Request for a legacy SPO-15 realism option

[=MiG=karapus78]

7 hours ago, Thirsty said:

No, I think you need to read the answer again.

 

 

And no again, might be lanauge barrier here, but what you saying is about something completly different.
For following the logic that you are saying, everything that is unrealistic (labels, F-16s with 4 harms, magic rwrs, list goes on) or just a big estimation should be removed from DCS as a whole since they can't be authentic, what is never going to happen.
cough F-35

And again, this is a toggleable options in the mission editor (potentionally in the special menu, but enforced by the mission editor) as the original creator of this post suggested

Giving options to people how and what they want to implement, so it is kind of hard to see why it does bother you a lot.

You misunderstand me. You can say that you don't understand at all. Apparently, it's really about the language barrier. It's better to leave this argument.
I just repeat that I am against simplifications in modules that are not related to Flaming Cliffs 3.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Ramius007 said:

Tomcat without Aim-54

Why not? It was flying with Phoenix from the start in the 70s.

3 hours ago, swartbyron said:

I feel lost, confused and helpless with this new SPO-15  

Sorry you feel that way but here's reality kicking you hard. Haven't you expect this to happen? Didn't you read the thread:

A lot of things work differently. Rules of the game have changed. Either adapt and learn it or keep flying FC3 verison but you can't expect to have good results when flying the aircraft in missions that are simply not suitable for this airframe - trying to force it as SEAD or BVR machine vs Fox 3 is just tormenting yourself.

[Ramius007]

I wonder if F-35 drop, we get thread like: "allow F-35 to be visible on radars" becouse stealth gives unfair adventage on servers, and is not balanced, just a little realism option, what's wrong with this?

[AeriaGloria]

46 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

I wonder if F-35 drop, we get thread like: "allow F-35 to be visible on radars" becouse stealth gives unfair adventage on servers, and is not balanced, just a little realism option, what's wrong with this?

I’m sure there will be a luneberg lens option

[Ramius007]

25 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

I’m sure there will be a luneberg lens option

Elegant solution!

[Mainstay]

18 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

I dont think that this "video game" designers, have to bow to small minority of arcade pvp servers participants, and balance modules around arcade style servers. For many people, only thing that DCS have going for them is realism, if you remove it, you can fly FC modules, free DCS mods or other game forever, there will be no diffrence with FF modules made in a way you like them to see. Issue is not realistic Fulcrum, but enviroment made by pvp server admins, that is balanced around assymetrical early XXI centaury conflicts, and made for majority of XXI centaury jets, and people who belive that Sparrow=CW. When they get actual CW technology they are shocked. This version of Fulcrum should compete vs F1, F-4, 530D less M2k, Tomcat without Aim-54, and all CW Fox-2 only fighters, and a lot of helos and attack planes, still plenty of platforms to choose from, and potential for great REAL CW server, where FF Fulcrum would be top of the food chain, yet difficult to master plane.

Get off your high horse sir and stop pretending your the chosen pilot to lead the pack! 

People are simply asking ED to come up with a middle way that suits everyones "Happy" GAME experience. 

 

[Ramius007]

59 minutes ago, Mainstay said:

Get off your high horse sir and stop pretending your the chosen pilot to lead the pack! 

People are simply asking ED to come up with a middle way that suits everyones "Happy" GAME experience. 

 

Except, that it's not middle way, it's just "realism on" or "realism of" setting. It's same middle way that man and his dog on avarage have 3 legs. Solution is not change realism, but to change enviroment. We will be in same spot with F-100, F-104, Mig-17, and then EF, F-35 and non announced Rafale. People will be asking to adjust them to fit pseudo Fox-1 servers, instead of making one that suit those planes. Like add fictional chaff/flares dispansers on first 3, and/or disable some features of most avanced jets.

[Thirsty]

7 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Except, that it's not middle way, it's just "realism on" or "realism of" setting. It's same middle way that man and his dog on avarage have 3 legs. Solution is not change realism, but to change enviroment. We will be in same spot with F-100, F-104, Mig-17, and then EF, F-35 and non announced Rafale. People will be asking to adjust them to fit pseudo Fox-1 servers, instead of making one that suit those planes. Like add fictional chaff/flares dispansers on first 3, and/or disable some features of most avanced jets.

I am sorry, but you clearly don't understand what people are saying or haven't even bothered to read the thread properly, and if you don't have any normal input to this thread anymore just don't even anymore, since this is not about some pseudo Fox 1 servers.
If you so wish to have your harcore realistic experinace, good, nobody tells you not to, in the first place this is why options, settings exists, and everyone has their way to set up the scenarios they want their way.
Now, why does that bother you so much? Hard to understand.

And you can already disable features on jets, such as like disabling data link on 14, 18 and 16s, or even disable gyro drift for most of the aircraft, these are all options that impact realisim, however they still exist for a reason. 
It would be no different for the SPO either. 

On 10/18/2025 at 7:08 PM, Ramius007 said:

wonder if F-35 drop, we get thread like: "allow F-35 to be visible on radars" becouse stealth gives unfair adventage on servers, and is not balanced, just a little realism option, what's wrong with this?

And your example is the worst out of all.
Before saying nonsense, please go ahead and do some research of your own, especially about the F-35's radar reflector that is used on the real jets.
Since I can guratnee you, ED will add that option to the 35s, since they won't be able to model the stealth of the aircraft in the first place.

Not even talking about the fact that the "simulation" of the 35 in DCS will be the miles away from a "realistic" simulation, since it is all a guesstimate, as they have said it as well.
And again, you are talking competitive nonsense in the end that doesn't even connect to the topic of this thread.
 

[TotenDead]

В 18.10.2025 в 20:08, Ramius007 сказал:

I wonder if F-35 drop, we get thread like: "allow F-35 to be visible on radars" becouse stealth gives unfair adventage on servers, and is not balanced, just a little realism option, what's wrong with this?

I wonder if ED adds 3rd person view, labels and dots as if the game is some arcade. Oh, wait...

[Ramius007]

1 hour ago, Thirsty said:

If you so wish to have your harcore realistic experinace, good, nobody tells you not to, in the first place this is why options, settings exists, and everyone has their way to set up the scenarios they want their way.
Now, why does that bother you so much? Hard to understand.

And you can already disable features on jets, such as like disabling data link on 14, 18 and 16s, or even disable gyro drift for most of the aircraft, these are all options that impact realisim, however they still exist for a reason. 
It would be no different for the SPO either. 

And your example is the worst out of all.
Before saying nonsense, please go ahead and do some research of your own, especially about the F-35's radar reflector that is used on the real jets.
Since I can guratnee you, ED will add that option to the 35s, since they won't be able to model the stealth of the aircraft in the first place.

Not even talking about the fact that the "simulation" of the 35 in DCS will be the miles away from a "realistic" simulation, since it is all a guesstimate, as they have said it as well.
And again, you are talking competitive nonsense in the end that doesn't even connect to the topic of this thread.
 

1. It bother me, becouse threads like this sidetrack servers into arcade style, similar to more popular other video game with planes. Me, and I m sure, many other would like to see devs time spent elswhere, than what practically is realism setting for FF module.

2.Disabling DL on modern jets is not really realism setting, rather timeframe setting, it's completely diffrent thing from turning realism on and of.

3. Re F-35, there are educated guesses about all parts of planes, both modern and older ones, you are even guesstiamting about realism level of F-35. It's just your word, not supported by any quantifical data vs mine, but you wrote it, like some definite truth. I think all members understand that making simualtion is never real plane, else nobody would spent fuel, but use simulation for training.

Most important point about thread is, to not sidetrack it more, that ED SME on Fulcrum, given state of SPO-15 suggest that natural state of this device was being broken. There is anegdotal evidence that he is most likely true, commented on this forum from people somewhat related to ex eastern block airforces, also, you find interview with shot down Fulcrum pilot, that RWR didnt work. If normal state of device was being broken, then broken becoming new normal, andshould be simulated as such.

[AeriaGloria]

I mean the shot down 29 pilot you mention was likely yugoslavian, and it is agreed everywhere that their planes at the time had a laundry list of faulty parts from maintenance that hadn’t been done. One even said his radar didn’t work. But that doesn’t really matter to the thread 

[Thirsty]

On 10/19/2025 at 9:58 PM, Ramius007 said:

It bother me, becouse threads like this sidetrack servers into arcade style, similar to more popular other video game with planes. Me, and I m sure, many other would like to see devs time spent elswhere, than what practically is realism setting for FF module.

??????????????????????
I am sorry, but again who is talking about servers here? DCS is not limited on servers only, some people (most) fly single player only.
If you have problems with the servers that are on DCS, complain to their owners, who are running them or make your own, don't try to push your own nerrative down on people's throat, everyone has the free will and decision to enjoy DCS the way they want to, not like how you would like to.
If you like to have it the way it is now, okay, then have the setting that way, and have fun.
Currently there is a early acsess release that has bulletholes at parts that needs to be patched, people are going to voice their problems with a product that they have spent money on, since they want to be able to use it.

This is not war thunder.

On 10/19/2025 at 9:58 PM, Ramius007 said:

given state of SPO-15 suggest that natural state of this device was being broken.

 

I'm sorry, but you are just contradicting your own words.
You say its okay to disable datalink since it is a timeline wise setting, but the SPO needs to be broken constantly? There isn't even an option between serviced SPO-15 and unserviced.
Where does that make sense? You really think that soviet engineers were so dumb, that they couldn't impove upon the SPO-10 but make it worse ? 
Also, if you have been reading into different thread, and theards that are not only in English, there are multiple SME's that are saying that the SPO-15 is working with the radar on.
Not even talking about the countless documents, and repair manuals about the SPO-15 saying things that are completly the opposite.

I will kindly ask you to stop with this nonsense, since this is not going anywhere, and this is not proviading anything into this thread. 
Have a nice day.

Edited 8 hours ago by Thirsty

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Thirsty said:

SPO-15 is working with the radar on

It is working - just not with front hemisphere.

6 hours ago, Thirsty said:

everyone has the free will and decision to enjoy DCS the way they want to

Thing is you don't enjoy it any way so you made a wish to change the module to some fictional state that would (probably) please you. That's ok, because it's a wishlist but people are telling you it's not feasible or realistic to wish for - mod forum is your only hope.

[Ramius007]

7 hours ago, Thirsty said:

I'm sorry, but you are just contradicting your own words.
You say its okay to disable datalink since it is a timeline wise setting, but the SPO needs to be broken constantly? There isn't even an option between serviced SPO-15 and unserviced.
Where does that make sense? You really think that soviet engineers were so dumb, that they couldn't impove upon the SPO-10 but make it worse ? 
Also, if you have been reading into different thread, and theards that are not only in English, there are multiple SME's that are saying that the SPO-15 is working with the radar on.
Not even talking about the countless documents, and repair manuals about the SPO-15 saying things that are completly the opposite.
 

I have no **** idea where you see similarities betwean l16 setting that would be timeline/country specific option vs INTEGRAL part of avionics of all version of mig-29A. Sorry

I m more against realism on/of settings in DCS than I m against working SPO-15 on FF Fulcrum. I dont think Soviet engineers were dumb, rather opposite, but quick reminder it's very first version of Fulcrum, and SPO-15 interaction with radar have symptoms of typical childhood ilness of the airframe. If we get very first block of F-15, F-18 or other western jet, i m would be supprised if all parts of avionics were working as intended. If ED SME decide that SPO-15 was actully working, and change it, great, but if device 90% of the time was acting like broken, and DCS represenation is realistic, I dont want to see any realism setting, becouse it's dengerous path to take for future modules, and DCS as a whole. I m usually flying redfor modules, both online and SP, and I would love to see competetive Russian/Soviet jet in game, but I m just worried, that very first version of Fulcrum we get, is not best decision made by ED, but maybe they had no choice.

edit: nobody in this topic mentioned, that SPO not working with radar was propably smaller issue if Fulcrum was used in it's RL scenarios, that is point defence interceptor guided by Lazur/GCI, in such scenario pilot would turn on radar just to fire missiles, knowing target position before. In DCS currently, without those features those are major issues. I also think, that this very specific defficency of SPO-15/radar could be tolerated, given plane role. But I can imagine how frustrating for DCS players this particular quirk is, if they try to use it like XX c. western jet.

Edited 1 hour ago by Ramius007