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

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

First generation Flanker is what 70% (or higher) RuAF fleet is made of.

You keep bringing economy to discussion about FC simulation. When I talked economy, I got permanent warning.

 

Russian/Soviet Air Force did not upgrade its Su-27 fleet for two reasons. First, obviously, Russia was short on money. Second, Russia did not need to upgrade, Russia did not fight wars where it needed R-77 capable Flankers. But, there is plenty of evidence that Sukhoi made or upgraded Flankers capable of using R-77. Therefore, it is not a stretch by any means to simulate R-77's on Flankers.

 

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.

Because People like Flankers and Flankers are fully capable of using advanced weapons. Developer decided to model the first generation Flankers and the second generation of Eagle. People want updated Flankers as well. Finally, we could just put India as a Country on the list and then having R-77's on FLankers would be all right?

[Cali]

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.

 

I said that just because you guys added the R-77 to the Su-27 and 120's to Migs. I have no problem flying a 33 against F-15's with their actives and live. To me having R-77's on the 27's isn't going to change my tactics, I'll treat them just like 29's. Now if I could get into the server and kill some people I'd be happy. Even great F-15 drivers can get taken out by Mig-29G's, that pilot knows what I'm talking about....tactics, all about tactics baby.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Cali

[Pilotasso]

You keep bringing economy to discussion about FC simulation. When I talked economy, I got permanent warning.

 

Russian/Soviet Air Force did not upgrade its Su-27 fleet for two reasons. First, obviously, Russia was short on money. Second, Russia did not need to upgrade, Russia did not fight wars where it needed R-77 capable Flankers. But, there is plenty of evidence that Sukhoi made or upgraded Flankers capable of using R-77. Therefore, it is not a stretch by any means to simulate R-77's on Flankers.

 

Because People like Flankers and Flankers are fully capable of using advanced weapons. Developer decided to model the first generation Flankers and the second generation of Eagle. People want updated Flankers as well. Finally, we could just put India as a Country on the list and then having R-77's on FLankers would be all right?

 

I dont know why you got warned but it might have to do with you going off topic when I wasnt mentioning economics/polics in the first place. RuAF is what it is, and I didnt go to the extent as to explain why/dont care for this matter. It simply is. Known fact. Period.

Futhermore the Su-27S is what is simulated in LOMAC due to available documentation. So thats 2 reasons.

 

Ask KNAAPO for documentation and we might get a Su-27SM with RVV-AE and TWS. ;)

 

Hacking Wepons IMHO is a precedent for everyone to want modify their preferred planes as they see fit and soon there will be total anarchy online with whiners wanting this or that MOD.

 

The F-15 drivers like myself have already accepted the removal of other mods for F-15 radar such as ERI, for various reasons, being it server related/balance or conserving the SIM as it was suposed to be, whatever. Which makes all this whining "R-77-is-realistic" sound even the more suspect and incoherent, as the same people now put forward the exact oppsosite of their previous ideals for convenience.

[GGTharos]

As I said before, there are effort/time/money/documentation issues - I imagine ED would rather work on DCS than upgrade old SFM planes (or even develop new 'survey sim' code based on DCS than touch the old code is probably prefferable IMHO).

 

No one really knows how the new radar is mechanized, there's no information about symbology or anything like that. There are a couple of things that we've seen showing 2TWS on with the TOPAZ and the HUD for it, but very very little. And again, it's still an effort issue - a lot of reprogramming for the HUD that can go wrong and take up a lot more time than desired.

 

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

[VAOZoky]

@GG ty for answer

@Pilotass: Mig29s use N019M that can track 10 targets and engage two. This info is even in LockOn manual on page 141.

[Boberro]

 

Russian/Soviet Air Force did not upgrade its Su-27 fleet for two reasons. First, obviously, Russia was short on money. Second, Russia did not need to upgrade, Russia did not fight wars where it needed R-77 capable Flankers. But, there is plenty of evidence that Sukhoi made or upgraded Flankers capable of using R-77. Therefore, it is not a stretch by any means to simulate R-77's on Flankers.

 

All reasons come down to money there. Do you really think Russia wouldn't upgrade their entire fleet if they had enough cash, all the more they really want to come back to 1st league of world countries, especially in military field. They can't so far.

It would be really weird if country which wants to be counterbalance to NATO will not upgrade its own fleet because "it wouldn't need". Reason is well known - rubels.

[HiJack]

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

Haha, you had problems with the MOD last night RIPTIDE. I saw you dropping in and out. Integrity check problems? :P :P

 

(HJ)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

All reasons come down to money there. Do you really think Russia wouldn't upgrade their entire fleet if they had enough cash, all the more they really want to come back to 1st league of world countries, especially in military field. They can't so far.

It would be really weird if country which wants to be counterbalance to NATO will not upgrade its own fleet because "it wouldn't need". Reason is well known - rubels.

I have to be very careful what I say because I have 50% permanent warning. To respond to your comment I would have to go to the economical and political aspect of the military. I just can not go there.

 

One thing I can say is that Sukhoi has manufactured and sold systems that allow the use of R-77. I don't see any reason why we don't have that in FC. Thus, I fully support 104th mod.

[boris_badinov]

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!

Why are you calling names? I gave my opinion. If you don't agree that is your right. Name calling is immature on your part. Is this representative how 104th members treat others? I'm ashamed of you. The other members of 104th should be too.

 

What a poor and destructive attitude.

Your response meets that criteria. I gave an opinion you replied with childish insults. You should be ashamed of yourself. The 104th should be embarrassed by your reply. I'm sad that the people who disagree with you must endure disrespectful behavior from you. It is immature and childish.

[RIPTIDE]

Haha, you had problems with the MOD last night RIPTIDE. I saw you dropping in and out. Integrity check problems? :P :P

 

(HJ)

Nope. Connection issues and some tests. BTW I bought 60000 Gold on World of Tanks with your VISA number. Thanks!:thumbup:

[MoGas]

Why are you calling names? I gave my opinion. If you don't agree that is your right. Name calling is immature on your part. Is this representative how 104th members treat others? I'm ashamed of you. The other members of 104th should be too.

 

 

Your response meets that criteria. I gave an opinion you replied with childish insults. You should be ashamed of yourself. The 104th should be embarrassed by your reply. I'm sad that the people who disagree with you must endure disrespectful behavior from you. It is immature and childish.

 

I am ashamed about IronMike, RIPTIDE you as well?

 

:D

[Pilotasso]

I have to be very careful what I say because I have 50% permanent warning. To respond to your comment I would have to go to the economical and political aspect of the military. I just can not go there.

 

One thing I can say is that Sukhoi has manufactured and sold systems that allow the use of R-77. I don't see any reason why we don't have that in FC. Thus, I fully support 104th mod.

 

Those flankers use comercially availabe components that can be internationally boycoted and the Russians dont want them on their aircraft even if it means cutting down those capabilities on their own aircraft as it appears to be.

[4cHerros]

Those flankers use comercially availabe components that can be internationally boycoted and the Russians dont want them on their aircraft even if it means cutting down those capabilities on their own aircraft as it appears to be.

 

Jesus.......It's only a game.Deal with it.

[RIPTIDE]

I am ashamed about IronMike, RIPTIDE you as well?

 

:D

I ashamed because of Ironmike also. I am ashamed because of his funny forum name "Asskalla". << I am ashamed. I think we kick him for this.

[104th_Crunch]

Why are you calling names? I gave my opinion. If you don't agree that is your right. Name calling is immature on your part. Is this representative how 104th members treat others? I'm ashamed of you. The other members of 104th should be too.

 

Your response meets that criteria. I gave an opinion you replied with childish insults. You should be ashamed of yourself. The 104th should be embarrassed by your reply. I'm sad that the people who disagree with you must endure disrespectful behavior from you. It is immature and childish.

 

You are right and we have discussed this post, sorry for that. We are serious simmers, and your comment about us looking to make this sim more like HAWX hit a nerve. It is NOT what we are doing.

 

We understand that the mod is not 100% accurate. We are not disputing it's accuracy hence you are not seeing 104th trying to say that this is 100% accurate. No need for others to argue that point. I said it in my first post that this is hypothetical, but we are not changing game physics etc. to dumb down the sim. I use the example again to compare it to this mod, Ka-50s fly for the US in DCS. Realistic? No! Hypothetical? Yes. It does not make DCS like HAWX though.

 

...Now if I could get into the server and kill some people I'd be happy...

 

Give it another try Cali. We made some temporary adjustments to the server. Please let me know how you make out so I can analyze.

 

 

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.

 

It easier to give a mod that is optional than to manually monitor players and the server to enforce a weapons restriction. Plane and simple. This is why I have made the suggestion in this thread that ED in the future provide the option that weapon loadouts be set by the mission. I hope they do it with DCS when the fighter module is released. The mission could enforce particular weapons for a given aircraft per pylon, and then the player would be free to choose those. That would be the ultimate.

[boris_badinov]

I am ashamed about IronMike, RIPTIDE you as well?

 

:D

Thank you. I presumed cooler heads would prevail.

[FLANKERATOR]

I have found another statement on Knaapo's website on the Su-27SKM specs, but this one is kind of indicating that the Su-27SK does not carry the R-77 out of factory. Am lost, now they have a big contradiction on the website, 2 different statements...

 

Here is the original statement found on the Su-27SK page :

 

"Su-27SK can carry up to six R-27R1 (R-27ER1) air-to-air medium-range missiles with semi-active radar homing heads, up to two R-27T1 (R-27ET1) heat-seeking medium-range missiles, and up to six RVV-AE medium-range active radar-homing missiles and six R-73E short-range heat-seeking missiles."

 

And this is the statement found today on the Su-27SKM page :

 

"The fire control system of Su-27SKM provides for detection, tracking and hitting by onboard weapons aerial and surface targets round the clock and in any weather. The fire control system ensures the application of wider range (in comparison with the Su-27SK fighter) of weapon including the RVV-AE medium-range air-to-air active radar-homing missiles, and air-to-ground high-precision guided weapon with different types of guidance."

 

Well, it can literally mean the Su-27SK does not have this missile, but at the same time they say it can on it's page...

 

I admit not being sure 100% now the SK delivers that missile out of factory.

 

Maybe the only explanation would be that they are capable of fitting that missile on the SK upon request but it's not there by default like for the Su-27SKM.

 

Well I assume the Su-27SK's on the 104th server have been hypothetically upgraded to deliver the R-77, for the sake of realism which still make sense...and this is exactely how the mod had been presented to the community initially. Excellent work still from these guys as it adds fresh air to the air to air arena, just a step back in my own mind regarding my belief about the R-77 on the SK by default.

Edited May 9, 2011 by FLANKERATOR

[Pilotasso]

It easier to give a mod that is optional than to manually monitor players and the server to enforce a weapons restriction. Plane and simple. This is why I have made the suggestion in this thread that ED in the future provide the option that weapon loadouts be set by the mission. I hope they do it with DCS when the fighter module is released. The mission could enforce particular weapons for a given aircraft per pylon, and then the player would be free to choose those. That would be the ultimate.

 

I've seen scripts stop players from using forbidden weapons before, can it be done enforced on the servers side without affecting IC.?

[Case]

I've seen scripts stop players from using forbidden weapons before, can it be done enforced on the servers side without affecting IC.?

 

On the 51st we're running a program that will kick people if they launch restricted weapons during an 80's week. Unfortunately it is at present not able to distinguish a R-77 launched from a legal MiG-29S or a restricted Flanker, so it isn't really useful in this situation.

[Cali]

You are right and we have discussed this post, sorry for that. We are serious simmers, and your comment about us looking to make this sim more like HAWX hit a nerve. It is NOT what we are doing.

 

We understand that the mod is not 100% accurate. We are not disputing it's accuracy hence you are not seeing 104th trying to say that this is 100% accurate. No need for others to argue that point. I said it in my first post that this is hypothetical, but we are not changing game physics etc. to dumb down the sim. I use the example again to compare it to this mod, Ka-50s fly for the US in DCS. Realistic? No! Hypothetical? Yes. It does not make DCS like HAWX though.

 

Having 120's on Migs is unrealistic, that's what some are thinking and is that serious simming? Like I said before, this wont change up my tactics much, but will be nice when and if I fly the 27.

 

 

Give it another try Cali. We made some temporary adjustments to the server. Please let me know how you make out so I can analyze.

 

Yes, it works, I just hope it works when I have time to fly.

EDIT: Not working now, same thing as before.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Cali

[Moa]

On the 51st we're running a program that will kick people if they launch restricted weapons during an 80's week. Unfortunately it is at present not able to distinguish a R-77 launched from a legal MiG-29S or a restricted Flanker, so it isn't really useful in this situation.

 

Hi Case, you are probably already on top of this (you usually are), but the Scripts/net/events.lua on_kill() function can be used to watch when a player kills another player (doesn't detect launches though).

 

With a function signature (mandated by LockOn) of:

function on_kill(id, weapon, victim)

 

You can get various details:

local p = players[id]

local side = p.side

local unit = p.unit

local callsign = player_info_noside(id)

local coalition = select_by_side(side, _("RED"), _("BLUE"), _("SPECTATORS"))

local aircraft = unit_info(unit)

local task = unit_property(unit, 14)

local victimName = bot_info(victim) or _("Unknown victim name")

local victimSide = net.get_unit_property(victim, 11) or _("Unknown victim side")

local victimUnit = unit_info(victim) or _("Unknown victim unit")

local victimSkill = get_unit_skill(victim)

local killerSide = net.get_unit_property(id, 11) or _("Unknown killer side")

 

and

weapon_info(weapon)

will give the name of the weapon (although not always for gun kills; kills where the target aircraft was damaged but not killed outright and then explodes/crashes later; or, kills where the attacker was killed first and changed aircraft/exited the game).

 

 

However, there is sometime some randomness where some of the values can be reported incorrectly by LockOn (eg. the killerSide is sometimes reported incorrectly, leading to false reporting of teamkills).

 

So, within LUA you can tie weapon info to an aircraft type but only for kills (not launches).

 

Of course, if you have an external program (such as your stats) you can easily (and much more reliably) correlate launches with aircraft and callsign (using the 'default' LockOn logs that are not written by the user-modifiable scripts). Then it is a matter of making the external program do a kick (eg. through a socket to LUA input).

[104th_Crunch]

...Yes, it works, I just hope it works when I have time to fly.

 

EDIT: Not working now, same thing as before.

 

Thanks for the report. Will check with other clients now to see if the situation improved or not.

[104th_Crunch]

exaclty therefore ...and nothing else.

Look, why the BLUE force should be able to fire 120Cs from a time period way later, whereas the 27s need to stick to their historic ability? Doesnt make sense, does it?

 

Either you kick out the 120C (with 120A replaced which is not possible)...or you upgrade -so to speak- the Flanker generation.

 

But i think the main reason for the need of that change are the very low performing ERs....which made more sense in previous versions (semi-active vs acitve tactics ....range vs fire-and-forget) ...

 

The issues with missiles have been changed by the producer 3 times with new patches and new versions coming out, each time their was good intention in order to improve things.

Those decissions -i assume- where based on new available data and abilities.

But sometimes it appears that it is also important not only to design the battlefield based on theoretical drawing board conclusions.

The ingame outcome is also worth being kept under observation in the producing process.

 

Nice logic. For sure ED thought more about realistic performance with FC2, than game balance, which I think is great. Let's just hope they are able to give mission designers the choice to limit weapons in DCS in the future.

[Grimes]

How I see it,

 

Changes made by developer to adjust properties of playable entities in other game genres = balance

 

Changes made by developer to adjust properties of playable entities in flight sims = more accurate simulation

 

Within a mission or server, governing the selectable aircraft and weapons = mission scenario/balance.

 

There are multiple schools of thought on creating mission scenario/game balance in the sim, and I could probably go on for a while discussing it, so I won't.

 

For any mods applied for balance, I suppose its up to the players to deal with the suspension of belief for which ever weapon platforms a server wants to change. Part of the process is making sure the change isn't that far fetched to begin with. Simply renaming the Su-27S to "Su-27SM" and stating that in this mission scenario the Su-27SM is what the teams have, ought to be enough. Especially since its a passive patch which doesn't require players to download in order to use. Although the Mig-29G changes are a little harder to believe/swallow/comprehend the logic. If anything it seems to me that the Mig-29G changes were made as a trade-off to not using the VNAO mod, which would be more ideal for realism, but its exactly a "passive" mod.

[Case]

Of course, if you have an external program (such as your stats) you can easily (and much more reliably) correlate launches with aircraft and callsign (using the 'default' LockOn logs that are not written by the user-modifiable scripts). Then it is a matter of making the external program do a kick (eg. through a socket to LUA input).

This is what I am doing, except that I do not kick but just reroute the network traffic of the offender.

 

From my initial tests about a year ago I found that those LUA call backs are not always accurate and that writing and testing the LUA code was a nightmare. That is why I have made minimal changes to the LUA code and do the rest externally.