deka is the developer of the J-11A and not ED, no one knows why it has been going on for 6 years that they simply look at those who are their customers as air. And I will write it down many times, I have bought FC3 products twice since 2013 and Su-27 products once because this situation is so frustrating that they look like air that I deleted my account several times along with all the purchased products!

Tragicomedy going on here! To change the detection distance from 100 km to 120 km and copy a TWS2 mode from the MiG-29C, you do not need a military document. The description of what the radar knows was copied from the manufacturer of the radar itself to the forum and it is still available now. This is what the ED does when it comes to R-27 rockets, it shows the manufacturer's website what the range of the rocket is! Both are done with the same procedure that if someone wants to talk about it. The difference is that in one of them the changes were made, in the other they simply laugh at the one who holds them accountable or they talk back and pass the blame, meanwhile Deka brought the J-11A Flanker and promised modifications because people gave money in the E shop!

At the moment, no one on the forum has the courage to say this except me. I don't think I wrote anything that is fantasy or doesn't exist!
The J-11A uses a N001VE radar and can attack two targets simultaneously with an R-77 missile in TWS2 mode!

 J-11A: License produced Su-27SK with N-001VE radar. 45 delivered
Nov 04? - 06. Estimated in service 2005.
• Su-27SK, J-11 units: CTC - 19th Zhangjiakou 2003 - 16, 55th Jining
2016; ETC - 9th Wuhu 1992 - 2001, 40th Nanchang ? - 2016; NTC
-1st Anshan 1992 - 20; STC - 4th Foshan, 6th Suixi 1996 - 2017; WTC
- 98th Chongqing ? - 2008, 16th Yinchuan, 18th Lintao Mar 21.
• J-11A units: CTC - 21st Zhangjiako ? - 2016; ETC - 41st Wuyishan
Apr 12?; 86th Quzhou 2008-12; NTC - 1st Anshan ? - 2008; WTC -
98th Chongqing 2008, 111th Korla 2016.
• 1996: L-203 Gardeniya-F1UE jammer pods available. Two pods
replace two R-73 in above loadouts.
• Apr 97: Three were lost and 14 others damaged when they were
caught in a typhoon at Fujian airbase.
• 2000: R-27ER and R-27ET available.
• 2002: RVV-AE available. Can replace R-27 in above loadouts.
• 2004: Su-27SK and J-11 updated to N-001VE radar from this date.
More than 60 converted by Dec 2006. Estimated KL-609A pods
replace L-203.
• 25 May 14: First exercises using highway as runway.

Elsewhere this source is accepted and implemented on the J-11A Flanker to have N001VE radar, here in DCS World you are paying for a reskinned Su-27 R-77 missile option that has nothing to do with the J-11A: chinas-navy-ships-and-aircraft-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-1955-2021_compress.pdf

I'll get an ED marketing text for this as well, and until then I'll have to stand on one leg and nobody cares!

@Irisz, you go to continue trolling and break the rules? J-11A has a Deka module. ED has nothing to do with them, and Deka needs to follow the Chinese rules to get “approval”. That is not WT…

[draconus]

15 minutes ago, Irisz said:

I've been a DCS World Flanker dedicated user since 2013, since I'm new to registration, don't you think I've read what you wrote enough times?

You act like you didn't and keep repeating "I want my J-11A buffed in DCS or I'll never find peace in my life". You've said enough - we know, they know. Report it as a bug if you're so sure of your sources.

I always wanted FF F-15C in DCS and we ask for it for years but it never comes, despite it's such an iconic aircraft. What can you do? Fly more, less forum begging.

[Irisz]

11 minutes ago, draconus said:

You act like you didn't and keep repeating "I want my J-11A buffed in DCS or I'll never find peace in my life". You've said enough - we know, they know. Report it as a bug if you're so sure of your sources.

I always wanted FF F-15C in DCS and we ask for it for years but it never comes, despite it's such an iconic aircraft. What can you do? Fly more, less forum begging.

Thanks for the reply! I think it's good for everyone to write down their thoughts on a topic. This is not a buff or a nerf, no one talked about it, it's just the need for the correct implementation! I'm not an average Flanker fan, but a dedicated one, so it affects me differently, it's as simple as that! I may say things, but I say them out of frustration because I want the best for myself and others! DCS World is not a game, so I think the tendency towards professionalism is respectable!

[Silver_Dragon]

3 minutes ago, Irisz said:

Thanks for the reply! I think it's good for everyone to write down their thoughts on a topic. This is not a buff or a nerf, no one talked about it, it's just the need for the correct implementation! I'm not an average Flanker fan, but a dedicated one, so it affects me differently, it's as simple as that! I may say things, but I say them out of frustration because I want the best for myself and others! DCS World is not a game, so I think the tendency towards professionalism is respectable!

Ok, can you explain what would happen if Deka 3rd party can't do it? One thing is your dreams, another thing is that the company that made the module wants or can carry out your dream module. We seem to continually forget that there are factors outside of the development or update of a module. And we are not talking about the desire to do module A or B, time, money, personnel or resources, but there are external factors beyond our control.

[jojyrocks]

It would be wonderful IF they update the vapour effects for all FC3/4 jets, at the very least. Mig 29 has it so far...

[falcon_120]

For me its hard to argue with the idea of additional FC3/FC4 being a great potential in terms of historical accuracy, gameplay, atracting a bigger fan base, etc for DCS world.

On top of that i have to add that FC3 level of aircraft ARE FUN, it allow you to fly a plane you like without the huge investment in time that is required by a FF jet to be proficient at a minimun level.

There are some caviats, for me the most important one is that a low fidelity plane should never be a poorly modeled airplane, meaning that even it is labeled Low fidelity i expect a professional FM, accurate representation of 3d model and cockpit and overall a true representation of its systems and weapons, the key point here is that it has simplified avionics but overall realistic tactical implementation of its systems (expected radar detection, payload, weapons ....), just avoid being War Thunder 2 please.

If the above mention is respected, i can only say that the possibilities for a more rich stable of aircraft with richer gameplay and more interesting PvP scenarios is there, with a reduced but still somewhat high development time, lets not foul ourselves thinking a lowFi plane is Easy to develop.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[cfrag]

10 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

even it is labeled Low fidelity i expect a professional FM

IIRC, the correct term for FC planes is 'Low Fidelity Cockpit', i.e. 'non-clickable cockpit'. There may have been a time when FC planes did not have the fully fledged FM, but those days are long gone. There are some simplifications wrt avionics (not FM) that come with a non-clickable cockpit (e.g. radio settings), but the FM (AFAIK) is always the real deal for FC planes.

Since the 'new' planes appear to be whatever was salvaged from "MAC", I hazard a guess that this also holds true for these airframes - which makes sense since they all derive from full FM-models that exist in DCS today.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

There may have been a time when FC planes did not have the fully fledged FM, but those days are long gone. There are some simplifications wrt avionics (not FM) that come with a non-clickable cockpit (e.g. radio settings), but the FM (AFAIK) is always the real deal for FC planes.

Su-25A/T are the only aircraft left without PFM. So according to this info:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/#1512209

they are still on AFM.

[Xhonas]

On 6/18/2024 at 6:13 PM, falcon_120 said:

There are some caviats, for me the most important one is that a low fidelity plane should never be a poorly modeled airplane, meaning that even it is labeled Low fidelity i expect a professional FM, accurate representation of 3d model and cockpit and overall a true representation of its systems and weapons, the key point here is that it has simplified avionics but overall realistic tactical implementation of its systems (expected radar detection, payload, weapons ....), just avoid being War Thunder 2 please.

If the above mention is respected, i can only say that the possibilities for a more rich stable of aircraft with richer gameplay and more interesting PvP scenarios is there, with a reduced but still somewhat high development time, lets not foul ourselves thinking a lowFi plane is Easy to develop.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

I'm 100% with you in this. I expect new low fidelity aircrafts to hold the same flight model quality that our current PFM fc3 does. And i agree that it is not easy to develop a low fidelity aircraft, but still, i believe that it would have a much shorter development time compared to a study level module. The full fidelity MiG-29 was teased in the 2024 and beyond video back in January and officially announced in March, ED says that they are going to reutilize the FC3 flight model, and it doesn't look like the Mig is going to be released this year. This gives an idea on how much time it takes to make clickable cockpits and develop systems in depth.