Su-35 Instead of F-35

[T4buk]

Su-35 Instead of F-35!

- Why jumping to 5th generation and skipping a big gap in 4th and 4th+ generation?

- for years we waiting for deasend model for Team RED

- Super classified suddenly no issue!

- We don't want you produce real stollen copy of Su-35 Like china did to Su-33, only game Simulation development model based on the public information.

- don't make the same mistake as EA done to his "Battlefield" community.

[razo+r]

P-35 instead of Su-35 or F-35!

- Why jumping to 5th or 4th generation with a big gap in ... 0th generation aircraft

- For years we've been waiting for decent P-planes

- No documentation suddenly no issue

Blah blah joking blah blah.

This is just ridiculous... I mean the arguments...

[bies]

Because making F-35 without full documentation already sparks some controversy - and there's a WHOLE LOT of information about the F-35 publicly available, and openness of the producer to share all the non-classified components, logic, workflows, HOTAS, avionics etc., as this is world-wide exported all NATO fighter, with 1100 airframes produced already.

At the same time there is close to zero Su-35 information available, everything would be totally made up, its avionics, MFD pages, weapon systems, HOTAS, logic, workflows, functions, everything fictional - it would be a sad joke. Completely fairytale abomination, not better than amateur-made MODs already free to download.

What would be even a satisfaction or enjoyment shooting down enemy knowing everything in your Su-35 is completely made up and false?

Edited January 30 by bies

[Supernova-III]

7 minutes ago, bies said:

as this is world wide exported

does it really mean a lot of information? Look at Su-30, it's also widely exported.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

19 minutes ago, razo+r said:

P-35 instead of Su-35 or F-35!

- Why jumping to 5th or 4th generation with a big gap in ... 0th generation aircraft

- For years we've been waiting for decent P-planes

- No documentation suddenly no issue

Blah blah joking blah blah.

This is just ridiculous... I mean the arguments...

Yeah, I've got concerns and I also see no reason now why certain redfor can't be added, but all that said? Let's all act outraged when it's a video game.

 

[Pillowcat]

_{googletranslate:}

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/194994-voprosy-k-razrabotchikam/page/352/#findComment-5587280

 

[MAXsenna]

_{googletranslate:}

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/194994-voprosy-k-razrabotchikam/page/352/#findComment-5587280
 

Exactly! If you guys want more Redfor, make sure the MiG-29 sells like hot cakes in the anticipated pre-order, so they can go ahead with the Su-27 straight away.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[bies]

14 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Exactly! If you guys want more Redfor, make sure the MiG-29 sells like hot cakes in the anticipated pre-order, so they can go ahead with the Su-27 straight away.
 

Exactly, if 1980s MiG-29 9.12 sells well (and Mi-24 did), then some 1980s Soviet aircrafts like Su-25 or Su-27S may be possible in the future. Only time will tell.

Russian (Russian Federation) modernizations will never be even remotely possible due to plethora of reasons; Russian policy, stricter every year, classification paranoia, war, close to zero materials available, zero SME willing to share, some ED stuff working and living inside Russia etc.

[Supernova-III]

28 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Exactly! If you guys want more Redfor, make sure the MiG-29 sells like hot cakes in the anticipated pre-order, so they can go ahead with the Su-27 straight away.

It would make a lot more sense if they could make Su-27 and make sure that it sells like hot cakes. MiG-29 is a legendary plane, no doubts, but it's not competitive against most 4-th gen fighters in DCS. And overall it's not as capable as Su-27, which can carry a lot more weapons and fuel. From that perspective, making MiG-29 doesn't make any sense to me. ED decided to make one of the weakest redfor 4-th gen plane, I won't be surprised if it won't be as popular as one might expect.

Edited January 18 by Supernova-III

[T4buk]

19 minutes ago, bies said:

Russian (Russian Federation) modernizations will never be even remotely possible due to plethora of reasons; Russian policy, stricter every year, classification paranoia, war, close to zero materials available, zero SME willing to share, some ED stuff working and living inside Russia etc.

is there any official declassification information about F-15 C/D/E or F-16 any block? or there weapons system.

Edited January 18 by T4buk

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

33 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

but it's not competitive against most 4-th gen fighters in DCS. And overall it's not as capable as Su-27, which can carry a lot more weapons and fuel. From that perspective, making MiG-29 doesn't make any sense to me.

This argument comes up again and again, and has been discussed to death already. "Competitive" doesn't matter one bit in a simulator: this is not Team Deathmatch where you'd need both teams to be balanced.

ED - or any 3rd party for that matter - can't just pick and choose which aircraft they model. Sometimes an opportunity arises and then you can jump on it (or not). Sometimes you do a general survey of what is feasible and what not, and pick what's available. Sometimes you can look for information on your favourite aircraft, and see if there's enough available to model it properly.

Perhaps the MiG-29 was an opportunity that simply presented itself. Or imagine this: a MiG-29 might be cheaper and a lot less draining on manpower to make than a Su-27. And as been stated before, this is a testbed to see how well modern (-ish) Russian fixed-wing will sell. Would you as a company go for the cheaper or more expensive option first? How much risk are you willing to take?
It has been stated again and again that ED would  L O V E  to model a FF Su-27 (since it's going back to the roots for ED). Don't you think they would do so if they had the opportunity?

Edited January 18 by Raven (Elysian Angel)
typo

[MAXsenna]

28 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

It would make a lot more sense if they could make Su-27 and make sure that it sells like hot cakes.

These are the cards WE were dealt.  

[bies]

On 1/18/2025 at 1:33 PM, T4buk said:

is there any official declassification information about F-15 C/D/E or F-16 any block? or there weapons system.

Yes, whole manuals, sometimes with few pages remaining classified, are publicly available. And tons of other documentation. Plus retired pilots explaining all the declassified avionics logic, flight regime quirks etc.

 

Sidenote: it's not worth chasing "modern" Russian planes, because it will never be possible and 1980s Soviet ones are just better - this are all the same Su-27/30/35, Su-25/39, MiG-29/SMT platforms, the difference is today MiG-29SMT, Su-35, Su-39 are old, overweight, outdated relisc, unable to compete with F-22, F-35, J-20 or possibly even with much better kinematically and much better armed Eurofighters. When during 1980s MiG-29, Su-25, Su-27, Su-24, MiG-31 were world class aircrafts as still USSR had the resources to stay in the competition when Russia has not.

That's why MiG-29 9.12, Su-25, Su-27S, MiG-23MLA, MiG-25PD, MiG-31, Mi-24P, Su-17 are perfect.

Edited January 20 by bies

[LuseKofte]

Peoples preferences is different all right, I would not buy F 35 and I would not buy SU of any type, it might be the reason I so easily can say that I do not care for the perspective in this post. Wishing something else is one thing , but wishing something not beeing built that is wished by others is kind of , not nice.

That said, I do not buy that NATO /western modules is buildt because it brings in more money, it is a BS policy. This is for most a game, If you build just one sides of a conflict modules, what are they suppose to fight in a combat flight simulator? If it do not pay as much, build it anyway and use the profit from western modules. IT is a CFS for god sake.

This WW2 crap with F6 and Corsair being built and all it going to fight is a ai Zero. It do not hold any standard, and I would not reccomend that strategy all over the board

[F-2]

Apparently Project Flanker is considering applying per the newer rules.

[Mogster]

4 hours ago, T4buk said:

Su-35 Instead of F-35!

- Why jumping to 5th generation and skipping a big gap in 4th and 4th+ generation?

- for years we waiting for deasend model for Team RED

- Super classified suddenly no issue!

- We don't want you produce real stollen copy of Su-35 Like china did to Su-33, only game Simulation development model based on the public information.

- don't make the same mistake as EA done to his "Battlefield" community.

I strongly suspect It’s not just a case of data availability or not when it comes to Russian aircraft. As I understand it the Russian government has passed wide ranging laws covering digitally reproducing military hardware, many ED employees either reside in Russia or have ties there. I don’t think I need to spell this out. Matt W has said previously that if 3rd party developers wanted to include Russian aircraft then that would be OK. However It’s not a simple task for non-native speakers delving in to Russian documents, even if they are available.

In contrast F35 is a western multi national manufacturing project and is being exported to many other countries. In a few years there may be 20 nations with them. Thats a big difference to the F22 even which is a purely US manufactured and fielded effort which has never been exported and export enquiries have apparently been refused. I see the F35 as similar to the Eurofighter that’s being developed for DCS, it’s a German variant iirc, not a British one as data isn’t available on the British variants, even though they are similar. ED has previous ties to Lockheed Martin also.

People seem to choose to ignore that there’s stuff missing or with massaged data even on the A10C, one of the more complete modules. Weapons data for in service weapons is clearly massaged also. I could fly these aircraft in MSFS but the physics model really seems to have issues with fast jets, I don’t find them enjoyable in that engine. If EDs F35 offends then don’t buy it, it’s that simple.

[bies]

On 1/18/2025 at 1:22 PM, Supernova-III said:

It would make a lot more sense if they could make Su-27 and make sure that it sells like hot cakes. MiG-29 is a legendary plane, no doubts, but it's not competitive against most 4-th gen fighters in DCS. And overall it's not as capable as Su-27, which can carry a lot more weapons and fuel.

Both 1980s Su-27 and MiG-29 are going to be dangerous opponents for any 1980s aircraft, (and both used very similar and unified avionics and weapon), but neither Su-27 or MiG-29, in 1980s trandard, stand any real chance against 20 years newer 2005 standard F-16C, F/A-18C, F-15C, F-15E.

PS: And when EW will be simulated in DCS, the 1980s machines will be even more hopleless against few decades more recent ones, as jamming their radar will be trivial...

Plus full fidelity Su-27 and MiG-29 will have some additional RL limitations current grossly simplified FC3 low fidelity ones doesn't model at all. IRST will be way less useful, sensitive to any weather and only situational, radar operation and tuning will be more difficult and time consuming and limited when not being steer from the ground GCI, Su-27 TKS-2-27 datalink will be prone to jamming, will have limited range, refresh rate, number of donors, R-27T/ET will have way more limited practical range and seeker sensitivity, inertial navigation will drift and store only a few points, and many more - and that's the whole beauty. Just like e.g. full fidelity analog F-14.

There is simply not much sense to fight 1945 Mustang against 1965 Phantom, 1955 MiG-19 against 1975 F-15 Eagle, or 1985 Su-27 and MiG-29 against 2005 F-16C, F-15C, F/A-18C, F-15E. Or you, obviously, will be at big disadvantage. Just like 2015 F-35, if even remotely realistically modeled, will be seal clubbing 2005 fighters without any effort.

Edited January 24 by bies

[SovietAce]

Guys, there is waaaay more info laying on Su-35 than on F-35. It would make a loooot more sense to make than fricking F-35. But hey, then would bluefor cry about getting smacked by R-37Ms in BVR. And we cant make customers angry, cant we . This is hypocrisy..

[statrekmike]

7 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

That said, I do not buy that NATO /western modules is buildt because it brings in more money, it is a BS policy. This is for most a game, If you build just one sides of a conflict modules, what are they suppose to fight in a combat flight simulator? If it do not pay as much, build it anyway and use the profit from western modules. IT is a CFS for god sake.

 

  DCS being a combat flight simulator does not automatically mean that it needs to offer some kind of balanced set of opposing player controlled aircraft. When you ask "what are they supposed to fight?" the answer that the vast majority of the playerbase would give (if they bothered to argue on forums and most of them don't) is "whatever AI controlled aircraft makes sense in a given mission". Given the maps we have and the aircraft we have available, that is usually going to mean flying in modern multi-role USAF and USN aircraft versus older aircraft operated by forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the like. Good mission design and an eye towards realistic force compositions can make that pretty interesting but mission designers would need to want to go to that level of detail.

 

19 minutes ago, SovietAce said:

Guys, there is waaaay more info laying on Su-35 than on F-35. It would make a loooot more sense to make than fricking F-35. But hey, then would bluefor cry about getting smacked by R-37Ms in BVR. And we cant make customers angry, cant we . This is hypocrisy..

 

Only if you ignore the openly stated difficulties that ED has when it comes to simulating Russian aircraft after Russia started clamping down on that kind of thing. You might not like it but that doesn't make it a less valid reason.

[Creampie]

8 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Exactly! If you guys want more Redfor, make sure the MiG-29 sells like hot cakes in the anticipated pre-order, so they can go ahead with the Su-27 straight away.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

 

That is an incredibly bad arugment. Some clicky buttons in a module that already exists isn't going to be some big ticket item.

The lack of parity really just makes it terribly undesireable for even most redfor only enjoyers in a PVP enviroment.

Now I know this game is built and devolped off of PVE, but there is a massive consumer market for red aircraft & that mark is just really being missed.

It's almost like, "Here buy this same module that will offer nothing to the game for more than $7.99 and we might consider making something newer"  

 

[MAXsenna]

 
That is an incredibly bad arugment. Some clicky buttons in a module that already exists isn't going to be some big ticket item.
The lack of parity really just makes it terribly undesireable for even most redfor only enjoyers in a PVP enviroment.
Now I know this game is built and devolped off of PVE, but there is a massive consumer market for red aircraft & that mark is just really being missed.
It's almost like, "Here buy this same module that will offer nothing to the game for more than $7.99 and we might consider making something newer"  
 

We'll see. Pretty much what ED as a business says. They want to make money. If they believe they will lose money by making REDFOR modules, they won't.
Just yesterday we were told that a Sea King won't happen for the same reasons.
I obviously do not do PvP.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Creampie]

15 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

 

 

We'll see. Pretty much what ED as a business says. They want to make money. If they believe they will lose money by making REDFOR modules, they won't.
Just yesterday we were told that a Sea King won't happen for the same reasons.
I obviously do not do PvP.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

 

 

From a business perspective, Rightfully so.

 

Outside of the hind, shark & JF (which all sold well) there hasn't even been any attempt of it outside of FC3, which everyone I personally know, owns. 

[Coxy_99]

1. Theres no documentation.

2. This thread will be locked.

Edited January 18 by Coxy_99

[MAXsenna]

3 minutes ago, Creampie said:

 

From a business perspective, Rightfully so.

 

Outside of the hind, shark & JF (which all sold well) there hasn't even been any attempt of it outside of FC3, which everyone I personally know, owns. 

That's true, though I have a feeling the Mi-8 does well among us rotor heads. It really is one of the top modules in the franchise. 

Like I wrote, I really hope the MiG-29 sells very very well in huge numbers, so ED can see the potential. It's a dream come true for me since the addon for Falcon 3.0

[Creampie]

35 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:

1. Theres no documentation.

2. This thread will be locked.

Close F35 thread too then.