Western biased .

[EtherealN]

Let's please drop that line of discussion.

 

Criticism is good and desired, but should be delivered in a respectful and constructive manner. Debating the nature of criticism isn't going ot help anyone. If there's a problem, we moderators will handle it.

 

Thankyou.

[whitehot]

An example would be a 0.5 litre of beer at any bar, costing about $16 per unit

 

oh man

[CDR Spectre]

Fine , be great if CoD just had spitfires wouldnt it !!!

 

Be glad ED is around I certainly am ..... but you make it sound like their doing it for free .

 

Ive spent over a 1000 pounds on ED stuff , and a TM Warthog and tir5 ..... and as I said i prefer to fly blue ..... and others prefer to fly red . So , give them that choice , just because your not interested , others are .

 

Ok first of all your sarcasm was both duly noted as well as unappreciated.

Second, I can't say I've spent as much as you on the same hardware and software because I don't know or care what the exchange rate is. Third, my point was that, no matter what aircraft is done, somebody isn't going to be happy. This bickering because one aircraft was picked over another is completely pointless. So instead of continuing, why don't we just enjoy what we've spent our hard-earned money on and leave it at that?

 

EDIT: Would have responded sooner but I just now saw the post.

[Ripcord]

Russia traditionally (from the USSR times) has paranoid secrecy in everything military.

Moreover, recently a draconian anti-spy law was adopted (more likely to suppress the opposition, but still) which makes you to be VERY careful in everything involving military and foreigners if you don't want to end up in jail.

 

I heard that.

 

I used live over there for almost 11 years. Most of the time I lived out in the Russian Far East. You almost cannot avoid running into military units there, they are almost everywhere you look, but you need to give it a good try, just in case. I was pretty aware that I was potentially a walking promotion for some counterintel officer with a well-developed imagination, so I really did my best to steer clear of shipyards and airfields and the like. I damn sure didn't carry a camera around.

 

One time I was on a business trip heading out to see a forestry/logging company, out in a remote area, and we stopped in at a hotel in Arseniev to get some sleep on the way. I was not allowed in, since I did not have special permission to be there, in that town, for any length of time -- it should be noted that this is the small town where the PROGRESS aviation factory is located, which builds our KA-50 Black Shark helos. So you kinda get the impression that they take their secrecy pretty seriously. Anyway, we drove all night and slept when we got there.

 

All this was BEFORE the new laws came out, but I don't think much changed for foreigners living/working there -- they kept tabs on us pretty good anyway.

[Teknetinium]

Ok first of all your sarcasm was both duly noted as well as unappreciated.

Second, I can't say I've spent as much as you on the same hardware and software because I don't know or care what the exchange rate is. Third, my point was that, no matter what aircraft is done, somebody isn't going to be happy. This bickering because one aircraft was picked over another is completely pointless. So instead of continuing, why don't we just enjoy what we've spent our hard-earned money on and leave it at that?

 

EDIT: Would have responded sooner but I just now saw the post.

 

If you have been flying this sim since Flanker 2.0 you would not sound like that, where the course have change to Western aircrafts whit no info on update Russian aircarfts., It was the only sim that had both sides modeled. While at the moment this is not the case. So plz don't come around whit your words to calm someone down, because I can clearly se why you are so calm.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Teknetinium

[EtherealN]

Respectfully suggest you read the thread, Teknetinium. :)

[CDR Spectre]

If you have been flying this sim since Flanker 2.0

 

Quick question...how do you know I haven't??? By reading my profile??? I can put anything in there I choose. Because you've never seen me in an MP session??? I usually only fly with some friends. Because I don't have a bunch of posts here?? I generally don't post in forums.

 

With that being said, I'm going to be respectful and excuse myself from the discussion. Have a nice day.

[sparchy]

Regardless of what aircraft be it western or eastern, northern or southern, It does prove interesting that given as close to accurate flight models as we have seen just how the aircraft stackup as well as the pilot skills involved. It adds new variables to the sim that you won't find in other sims to the best of my knowledge. One thing I have learned with the DCS series and it should be apparent to all that it does keep evolving with additions all the time. They are adding dynamics that not only make it interesting but gives everyone the chance to try new things with different aircraft. For those that can't adapt to these new changes perhaps this series is not for you. But it will keep changing to suit the needs and wants of the many.

There are those who prefer the realism while on the other hand there are some that just want to enjoy the way they want. Nothing wrong with either style. But when one condemns the other because it's not the "RIGHT WAY" thats when these types of posts become more then informational. It just creates arguments that are less then productive.

I have even had trouble and still am having trouble getting it to work but it seems that everyone I have talked to is willing to help if you ask the right way.

[Teknetinium]

I believe this community should keep asking ED to develop aircrafts that are comparable against each other, At the moment your realism is based on that ED doesn't have info on Russian aircrafts, so we end up whit Mig-21 against F-15C whit missiles from 1999.

 

but that's not the point, the point is that we all asking ED for improvements for Su-27 that are proven to be there, Like TWS on Russian aircrafts is just there for me to get another visual presentation on MFD, why would it be so hard do something about Su-27s TWS and many other things.

 

I dont want to make the list of them. Im not saying that Su-27S is better BVR platform then F-15C but there is more to Russian TWS then visual presentation.

The ETs were poked down to more realistic values, not taking in to consideration that it has inertial guidance that extend the range, same gose for ER and Rs.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Teknetinium

[EtherealN]

I believe this community should keep asking ED to develop aircrafts that are comparable against each other

 

Why?

 

Serious question.

[Teknetinium]

Why?

 

Serious question.

 

 

Becouse you get more of it if the sides are more even, If there is no info on Su-27 dont make the F-15 because then you will get F-15 vs Mig-21s. Its better then to have F-4s vs Mig-21s dont you think.

Its not realistic to fly Mig-21 against F-15 from Russian point of view.

Its not realistic for Su-27 to fly whit useless TWS and at the moment EOS as well.

And I would assume that F-15C is as confidential as Su-27S, assumptions that are made at the moment witch poke the missiles are not compensated whit other systems on Su-27, like TWS and inertial guidance of missiles. While F-15s TWS has been working since FC2.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Teknetinium

[Cali]

I believe this community should keep asking ED to develop aircrafts that are comparable against each other, At the moment your realism is based on that ED doesn't have info on Russian aircrafts, so we end up whit Mig-21 against F-15C whit missiles from 1999.

 

but that's not the point, the point is that we all asking ED for improvements for Su-27 that are proven to be there, Like TWS on Russian aircrafts is just there for me to get another visual presentation on MFD, why would it be so hard do something about Su-27s TWS and many other things.

 

I dont want to make the list of them. Im not saying that Su-27S is better BVR platform then F-15C but there is more to Russian TWS then visual presentation.

The ETs were poked down to more realistic values, not taking in to consideration that it has inertial guidance that extend the range, same gose for ER and Rs.

 

Remember when the cannon on the F-15 and a better range then the AIM-9's? Look how long it took to fix that. Everything takes time and it sucks to wait. Remember firing a ET 20 miles away and it hitting the person. Also firing 120's and 77's from 50+ miles and getting kills. Slowly things are getting changed, some changes happen sooner then others. I'm all about realism, you know I don't like "game balance" that's a load of crap. If the Su-27 can fire the 77, then add them to it. But if it can't don't add them to it just to "balance the game". Have the 27's been tested to fire 77's anyway? <----not a joke, I'm serious.....any proof if it has. I'm too lazy right now to search through the forums.

[EtherealN]

Becouse you get more of it if the sides are more even, If there is no info on Su-27 dont make the F-15 because then you will get F-15 vs Mig-21s. Its better then to have F-4s vs Mig-21s dont you think.

 

And what about all the single player people?

You are looking at this from an MP-exclusive point of view. It is (unfortunately) only a very small minority of ED's customers that play MP. At all.

 

Its not realistic to fly Mig-21 against F-15 from Russian point of view.

 

There are many countries that the US could come to blows with that still operate the MiG-21 in front line service. Obvious example: North Korea. Others include Syria, Cuba and Libya (until last year). FR Yugoslavia had them until dissolution. Russia operated them until 1998.

 

F-15C has been in production since the late 70's.

 

I think you'll agree that there is ample opportunity for scenarios that involve F-15's vs MiG-21's. Russia vs USA today? No. But your squadron has done quite well with creating interesting historical scenarios previously. And american F-15's versus soviet MiG-21's? That seems plausible. And after all, it is a soviet marking on your squadron shield. :)

 

And I would assume that F-15C is as confidential as Su-27S, assumptions that are made at the moment witch poke the missiles are not compensated whit other systems on Su-27, like TWS and inertial guidance of missiles. While F-15s TWS has been working since FC2.

 

And the Su-27 has had a datalink since pretty much forever.

We can do this feature dance forever. Indeed, we have. :P

In the end, your argument fails because it rests on the wish that ED should make major business decisions specifically for the MP community. Had it done so previously, I feel quite certain that it would not exist as a company today.

 

The absolute majority of people that purchase these products never even look at the MP interface. "Balancing" is completely irrelevant for these people, whereas you have ample opportunity to "balance" through your mission design. You also have several older american aircraft being developed by other parties, so there is no shortage of "balanced" opponents for the MiG-21.

Edited December 3, 2012 by EtherealN

[EtherealN]

Have the 27's been tested to fire 77's anyway? <----not a joke, I'm serious.....any proof if it has. I'm too lazy right now to search through the forums.

 

27's as a collective where we include all variants: yes. (Well, I think it was the RVV-AE.) There is even video of it in some thread recently, but no time to dig for it either.

 

The Su-27S? I don't know.

 

Su-27S operationally? No.

[Kuky]

Here's what I think of as a ballance... only ballance we should be asking for is to have real world oponent to any fighter... by this I don't mean to be equally as effective but to be specifically build to counter the enemy airframe at the time. In this I can sort for example F-4 and MiG-21 or F-16 and MiG-29 or F-15 and Su-27.

 

Now we are all aware by now that FC is not as good simulator as DCS modules because if quite simplified avionics, however air combat tactics are still quite well simulated I think and you can in lost of cases apply real life tastic and use it in this sim effectively.

 

What we need now is to get as much info for ED and ask them in nice way to get FC3 as good as they can, point to bugs and what could be done better, but not to ask too much as that would be asking for DCS product (I know, I was sometimes asking the same :) )

 

There is stuff that F-15C is missing and there is stuff the Su-27 is missing... we are getting improvements and I hope there will be more. Missile AFM is done and it makes a diferrence... it needs to be tweaked more, once its tweaked it will be quite good I am sure, I am already enjoying flying the MiG-29 higher, pushing to the merge, changing course and altitude to bleed missile energy as much as possible, and waiting to get into position to deliever a high PK shot, which even if it missies (which still happens quite a lot as AI are still very good at beaming) I can get myself into the merge and get a kill up close...

 

I think 2013 will be trully an awesome year... still little more patient waiting and we'll get there eventually :)

[Teknetinium]

And what about all the single player people?

You are looking at this from an MP-exclusive point of view. It is (unfortunately) only a very small minority of ED's customers that play MP. At all.

 

 

 

There are many countries that the US could come to blows with that still operate the MiG-21 in front line service. Obvious example: North Korea. Others include Syria, Cuba and Libya (until last year). FR Yugoslavia had them until dissolution. Russia operated them until 1998.

 

F-15C has been in production since the late 70's.

 

I think you'll agree that there is ample opportunity for scenarios that involve F-15's vs MiG-21's. Russia vs USA today? No. But your squadron has done quite well with creating interesting historical scenarios previously. And american F-15's versus soviet MiG-21's? That seems plausible. And after all, it is a soviet marking on your squadron shield. :)

 

 

 

And the Su-27 has had a datalink since pretty much forever.

We can do this feature dance forever. Indeed, we have. :P

In the end, your argument fails because it rests on the wish that ED should make major business decisions specifically for the MP community. Had it done so previously, I feel quite certain that it would not exist as a company today.

 

The absolute majority of people that purchase these products never even look at the MP interface. "Balancing" is completely irrelevant for these people, whereas you have ample opportunity to "balance" through your mission design. You also have several older american aircraft being developed by other parties, so there is no shortage of "balanced" opponents for the MiG-21.

 

LOL, was it that you wanted to tell me as answer to why it fine the way it is, Pointless arguments, Then You can fly single player and shot don Mig-21s in you F-15LOL, Have fun.

And for you knowledge Soviets used MIG-31 Mig-29 and Su-27 to take upon F-15s.

 

Is there a single beta tester left who has passion for Russian birds, Im sure you are not one of them?

Edited December 3, 2012 by Teknetinium

[Teknetinium]

Here's what I think of as a ballance... only ballance we should be asking for is to have real world oponent to any fighter... by this I don't mean to be equally as effective but to be specifically build to counter the enemy airframe at the time. In this I can sort for example F-4 and MiG-21 or F-16 and MiG-29 or F-15 and Su-27.

 

Now we are all aware by now that FC is not as good simulator as DCS modules because if quite simplified avionics, however air combat tactics are still quite well simulated I think and you can in lost of cases apply real life tastic and use it in this sim effectively.

 

What we need now is to get as much info for ED and ask them in nice way to get FC3 as good as they can, point to bugs and what could be done better, but not to ask too much as that would be asking for DCS product (I know, I was sometimes asking the same :) )

 

There is stuff that F-15C is missing and there is stuff the Su-27 is missing... we are getting improvements and I hope there will be more. Missile AFM is done and it makes a diferrence... it needs to be tweaked more, once its tweaked it will be quite good I am sure, I am already enjoying flying the MiG-29 higher, pushing to the merge, changing course and altitude to bleed missile energy as much as possible, and waiting to get into position to deliver a high PK shot, which even if it missies (which still happens quite a lot as AI are still very good at beaming) I can get myself into the merge and get a kill up close...

 

I think 2013 will be trully an awesome year... still little more patient waiting and we'll get there eventually :)

 

 

It will not be a good year because Its time for Su-27 fanboys to show the rage, same way as F-15 fanboys did in FC1, whining about everything, That will not be fun trust me ;) Is it fun when you have 26xF-15 and 1xSu-27 on the server Kuky? ED testers should realise that developing only one side is harming the community more then it dose good, That's why this game had more success then FALCON :). And Im not talking about balance Im talking about feature's in Su-27 that should be there long time ago, This feature's would not make Su-27 better BVR platform since Su-27S use ERs, it would rather make the job easier then it is at the moment. Like I said three time now, The downgrades has not been compensated whit anything, while F-15 did get the fixes, it even did get aim-120C lol.

 

And when DCS fighter gets out this community will be like FALCONs or slightly better you will fight player controlled Mig-21s :)

Edited December 3, 2012 by Teknetinium

[159th_Viper]

Im talking about feature's in Su-27 that should be there long time ago, This feature's would not make Su-27 better BVR platform since Su-27S use ERs, it would rather make the job easier then it is at the moment.

 

What features? I'm useless at sniffing......

[159th_Viper]

It will not be a good year because Its time for Su-27 fanboys to show the rage, same way as F-15 fanboys did in FC1, whining about everything...

 

Oh yes, for what it's worth, comparatively the Russian birds are getting a lot more consideration at present than the F-15 but you guys obviously have blinkers on if you cannot seem to realize this.

 

Hey, it's no skin off my back: I have asked and asked and asked that all matters be reported constructively in the FC3 bug thread where it will be guaranteed to receive consideration. I will never and nor can I guarantee to get any report implemented to the reporters satisfaction: I can however guarantee that, irrespective of the outcome, you will always be informed after-the-fact as to why any particular decision was taken and the reasons therefore. You might not be happy with said reasons, but there will be transparency and you will be better educated for it.

 

I'll go out to bat EVERY time for the Red coalition as I'm a Toadie at heart, but believe me when I say that all this moaning and groaning will get you nowhere fast - not interested. There is a right way and a wrong way to facilitate change and you are going about it completely the wrong way.

 

Do yourself and me a favour and do it the right way why don't you. Have a suggestion/report? Have regard to the FC3 bug thread and let's take it from there. Just please stop the petty bickering as it's only doing your cause more harm than good and trust me, that's not a good thing, especially when I'm in your corner - all you are doing is making my life behind-the-scenes campaigning for needed change a helluva lot more difficult. I'm beginning not to like it at all - it's getting tiresome.

[Teknetinium]

Oh yes, for what it's worth, comparatively the Russian birds are getting a lot more consideration at present than the F-15 but you guys obviously have blinkers on if you cannot seem to realize this.

 

Hey, it's no skin off my back: I have asked and asked and asked that all matters be reported constructively in the FC3 bug thread where it will be guaranteed to receive consideration. I will never and nor can I guarantee to get any report implemented to the reporters satisfaction: I can however guarantee that, irrespective of the outcome, you will always be informed after-the-fact as to why any particular decision was taken and the reasons therefore. You might not be happy with said reasons, but there will be transparency and you will be better educated for it.

 

I'll go out to bat EVERY time for the Red coalition as I'm a Toadie at heart, but believe me when I say that all this moaning and groaning will get you nowhere fast - not interested. There is a right way and a wrong way to facilitate change and you are going about it completely the wrong way.

 

Do yourself and me a favour and do it the right way why don't you. Have a suggestion/report? Have regard to the FC3 bug thread and let's take it from there. Just please stop the petty bickering as it's only doing your cause more harm than good and trust me, that's not a good thing, especially when I'm in your corner - all you are doing is making my life behind-the-scenes campaigning for needed change a helluva lot more difficult. I'm beginning not to like it at all - it's getting tiresome.

 

Trust me and others have tried all kind of approaches, the last thing that is left is disappointment, We are reporting bugs and there are more to come, that will prove that EOS scanning angle is not correct in current state.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Teknetinium

[Teknetinium]

What features? I'm useless at sniffing......

 

Working TWS, at the moment TWS transfers what is on the hud to MFD where you get different visual presentation, There is more to Su-27s TWS when employing ER and ETs.

And since this features are not modeled for RED aircrafts by ED 3d party developers can not take it further then what they can extract from the game.

 

So if the Su-27S systems was modeld to same standard as F-15 we would might see more stuff from 3d party then MIG-21.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Teknetinium

[159th_Viper]

.....that will prove that EOS scanning angle is not as it should be.

 

97 and 98 of the bug thread.

 

Working TWS....

 

For the 27? Not having intimate knowledge of the 27 family, I assume that the 27 currently modeled in-SIM has TWS-capability IRL? (in order to avoid possible confusion, I'm referring to the features you deem lacking)

 

There is more to Su-27s TWS for ER and ETs.

 

What more? Do not assume I understand. Elaborate and present a constructive, substantiated argument that will make me understand.

Edited December 3, 2012 by 159th_Viper

[Cali]

Trust me and others have tried all kind of approaches, the last thing that is left is disappointment, We are reporting bugs and there are more to come, that will prove that EOS scanning angle is not correct in current state.

 

Look how long it took to get the AIM-9's range fixed? All aircraft has had and still have things wrong with them. I fly them all so don't think I'm just a 15 guy, my fav jet is the Su-33, unless a F-16 or F-18 come out. I would love to see the 33 get some love, which will hopefully mean all the red jets get some. Keep reporting things that are wrong to Viper and hope they get fix. Remember Ed has a lot of stuff going on, they are working on how many things? It sucks seeing the bug list so big, but a few things have been fixed or explained why they are like that. You guys need to keep pluggin away so when I get back in about 4 months FC3 will be better then the state it's in now.

[Teknetinium]

97 and 98 of the bug thread.

 

 

 

For the 27? Not having intimate knowledge of the 27 family, I assume that the 27 currently modeled in-SIM has TWS-capability IRL? (in order to avoid possible confusion, I'm referring to the features you deem lacking)

 

 

 

What more? Do not assume I understand. Elaborate and present a constructive, substantiated argument that will make me understand.

 

 

1. Launching platform (the aircraft) transmits the target parameters to the missile.

2. Missile confirms parameters within launch limits and sends "ready" command to the aircraft.

3. Pilot launches the missile.

4. The missile is now completely independent of anything the pilot or the aircraft does... it is using a pre-calculated point somewhere out there roughly 15km ahead of the target. This is the Inertial Guidance stage, the missile is just flying blind to that point.

5. Once the missile reaches this point it is going to continuously seek radar reflection with correct wavelength and encoded guidance signal (STT) the moment it finds the seeker locks and now the missile will actively navigate to intercept the target.

6.(I believe ET works in same manner)

 

What happens in FC2/3 is the missile keeps seeking non-stop... the moment it leaves the rail.

I know that the missiles are hard to work on, but something could be done to improve Su-27 TWS so it could imit some kind of inertial guidance as F-15 has whit TWS lunch.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Teknetinium

[159th_Viper]

1. Launching platform (the aircraft) transmits the target parameters to the missile.

2. Missile confirms parameters within launch limits and sends "ready" command to the aircraft.

3. Pilot launches the missile.

4. The missile is now completely independent of anything the pilot or the aircraft does... it is using a pre-calculated point somewhere out there roughly 15km ahead of the target. This is the Inertial Guidance stage, the missile is just flying blind to that point.

5. Once the missile reaches this point it is going to continuously seek radar reflection with correct wavelength and encoded guidance signal (STT) the moment it finds the seeker locks and now the missile will actively navigate to intercept the target.

 

 

What happens in FC2/3 is the missile keeps seeking non-stop... the moment it leaves the rail.

 

#47 of the Bug thread.

 

This matter is actively receiving attention from the relevant Dev and Testers. Keep in mind that all missile improvements fall under the continual modelling of the Advanced Flight Model for missiles (as confirmed previously) and accordingly are on the cards for development. Not all fixes/updates are/will be attended to as a matter of urgency but,as said, it is an ongoing process where patience is required.

Edited December 3, 2012 by 159th_Viper