104th Server R-77 For Su-27 & MiG-29G NATO Mod!

[Kuky]

FLANKERATOR, the facts are the Flanker simulated in the game does not carry R-77, you can argue that they have upgraded some Flankers so they can carry it and we all agree with this, we also agree that russian air force and PVO can upgrade older Flankers if they wanted.. would they want to do this is another story (history has shown they would most likely not do this as they preffer quantity over quality, which costs less and can have their desired effect)

 

You guys have now made a mockery of the sim by putting 120's on the MiG and who knows what else you have/will do and any decent flight simmer will not apreciate this. No matter how much FC2 is not realistic with this it's 3x further away from bein realistic.

 

And if you say if you feel you are having fun you feel more realistic? Really... WTF does that mean? And you are the guy trying to lecture others how they are wrong... please... you can take your logic and throw it into rubish bin... that's how much it's worth.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Kuky

[Cali]

You guys have no clue what realistic is, enough said! And 95% of those that say they do want it, really don't. It's a game and it's turning more and more into just that.

[FLANKERATOR]

FLANKERATOR, the facts are the Flanker simulated in the game does not carry R-77, you can argue that they have upgraded some Flankers so they can carry it and we all agree with this, we also agree that russian air force and PVO can upgrade older Flankers if they wanted.. would they want to do this is another story (history has shown they would most likely not do this as they preffer quantity over quality, which costs less and can have their desired effect)

 

You guys have now made a mockery of the sim by putting 120's on the MiG and who knows what else you have/will do and any decent flight simmer will not apreciate this. No matter how much FC2 is not realistic with this it's 3x further away from bein realistic.

 

And if you say if you feel you are having fun you feel more realistic? Really... WTF does that mean? And you are the guy trying to lecture others how they are wrong... please... you can take your logic and throw it into rubish bin... that's how much it's worth.

 

You can keep babbling as much as you wish, that's rubish bin worthy to me.

 

Manufacturer said Su-27S/SK CAN carry up to 6 of these missiles...you can interpret it as you wish, but between your babbling and the manufacturer's statement, my choice is made and is very obvious ;)

 

I still do not understand what you still doing on this topic to be honest :huh:

You don't like it, you decided to leave, fair enough, move along, but please stop trolling and respect other's work and choice.

 

And no, I said am having fun because it is now more realistic, simple to understand.

[prok]

FLANKERATOR, the facts are the Flanker simulated in the game does not carry R-77, you can argue that they have upgraded some Flankers so they can carry it and we all agree with this, we also agree that russian air force and PVO can upgrade older Flankers if they wanted.. would they want to do this is another story (history has shown they would most likely not do this as they preffer quantity over quality, which costs less and can have their desired effect)

 

You guys have now made a mockery of the sim by putting 120's on the MiG and who knows what else you have/will do and any decent flight simmer will not apreciate this. No matter how much FC2 is not realistic with this it's 3x further away from bein realistic.

 

And if you say if you feel you are having fun you feel more realistic? Really... WTF does that mean? And you are the guy trying to lecture others how they are wrong... please... you can take your logic and throw it into rubish bin... that's how much it's worth.

 

104th guys just make alternative history with dynamic progression.

You do not know, how fast su27 can carry r77, if real war conflict begins on 1996. Believe me, this is 1-2 weeks problem.

So, u know about this conflict only from flat and unwised position of ED scenario developers. But, this is not conflict to wide extent. this is 1-2 days before. And how long u wana play these 1-2 days? We are bored. You not?

[Kuky]

We are bored. You not?

 

see... with this, I cannot argue

[GGTharos]

Likewise, but at least my source is crystal clear, yours is very dubious and outdated.

 

No, my source is THE source for the aircraft simulated in FC2. Are you still not making the connection? You decided to go off on some little mental trip from a single page that tells you nothing more than a payload list, and you think you already know something. The aircraft simulated in FC2 does not and CANNOT carry the R-77. It requires a radar upgrade, and in general you won't find an R-77 capable aircraft of this family that hasn't received a cockpit upgrade to go with that either. It will an SM1/SM3 package.

 

I don't care if you like it there for fun or not - that's fine. But keep your delusions to yourself - there's enough misinformation out there without you spreading more.

 

Go tell that to Knaapo is you want to argue more about that, am very happy with my Flanker right now because it feels much more realistic ;)

I could already have R-77's on the MiG-29S before, so not a big deal in term of combat effectiveness. It's just a good feeling, period, end of story.

Many feel their delusions are good. ;)

 

Who said that...operators again??

The same guys who paid for the recent Su-33 upgrades ... Edited May 8, 2011 by GGTharos

[FLANKERATOR]

This is turning bad.

 

Instead of arguing versus eachother you guys should unite and pull up polls and direct the results to the producer in oder to achieve improvements or changes.

 

Not a bad idea is it?

 

Agreed MATT, and this is definitely turning bad, so am knocking it off, I prefer spending more time on the server than arguing endlessly against unproven and arbitrary statements, not to mention this topic was meant to be an official announcement from the authors of the Mod and nothing else, so congratulations again to all phoenixes for the awesome move and work. keep it up!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It is more then obvious that many in FC community are sick and tired of flying first generation Flanker against updated second generation Eagle. I assume ED is busy with DCS and will not update FC Flankers any more. The next DCS fighter is of western origin. Community decided to try to update Flankers to existing Flanker models. Why is that a problem?

[Kuky]

It is more then obvious that many in FC community are sick and tired of flying first generation Flanker against updated second generation Eagle. I assume ED is busy with DCS and will not update FC Flankers any more. The next DCS fighter is of western origin. Community decided to try to update Flankers to existing Flanker models. Why is that a problem?

 

seems to me that most people that like this move by the 104th don't understand that people (ie me) don't like it is not because the whole of it but because of parts of it that are simply putting it into HAWX type category.

 

Once again I will say that I can understand and agree that Flanker could be "upgraded" to its upgraded version as they do exist. GG is arguing (with understanding also) that version of the Flanker that is in the game cannot carry the R-77, and most accept this also... so all is good when 104th decides to try and simulate a later serving Flanker version (to what can be done with FC2 code and not too much changing in the cockpit etc which is not easy and lot of it not possible), and this to me at least is acceptable.

 

What brings it to HAWX level is when they also decide to go completely fictional just for the hell of it to have some fun and add 120's onto MiG also... how does this not sound like going HAWX direction?

 

I really don't want to post in here any more as I am also stiring up trouble so I just wanted to be clear as to why I do not like this move... in short.. it's not the whole "Flanker should not carry R-77, full stop" type of thing... but not to go overboard and start adding 120's on MiG's... ET's to A-10's... AIM-54 on F-15 (they have been test fired also)... does everyone finaly get my point?

 

In the end, 104th is not my squad nor is the server paid by me so I can't dictate what they will use... but I do wish to say how I feel about this mod... I'll accept people don't like my opinion about it, but also if anyone just wants to have fun and try fictional things they can do that, but please they should not then try to back their choice based on reality... We all know FC2 is not fully realistic on its own but going completely fictional just makes it worse, that's all I'm saying.

[104th_Crunch]

Fair enough Kuky. You are more than entitled to your opinion thanks.

[Moa]

You do know aircraft such as the Harrier II can carry the AIM-120? Why would it be so difficult to accept a MiG-29G could also?

 

Incidentally, if you have seen HAWX you will know that adding slammers to any aircraft still won't make LockOn HAWX. Different from what people are used to, yes, but still nothing compared to the button-mashing fiesta of HAWX.

 

Personally, I'm neither for nor against the mod - although a change is nice once in a while - and it seems to have made a lot of 'REDFOR' players happy, which is a good thing IMHO (even as a usually 'BLUEFOR' player).

[VTJS17_Fire]

:helpsmilie:

For myself, FC is dead since DCS: Warthog release.

 

But I like the DCS philosophy: The aircrafts don't carry, what they can or, even worser, could carry. Aircrafts carry, what they carry actual operational.

 

MiG-29G with AIM-120B/AGM-65: nope

Su-27 with R-77: real photo?

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

[boris_badinov]

I think its cool that the 104th is doing this. I probably wont fly on the server. But it is a good idea and should provide HAWX type fun.

[HiJack]

:helpsmilie:

For myself, FC is dead since DCS: Warthog release.

 

But I like the DCS philosophy: The aircrafts don't carry, what they can or, even worser, could carry. Aircrafts carry, what they carry actual operational.

 

MiG-29G with AIM-120B/AGM-65: nope

Su-27 with R-77: real photo?

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

But is it not up to mission designers to add/remove aircrafts to the mission? MiG-29G is left out on most of the servers I play. And on the 51st server I was told not to use the Su-27 with the R-77 so there is options.

 

FC2 will never be HAWX thank god, FC2 is a SIM :D

[ALF7]

First half fully agree, this is getting puberty-like, for the 2nd half: Why everyone thinks there is the DCS series?! To exactly achieve your so much desired realism, and ED is doing an awesome job on that! Lock On is still THE flight-fight-sim multiplayer experience, and never it has been a high fid sim and never it will be, because there is the DCS series, which will gradually replace it (though a last patch for A10C/FC2 would be great to wait for the fighter - pls pls ED).

 

The 104th are a) mixing a varient with another to bring more joy to flanker pilots and b) bringing the Mig29G back to business although through fiction, as being a legacy in the game, if you don't have the skill to fly it like MoGas, and most of us don't, at least not without wingman.

 

Having said that, all that is it real or not talk is just ridiculous and no, the game is not becoming more game then it already is. For your very big disappointment, also DCS will just stay a game. Sad, huh? You can build cockpits, a whole jet around your house if you want, you will be still just PLAYING a game. Thank god, for those who wanted and never were able to sit in a real jet! And even more a gift, if you have something like DCS (and Lock On!) that is capable of giving you the illusion that it is (100%) real(istic). (Or would you like us to implement missions on the 104th server with 1 hr flight time to target and back where you have to kill only one tank, and enemy bases 500km away from each other, ya? Maybe give you one key for the server per life, and if you get shotdown or you ejected twice, sry: out of game?)

 

That is why the only balance it needs, is the balance between realism and playabilty. If ED isn't doing the best job on that with DCS, then I don't know what it needs to satisfy you guys. And since some can't wait, a little tweak on Lock On FC2 as by 104th just comes right. Look at it as an experiment, as it seems, one that many appreciate.

 

S! 104th IronMike

:thumbup:At the point

[VTJS17_Fire]

For your very big disappointment, also DCS will just stay a game. Sad, huh? You can build cockpits, a whole jet around your house if you want, you will be still just PLAYING a game.

 

According to the German game magazine "Game Star", DCS isn't a game: It's a program! A pure simulation of a real aircraft. And for this reason, it didn't get a score.

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

[Boberro]

I'd be curious Flanker fan boys reaction if in DCS was Flanker with ER only. Would they babble again?

 

As everyone said own opinion it's is pointless to continue discussion about well nothing. One side will not convince the second side to change mind and vice-versa.

 

We can focus on convincing 104th for more mods, heh R-77s on LO's Flanker are funny so why should we stop of getting more fun from :)

Edited May 9, 2011 by Boberro

[Pilotasso]

It is more then obvious that many in FC community are sick and tired of flying first generation Flanker against updated second generation Eagle. I assume ED is busy with DCS and will not update FC Flankers any more. The next DCS fighter is of western origin. Community decided to try to update Flankers to existing Flanker models. Why is that a problem?

 

First generation Flanker is what 70% (or higher) RuAF fleet is made of. By the time the Flanker entered service there were already eagles of this version in service too. So they fit in the timescale perfectly, all the way from te 80's right until the 21st century.

 

This is not saying there arent advanced Flankers out there in other air forces, but there is not enough data available as told countless times.

 

Besides using R-77 with only 1 radar mode totaly sux. Any competent adversary will avoid it outside its NEZ when radar lock warning airs. Its self defeating really.

 

What I dont understand is why people resort to weapon hacks in order to balance things out instead of just changing the timescale before Actives entered service. I dont understand why 80's missions are not popular enough for this.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Pilotasso

[MoGas]

I dont understand why 80's missions are not popular enough for this.

 

I would like to run 80`s, but then the 104th gets comments like "they took it from us" we simply try to avoid it, I would like to fly everyday with GCI for example too....but well, like above...

 

it is how it is in here, people like to work aginst you instead togheter, as sad it is.

 

soo in this case we took the fictional scenario, and as you can see what happens lol. but this has no effect on our server, what maybe some want, instead alot people wanna check it out, and WHY NOT..

[FLANKERATOR]

Jeesus, we did not make a mod where you steer your aircraft from the tail of it? What would make it Hawx-like? Anything used in the mod, is as it is in game, just that 2 missiles change launching platform. I want all you BIGMOUTHS come and pick up a Mig29G (vanilla FC2 version) and i'll pick a f15 and fly against you, let us see, how much HAWX you got in yourselves!

 

What a poor and destructive attitude. Flying on our server, is still flying under Lock-On conditions, same flight models + 1 fictional launching platform scenario = Hawx for you?

 

ROFL ROFL ROFL

 

And the best is, that the one who wanted this Mig29G tweak would vice versa get you with the R60 in whatever plane YOU choose.

 

Anyway, HAWX must be a big nightmare for some of you. Makes me think you played it 2 much, hahaha!

 

SPLASH ! :thumbup:

[RIPTIDE]

You guys have no clue what realistic is, enough said! And 95% of those that say they do want it, really don't. It's a game and it's turning more and more into just that.

There's a bit of a conflict there somewhere though Cali. You yourself wanted 77's on Su-33 earlier. And BTW, I'll say it straight, if any can present that the Su-33M or whatever it was proposed to be upgraded to, does and can carry R-77, in some Ru.net news briefing or photo or videos then , bring it on. I already looked into a simple bolt on advanced A2G for the SU-33 as we did with the Su-27. But we can't to that easy without changing cockpits. And that would not work.

 

If it was that easy to have multiple MFD's and program cockpits to make a Su-27SM3 TWS capable 77's carrying flanker, then I'd try for it.

 

If it was that easy to have a AIM-120D duplex datalink missile on a F15C, we'd try it.

 

If it was that easy to have a MiG-29S9.13 with TWS... we'd do it.

 

But none of this is easy... and some of it isn't possible...

 

We just moved forward with what would be as seamless to put into practice to add a little bit of modernity.

 

The MiG-29G for me is but a small issue. As it stands there are normally only 2 slots on 104th misssion "Moonshield". A tangental development... a look-a-side. A quirk. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[RIPTIDE]

I want all you BIGMOUTHS come and pick up a Mig29G (vanilla FC2 version) and i'll pick a f15 and fly against you, let us see, how much HAWX you got in yourselves!

 

Careful there now IronMike. I might just take you up on that later :D

[VAOZoky]

Why is so hard to model mig29s tws and is easy to do it on f15c? Im not flaming here im just curious:helpsmilie:

[Pilotasso]

Its not hard at all, and we explained it to you before why its not there.

[Kuky]

If you guys can change missile seeker for the R-27ER to act as R-77 then why not try same approach and give 27 and 29 eagle's radar and that might give the Flanker TWS and multi-target ability with R-77?