what to expect from Su-27 module?

[SkateZilla]

I have a feeling that when it comes to DCS servers, very few will allow F-22/F-35 to be a playable fighter.

 

now we just need J-20s and PAK-FAs

[Grim_Smiles]

now we just need J-20s and PAK-FAs

 

Could always slap a skin on a Raptor and pretend it's a T-50 carrying R-77s. Not the best of situations but it's something. Can't help with the J-20 though unless someone makes a model for it. Though I wouldn't be surprised if someone makes a mod to turn the F-22 into either of these fighters.

[manfrez01]

I'll bring PAC-3's:

 

 

(not going to happen, but I found some of the concepts interesting :) )

:)

[Rikus]

Wow so people that like western aircraft get :F18 ,F14,Eurofighter, F15E, F18E, F22 and F35A , harrier and a ton others.

People that like russian aircraft get nothing.

 

:cry:

[Pilotasso]

I'll bring PAC-3's:

 

 

(not going to happen, but I found some of the concepts interesting :) )

 

It pretty much gives you a great counter for any discussion about Flanker mounted R-37's :D

[Pilotasso]

I have a feeling that when it comes to DCS servers, very few will allow F-22/F-35 to be a playable fighter.

 

Agree, probably as frequent as aerobatics or guns only servers, because that what youll be doing if pitting stealth fighters VS legacy types.

[blkspade]

Call shenanigans all you like, I made that change to a version of that mission after calls for GCI and AWACS must haves or R-77 on Flankers to combat the constant stream of high flying F-15's with 8 AIM-120's. Instead I chose to try something different so shoot me, you will notice it is labelled '90's version' representing a brief period in the early 90's, the AIM-120C is available from Sukhumi, Batumi, and from Tbilsi all in increasing amounts of stockpile the further from the front line. If you want to take an F-15 from Gudauta then you will have to take AIM-7 some like a challenge and i'm more than happy to take on that challenge when the mood suits. It's simple take it or leave it all options are there for you.

 

Feel free to select an F-15C from Batumi that is loaded with 6 AIM-120C and 2 AIM-9 and return there for rearm, after all this is quite a realistic flight pattern to the combat arena. For the record all airbases have limited supplies that are supplied further from the battlefield, R-77 are not in too high availability for Russia and neither is Kh-58 to reduce the ease of constant attacks on Sukhumi SAM systems etc.

 

I make changes not to benefit any side and I certainly don't pertain to being a pro Red/anti Blue guy, the changes I make are purely for entertainment and making challenging boundaries for all players.

 

See I'm not one of those pilots that just loads up on slammers and spams them, and most of the time I have sparrows on board. Sometimes I'll swap out the Aim-9s, but find that every time I do I end up in a situation where I wish I had them. I fight effectively with the F-15 and all its weapons.

 

Many of those changes end up lending the Red side a certain advantage whether you intended to or care to admit. Like for instance most of the revisions for Black Sea Redemption lack AWACS on the blue side, while there was quite consistently EWR on the RED. Many red strikers go off mission to attack blue airfields, Sochi in particular, which is covered by a single hawk, and some avengers. When the blue side figured out where the EWR was and how to engage it, you moved it and probably gave it better sam coverage. Its already SAMs galore covering Maykop. More often than not I'll provide CAP for the strikers, but that means trying to cover the target area, the hawk site and Sochi itself either solo or as a 2-ship. Public server being what they are leaves much to be desired in terms of team coordination. So flying 62nm away just to R&R, leaves a huge window of opportunity to the red side. I'll take the AIM-7s at Sochi since I know how to make the most out of them.

[Pilotasso]

8 AMRAAM carriers are less likely to return to base. This really degenerates in to close quarters very often where these BVR weapons will easily overshoot their targets.

[Exorcet]

Agree, probably as frequent as aerobatics or guns only servers, because that what youll be doing if pitting stealth fighters VS legacy types.

Only true with poor mission design.

 

I don't want to see every plane in every mission, but it's probably going to be pretty hard to find a match up that doesn't work unless the only mission your willing to fly/make is a mirrored one. Then yes, the better plane will slaughter everything.

 

See I'm not one of those pilots that just loads up on slammers and spams them, and most of the time I have sparrows on board. Sometimes I'll swap out the Aim-9s, but find that every time I do I end up in a situation where I wish I had them. I fight effectively with the F-15 and all its weapons.

 

Many of those changes end up lending the Red side a certain advantage whether you intended to or care to admit. Like for instance most of the revisions for Black Sea Redemption lack AWACS on the blue side, while there was quite consistently EWR on the RED. Many red strikers go off mission to attack blue airfields, Sochi in particular, which is covered by a single hawk, and some avengers. When the blue side figured out where the EWR was and how to engage it, you moved it and probably gave it better sam coverage. Its already SAMs galore covering Maykop. More often than not I'll provide CAP for the strikers, but that means trying to cover the target area, the hawk site and Sochi itself either solo or as a 2-ship. Public server being what they are leaves much to be desired in terms of team coordination. So flying 62nm away just to R&R, leaves a huge window of opportunity to the red side. I'll take the AIM-7s at Sochi since I know how to make the most out of them.

 

Well in this case (any mission using somewhat realistic tie ins to the map), you've over Red territory. I'd expect them to have some advantages.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Exorcet

[Frostie]

Many of those changes end up lending the Red side a certain advantage whether you intended to or care to admit. Like for instance most of the revisions for Black Sea Redemption lack AWACS on the blue side, while there was quite consistently EWR on the RED. Many red strikers go off mission to attack blue airfields, Sochi in particular, which is covered by a single hawk, and some avengers. When the blue side figured out where the EWR was and how to engage it, you moved it and probably gave it better sam coverage. Its already SAMs galore covering Maykop. More often than not I'll provide CAP for the strikers, but that means trying to cover the target area, the hawk site and Sochi itself either solo or as a 2-ship. Public server being what they are leaves much to be desired in terms of team coordination. So flying 62nm away just to R&R, leaves a huge window of opportunity to the red side. I'll take the AIM-7s at Sochi since I know how to make the most out of them.

I challenge you to make missions that survive the current state of DCS. The times that i've added AWACS or GCI in previous versions is to see if they are fixed, not for advantages for either side.

 

For me they create a more unstable mission so limiting to one side was a test version and one that run a few times, the GCI was added after an update to see if the showing of contacts actually worked as it didn't in previous versions with GCI. I added it as a unit by itself purely for testing and because I left it run for several days this way without checking the results or receiving feedback because of our Squadrons lack of activity. When I eventually found that it was actually working (contrary to your presumed version of events) I simply gave it a more realistic EWR setup with a view to a permanent fixture. You should have also noticed I had moved it some distance further North to reduce the coverage so as Blue strikers wouldn't be seen at their target area. Unfortunately this too for me creates an unstable mission, probably to do with the ghost contacts.

 

My goal was to have AWACS or GCI/AWACS on both sides the only reason the mission doesn't is because of the current state of DCS and not some childish little make Red better than Blue that you wish I was trying to do, and to be clear I take exception to your insinuations of mischief.

 

Regulars who fly on the server give me constructive feedback on the mission be it through TS messages or through the forum and I take everyone seriously and respond to them all explaining why things are set as they are and trying to iron all the upsets in the mission. The guy that was constantly killing the EWR was a regular on our TS but it only became apparent late on to me of his upset that 'it was now defended' and his daily mission of killing the hapless station with his F-15 gun was in tatters. I approached him on TS and explained to him the reasoning and also other misconceptions he had such as 'the blue AWACS was undefended' even though it was close to Turkey flying over 5 OHP's and a Tico and a helping of Shorad and SAMS in the redundant Georgia.

 

Add to that I regularly take an F-15 to kill any Su-25T's that love to fly a wide course East to try and hit Sukhumi. If you're asking for more SAMS at Sochi et al. then ask don't whine about it, and guess what, i'll look into it.

 

 

Edit: the current version with resource manager has no AWACS/GCI but it does now have a Tanker on the Blue side only, no doubt i'll have plenty of hate mail for not giving one to Red being as i'm so Pro NATO. And apparently Flankers flying around without GCI against F-15's and no F-15's on Red is ghey. :)

Edited August 21, 2013 by Frostie

[*Rage*]

Yeah sort it out Frostie...

 

 

 

:)

[Cali]

Where is the popcorn, same ole stuff. A lot of the people will take 120's only when flying the F-15....at least the new guys. You are always going to have those people flying online......airquake.

[lunaticfringe]

Frostie- not having written a scenario myself since FC1, I would ask the question: is the issue concerning the stability of a scenario purely based on the number of units, or is it based on the type of units and their scripting?

[Frostie]

Frostie- not having written a scenario myself since FC1, I would ask the question: is the issue concerning the stability of a scenario purely based on the number of units, or is it based on the type of units and their scripting?

 

I'm not entirely sure though I know that moving units cause a big issue hence the sad omittion of CA in our mission. I've tried many different methods in reducing mission load such as unit reduction, flyable plane reduction but the one outstanding problem seems to come from moving objects and unit actions hence reducing player count and active AI seems to make for more stability.

 

 

 

Trying to keep inline with the thread the need for a functional TWS and active missile on Russian birds is much needed to create a mission where the participants don't feel powerless and then either mismatched sides, restrictive payloads or other forms of restriction are needed to make a 2 sided fight.

 

Currently the MiGs TWS emits a lock and launch when used with ARH in reality this should be functioning in the same way as the F-15s TWS does without lock and launch until the missile goes active. This method of attack is the biggest killer of Russian birds in the sim its only right that ability is shared. A 27SM would have this ability too as the radars are capable of 2 target tracking similair to the Topaz on the 29S.

 

Until the Mig TWS is fixed and the Su IRST is fixed Russian planes are always going to be playing 2nd fiddle in missions, so for guys to complain about mission tweaks favouring Red side they need to try understanding what is going on with DCS. When I fly F-15 in our server with 6 120C it feels like I'm shooting fish in a barrel, I certainly don't want it so easy and having flown Falcon BMS on and off I get the feeling facing TWS MiGs and Flankers in BVR should be a much tougher prospect than it is in DCS, as for the 29A's in BMS well they're small fry.

[blkspade]

I challenge you to make missions that survive the current state of DCS. The times that i've added AWACS or GCI in previous versions is to see if they are fixed, not for advantages for either side.

 

For me they create a more unstable mission so limiting to one side was a test version and one that run a few times, the GCI was added after an update to see if the showing of contacts actually worked as it didn't in previous versions with GCI. I added it as a unit by itself purely for testing and because I left it run for several days this way without checking the results or receiving feedback because of our Squadrons lack of activity. When I eventually found that it was actually working (contrary to your presumed version of events) I simply gave it a more realistic EWR setup with a view to a permanent fixture. You should have also noticed I had moved it some distance further North to reduce the coverage so as Blue strikers wouldn't be seen at their target area. Unfortunately this too for me creates an unstable mission, probably to do with the ghost contacts.

 

My goal was to have AWACS or GCI/AWACS on both sides the only reason the mission doesn't is because of the current state of DCS and not some childish little make Red better than Blue that you wish I was trying to do, and to be clear I take exception to your insinuations of mischief.

 

Regulars who fly on the server give me constructive feedback on the mission be it through TS messages or through the forum and I take everyone seriously and respond to them all explaining why things are set as they are and trying to iron all the upsets in the mission. The guy that was constantly killing the EWR was a regular on our TS but it only became apparent late on to me of his upset that 'it was now defended' and his daily mission of killing the hapless station with his F-15 gun was in tatters. I approached him on TS and explained to him the reasoning and also other misconceptions he had such as 'the blue AWACS was undefended' even though it was close to Turkey flying over 5 OHP's and a Tico and a helping of Shorad and SAMS in the redundant Georgia.

 

Add to that I regularly take an F-15 to kill any Su-25T's that love to fly a wide course East to try and hit Sukhumi. If you're asking for more SAMS at Sochi et al. then ask don't whine about it, and guess what, i'll look into it.

 

 

Edit: the current version with resource manager has no AWACS/GCI but it does now have a Tanker on the Blue side only, no doubt i'll have plenty of hate mail for not giving one to Red being as i'm so Pro NATO. And apparently Flankers flying around without GCI against F-15's and no F-15's on Red is ghey. :)

 

Yes there are many things that aren't quite optimal in DCS right now, and understand there are certain difficulties with trying to work around stabiliy issues. You can blame me for F-15 EWR gunning, as i shared the fact that it was possible after being force to try it in the F-15 campaign due to faulty AI. My statements aren't made as a personal attack to your character or anything, just based on observations. We're all only human, and thus flawed. At no point am I insinuating mischief, clearly stated that it could have been an oversight or a matter bias. Not saying that you are biased, just stating that its possible because you are only human. Now if you're some kind of sentient cybernetic oganism, then I do sincerely apologize for mis-categorizing you. I look at things from multiple sides, I have no personal issue with you or your server. Like the stormy variant was great, but anyone who flew Russian fighters immediately hated it. Aside from it removing the ability to stay low and hide in valleys like they prefer, I found it quite exhilarating trying to land the F-15 at Sochi and not die. Maybe it was removed for stability reasons, maybe it was the whining that likely took place. At least one person that was flying that mission on Red said they weren't gonna fly until stormy mission was gone. I fly regardless of the circumstances, but I'll state if the deck appears to be stacked. Not really whining about anything, but you are the mission designer and probably have descent amount of experience in doing such by now. My statement about Sochi sam coverage compared to Maykop is just my observation. It just happens to look like a higher degree effort went into covering it. Its fun for me trying to scramble out of Sochi to engage Flankers basically circling the airfield. Its not like I go 'this is BS' and rage quit over it. All's fair in love and war simulation. I thought it was 'funny' that the 90's (no 120C) mission variant sprang up after all of Teks whining about the 120C being unfair. Don't get all butt-hurt, its just a statement based on the observation of a series of events which may or may not have any direct correlation. We're all only human, aren't we.

[RIPTIDE]

I'll bring PAC-3's:

I know I said this before,... I just hope ED put in some Ballistic missile targets... because PAC-3 ain't so good vs aircraft.

 

You do realise also the PAC-3 has a very short range and is nothing like PAC-2?

[RIPTIDE]

Agree, probably as frequent as aerobatics or guns only servers, because that what youll be doing if pitting stealth fighters VS legacy types.

Mission design.

 

For a time on the 104th, we used to have cordoned off areas for P-51DvsP-51D scraps. Similar map segregation could be used for these, except on a bigger level.

[RIPTIDE]

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

If 'S' it can be done with higher fidelity than 'SM', then fine. :)

[GGTharos]

I wouldn't worry about the speed, range, nor intercept capability of PAC-3 vs. an ABT - but I digress.

 

I know I said this before,... I just hope ED put in some Ballistic missile targets... because PAC-3 ain't so good vs aircraft.

 

You do realise also the PAC-3 has a very short range and is nothing like PAC-2?

[F l a n k e r]

I don't like the MFD-cockpits (a computer that simulates a computer, how exciting!), so it's fine for me!

[Exorcet]

Your computer will be simulating the FCS computers and radar processors anyway. I don't think the computer in a computer = boring argument can ever make sense.

 

Though I appreciate lower tech planes (even if Russian cockpit design takes adjusting too)

[Pilotasso]

Home computers have several times the processing power of airborne computers due to certification for higher MTBF (that's why planes rarely crash while your desktop does so everyday), so it is indeed possible to emulate a fighter computer on your computer the same way you can emulate a playstation on PC. :)

[wasserfall]

Just found some interesting stuff, maybe ED could do some business with him:)

 

 

On his webpage more nice stuff

 

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/fighter-cockpit-cabin-max/560986

[FlankerNation]

Just found some interesting stuff, maybe ED could do some business with him:)

 

 

On his webpage more nice stuff

 

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/fighter-cockpit-cabin-max/560986

 

 

Wow I checked the link it could be a starter if ED could just look into it ?

if AFM or not Flamings Cliffs style will be OK for me also.

[Frostie]

Yes there are many things that aren't quite optimal in DCS right now, and understand there are certain difficulties with trying to work around stabiliy issues. You can blame me for F-15 EWR gunning, as i shared the fact that it was possible after being force to try it in the F-15 campaign due to faulty AI. My statements aren't made as a personal attack to your character or anything, just based on observations. We're all only human, and thus flawed. At no point am I insinuating mischief, clearly stated that it could have been an oversight or a matter bias. Not saying that you are biased, just stating that its possible because you are only human. Now if you're some kind of sentient cybernetic oganism, then I do sincerely apologize for mis-categorizing you. I look at things from multiple sides, I have no personal issue with you or your server. Like the stormy variant was great, but anyone who flew Russian fighters immediately hated it. Aside from it removing the ability to stay low and hide in valleys like they prefer, I found it quite exhilarating trying to land the F-15 at Sochi and not die. Maybe it was removed for stability reasons, maybe it was the whining that likely took place. At least one person that was flying that mission on Red said they weren't gonna fly until stormy mission was gone. I fly regardless of the circumstances, but I'll state if the deck appears to be stacked. Not really whining about anything, but you are the mission designer and probably have descent amount of experience in doing such by now. My statement about Sochi sam coverage compared to Maykop is just my observation. It just happens to look like a higher degree effort went into covering it. Its fun for me trying to scramble out of Sochi to engage Flankers basically circling the airfield. Its not like I go 'this is BS' and rage quit over it. All's fair in love and war simulation. I thought it was 'funny' that the 90's (no 120C) mission variant sprang up after all of Teks whining about the 120C being unfair. Don't get all butt-hurt, its just a statement based on the observation of a series of events which may or may not have any direct correlation. We're all only human, aren't we.

 

Tek's my buddy for sure but we often have conflicting opinions. He was frustrated with the busted Flanker and the whole mismatch era that ED gives us. I decided rather than omit 120C all together (which I don't agree with) I would use the tools ED gave us to create a scenario requiring pilots to not be so reliant on the same missile. The overall idea was to have limited supplies similair to our Crimean Incident and Georgian Incident dynamic campaigns where aircraft would be using mixed payloads such as 120c, b and 7, 27ER and R, ET and T as well as limited SEAD missiles etc. Unfortunately it is probably too much to expect people to fly on a 24/7 public server for the greater good rather than for personal gain.

 

Currently there are several factors which make the current basic set up hard to chew, the Flanker as BVR platform is drastically hindered in both DCS era design and broken game logic. So there is a degree of truth in what Tek is trying to convey. It's hard to imagine in an alternate universe Russia making war in the 21st century against the US by only using busted Flankers with last century tech. The point missed is that ED don't make a game focused on PvP multiplayer they make study and survey simulators with no specific era intended. As has been pointed out several times it is down to the mission makers to create the PvP game aspect and that is is what some struggle to grasp.

 

This last month whenever I've flown on the server I've used A-10C or F-15 for the most part just to get a view from blue because most of the feedback I get is from Red. I flew on the server last night in an F-15 to get a better view of what you describe and I was able to understand the limitations of blues air defence. I've modified it and will look to improve it further especially the valleys around blues bases. As for the resource manager it is very much wip and has only been running for a few days, it is hard to find the right balance to achieve low supply and avoiding no supply for too long. The 120C is avaliable but when they run dry the option to load them and show their count disappears. Check F10 for supply status.

 

It is not my intention to deny the use of 120C I'm just trying to make a more enjoyable scenario for all, obviously my initial concern falls with Flankers.