Full-fidelity Su-25

[Supernova-III]

I want to have full-fidelity Su-25 in DCS. Why:

• I love Su-25
• It's soooo relevant these days (ofc a way more relevant than MiG-29)
• It's legendary (even more legendary than MiG-29 IMHO)
• We have Afganistan map, but don't have FF Su-25, please tell me that it's not a joke
• Su-25 from FC2024 is playable and flyable. But it lacks system modelling (especially weapons system and navigation system) and some flight model improvements.

P.S. Please

[Dr_Pavelheer]

Tbh it's crazy it hasn't been done yet. It's an older aircraft, on the simpler side, no MFDs whatsoever, gunsight instead of HUD, was used in multiple conflicts, had multiple operators including former Czechoslovakia. We could really use it, hopefully along with either Su-17/22 (allegedly in production) or Mig-23BN, Mig-27M or maybe even Mig-27K to cover all our mud moving needs. It would also fit quite well with FF Mig-29 9.12, too bad Mig-23 MLA is dead because of the financial issues

[Janus]

It is currently being actively used in the war in Ukraine. Both on the Russian and Ukrainian sides.

[Supernova-III]

34 minutes ago, Janus said:

It is currently being actively used in the war in Ukraine. Both on the Russian and Ukrainian sides.

yes. Still doesn't prevent us to have it FF in DCS

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, Supernova-III said:

yes. Still doesn't prevent us to have it FF in DCS

Not completely, but it can be a hurdle that might prove to be difficult to overcome.

We need to remember these are pieces of national defense plans, not just supercars for us to enjoy in detail. Our entertainment isn't worth jailtime for developers.

Yeah, Su-25s are as simple as combat aircraft get, but the simplicity, age, and lack of sophistication doesn't matter to the governments that operate them.

Edited September 22, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Supernova-III]

12 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Not completely, but it can be a hurdle that might prove to be difficult to overcome.

We need to remember these are pieces of national defense plans, not just supercars for us to enjoy in detail. Our entertainment isn't worth jailtime for developers.

Yeah, Su-25s are as simple as combat aircraft get, but the simplicity, age, and lack of sophistication doesn't matter to the governments that operate them.

 

I'd prefer to hear "No"/"Yes"/"Maybe" from ED. I don't care about anything else. There are multiple reasons why it can be implemented and why it can't. This is always the case, for every module. It's ED implementing the modules, not me, not you, not most of our community. All we can do is to ask ED to make FF Su-25. Another option is to be unhappy about absence of FF Su-25, but keep silence (which is weird). I was surprised when realized that there's no FF Su-25 in the wish list. It's a shame.

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@MiG21bisFishbedL The thing is Su-25 operated by Russia isn't the same aircraft we ask for, we're asking for basic Su-25, not modernized SMwhatever with HUD, glass cockpit and RWR that actually tells you anything useful.

And since it was operated by countries that are now part of NATO access shouldn't be a problem.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

34 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

 I was surprised when realized that there's no FF Su-25 in the wish list. It's a shame.

That's an understatement. It really is. I'd love an 80s era Su-25 to go with A-stan, for sure. It'd be a day one buy for me. It's a bummer how Draconian the RuMoD is about this sort of thing.

 

10 minutes ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

@MiG21bisFishbedL The thing is Su-25 operated by Russia isn't the same aircraft we ask for, we're asking for basic Su-25, not modernized SMwhatever with HUD, glass cockpit and RWR that actually tells you anything useful.

And since it was operated by countries that are now part of NATO access shouldn't be a problem.

Unless the information is accessible and open source, that doesn't matter at all. That's the importance. Until they can find that information while meeting that standard? Well, that's that.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Supernova-III said:

I'd prefer to hear "No"/"Yes"/"Maybe" from ED.

We all do but they rarely respond if ever to the wishes.

You're new here so pay attention to what others tell you. It's not their opinion only - it's how things are.

About other threads you didn't look hard enough:

and ED answer:

 

[Supernova-III]

7 hours ago, draconus said:

About other threads you didn't look hard enough:

Thank you for finding ED's answer for me, I really appreciate this. I would never find this myself. If I put Su-25 in the search, I expect to see it at least on the first page of the search results. Otherwise it's nonsense. If I don't see it on the first page, I'm not going to check the second, third, ..., 40th. I expect most relevant results on the first page most of the time.

7 hours ago, draconus said:

You're new here so pay attention to what others tell you. It's not their opinion only - it's how things are.

When it comes to people that I don't know, it's hard for me to recognize between these:

• good reasoning based on the official response from ED -- I'm fine with it
• good reasoning but it's not based on official information from ED -- there is always some space for the opposite opinions that can be even more valuable
• fatalism -- nonsense

 

Edited September 22, 2024 by Supernova-III

[Marsvinet]

20 hours ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

The thing is Su-25 operated by Russia isn't the same aircraft we ask for, we're asking for basic Su-25, not modernized SMwhatever with HUD, glass cockpit and RWR that actually tells you anything useful.

You might be suprised, but a solid chunk of RuAFs Su-25 are still not updated to SM/SM3 standards. You can easily see this in the propaganda videos they upload. So the "basic 80s" version is still in active service and most probably protected by the Russian MoD. 

I would love a full fidelity Frog, but I know it is a hairy situation.

Edited September 23, 2024 by Marsvinet

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@Marsvinet Didn't know that, thank you for that information

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

27 minutes ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

@Marsvinet Didn't know that, thank you for that information

In your defense, it seems perfectly reasonable to allow more information about the SU-25 be made public. It's not complicated, advanced etc. There's really not much to parse from it that you wouldn't want to get out (IFF etc. but that's always going to be the case for all airframes, you'd never let that get out and you just abstract it best you can), so it doesn't make sense to keep it so protected.

But, we're not the ones making that call.

Don't abandon hope, entirely. ED found the necessary materials for the MiG-29, after all.

Edited September 23, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[bies]

Yes, original Su-25 would be fantastic, with engaging workflow and historically relevant, taking part in many conflicts. It would perfectly complement other Soviet/WarPac 1980s modules like Mi-24P, MiG-21bis, MiG-29 9.12, Su-17M.

On one hand NineLine stated, before the current war, Su-25 is still classified by Russians. On the other hand it was widely used all around the world, even in NATO countries like Slovakia and Czech Republic. Big part of Africa. And it has been withdrawn as obsolete in many of them.

Edited November 4, 2024 by bies

[draconus]

4 minutes ago, bies said:

It would be perfect counterpart for other Soviet/WarPac 1980s modules like Mi-24P, MiG-29 9.12, Su-17M.

Not counterpart - it'd complement these assets.

Edited September 23, 2024 by draconus

[bies]

On 9/23/2024 at 12:17 PM, draconus said:

Not counterpart - it'd complement these assets.

 

Exactly, a brain fog. I'll correct it not to confuse other folks.

Edited September 27, 2024 by bies