what to expect from Su-27 module?

[Teknetinium]

I didn't say you could get high fidelity F-35's or F-22's, though there seems to be some possibility for reasonable representation of the F-35 to the virtual pilot. That, of course, remains to be proven.

 

On the other hand, I do know that ED guys don't like jail-time, and revealing secret information means jail-time. Su-27SM and Su-35 are secret. You see what I am getting at? So, the only thing you can do for those planes is look at some internet pics and make cockpits that look similar, and guess most of what is displayed on the panels.

 

So yeah, you can do all those planes, but not DCS fidelity IMHO :)

 

How many know top speed of F-22 and F-35? Whit Su-27SM you can atleast get the airdynamics right. And since there is more pilots that could talk about Su-27 flight dynamics it would get more realistic when you look in to AFM compere to F-35 or F-22.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Teknetinium

[GGTharos]

Tek, read what I wrote. I said you can't do DCS fidelity.

 

Are F-22 and F-35 possible to make DCS fidelity, how many pilots will actually reveal top speed :)

[GGTharos]

That's not a question that /I/ can answer. I can only speculate that ED is focusing on other endeavors of creating DCS fidelity modules and leaving lower fidelity stuff to 3rd parties.

 

Matt himself said it will be a very long time before we have DCS F15/27 with clickable pits ala A10. They will remain at FC3 level but with AFM for the time being. Why not then also a 27SM FC3 level till more info is available? If indeed thats the reason it was dropped.

[lunaticfringe]

They will remain at FC3 level but with AFM for the time being. Why not then also a 27SM FC3 level till more info is available? If indeed thats the reason it was dropped.

 

Because the instant they're ready to issue a module that is less than an SM, or more aptly (should the required information become available within the next decade)- an SM that is *less* capable than the fictional SM they "model" at an FC3, you have exactly what we have here: people ready to jump off the nearest bridge because they're not getting their way.

 

Seriously- somebody called ED EA. *Every* statement by ED confers one piece of information: "this is what we'd like to do, but *everything* is subject to change".

 

Change based on circumstances, and you're demonized.

Don't relate information to the public, you don't care about your customers.

Don't set release dates, you're not accomplishing anything.

And don't release someone's aircraft model/type/subsystem/munition binky, and the *simulation* isn't "fair".

 

This type of complaining really speaks to the team's dedication to craft and the system- what they choose to put their name on, because they tolerate it and keep coming back for more.

[159th_Falcon]

Tek, read what I wrote. I said you can't do DCS fidelity.

 

Still F35 is advertised as such, and when many confronted ED about that not to long ago, you, amongst others, said it was possible.

(or at least supported Kinneys claim it was, in one way or another)

 

F-22 was also advertised as being DCS level if i remember correctly.

 

So to recap;

Before 16-06-2013, whenever someone asked about F-35, F-22, PAK-FA etc etc he was told it was not possible.

 

On 16-06-2013, DCS F-35A was announced by Wags himself

 

In that thread, you yourself GG have said it is possible to do, not literally though, but it is rather suggestive towards that point.

 

And now, about 2 months later, your telling us again its not possible???

 

What the heck is changing so fast in this world that's causing FACTS to change so fast?

 

Really, i'd like to see an explanation. Cause just saying whatever seems to suite ED(and/or parnters/3rd party developers) the most ain't gonna cut it for me.

Cause that's what it looks like to me, ED (staff/moderators/testers) just seem to say whatever is most convenient to ED(and/or parnters/3rd party developers).

 

And if anyone is offended by this post, to bad, i'm just being critical and have every right to be.

(so don't come and warn about forum rules like 1.2, 1.4, 1.10 or other, its N/A)

 

Especially whit such conflicting statements being made so shortly after each other.

 

Its almost as if when you ask when the wind is blowing East its not possible

Though, if the wind is blowing West it is possible.

 

Seems that the wind is blowing East again............, wonder for how long.

[GGTharos]

Still F35 is advertised as such, and when many confronted ED about that not to long ago, you, amongst others, said it was possible.

(or at least supported Kinneys claim it was, in one way or another)

 

That was Kinney's plan, and in the end the module would have to pass certain standards to be labeled as DCS. Apparently ED believes this was possible, which leads /me/ to believe that Mr. Kinney may have had access to certain types of information which may be unclassified, but not necessarily out there for public consumption. Probably based on the strength of that, ED felt that Kinney could complete a module worthy of the DCS title. I'm just guessing of course.

 

Let me put it another way: You'll never see most of the real A-10C documentation, if any.

 

F-22 was also advertised as being DCS level if i remember correctly.

No, it wasn't.

[NineLine]

A simple test if you are so inclined to invest the time is to go and research data for WWII Russian fighters, testing data, etc from the 40's (not books or manuals, but actual testing data). Then go do the same for say... and American fighter of the same era.

 

You will notice that its much easier to find data on the American fighter. Now dont get me wrong the reasons for lack of data for a Russian WWII fighter is different than the nonavailability of data for a modern day fighter, BUT it should give you enough food for thought on two different cultures that approach the subject slightly different.

 

It's the easy path to claim its some form of bias, the easy path isnt always the correct one.

 

Its almost as if when you ask when the wind is blowing East its not possible

Though, if the wind is blowing West it is possible.

 

Seems that the wind is blowing East again............, wonder for how long.

[*Rage*]

Still F35 is advertised as such, and when many confronted ED about that not to long ago, you, amongst others, said it was possible.

(or at least supported Kinneys claim it was, in one way or another)

 

F-22 was also advertised as being DCS level if i remember correctly.

 

So to recap;

Before 16-06-2013, whenever someone asked about F-35, F-22, PAK-FA etc etc he was told it was not possible.

 

On 16-06-2013, DCS F-35A was announced by Wags himself

 

In that thread, you yourself GG have said it is possible to do, not literally though, but it is rather suggestive towards that point.

 

And now, about 2 months later, your telling us again its not possible???

 

What the heck is changing so fast in this world that's causing FACTS to change so fast?

 

Really, i'd like to see an explanation. Cause just saying whatever seems to suite ED(and/or parnters/3rd party developers) the most ain't gonna cut it for me.

Cause that's what it looks like to me, ED (staff/moderators/testers) just seem to say whatever is most convenient to ED(and/or parnters/3rd party developers).

 

And if anyone is offended by this post, to bad, i'm just being critical and have every right to be.

(so don't come and warn about forum rules like 1.2, 1.4, 1.10 or other, its N/A)

 

Especially whit such conflicting statements being made so shortly after each other.

 

Its almost as if when you ask when the wind is blowing East its not possible

Though, if the wind is blowing West it is possible.

 

Seems that the wind is blowing East again............, wonder for how long.

 

The F35 is stealth and carries Amraams..so of course it can be DCS:)

 

I find it hard to believe that the MFDs/subsystems of the F35 are more accessible than those of the SM. Not that i've looked especially hard.

[Teknetinium]

A simple test if you are so inclined to invest the time is to go and research data for WWII Russian fighters, testing data, etc from the 40's (not books or manuals, but actual testing data). Then go do the same for say... and American fighter of the same era.

 

You will notice that its much easier to find data on the American fighter. Now dont get me wrong the reasons for lack of data for a Russian WWII fighter is different than the nonavailability of data for a modern day fighter, BUT it should give you enough food for thought on two different cultures that approach the subject slightly different.

 

It's the easy path to claim its some form of bias, the easy path isnt always the correct one.

 

Its funny that there is more F-15 fanboys typing in this thread the actually Su-27. Since FC3 there have never been so low activity by Russian aviation enthusiasts. I will not list why since thouse posts get delited. It is a shame how Su-27 have been threaded in FC3.

[NineLine]

I think GG already commented on that...

 

I find it hard to believe that the MFDs/subsystems of the F35 are more accessible than those of the SM. Not that i've looked especially hard.

[NineLine]

So first you label me as not knowing the community, now I am a F-15 fanboy? I'd rather fly the P-51 and A-10C... I dont fly the F-15 often at all, so speak of what you know please....

 

Its funny that there is more F-15 fanboys typing in this thread the actually Su-27. Since FC3 there have never been so low activity by Russian aviation enthusiasts. I will not list why since thouse posts get delited. It is a shame how Su-27 have been threaded in FC3.

[Grim_Smiles]

The F35 is stealth and carries Amraams..so of course it can be DCS:)

 

I find it hard to believe that the MFDs/subsystems of the F35 are more accessible than those of the SM. Not that i've looked especially hard.

 

http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/Raw-F-35-fighter-jet-simulation/-/9837878/20701634/-/119i1c3z/-/index.html

 

The F-35 has simulators and demonstrators that they have shown off publicly, including youtube vids showing some of the things they can do. Granted none of these are going to show the classified stuff and some of the symbols, etc, may change for the military version - but you can still get an idea of what the designers intend the screens to do for the pilot.

 

There isn't anything like that for the SM screens. Trust me I looked. Other than still images I've found a couple videos where you get brief glimpses over the pilot's shoulder, but nothing you can make a sim from. Russian military companies seems to be better at keeping their lips sealed than USA ones. As a flight simulator player I'm on the one hand glad we get that info, but as a military contractor I also shake my head at some of the things we announce to the public.

Edited August 15, 2013 by TooTall

[Brisse]

I find it hard to believe that the MFDs/subsystems of the F35 are more accessible than those of the SM. Not that i've looked especially hard.

 

Actually, they are more accessible. Try searching on the internet and you will be amazed.

[Teknetinium]

So first you label me as not knowing the community, now I am a F-15 fanboy? I'd rather fly the P-51 and A-10C... I dont fly the F-15 often at all, so speak of what you know please....

 

It is not directed directly at you.

[kontiuka]

Can someone post a link to this video where the Su-27SM is announced? I'm sure it's buried somewhere in this thread but I'm lazy.

[NineLine]

Either way, discussions are fine with out labels and personal attacks, I dont see anyone here saying anything that warrant it.

 

It is not directed directly at you.

[159th_Viper]

The F35 is stealth and carries Amraams..so of course it can be DCS:)

 

I find it hard to believe that the MFDs/subsystems of the F35 are more accessible than those of the SM. Not that i've looked especially hard.

 

Aaaaand with the departure of the SM there is the attendant departure of the new RVV-family of ordnance as well. It honestly does beg for at the very least serious consideration to be given for the modelling of a DCS-Lite SM, more advanced than FC but not quite DCS. It has been stated on occasion that A-10C fidelity will be very hard-pressed to repeat, thus leading to the inference that future modules will indeed lean more towards DCS-Lite than visa versa. This is understandable if one has regard to the return on investment, especially considering the marketing strategy of late to attract the more 'casual' user (read STEAM et al).

 

With this in mind, it's imperative that a system of 'checks and balances' be contemplated to ensure MP even-handedness, for lack if a better term. At present and on face-value none exist, evident from the road-map. Make no mistake, SP may be where the money lies: However, Ignore/Stack the deck in MP in favour of one coalition/to the detriment of the other will have less than favourable results and it would be a pity indeed if that were to continue to happen.

 

And no, the distinction between DCS/non-DCS fidelity in a MP environment is not as important/relevant for the player concerned in piloting his chosen module. The experience/gameplayability however is. If said MP experience can be enhanced by ensuring at least a semblance of forethought in an attempt at possible equal representation when it comes to module releases then not doing so is quite disheartening indeed.

[Teknetinium]

Either way, discussions are fine with out labels and personal attacks, I dont see anyone here saying anything that warrant it.

Those labels appear when people have doble moral.

[NineLine]

This is a great idea, and really I wish there were more announcements about lower fidelity modules, but all 3rd party devs seem to be swinging for the fences... not that I am complaining... but seems like there is a gap there were people could be building decent level aircraft without the complexity of the A-10C....

 

Aaaaand with the departure of the SM there is the attendant departure of the new RVV-family of ordnance as well. It honestly does beg for at the very least serious consideration to be given for the modelling of a DCS-Lite SM, more advanced than FC but not quite DCS.

[NineLine]

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”

 

Those labels appear when people have doble moral.

[GGTharos]

Aaaaand with the departure of the SM there is the attendant departure of the new RVV-family of ordnance as well. It honestly does beg for at the very least serious consideration to be given for the modelling of a DCS-Lite SM, more advanced than FC but not quite DCS.

 

It would certainly have to be pretty light since all the available info about the cockpit amounts to basically this:

 

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g144/berkut_photos/laga.jpg

 

At least the flight model would be the same, and I imagine everything that relates to it would remain the same (Engine operation etc) and have a chance at being fairly accurate that way.

 

The experience/gameplayability however is. If said MP experience can be enhanced by ensuring at least a semblance of forethought in an attempt at possible equal representation when it comes to module releases then not doing so is quite disheartening indeed.

 

That's a shot in the dark and you know it; ED doesn't go by matching stuff, they go by doing what they can do.

 

But perhaps a 3rd party can pick up the SM. Maybe ED will even help in some ways by offering to let it happen on top of their Su-27S FM ... who knows?

[159th_Viper]

.......I wish there were more announcements about lower fidelity modules, but all 3rd party devs seem to be swinging for the fences....

 

Aye, which is why the seemingly lack of quality/equality control is especially disconcerting. This 'free-for-all-lets-throw-the-kitchen-sink-and-see-what-sticks' approach frankly stinks :P

[159th_Viper]

It would certainly have to be pretty light since all the available info about the cockpit amounts to basically this......

 

Mmmmm......I'm not convinced. In any event, will not do to belabour that particular yet convenient point any further. As said, avionics aside, one must not lose sight of the bigger picture. Doing so is courting discontent, which in our community has the long-term potential to be damning indeed.

[NineLine]

I had always thought that the first stepping stone might be to release a more FC3 like aircraft, to cut their teeth... but I appear wrong in that thought. I am messing with an AI B-17 and that thing makes me curl up in the fetal position some nights :)

 

Aye, which is why the seemingly lack of quality/equality control is especially disconcerting. This 'free-for-all-lets-throw-the-kitchen-sink-and-see-what-sticks' approach frankly stinks :P

[wasserfall]

Knock knock, ... Hello mr.Pogosyan we are from Eagle Dynamics and we wan't to create a DCS Su27SM.

Do you have some detailed information for us, because we can't find all data on Youtube!

 

:)

 

Cheers,

 

Wasserfall