Next DCS (Russian) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Boberro]

LMAO

 

Again thread where answers for OP take about 1/10 of whole data. Rest of talking as always regards the moaning about how p00r Su-27 is and F-15 is super ultra mega killer.

 

Touching OP sentence about missing Su-27. Yes it'd be very nice to have Sukhoi family in DCS, even theirs rusty Su-27S (K) to which manual has been available for long time.

[Silver_Dragon]

Su-27S (K) to which manual has been available for long time.

 

The main problem here will be Sukhoi or Russian state authorize to ED to make that air plane without put you legal actions or put the military secret over the table (remember Northrop-Grumman issue vs Ubisoft/Maddox Games)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=357349&postcount=9

[Pyroflash]

All I want for christmas is a datalink for my F-15C.

[Silver_Dragon]

All I want for christmas is a datalink for my F-15C.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2001/dot-e/airforce/01fdl.html

Need simulate Datalink 16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16

[danilop]

...Rest of talking as always regards the moaning about how p00r Su-27 is and F-15 is super ultra mega killer...

 

I clearly remember (Lockon) days when it was exactly the opposite - F15 guys crying and moaning all over the internet! :)

 

Anyway, ED is listening to our moanings (whining works :)) and SU27 got updated (promised 6DOF, tamed down AIM120/R77) - enough for me to part with hard earned cash and jump on FC3 wagon!

 

Got me license 15 minutes ago ...

 

Now, where did I put my dusty Flanker BFM notes ... :pilotfly:

Edited December 25, 2012 by danilop

[Cali]

I clearly remember (Lockon) days when it was exactly the opposite - F15 guys crying and moaning all over the internet! :)

 

Anyway, ED is listening to our moanings (whining works :)) and SU27 got updated (promised 6DOF, tamed down AIM120/R77) - enough for me to part with hard earned cash and jump on FC3 wagon!

 

Got me license 15 minutes ago ...

 

Now, where did I put my dusty Flanker BFM notes ... :pilotfly:

 

Then you understand why, AIM-9's that couldn't hit a target at 2 miles. Both 120 and R-77's were ummm, untweaked and needed to be fixed bad. People LA ET's at 20 miles, people using auto ECM a.k.a macro babies. P.S We are still missing very important stuff on the F-15 that's been there since it's early days of flight.......should I go on?

[danilop]

Yeah ...

 

Dodging AIM-120 was really easy back then - put it on 3/9 then head on, diving at 20-30 degrees with full AB, pull max G in the vertical when you see AMRAAM trail in front of you ... worked in 99% of cases ... :lol:

 

However, I'm looking forward to more realistic modeling. BVR tactics on squad level will be much more important, because single SU-27 now has a slim chance defeating F-15 starting in BVR.

[Manuel]

Yeah ...

 

Dodging AIM-120 was really easy back then - put it on 3/9 then head on, diving at 20-30 degrees with full AB, pull max G in the vertical when you see AMRAAM trail in front of you ... worked in 99% of cases ... :lol:

 

However, I'm looking forward to more realistic modeling. BVR tactics on squad level will be much more important, because single SU-27 now has a slim chance defeating F-15 starting in BVR.

 

Thanks for your hint on avoding the aim120. We did a dogfight last days (f15 vs su33) and nothing could stand the aim 120 in range and accuracy. At least from my point of view (I was sitting in the f15 :P)

 

Cheers and merry Christmas!

[Teknetinium]

Didn't you hear, Cali? The only reason possible for not wanting what Tek wants is being an F-15 fanboy. :D

 

In fact, even Viper is now exposed as an F-15 fanboy since he wanted procedure to be followed with clear feature requests/bug reports having attendant information. Only F-15 fanboys do that, it's how we keep the reds down. :)

 

 

Why are you putting words in my moth, As moderator you should know better. No one has called anyone for names, Im Su-27 fan boy who wants a realistic sim where both sides get as much attention, I guise you did see how much attention Russian bird get in FC beta, So I have to whine o there will be no reason for changing it.

 

he is playing word games whit his bug list, I made a list of X factors but it seems you all know them.

 

I cant belive we have moderators who behave such.

[danilop]

Thanks for your hint on avoding the aim120

 

You're welcome, but I doubt that this tactics is still possible, because of the extensive remodeling of missile dynamics.

[Teknetinium]

EtherealN You are talking here like you would know something, I talk to people as well, But lets keep this to FC2 and FC3 where F-15 whit actives is better BVR platform, But you just cant swallow that Aim-120 is over modeled. ED confirmed that them self, and I suspected that before they did so, so eat it up and accept the fact, When 1.2.3 is out we can evaluate and se if its better.!!!!

 

R-77/aim-120 would lose more track then they do in FC3 or FC2 be sure on that!!! What we have in FC3 is very limited seeker behavior in both directions and magic RWR.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Teknetinium

[Manuel]

You're welcome, but I doubt that this tactics is still possible, because of the extensive remodeling of missile dynamics.

 

any new tactics ;) ?

[danilop]

Hey Tek, I'm on your side!! :lol:

 

:beer:

 

P.S.

Even if it is overmodeled, with proper tactics (trap) it's possible to defeat anything - look at RL examples ... ;)

[speckfire]

Hey Tek, I'm on your side!! :lol:

 

:beer:

 

P.S.

Even if it is overmodeled, with proper tactics (trap) it's possible to defeat anything - look at RL examples ... ;)

 

Zoltan??? Is that you??? ;)

[RoaringBones]

ahh i remember reading about that back in the day.when reporting the news was worth actually reporting and watching..*during the Bernard Shaw Years* the man knows how to report!

[EtherealN]

Overmodeled? No it's not.

 

It, like all the missiles, have things missing and there are other things that attempt to adjust for this to make them perform as per available data. This work is not yet complete for the AFM missiles. If you have more actual data available, please share it. But when requested for such, you retreat into discussions about game balancing, but have yet to comment on my proposed alternative.

 

As for things missing in FC3 beta for the Flanker? It's beta. ;)

Now you know you'll get not only a new and sexy external model but a 6DOF cockpit as well. Happy? :)

 

On the rest,

 

I remember how F-15 fanboy were crying over ETs seeker in override mode

 

That's you introducing the "fanboy" concept to this thread. And not long after that:

 

Ill stop posting my opinions so you can live in your dream world where aim-120 is faster has better explosives and tracks better at all attitudes and obviously turns better whit longer legs as well then ERs.

 

That's you telling Viper that he is favoritizing the AIM-120 through his "dream world", which given what he flies and likes and which squadron he is in, is hilarious. :)

 

It's like telling Boberro that he's an A-10C fanboy.

 

R-77/aim-120 would lose more track then they do in FC3 or FC2 be sure on that!!!

 

Source please.

I'm serious about this Tek. We need more than your gut feeling or say-so. We need real documentation. Your gut feeling is not worth more than anyone elses gut feeling - unless you're a contracted SME, your word on it's own counts for nothing. This applies to testers as well. When we ask for something to be corrected, we need to make our case. And as Viper has already offered you - get him exact definitions of what is wrong and demonstrate through documentation that it actually is wrong, and he will personally bring this forward. That's your chance, take it! Viper flies red, T-Frogs even, so I'm sure he'd love weaker AIM-120s. ;)

Edited December 25, 2012 by EtherealN

[Teknetinium]

Overmodeled? No it's not.

 

It, like all the missiles, have things missing and there are other things that attempt to adjust for this to make them perform as per available data. This work is not yet complete for the AFM missiles. If you have more actual data available, please share it. But when requested for such, you retreat into discussions about game balancing, but have yet to comment on my proposed alternative.

 

As for things missing in FC3 beta for the Flanker? It's beta. ;)

Now you know you'll get not only a new and sexy external model but a 6DOF cockpit as well. Happy? :)

 

On the rest,

 

 

 

That's you introducing the "fanboy" concept to this thread. And not long after that:

 

 

 

That's you telling Viper that he is favoritizing the AIM-120 through his "dream world", which given what he flies and likes and which squadron he is in, is hilarious. :)

 

It's like telling Boberro that he's an A-10C fanboy.

 

 

 

Source please.

I'm serious about this Tek. We need more than your gut feeling or say-so. We need real documentation. Your gut feeling is not worth more than anyone elses gut feeling - unless you're a contracted SME, your word on it's own counts for nothing. This applies to testers as well. When we ask for something to be corrected, we need to make our case. And as Viper has already offered you - get him exact definitions of what is wrong and demonstrate through documentation that it actually is wrong, and he will personally bring this forward. That's your chance, take it! Viper flies red, T-Frogs even, so I'm sure he'd love weaker AIM-120s. ;)

 

 

I dont see your documentation Im serious.

I belive as well that ED will do their best to find the right performance from the data they have, Its just that Some of you even when the missile is over modeled claim its not even if ED say clearly that it is.

 

http://www.mars.slupsk.pl/fort/sukhoi/su-30-ru-27sm.htm

there is some Su-27SM3 waiting for you at Krasnadar.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html

Edited December 25, 2012 by Teknetinium

[Cali]

Tek, care to comment on the known missing features on the F-15 that have been with it since it's baby stages? How do you know a missile is over or under modeled? Have you fired one and did studies? Did you help in some stages of development? Have you been behind the closed doors of the missile makers. Thanks for the links.

If we are generous with assumptions and consider growth potential,

Stuff like this always make me wonder, cause they really don't know either. The above quote was taken from one of the links you provided. I saw a few other things in there that is assumptions also. They wouldn't really know how they work unless they had the piece of equipment and tested them against each other.

 

 

I found this interesting, they are talking about the Irbis-E (Snow Leopard) hybrid phased array.

In Track While Scan (TWS) mode the radar can handle 30 targets simultaneously, and provide guidance for two simultaneous shots using a semi-active missile like the R-27 series, or eight simultaneous shots using an active missile like the RVV-AE/R-77 or ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M.

Public figures and we all know that those figures are not going to show or tell us what it can really do.

NIIP do not claim superiority over the F-22A's APG-77 AESA, yet their cited performance figures exceed the public (and no doubt heavily sanitised) range figures for the APG-77.

NIIP have publicly cited detection range performance of 350 to 400 km (190 to 215 NMI), which assuming a Russian industry standard 2.5m2 target, is consistent with the 2008 APA model for a radar using ~10W rated TR modules, which in turn is the power rating for the modules used in the Zhuk AE prototypes

Saw this in the Endnotes, what radar do we have in FC3?

[1] There are numerous reports of PLA dissatisfaction with the N001 series radars, supported by reports of the Pero demonstrator sale to China. This presents the likely outcome of the PLA-AF acquiring the Irbis E equipped Su-35, but also performing block upgrades to the extant Su-27SK/SMK and Su-30MKK fleets as immediate force structure expansion costs taper off after 2010.

[SmokeyTheLung]

I dont see your documentation Im serious.

 

Good point

[EtherealN]

Good point

 

No, the point is very simple:

 

If I, as a tester, is going to go to the devs and say "hey guys, this is wrong, fix please" - they're going to ask me to back it up.

 

How do you, or anyone else, then expect me to go to them based solely on your word? The only people whose word would count are contracted SMEs, and they speak to the devs, not us testers. Unless I have documentation, I might think something is wrong, and I might even have good reason to think so, but there still remains several hurdles:

 

1) My private throughts as an amateur in the field of missile technology count for absolutely nothing. ED however does have people with considerably more background in that and other field, SME's when they need to know more, and documentation resources that go beyond reading crap internet sites like Kopp's. May I remind you that we are talking about a company that have worked in association with Kamov, had highly decorated Russian Air Force pilots as SMEs, and done contract work for actual airforces? And I certainly hope I don't have to explain why documentation obtained through such sources cannot be shared with the internets.

 

2) If documentation supporting my position or gut feeling or whatever is produced, they will go "hm" about it. But there are always problems in available data - so there might be question about whether given stats etcetera are due to employment or technology.

 

3) We then reach the point where it becomes a question whether the fudge factors that do remain, and there will always remain such because no air force will ever give ED full details on an in-service system, are such that changes cause problems with other things. As a hypothetical example - let's say we find out that a given missile achieved a given Pk in a given situation. We however do not know exactly how it achieved said Pk. We have a simulation that achieves the same Pk. Does this mean the simulation is right? No. It might be that one thing is wrong in the positive direction, another is wrong in the negative direction, and the end result just gives the same Pk in that situation. Then find correcting documentation for one of those errors, correct it, and suddenly - even though something was corrected - the end result in-sim is a missile that suddenly went from a correct Pk to a wrong one.

 

In that last case, I would support doing that change - if the documentation is there. The resultant over/under-powering can be corrected for by approximation. But doing it because someone on the internet just feels it's wrong because they want to defend the honor of their favourite aircraft? No.

 

Lastly, there is this weird concept of "over-modeling". As with so many things Tek says (while he is busy dodging all questions given to him - still curious for thoughts on my proposed alternative regarding pilot behaviour and aircraft employment situations online), it's extremely ambiguous as to what it actually means. Does "over-modeling" mean that the model is more complex than necessary? (Which would be a serious fault in engineering, but not adverse to the performance of the missiles in question. The "more moving parts than necessary" type of engineering error.) From what Tek has been saying, I doubt this is what he means. If he means that certain parameters are exhaggerated in order to compensate for other problems? Then yes, of course it is, all missiles, bombs and rockets and even some cannon rounds are! Example: warhead yield for all said weapons are exhaggerated, all of them, because the model does not include fragmentation. It's all blast. Thus the blast "model" has to be overdone to approximate the damage to the target that would be done by both factors. In that case yes, it's there, and it applies to everything, not just the AIM-120. (And I suspect it'll be a while before we can get away from that - people are complaining about slideshows with cluster munitions, and it would get worse still if this particular issue got "fixed" on current technology.)

 

If we're talking about seeker re-acquisition capabilities and scan zones etcetera - perhaps. I'm not sure. This might be compensating for the fact that the real missile has a datalink and would thus be a lot less prone to failures caused by radar reflection issues - a case of it not being possible to model the real stuff because it's way way secret so it would all be complete guesswork anyhow, and in that case we can get the appropriate results through other things being tweaked instead.

 

I will say one thing, in all respect, to Tek: I think that a major part of his problem in these discussions, and this is not the first time, is that he's just not clear at all in his posts. There's these talks of "impression of realism" that he has been talking about previously and a strange mix of controlling for people's behaviour online that I still do not know whether he actually means that the missile itself is wrong or whether he feels it ends up getting used wrong online. His lack of comment on my proposed alternative for online play does not help clarifying this, unfortunately.

Edited December 26, 2012 by EtherealN

[Cali]

I think that should clear it up a little bit Ethereal.

[leafer]

E is the one man on this planet that can talk Chuck Norris out of whooping his behind. :D

[Cali]

E is the one man on this planet that can talk Chuck Norris out of whooping his behind. :D

 

That's still not possible, E will catch a roundhouse to the face. You better go hide for even mentioning that.

[Steel Jaw]

I think that should clear it up a little bit Ethereal.

 

I agree, but don't count on it. ;)

[leafer]

Nah, E will just disintegrate into a wall of text and respawn with a gat and E's gat only shoot profound logic. :D