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

[Pilotasso]

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 there 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.

 

You really dont get it do you? :)

 

I repeat:

It doesnt have to make sense, it is what it is.

The SU-27S is first generation and is what RuAF is made off mostly even today. There is only a hat full of Su-27's capable of firing the RVV series and those are SM version with just 2 years old for which there is no data availabe. They surely wont shoot R-77's on STT mode, thats just silly. Without proper modes and cockpit avionics your pretty much into the la-la mod land.

 

Either you want to play realistic or resort to buck rogers flankers for arcadish gameplay, and thats fine as long as you want something different for a change. But saying because the Su-27S should take the R-77 "because it makes sense" doesnt hold up a nickel in reality at all, anyone can assume what makes sense for his preferred aircraft.

 

And then I want meteors on F-15 now. :)

Edited May 10, 2011 by Pilotasso

[RIPTIDE]

You really dont get it do you? :)

 

I repeat:

It doesnt have to make sense, it is what it is.

The SU-27S is first generation and is what RuAF is made off mostly even today.

I'm not really arguing over the other stuff, but the numbers thing doesn't really apply as a sound argument. Not in this product line. Much of the planes themselves Su-25T, KA-50 already had a very low run. Even with APG-63(v)1/2 armed F-15C's... isn't there only like 8 or 10 of them that could do 4xTWS launches as in the sim? I forget but it was discussed here a while back. :book:

So, its redundant in this SIM to bring in the numbers. We know that if just a few exist, its enough for ED.

[FLANKERATOR]

I'm not really arguing over the other stuff, but the numbers thing doesn't really apply as a sound argument. Not in this product line. Much of the planes themselves Su-25T, KA-50 already had a very low run. Even with APG-63(v)1/2 armed F-15C's... isn't there only like 8 or 10 of them that could do 4xTWS launches as in the sim? I forget but it was discussed here a while back. :book:

So, its redundant in this SIM to bring in the numbers. We know that if just a few exist, its enough for ED.

 

Plus the fact Knaapo said SK "CAN" take RVV missile, that's surely different from"delivers" as in the SKM case....So it's more likely meaning that it's possible to do it upon request, and that's what the 104th team has presented in the new scenario (upgraded SK's).

 

@Pilo: I don't think firing ARH missiles in STT mode is as silly as you said...Mig-29S can do it, so why not a hypothetically upgraded 27SK...

[Cali]

I'm not really arguing over the other stuff, but the numbers thing doesn't really apply as a sound argument. Not in this product line. Much of the planes themselves Su-25T, KA-50 already had a very low run. Even with APG-63(v)1/2 armed F-15C's... isn't there only like 8 or 10 of them that could do 4xTWS launches as in the sim? I forget but it was discussed here a while back. :book:

So, its redundant in this SIM to bring in the numbers. We know that if just a few exist, its enough for ED.

 

You should read this book "F-15 Eagle Engaged", you'll see what the F-15 had early in it's life. It talks a lot about the radar and this is stuff we don't have in lock on.

 

http://www.amazon.com/F-15-Eagle-Engaged-successful-Aviation/dp/1846031699/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305019388&sr=1-1

 

@Flank, It's not silly firing R-77 in STT mode, you just have to treat them like Migs. At least you know when you have a missile incoming.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Cali

[MoGas]

I am ashamed and embarrassed that we run always OFF TOPIC, and I have to endure this disrespectful bahvior..

It is immature and childish..

:smilewink:

[Cali]

Matt, why would you need to balance anything out? Do you think wars are balanced? Do you think it was balanced when NATO went into Iraq? That F-16 that killed that Mig, I worked on it and have a picture of the story taken from the nose landing gear. We have never known what year lock on is, it is mixed because of some weapons we have and aircraft.

 

 

AIM-120A First production AIM-120A, delivered by Hughes in 1988

AIM-120B deliveries began in FY 94

AIM-120C deliveries began in FY 96.

[Cali]

Acutally Cali, i dont promote for artificial balancing by modders, but for simulated accuracy by the developers.

 

Gotcha, and actually the ER's are just as good as the 120's. All the missiles have issues in the game and real life. I've seen 120 miss from under 8nm while the guy was above me. I have seen ER's not even guide and go dumb right off the rail. I just caulk that up as a loss, they are call "miss"iles for a reason.

[Frostie]

I don't think that if Russia and the US went head to head the technology of their aircrafts would be as far apart as is represented in FC2.

Does it matter, not really we are not simulating who is the best here its just aircombat of varying levels. Personally I like the fact that all platforms have different weighted pros and cons.

[Cali]

I don't think that if Russia and the US went head to head the technology of their aircrafts would be as far apart as is represented in FC2.

Does it matter, not really we are not simulating who is the best here its just aircombat of varying levels. Personally I like the fact that all platforms have different weighted pros and cons.

 

You may be right, but you have to take into account all the other assets that come with that. AWACS, other support aircraft (tankers) and training just to name a few. The 51st are very good and if people wonder why.....it's their tactics and training. You guys are smart, you guy don't treat the game as "airquake". It's all fun and great to run in their like Rambo, but it sucks when you get blasted because of it.

 

I like that all jets in FC2 have different pro's and con's, that's what makes the game so fun.

[Frostie]

The term airquake has a derogatory vibe, to associate it with the 104th server is not good.

 

They have a very popular server which appeals to a wide range of players, adding mods to spice up the environment is a great way of keeping interest high, this can only be beneficial to FC and the DCS series as a whole. I've said my piece on how far this should go already but it doesn't mean im against what the 104th is doing.

While I prefer a team based style of play just shooting for fun every so often is a great way to keep interest up, you can't please all of the people all of the time, variety is good, no doubt.

[RIPTIDE]

Can anyone give me a working definition of "airquake"?

[MoGas]

The term airquake has a derogatory vibe, to associate it with the 104th server is not good.

 

They have a very popular server which appeals to a wide range of players, adding mods to spice up the environment is a great way of keeping interest high, this can only be beneficial to FC and the DCS series as a whole. I've said my piece on how far this should go already but it doesn't mean im against what the 104th is doing.

While I prefer a team based style of play just shooting for fun every so often is a great way to keep interest up, you can't please all of the people all of the time, variety is good, no doubt.

 

To the 51st, I would like to see GCI weekends more regular to join. As you know, I am a great fan of such environment...

 

:music_whistling:

[Case]

To the 51st, I would like to see GCI weekends more regular to join. As you know, I am a great fan of such environment...

 

It is very easy to setup the server for this, the big problem is getting qualified controllers that are willing to miss the fun and lose their voice after three hours of controlling :)

 

We'll see what we can do.

[EtherealN]

Can anyone give me a working definition of "airquake"?

 

My personal definition is that something is Airquake when it is played sort of the same way as you would play a Deathmatch game in Quake: no attempt at co-operation and with kills, not mission objectives, as the objective being sought by the player.

 

Obviously, there are issues in marking a solid border between something being and not being "airquake", but that's basically it for me. And obviously as well - most servers allow for airquake and more "serious" gameplay at the same time: some people on the server might be co-operating with mission objectives in mind while at the same time there's a few that just take off, chase for kills at random and possibly don't even bother landing. So as far as servers go, it is relatively uncommon to have a mission that is 100% airquake, but it is possibly to "play airquake" on a serious mission (you essentially just have to ingore the objectives and you can go ahead airquaking).

[MoGas]

It is very easy to setup the server for this, the big problem is getting qualified controllers that are willing to miss the fun and lose their voice after three hours of controlling :)

 

We'll see what we can do.

 

Would be cool, I guess for Blue side, one ore more 104th members (like myself) can handle it (in this case Breakshot can fly lol)....Soo someone for Red is needed...;)

[MoGas]

My personal definition is that something is Airquake when it is played sort of the same way as you would play a Deathmatch game in Quake: no attempt at co-operation and with kills, not mission objectives, as the objective being sought by the player.

 

Obviously, there are issues in marking a solid border between something being and not being "airquake", but that's basically it for me. And obviously as well - most servers allow for airquake and more "serious" gameplay at the same time: some people on the server might be co-operating with mission objectives in mind while at the same time there's a few that just take off, chase for kills at random and possibly don't even bother landing. So as far as servers go, it is relatively uncommon to have a mission that is 100% airquake, but it is possibly to "play airquake" on a serious mission (you essentially just have to ingore the objectives and you can go ahead airquaking).

 

Right, I dont see the 104th as a airquake server, in most cases our clients join TS, especialy the bomber and chopper guys, the 104th is too 99% on TS when flying, and thats with coordination, I am a teamplay tactic focused flyer too, soo that means if someone flys from us, it is teamplay (besides he is alone).

 

We know, we have a "airquake" kind of style player on our server, but thats how it is. You cant avoid it, but our interrest is on teamplay.

 

Moa, focused on his stats about landing and takeoffs, for this kind of issue, and there is still a WIP for that.

Edited May 10, 2011 by MoGas

[EtherealN]

Agreed MoGas. As I said: an "airquake server" is a relatively rare sight. "Airquake players" is more common.

 

Just in case I was misunderstood: I didn't mean to indicate that 104th server would be "airquake" as a server. It does have "airquake" players frequenting it with regularity - but that goes for pretty much all servers no matter what. The only servers I've really seen that could be considered 100% airquake are a few times in testing where "deathmatch" just happened to fit with what was being done. :P (I know there's some servers out there that I'd label "Airquake", but I haven't actually played on them myself, only gone by what I've been told about them, so I won't point any fingers.)

[Pilotasso]

I'm not really arguing over the other stuff, but the numbers thing doesn't really apply as a sound argument. Not in this product line. Much of the planes themselves Su-25T, KA-50 already had a very low run. Even with APG-63(v)1/2 armed F-15C's... isn't there only like 8 or 10 of them that could do 4xTWS launches as in the sim? I forget but it was discussed here a while back. :book:

So, its redundant in this SIM to bring in the numbers. We know that if just a few exist, its enough for ED.

 

OK, granted the KA-50 saw a production run of only a few dozen on the other hand the documentation was available. Which is more than I can say for the Su-27SM just like I said.

[nscode]

It is very easy to setup the server for this, the big problem is getting qualified controllers that are willing to miss the fun and lose their voice after three hours of controlling :)

 

We'll see what we can do.

 

Do what Soviets have done for years: teach the wives to do it :)

[VAOZoky]

As of february 2011 there are 4 squadrons of su27sm and they recived 4 brand new su27sm. They are planing to upgrade only 400 old planes and build rest of fleet from scratch. They are stationed in sector west and south. So if geogia attack russia again su27sm will fly there for sure

[Moa]

So if geogia attack russia again su27sm will fly there for sure

 

Politics are not allowed on this server. Be *very* careful with statements like "Georgia attacked Russia" as this is a political statement not a statement of fact. The International community/United Nations consider South Ossetia as an autonomous (de-facto independent) region within the borders of Georgia until the annexation by Russia in 2008. Such subjects should be avoided in statements (The UN findings found that Georgia started attacking South Ossetia [in response to shelling of Georgian villages], not that Georgia attacked Russia - so please watch the accuracy of your statements).

 

Otherwise, thanks for the information about the four new Su-27 squadrons.

[Moa]

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.

 

Very interesting Case. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. I was hoping that it was something bone-headed I was doing but was forced to conclude that the LUA callbacks are quite unreliable. Hence, I'm re-writing my stats to rely more on the the non-callback log entries (not just as useful cross-checks).

[nscode]

Making political comments is not a good way to stear a topic away from politics. Just continue with relevant info, and/or use the report button to call moderators' attention to a post.

Edited May 10, 2011 by nscode

[Cali]

The term airquake has a derogatory vibe, to associate it with the 104th server is not good.

 

I did not associate airquake with the 104th and hopefully no one took what I said as that. But that is how some people treat it and other servers. Unless you are in a closed server or doing some sort of mission with coop it's gonna turn into one by people not trying to fly with a good purpose.

 

Can anyone give me a working definition of "airquake"?

 

To me airquake is flying just to get as many kills as you can without any regards to if you die or not. Take off, fly, kill a bandit, get killed and repeat over and over again. Like many people do in "First Person Shooters" they don't care they just want the action.

 

@ Crunch, I was able to join by IP, I'll try later and see if it will let me. The server still doesn't show up in the server list.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Cali

[FLANKERATOR]

@ Crunch, I was able to join by IP, I'll try later and see if it will let me. The server still doesn't show up in the server list.

 

I had same issue back in time with the 104th server not showing up on the list, then I had to disable the anti-virus resident protection and it worked afterwards. Might be useful for you.