Jump to content

Next DCS (Russian) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List


Milene

Next DCS (Russian) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List  

2192 members have voted

  1. 1. Next DCS (Russian) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

    • MiG-23MLA 'Flogger-G'
      260
    • Sukhoi Su-27SM3 'Flanker'
      590
    • Mikoyan MiG-29M 'Fulcrum-E'
      323
    • Mikoyan MiG-25PDSL 'Foxbat-E'
      162
    • Sukhoi SU-25KM 'Scorpion'
      75
    • Sukhoi Su-22M5 'Fitter'
      79
    • Sukhoi Su-35BM 'Flanker-E'
      290
    • Sukhoi Su-24M2 'Fencer-D'
      161
    • Sukhoi PAK FA
      90
    • Mikoyan MiG-35 'Fulcrum-F'
      174


Recommended Posts

Im not third party modeler, Im sorry me posting basic info about Su-27MKI :)

Could you plz show me one video of F-15E MFD in action? (not a video of a guided bomb drop)

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/technology/cockpit

 

I would like to see how this ones are working in Su-27sm as well.

http://rpkb.ru/eng/index.php_page_id=15.html

 

You really don't get it, do you?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Anyway, I was looking for polls - How the fans, members, developers think about it. And the polls shows till now we need to have the flankers updated even they 27, 30Mki or whatever. Same methods that you guys done for F-15's and american jets. I don't understand how you get Su-27's on first place and now why it so difficult.

 

Why do you keep saying "Same methods that you guys done for F-15's and american jets" The Su-27 is getting a 6DOF pit, we don't know how long they have been planning on doing this. Maybe it started after the hordes of people crying out for it.....maybe it started months before that when they were making FC3. I'm guessing you are talking about the A-10, did you forget what came out before that and why the A-10C was made?

i7-4820k @ 3.7, Windows 7 64-bit, 16GB 1866mhz EVGA GTX 970 2GB, 256GB SSD, 500GB WD, TM Warthog, TM Cougar MFD's, Saitek Combat Pedals, TrackIR 5, G15 keyboard, 55" 4K LED

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just catching up; yet this surprised me:

 

You really don't get it, do you?

 

After all this time, did you honestly expected anything less?

 

Let's recap:

 

Viper asks for the umpteenth time for something more concrete than opinion. Tracks. Empirical data. Nada. Then he even throws out both of those requests, comes back and says "hey, just give me a system/technology/singular aspect to look at".

 

In reply, he gets told he's "making (him) into an idiot".

 

Then you come in with a reasonable tone- giving him some credit, but also making certain that the recognition of descriptive faults is there: essentially, a somewhat educated opinion (with discernible information limits) with a heaping side of rant.

 

Very reasonable. You reinforce that lines of communication are open. Then attempt to reassert why the information that is being provided isn't kosher, which is responded to by way of temper tantrum, at the point where moderators are humans, too.

 

Because "moderators should know better".

 

I'm left to believe that all of the banging of your head against the same brick wall has left the gray matter somewhat stunned to have come back with "You really don't get it, do you?".

 

Frankly, I'm going to applaud all three of you (yourself, GG, and Viper) for having tolerated this as long as it has gone on, and having been allowed to degrade as many threads as it has.

 

The truly unfortunate part is that we keep seeing the same thing come up over and over again, and it's not claims of realism- it's supposition of imbalance. Tek can't truly quantify his opinion based on true, macro level data, and instead brings the ad hominem attacks with a micro- level fixation on publicly available commercial materials.

 

As has been mentioned in multiple previous threads, both with raw data and the laws of physics, it doesn't work out the way he wants. So he instead claims "imbalance!", which, for those who do not understand what true force balance is in a simulation, but are instead borne of the "even-steven"-like world of online MP titles such as the aforementioned Quake, is a death knell.

 

The really funny part, E, is that you hit on the same key that I myself have been a proponent of previously: balance through quantity, and the application of such through the correct tactics. The exposition on such was referred to as a Belgian breakfast treat. Yet, this is method of operational level system balance not acceptable to Tek; he tells us that not only is the AIM-120 "overmodeled", but the R-27ER is "undermodeled" (when the real world experience of the R-27 family tells us that the PK should essentially be 0.0). Most are currently operating with the understanding that there remain to be some significant changes with the missile modeling due to conversion of old data into the advanced missile model; even this isn't enough to placate (especially since we know that for whatever bonuses the Alamo will receive, AMRAAM will benefit from as well).

 

It's especially silly when one considers the nature of the doctrinal system that the Flanker and Fulcrum grew from- "quantity as quality". Sure, the Su-27 and MiG-29 were the most advanced types that the Soviets ever devised, yet they were (and still are) generally one half, to one full generation behind technologically given the types they were built to combat at the individual systems level. This cannot be refuted; behind closed doors their own materials confirm this. Such was the method that they were designed to fight.

 

Yet, over and over again the lines are drawn the same; it's like attempting to teach rocket science to preschoolers.

 

Tek, here and now, I'm going to ask you a straight up question, along the lines that I've stated before:

 

Why is it, for someone who claims to desire "realism", are you clearly unwilling to fight a realistic fight against a superior BVR opponent; therefore, accepting realistic exchange rates for the application of reasonably realistic tactics (to the extent that are currently capable of being modeled within DCS, and to what is known within the public arena with regards to respective performance and quality)?

 

I ask this because E has presented a very reasonable methodology for generating effective operational balance within the manner by which both the PVO and VVS would have been expected to operate against NATO; that being with a superior numerical advantage.

 

In whatever way its done- two Su/MiG slots per F-15, and/or Su/MiG slots including a wingman, or additional AI flights into the FEBA, THIS is where balance is to be had in MP. It's not going to be found in exchange rate, and it's not going to be found in bell curving the munitions. Flankers would not be more effective than the Eagle at generating and maintaining air superiority by any means other *than* sortie/airframe rate. Not going to happen. Not going to happen technologically, through doctrine, or tactics. Sorties. Airframes in the sky, along with other types of more numerous (than NATO) assets.

 

And I also ask this because it is overly clear that you will not like any solution that does not put the ER as, not even a near peer (as the empirical data from within DCS, not the real world, shows is the case), but as a superior weapon to the AIM-120.

 

Seriously- what is the problem with simulating reality on its own terms? Why are you clearly afraid of the superiority of the AIM-120, instead of willing to work the problem in the same fashion that the Russian Air Force has had to for TWENTY YEARS?

 

Good gravy- you don't hear them coming out and whining that the US, the UK, and their most favored friends have access to the finest active homing air to air weapon currently available. They wake up every morning, and go to bed every night, with the knowledge they've got to confront that weapon head on; and they do so with dignity.

 

Contrasted, this continual banter is embarrassing. For nearly two decades, many weren't even getting 50 hours a year- that's not current in a Cessna or a Piper, let alone a fourth generation combat aircraft, yet they were willing to man up and face a cold, hard reality. But you find operating under such terms unacceptable?

 

So let's be honest- what reality do you want to simulate? Because you clearly don't want to simulate the real world, with the superior BVR platform being superior, otherwise you'd be clamoring for additional updates to the *Eagle*, not the Flanker and Fulcrum. The F-15 is an absolute shell of its combat capability, and yet your in-game reality is so twisted up in a knot that anything that would attract interest into flying the Eagle is classified as bias, when...

 

I hate to tell you...

 

THE REAL WORLD IS BIASED IN THE F-15's FAVOR.

 

So I'd leave you by directing you to think on what you actually want to simulate. Which is not to say that I don't already know what your answer is going to be. And that's fine- no skin off my back.

 

But as I've also said before- you cannot make the claim to ask for "realism" by towing such a line.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmmmmmmm....

 

some "east-west duel" facts ;)

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

 

About the only subject matter Carlo Kopp has ever been correct on has been the fact that the F-22 Raptor is the second coming of God (the first being the F-15, and he still thinks that's got RAM mode in the APG-63).

 

Call me when the RAAF isn't still laughing at him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the only subject matter Carlo Kopp has ever been correct on has been the fact that the F-22 Raptor is the second coming of God (the first being the F-15, and he still thinks that's got RAM mode in the APG-63).

 

Call me when the RAAF isn't still laughing at him.

 

 

Is this guy serious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, Google "Carlo Kopp joke" to see the underlying *professional* opinion of him as an SME. Note that the only people to quote him as a knowledgeable source on air combat are the media, and from time to time your run of the mill Chinese or Indian air power fan.

 

Then, act on it: converse with actual pertinent members of the RAAF, the RAF, the RN, the USN, and the USAF. Not line techs- pilots and doctrinal SME's. Find some on any number of resources online, and ask them directly.

 

Then come back and ask that name question with disbelief. I dare you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

You do have to take into account though that any member of the forces will not ever be at liberty to say his forces are not as good etc... you should know this, so I would not take for granted what they say either... heck how many times have I seen some pilots talk about their weapons etc and how easily they will defeat the enemy... its a joke... its so obvious they need to make them look good and powerful. Which air force in the world, especially one that is considered as one of the best in the planet, to admit they have stronger enemy?

 

I am of opinion that real truth is somewhere in the middle.

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice the empty "References" section. And notice his laughable exposition on the J-20; his estimations of raw turn and acceleration are denied by the laws of physics, let alone his estimations of its relative stath capabilities.

 

And that's just one article. It would take me all day to fully expound the details that debunk his Flanker/SH treatise.

 

I'm sorry- I take my lessons on the subject of air combat, detection, and performance from individuals who perform the role, as opposed to a cell phone engineer who claims to have *FLOWN* the F/A-18 (having taken a ride). ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

You do have to take into account though that any member of the forces will not ever be at liberty to say his forces are not as good etc... you should know this, so I would not take for granted what they say either...

 

That is not always the case. Depending on the laws of the nation in question and the nature of the required public accountability, it is quite easy to find volumes of examples where members of the armed services will admit that they either lack the tools, or simply have no knowledge or ability to combat specific threats or perceived tactics. Where the line is drawn in such locales is the nature of the *solutions * they have (strategic/tactical) for threats they know how to beat, but which exist on the bleeding edge of development.

 

However, where it concerns Kopp is a long series of half truths and outright fabrications, amounting to public grandstanding, using only partial details about the applied physics to try and affect policy.

 

For example, I still get a good laugh about canards AND LEX on the J-20 being superior to both PAK-FA and JSF. Microwaves call BS, but it makes good copy for the magazine subscribers.

 

Christ- the same guy wanted to upgrade F-111s to be AMRAAM capable to engage Flankers, as though THAT was a better solution than the F/A-18E/F OR JSF. Hell, the man argues that external weapons carriage is a signature liability for the Bug on one side of his lips, while stating that the Russians will equalize signature within five years (now seven years ago) using RAM and a centerline carrier. Meanwhile, Boeing has been testing a centerline munition pod concept for the Super Hornet for years.

 

What's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander in his confines, and that's the height of hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not always the case. Depending on the laws of the nation in question and the nature of the required public accountability, it is quite easy to find volumes of examples where members of the armed services will admit that they either lack the tools, or simply have no knowledge or ability to combat specific threats or perceived tactics. Where the line is drawn in such locales is the nature of the *solutions * they have (strategic/tactical) for threats they know how to beat, but which exist on the bleeding edge of development.

 

However, where it concerns Kopp is a long series of half truths and outright fabrications, amounting to public grandstanding, using only partial details about the applied physics to try and affect policy.

 

For example, I still get a good laugh about canards AND LEX on the J-20 being superior to both PAK-FA and JSF. Microwaves call BS, but it makes good copy for the magazine subscribers.

 

Christ- the same guy wanted to upgrade F-111s to be AMRAAM capable to engage Flankers, as though THAT was a better solution than the F/A-18E/F OR JSF. Hell, the man argues that external weapons carriage is a signature liability for the Bug on one side of his lips, while stating that the Russians will equalize signature within five years (now seven years ago) using RAM and a centerline carrier. Meanwhile, Boeing has been testing a centerline munition pod concept for the Super Hornet for years.

 

What's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander in his confines, and that's the height of hypocrisy.

 

I'd agree with you, but I think what Kuky was trying to say was a LOT less severe as what you perceived it as. I don't think he was supporting the man, but instead insisting that you put more faith in factual information (manuals) rather than people, who, lets face it, apart from their status as SMEs, have no more weight on their opinions of a country's superiority over another than anyone else. If they did, they probably wouldn't be saying anything. That sort of DACT information used to defeat enemy systems and tactics tends to be one of the more heavily guarded secrets in today's world. Perhaps just as heavily guarded as the systems themselves are.

 

I'm not saying anything bad about these people though. It is true that SME's are REALLY smart people. Most of them have spent a great amount of time working in their fields, however their status as SMEs generally ends at their specific fields, and does not USUALLY extend into any grand scope. There are specific SME's whose job it is to analyze enemy equipment and capabilities, however those people's lips are completely sealed, and I doubt even a company like ED has much, if any, public access to these people.


Edited by Pyroflash

If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont mess with the cell phone engineer´s , you know what einstein does before e=mc2 ? ...and think your f-15 without e=mc2 ;)

 

c, being the speed of light in a vacuum, that is, the rate at which a microwave is directed from a radar emitter towards a given target. The return comes back at practically the same speed as it was originally transmitted.

 

Which, funny enough, will bounce off those canards Kopp believes are so very stealthy, as they trim out at differing angles apart from the profile of the wing at subsonic, transsonic, and supersonic speeds. Which, is to say that it *can* get supersonic, because the engine programs are having more teething problems than the TF30. And that's saying something.

 

You know, saying something about increasing the RCS. Which negates the whole exercise.

 

So, I don't know about your hero Mr. Kopp, but I'd rather be sitting in the Super Bug with an ASEA emitter, backed up by AMRAAM. Cause while I might be slow, I will still bust the Mach and will find you first. And given the dead weight that is your profile, out turn you in most every regime (which is to say, including the low speed fight which, again, Kopp said was a bonus to the Flanker and not a real plus for the Super Hornet).

 

And his new fixation will get spanked like the red headed kitbashed step child that is is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with you, but I think what Kuky was trying to say was a LOT less severe as what you perceived it as. I don't think he was supporting the man, but instead insisting that you put more faith in factual information (manuals) rather than people, who, lets face it, apart from their status as SMEs, have no more weight on their opinions of a country's superiority over another than anyone else.

 

I didn't think he was either (defending Kopp). Take the comments as two separate subjects- the discussion about frankness as one, then splashing Carlo as another.

 

On the SME thing, I've been graced with exposure to a number of individuals who, combined, run the gamut on the subject matter, both current force and retired, all with an interest in modeling the subject in a fashion. While none can answer specific questions about capabilities outright, as conversations run long the particulars of their background experience comes into play. When you watch them drive for particular results in a given area within a specific region of accuracy, you pick up in the subtleties on what is important. The analytics matter. And a part of the ability to practice effective critical thinking rubs off.

 

That's what's important for us on the outside of that realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ- the same guy wanted to upgrade F-111s to be AMRAAM capable to engage Flankers, as though THAT was a better solution than the F/A-18E/F OR JSF

 

I could see that as way of saving money to keep existing fleet of F-111 and give them ability to defend themselves during strike mission, and no need for escort... this is not completely insane idea, it just depends what scenario you put it into.

 

Now I have no clue how much each options costs and his reasoning behind it so can't say its crazy idea or not.

 

Anywho, I would prefer to sit in latest Flanker version then in Super Bug :)


Edited by Kuky

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not as fighters, for self defense, but that would depend on the threat.

If you could do the same job with cheaper F-111 instead of F-35 wouldn't that be "better" option? That's the reason why you don't replace all of the planes in inventory when new aircraft arrive... yes they are better but the cost is too high.


Edited by Kuky

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Tek's main points got lost in there somewhere :lol:

 

There is an aspect of realism that has to do with balance. Not the kind of balance to dumb something down, or boost something up in order to get a 50/50 scenario, but a balance of modeling both side to similar extent.

 

Let's use the ill-phrased terminology as an example*; Say you model an aircraft to 75% of its RL capability and give the other side 25% of its RL capability. This will give the "75%" aircraft an advantage over the "25%" one. Wheres IRL, both sides might be more equally match (not 50/50 though). To phrase it differently, it's not realistic for the superior aircraft to face under modeled aircraft.

 

Tek's second point is that in MP, because of AFM (and especially Russian missiles being a lot worse than in FC2), behavior of virtual pilots do not reflect behavior of RL pilots. F-15s gets too comfortable with LWs. On top of that the seeker of the 120/77 are quite wild when it comes to maddoging. This is a cause for frustration, but as you said, missiles are being worked on.

 

* Note that I'm not referring to any FC aircraft here.

 

PS. Since this is a wishlist forum; I want a TTI timer on my HUD and burning aircraft to be less lethal (FCS systems turned off?)


Edited by X-man
  • Like 1

 

2075291193_EDSig.png.650cd56f2b9a043311112721c4215a47.png

64th Aggressor Squadron
Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron
TS: 135.181.115.54
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....To phrase it differently, it's not realistic for the superior aircraft to face under modeled aircraft.....

 

....and especially Russian missiles being a lot worse than in FC2....

 

That is exactly why I started the Bug thread:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1637299#post1637299

 

If the issues perceived by Tek are already there, why the moaning? FC3 is after all in Beta and a WIP, with all the resolved issues to be attended to in due course.

 

If the issues he has a problem with are not there, why are they not there? Not for lack of trying in trying to get the relevant info from him, that's for sure. It's worse than pulling teeth at times.

 

 

....Since this is a wishlist forum; I want a TTI timer on my HUD....

 

Unresolved Item #95 on the bug list.

 

 

....and burning aircraft to be less lethal....

 

Related to resolved Item #83.

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot is lost in translation when native English speakers or those that have spoken it their whole lives are engaged in debate with the those who maybe haven't mastered the language. It does seem at points that certain people have struggled to coherently get a point across, and then become frustrated.

  • Like 1

Intel i7 6700k, Asus GTX1070, 16gb DDR4 @ 3200mhz, CH Fighterstick, CH Pro Throttle, CH Pro Rudder Pedals, Samsung Evo 850 SSD @ 500GB * 2, TrackIR 5 and 27" monitor running at 2560 * 1440, Windows 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot is lost in translation when native English speakers or those that have spoken it their whole lives are engaged in debate with the those who maybe haven't mastered the language. It does seem at points that certain people have struggled to coherently get a point across, and then become frustrated.

 

This is very true, which is also why it is vitally important to keep all issues that are reported down to the shortest, simplest explanation possible, even if it means that a certain 'bugged/perceived so' behaviour can be broken down to x number of parts.

 

Breaking it down like this means that the point will definitely get across and the matter attended to. Break a matter down to it's single, constituent parts and deal with every part individually - that way you are certain not to miss anything. Will also ensure that we who are attendind to the reporting ensure that you are getting your point across.

 

It is easier catching a tennis ball that is thrown at us than the entire contents of the kitchen-sink that is thrown all at once :)


Edited by 159th_Viper

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...