Request for a legacy SPO-15 realism option

[Thirsty]

On 11/20/2025 at 2:06 PM, draconus said:

Yes, we fly other aircraft because no one made them any better. This is what we have. Any RL limitation and better modeling is welcome though.

You have a choice to use FC3 MiG-29 that works exactly as you wish or even better.

Neither does the 4x HARMS on the F-16, yet they still exist in DCS do they not?

Just like the no INS drift what is already an option for so many modules, or so the full hardcore realisim only matters when you would like it?
Or the magical RWRs that are currently in almost every module other than the F4.

And I am not even going to relist all the options that others did already.

Maybe hard to understand that a mission editor option  is not a special menu option, neither a dumbing down of a system.
But giving the freedom for people to set up their own scenarios as they like it.

With this current limitation, seeing any singleplayer campagin is almost not possible since you can't even a human GCI alerting you for missile that are launched on you, can't they? 
 

 

Edited Saturday at 04:52 AM by Thirsty

[Pavlin_33]

14 hours ago, draconus said:

Please make your mind. You said other aircraft are not realistic either.

They are realistic in some aspects, but in many they are not and that would be fine, but people trashed this proposal as if the OP asked for some fantasy feature, while at the same time enjoying fantasy features of their own aircraft, as long as it suits them. 

All in all selective realism really grinds my gears.

[swartbyron]

I still don’t understand what all the fuss and panic is about.

Nobody’s purest version of the MiG-29 is being dumbed down, and nobody’s ultra-real gameplay will be affected.

If you feel wake turbulence should be mandatory, just turn it on and fly on a server that forces it on, and go about your ultra-real business.

All those who like it off will turn it off and fly on servers that allow it off.

This will never affect your experience or your gameplay regarding wake tubulence.

Likewise, there are many of us who would just like the option of flying the MiG-29 the way we have for the last 20 years and still enjoy the FF cockpit we have been waiting for all those years.

I feel asking for a legacy option of the SPO-15 is a fair and reasonable request, and there is nothing to actually debate here.

I feel that at least 50% or more of the Fulcrum owners would use a legacy option if it was made available.

All that really matters is for ED to decide if they can afford the time and resources to make it happen.

Edited Friday at 11:59 AM by swartbyron

[AeriaGloria]

I mean aside from radar synching and no launch warning ( which ED said they might add as an option), what is daunting about the new SPO-15? Aside from those two things, it’s realism makes me very happy, I understand that’s not everyone, but it still often tells me more info then old one. Like F category when a 4th gen is close, flashing X when medium/long range. Missile range estimate, and showing secondary threats as they actually scan me rather then all the time so I can tell their mode. Even elevation indicators give you clue about the range to the enemy if they are working or not. 

[draconus]

On 11/21/2025 at 6:24 AM, Thirsty said:

Just like the no INS drift what is already an option for so many modules, or so the full hardcore realisim only matters when you would like it?

On 11/21/2025 at 8:48 AM, Pavlin_33 said:

They are realistic in some aspects, but in many they are not and that would be fine, but people trashed this proposal as if the OP asked for some fantasy feature, while at the same time enjoying fantasy features of their own aircraft, as long as it suits them. 

If you're asking me I'd gladly have these options gone. I welcome any RL limits and more realistic modeling for any simulated systems.

On 11/21/2025 at 6:24 AM, Thirsty said:

With this current limitation, seeing any singleplayer campagin is almost not possible since you can't even a human GCI alerting you for missile that are launched on you, can't they? 

I'm pretty sure we'll get some great SP campaigns. Realistic for the MiG's role and with proper use of GCI (either made up in ME or implemented in DCS).

22 hours ago, swartbyron said:

Nobody’s purest version of the MiG-29 is being dumbed down, and nobody’s ultra-real gameplay will be affected.

You push for casual, I push for realism, ED meets us in the middle. Galaxy balance is kept

[swartbyron]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

You push for casual, I push for realism, ED meets us in the middle. Galaxy balance is kept

This is all that is being asked for here.

Edited Saturday at 11:28 AM by swartbyron

[Thirsty]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Realistic for the MiG's role and with proper use of GCI (either made up in ME or implemented in DCS).

In this current mission editor, is almost impossible to make and implement a proper GCI control without having an actual human doing so, even if I go ahead and try to script every part, is borderline impossible.
And since how many years now we are getting Dynamic campaign, it will like won't be for a long long time.

 

1 hour ago, draconus said:

If you're asking me I'd gladly have these options gone. I welcome any RL limits and more realistic modeling for any simulated systems.

I agree with you, would like to see that as well, but with all honesty and you know it as well, in DCS is impossible.

There are even modules with capabilities that simply would never worked (MiG-21 module)
Or upcoming things such as the J-8 Peace pearl or the "300 pound gorilla" the F-35.
These are more than far away from realisi,-

 

15 minutes ago, swartbyron said:

This is all that is being asked for here.

And exactly.

Giving the option for mission creators, to let people use the SPO that is more in line with everything else.

Or ED's modelling of the system.

Not breaking the realisim for people who want it.

Edited Saturday at 11:42 AM by Thirsty

[Thirsty]

16 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

I mean aside from radar synching

This mostly.

I personally could give less about having a launch warning, since you threat a lock as a launch and I am fine with that.
Not like how the magical DCS RWR's work that tell you about every single launch warning.

But the fact that you are completly blind from the the full front 90 degree, is limiting the use of the fulcrum super badly, unless you have a person telling you to go defensive.
And that in single player, campaign/story scenario is impossible. 

And this is only singleplayer, I could see the issue being even more bad in multiplayer

[AeriaGloria]

5 hours ago, Thirsty said:

This mostly.

I personally could give less about having a launch warning, since you threat a lock as a launch and I am fine with that.
Not like how the magical DCS RWR's work that tell you about every single launch warning.

But the fact that you are completly blind from the the full front 90 degree, is limiting the use of the fulcrum super badly, unless you have a person telling you to go defensive.
And that in single player, campaign/story scenario is impossible. 

And this is only singleplayer, I could see the issue being even more bad in multiplayer

This might get better when the front aspect blanket is removed. According to Su-27 manual, whose radar has same power output as MiG-29 and similar SPO pavement, it shows as X. And according to Ed manual SPO limitations, upon receiving F category all CW/X reception is shut off. Meaning that when a 4th gen is within 25/40 km (25 km for F-15:18 and 40 for F-14/16) it should show on RWR with radar on (when the blanket is turned off as an option). 

[draconus]

22 hours ago, Thirsty said:

Not like how the magical DCS RWR's work that tell you about every single launch warning.

You're comparing to a lot more sophisticated and modern devices.

22 hours ago, Thirsty said:

But the fact that you are completly blind from the the full front 90 degree, is limiting the use of the fulcrum super badly, unless you have a person telling you to go defensive.

This is how it worked IRL, why do you want to change it? This is not air superiority fighter.

23 hours ago, Thirsty said:

In this current mission editor, is almost impossible to make and implement a proper GCI control without having an actual human doing so, even if I go ahead and try to script every part, is borderline impossible.

I played a few convincing missions like that for other aircraft. Even current AWACS/EWR can be used in the mean time. I hope you're not expecting to have a fair fight against AMRAAM slingers.

[Thirsty]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

You're comparing to a lot more sophisticated and modern devices.

I recomend deep diving into radar, and how SARH guidence works with different radars
It is not as simple as "newer" RWR just picks up everything, it is a way more complicated.

There is a reason even in today's operation standard, anykind of hard lock is treated like a launch.

The difference is, in DCS like I mentioned multiple times, most of the RWR implemenation is magical, and is not even close how it would properly work.
 

5 hours ago, draconus said:

This is how it worked IRL, why do you want to change it? This is not air superiority fighter.

Many documents inculding technical and maintanace reports plus Pilot reports, are saying otherwise how the SPO operated.

And again, nobody mentioned "air superiority" anywhere in my words, did I?
 

5 hours ago, draconus said:

I played a few convincing missions like that for other aircraft. Even current AWACS/EWR can be used in the mean time. I hope you're not expecting to have a fair fight against AMRAAM slingers.

 

Nobody is talking about anything to do with AMRAAMs.
Additionally, by this time I think you know that well, that just becuase it works for one aircraft, it doesn't mean it will work for the other.

Besides, I know the limiation of the SPO-15 and how it was when it came to detections of ARH missiles.
Unlike how most of you act toward a mission editor function.

If you wish we can talk about the combat tree implementation for the F4 is, and how even turning off the SRZO-2, it still detects everything, what is simply and physically would be impossible.
That is way beyond realistic, again an other magical implementation.
Or that is not something that breaks your realisim barrier?

In the end, as a person who prefers realisim, also prefers my personal time, and enjoyment in the end.
When I have the time, I wish to fly single player scenarios without spending a full workweek just to script missile launch voicelinces from EWR pickups. 
And the same time would not like to wait years for native ED implemenation, How long since we are getting Dynamic Campagin again? 

I can understand your concern, if people would be asking for a complelte removal of the existing system, but that's not the case.
Please consider that not only your way exist, multiple options are present in multiple aircraft, such as the above mentioned F-4E II.
Making your view very selective that what can go and what can not.
If one aircraft needs to obey by being super ultra realistic, the other ones should as well, things go both ways.

I would like to see the FF MiG-29 to be a sucsessful module, since if it does, we will see more eastern jets that would benefit everyone, and as for right now it is sitting in a very werid place.

On 10/10/2025 at 5:57 PM, Thirsty said:

Sure I have no problem, but that means all the aircraft should be what limitations in had in real life.
Just like the ones you mentioned above
Additinonally, that all aircraft in DCS (other than the F-4 and the FF 29) has a magic RWR that picks up SARH launches that it shouldn't.

In the end, next to the study level simulation, people are using these aircraft to fly in virtual PvE or PvP combat scenarios.

And right now, you can't take the 29 anywhere, since everything has magical properties.

This is why a switch option like that what is mentioned on this thread would be really good or would solve all the current issues with the only full fidelity Soviet 4th gen aircraft.

Edited 11 hours ago by Thirsty

[Thirsty]

"While we endeavour to be as real as possible DCS is a for entertainment product, it is worth remembering that."

So again, what is being requested is nothing super unholy, but very much within the vision of DCS:World

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Thirsty