what to expect from Su-27 module?

[Exorcet]

Much as I would love a full fidelity Flanker, if you are going to just make stuff up from a pamphlet, why not just go whole hog and give it 50 missiles and call it 'SU 35 - Ace Combat Edition'?

Let's be fair, accuracy is a spectrum. Jumping from the suggestion of using a pamphlet, no matter how sparse, to Ace Combat is beyond exaggeration.

 

There might not be much info on the 35, but that doesn't make a reasonable simulator out of the question. We'll have the 27S for maximum fidelity, so I don't see the harm in a realistic as possible 35 on the side. Where that level of fidelity would fall would probably take some research to find out, but no doubt we'll have something better than Ace Combat.

[NineLine]

Unless there are legal issues with simulating the Su35 ;)

 

Let's be fair, accuracy is a spectrum. Jumping from the suggestion of using a pamphlet, no matter how sparse, to Ace Combat is beyond exaggeration.

 

There might not be much info on the 35, but that doesn't make a reasonable simulator out of the question. We'll have the 27S for maximum fidelity, so I don't see the harm in a realistic as possible 35 on the side. Where that level of fidelity would fall would probably take some research to find out, but no doubt we'll have something better than Ace Combat.

[GGTharos]

Think about this Exorcet ...

 

What is missing from the RWR displays of A-10C and F-15C that we have in-game? Do you know, or, can you at least imagine? What if I told you that the TEWS on the F-15 ties in the radar and RWR? What would that do? Do you know you can tell who the TEWS is jamming?

 

The Su-35S and other planes like F-35's and F-22 have even more advanced ISR equipment, and it significantly changes the amount and type of information you will get.

 

The reason I'm pointing this out is that, in the process of providing people their fave plane, realize that it's probably really under-estimated in capabilities, and you will have the same situation as you do now with Su-27's and F-15's in FC: They're relatively equivalent, at least when everything works. The missiles they carry are the only things that make a difference. Emphasis mine because most people need to think about it a whole bunch of times to understand what I'm really trying to convey.

[Exorcet]

Unless there are legal issues with simulating the Su35 ;)

 

I suppose there could be that.

 

Think about this Exorcet ...

 

What is missing from the RWR displays of A-10C and F-15C that we have in-game? Do you know, or, can you at least imagine? What if I told you that the TEWS on the F-15 ties in the radar and RWR? What would that do? Do you know you can tell who the TEWS is jamming?

 

The Su-35S and other planes like F-35's and F-22 have even more advanced ISR equipment, and it significantly changes the amount and type of information you will get.

 

The reason I'm pointing this out is that, in the process of providing people their fave plane, realize that it's probably really under-estimated in capabilities, and you will have the same situation as you do now with Su-27's and F-15's in FC: They're relatively equivalent, at least when everything works. The missiles they carry are the only things that make a difference. Emphasis mine because most people need to think about it a whole bunch of times to understand what I'm really trying to convey.

 

Understood, but the F-15 and FC in general are still miles beyond an arcade experience. I can't say that I know for sure what is missing from the plane avionics, but I find it odd that elevation isn't represented on the RWR. I also find it odd that a point source of radar emissions can't be displayed on the HUD.

 

Back to the Flanker, this is a blatantly obvious example, but you couldn't physically put 50 [R-77] missiles on the plane. It would weigh as much as all the fuel on the plane, and then there is drag.

 

The Su-35S or 27SM may end up being FC3 Flanker with R-77, slightly more reliable radar, and a different cockpit; but from where I'm sitting most of the time (F-15 cockpit) it's not much different than the case of AI Su-27 vs AI Su-30. From the PoV of Red pilots, they get their missile that makes most of the difference and don't worry about balance as much. Then 25 years later maybe ED find declassified 35S documents and we fix everything that wasn't right.

 

I'm not saying that a link to a Sukhoi brochure is enough to make a fighter. But I don't actually see the harm in adding a somewhat poorly understood aircraft to DCSW since it is up to the player to use anyway. In the worst case for an advanced Flanker, I'd kind of liken it to CA. The vehicles themselves are a bit laughable compared to a DCS module, but the simple change over from ground AI to human control is potentially game changing. The low fidelity of the ground vehicles is more of an issue for the drivers than the ones fighting them. I could be wrong (I simply do not know how much information is available, so tell me if I'm crazy) but I can't see advanced Flanker being worse than CA, which is good enough to add value to the sim.

[GGTharos]

Understood, but the F-15 and FC in general are still miles beyond an arcade experience.

 

You are absolutely correct, but even so, even for an FC offering some critical things are missing like target step, automatic elevation control and target track files ... things you don't have to flip switches for.

 

I can't say that I know for sure what is missing from the plane avionics, but I find it odd that elevation isn't represented on the RWR. I also find it odd that a point source of radar emissions can't be displayed on the HUD.

 

Relative elevation is one thing, yep. Also, ask yourself this: How could you tell which sources are locking you (multiple sources) vs search mode? How about knowing who you're jamming? Going from RWR to TEWS, the F-15's radar in SNIFF mode can detect radar emissions from fighters (because those radars operate in similar frequencies) from further away than the RWR I imagine - huge antenna and all that. How about that NCTR ... jammers actually have 'fingerprints' ... There's a lot more, but I don't even know the half of it myself.

 

The Su-35S or 27SM may end up being FC3 Flanker with R-77, slightly more reliable radar, and a different cockpit; but from where I'm sitting most of the time (F-15 cockpit) it's not much different than the case of AI Su-27 vs AI Su-30. From the PoV of Red pilots, they get their missile that makes most of the difference and don't worry about balance as much. Then 25 years later maybe ED find declassified 35S documents and we fix everything that wasn't right.

 

My point here is ... right now balance exists because neither features nor limitations are modeled. This is more or less where FC planes live right now.

[Flying Penguin]

Let's be fair, accuracy is a spectrum. Jumping from the suggestion of using a pamphlet, no matter how sparse, to Ace Combat is beyond exaggeration.

 

There might not be much info on the 35, but that doesn't make a reasonable simulator out of the question. We'll have the 27S for maximum fidelity, so I don't see the harm in a realistic as possible 35 on the side. Where that level of fidelity would fall would probably take some research to find out, but no doubt we'll have something better than Ace Combat.

 

That accuracy is a spectrum is not in doubt, but seriously, the base numbers in any pamphlet, no matter how accurate in themselves, are only a tiny part of the story of making an accurate flight model, otherwise it would be a case of inserting a few publicaly available numbers into your ACME flight model generator. At best, we could take an SU27 model and modify it a bit, but we'd still be left with a caricature of an SU 35.

 

Any fool with the right knowledge can make a model which obeys the laws of physics enough to fool a casual observer, but it takes real skill (and access) to create a model which captures all the nuances which make an aircraft type unique.

 

I have the same problem with the 35/SM as I have with the latest American über-jets, if so much has to be made up/assumed, why would I bother putting the effort in to learn them? I'm not massive A10 nut, but the opportunity to learn the REAL operations makes it worth the effort, and frankly, if it's not going to provide that insight, I'd rather play them balanced for fun, at which point I might as well play Ace Combat...

 

But, with all these things, that's my view and your mileage may vary. :thumbup:

 

Cheers,

 

Jamie

[159th_Viper]

 

I have the same problem.........with the latest American über-jets

 

Aye, others don't as they're coming thick and fast, together with their über-missiles :P

 

That there's the itch.

[Flying Penguin]

Aye, others don't as they're coming thick and fast, together with their über-missiles :P

 

That there's the itch.

 

And there's that double edged sword of allowing 3rd party modules....

[Maximus_G]

I have to admit that I'm a bit afraid to meet you on a server while flying an Eagle now... :joystick::helpsmilie:

The guys are good, yes. (but i'm not connected to this in any way. just a coincedence)

[Teknetinium]

I preffer i high fidelity Su-27S than a assumption Su-35 or incomplete Su-27SM.

 

Agree when we talk about DCS level.

For FC3 level everything is possible since F-35 announcement.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Bandit.]

well if dcs level isnt achievable id rather have a fc3 sm or 35 than none at all. as long as the capabilities of what the aircraft can and cannot do are realistic im fine with it. my only problem would be to give the users of these planes an unfair advantage.

i do not perceive this with the current fc3 planes. so, if you can do a similar level of detail on more modern aircraft im fine with it.

[159th_Viper]

Agree when we talk about DCS level.

For FC3 level everything is possible since F-35 announcement.

 

We are led to believe that the F-35 (which by, when asked, the developers themselves confirmed was to be based/modelled largely/to an extent on Youtube vids/footage) was/is to be DCS level. As a consequence, a relatively modern Eastern jet that surpasses FC level but does not quite reach DC standards (Mid range level) should be easily attainable.

Edited August 20, 2013 by 159th_Viper

[*Rage*]

We are led to believe that the F-35 (which by, when asked, the developers themselves confirmed was to be based/modelled largely/to an extent on Youtube vids/footage) was/is to be DCS level. As a consequence, a relatively modern Eastern jet that surpasses FC level but does not quite reach DC standards (Mid range level) should be easily attainable.

 

Youtube? I thought they had 'insider' LM sources. Someone earlier posted an SM simulator video. Could ED not buy some time in that armed with a notepad? The AFM/model hard work is done/will be done anyway for the S. Most people would be happy for an FC3 level SM simulator over none at all. It would be easy cash as well I imagine. I really hope ED reconsider this.

[karambiatos]

Youtube? I thought they had 'insider' LM sources. Someone earlier posted an SM simulator video. Could ED not buy some time in that armed with a notepad? The AFM/model hard work is done/will be done anyway for the S. Most people would be happy for an FC3 level SM simulator over none at all. It would be easy cash as well I imagine. I really hope ED reconsider this.

 

ED could have made that sim for all we know.

 

but they arent allowed to have a civilian version of it, yada yada military secrets.

[Udat]

I thought they announced the fc3 level su27 to be the sm version in the 30 minute roadmap video some months ago.. Was that just me wanting it too much to realise it wasn't, or has it been changed?

[Flying Penguin]

Post #223 in this thread

 

After the video was created, it has decided not to develop the Su-27SM in favor of the Su-27S.

 

I believe they were originally referring to a DCS level, not an FC3 level, in fact I don't recall seeing any mention of an FC3 level module.

 

I'm sure that if there was an FC3 module announced as in plan we wouldn't be having all this wailing, gnashing of teeth and the whole "life is meaningless now..." act ;)

Edited August 20, 2013 by Flying Penguin

[FLANKERATOR]

Hard to tell IMO. Pictures are there to show you how the cockpit and avionics look like but I personally couldn't find anything showing how the MFD software operates for example, what each OSB does, HUD's modes and other main systems. I wouldn't want to get a mid level fidelity SM made by guess and by gosh.

[Teknetinium]

Hard to tell IMO. Pictures are there to show you how the cockpit and avionics look like but I personally couldn't find anything showing how the MFD software operates for example, what each OSB does, HUD's modes and other main systems. I wouldn't want to get a mid level fidelity SM made by guess and by gosh.

 

Ka-50 systems are not easy to find, like ABRIS, but ED made it possible.

I thought that ED could cooperate with another partner that could provide information for DCS Su-27SM. I believe that was the case with Ka-50 and A-10C.

 

I'm more than happy to get any fighter to DCS level until that fighter have something equal to fight.

I would not want that in RL but since it is a simulator I rather fight F-15s in my Su-27 then Mig-21.

I will continue to scream on till the day we fight by same rules.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Teknetinium

[volk]

the Soviets knew (and the Russians still know) that in a full-scale warfare environment, 1 v. 1 against Eagles doesn't work for Flankers.

You exactly know, what Soviets knew? Please source for this from Soviet (Russian) side, where they "knew", or may be IMHO?

[Teknetinium]

It becomes more relevant to play by same rules when we have F-35 in SATAC championship vs Su-27 from 80s. In my opinion that is not playing by same rules,

becomes like ka-50 vs UH-1.

 

I would argue about Aim-120C as well which would face R-77 combined with ERs. Aim-120B would face ERs if we look at timeframe when this missiles went in service. That is my opinion If we want to play by same rules.

 

Since ED are not keeping any timeframe we as users have to set it ourselves.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Teknetinium

[*Rage*]

ED could have made that sim for all we know.

 

but they arent allowed to have a civilian version of it, yada yada military secrets.

 

Possibly. Only ED know that. I wish Matt/ED would tell us why it was canned?

[MaverickF22]

Some say, that Cobra can fool the doppler radar...:huh:

 

And at what speed are you going to try a cobra..., to foul a doppler radar?

 

From what i believe, if you're slow enough to do the cobra in safe conditions, there's no doppler radar to foul! If you're fast enough, and of course, flying perpendicular (beam position) to the doppler radar's wave and also at an optimum range from the radar, in order to make it lagg/lose the signal for only a few seconds:P (so you ain't going to win much, except yes..., if there's already a missile in the air flying in SARH mode (SARH also applies to active radar homing missiles, until they are close enough to turn on their own radar and become active), thus you can brake it's lock for a moment and defeat it), you will definitely have to be at a higher true airspeed and indicated airspeed, than the maximum allowed for cobra (either the pilot will die from high G or the plane will be torn apart)!

 

I might be wrong about this..., yet there might also be a bit of truth.

 

 

Cheers, good day!

[blkspade]

It becomes more relevant to play by same rules when we have F-35 in SATAC championship vs Su-27 from 80s. In my opinion that is not playing by same rules,

becomes like ka-50 vs UH-1.

 

I would argue about Aim-120C as well which would face R-77 combined with ERs. Aim-120B would face ERs if we look at timeframe when this missiles went in service. That is my opinion If we want to play by same rules.

 

Since ED are not keeping any timeframe we as users have to set it ourselves.

 

Ignoring the fact that a sim based on warplanes, and thus war itself, neither side intends to fight on a level playing field. With the US basically spending a gross amount funds on military advancements, specifically to be ahead of the enemy as much as it can. You whine a lot about the 120C, but you and most of your squad still make out alright on your server. Sure from time to time F-15s are on the top of the board, but none of them are noobs that are there just by being in an F-15 with the 120C. Realistically more Russian hardware has likely been against the 120C than the American counter-parts have had to face the R-77 in actual combat. You still have a decisive advantage with IR weapons and WVR combat, but it still takes an effective pilot to make any of it work as desired (barring server lag).

 

For example, I flew on your server last night where F-15 could only get 120B, and only from one airfield, and AIM-7 and 9s from the rest. I don't particularly mind being limited to 120B, though I call 'shenanigans' on them being in a single location, but made it work. Finished like 13-4 before the server crashed.

[lunaticfringe]

You exactly know, what Soviets knew? Please source for this from Soviet (Russian) side, where they "knew", or may be IMHO?

 

25+ years of Vestnik Protivovozdushnoy Oborony from the early 70's up into the mid-90s, never discussing a change in operational employment for the new types- merely new *maneuvers*. Accessible here:

 

http://www.dtic.mil

 

If you choose to dig, there's also fun stuff from the era from Aviatsiia i Kosmonavtika, Krasnaya Zvezda, and the like.

 

Soviet type resource manuals on the F-14 and F-15. You can access those here:

 

http://www.avialogs.com

 

One can cumulatively research these documents and find volumes of information by which to not form a "humble opinion", but instead make informed and factual statements. Otherwise, you'd be stating that the PVO and VVS were feeding their people a line at an official level in the very documents which first order conversations were to be had concerning training, tactics, and doctrine, rendering them all mere propaganda.

 

So, volk- what have *you* got to contrast these facts authored by the Soviets themselves (besides a hollow insinuation)?

[lunaticfringe]

m,./For example, I flew on your server last night where F-15 could only get 120B, and only from one airfield, and AIM-7 and 9s from the rest. I don't particularly mind being limited to 120B, though I call 'shenanigans' on them being in a single location, but made it work. Finished like 13-4 before the server crashed.

 

That's some funny right there. "Let's contain the best weapon to a singe location, thereby limiting the potential threat vector".

 

Good work, blkspade.