RAZBAM; Mig-29

from ED forum and RAZBAM Facebook:




http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1615484#post1615484

That's some nice news! Can someone with better MiG-skills than me identify the variant? The drawings seems to indicate MiG-29SMT, but to me the spine looks too small...

Great news! Now I just need some 3rd-party devs to start on a new map or two...

Excellent news, we really need good quality Russian fast movers.....and as much as I love many US planes I can well understand the discontent among some and dark mutterings of "US-Western-Centric" bias. Not that I agree entirely with that conspiracy theory and some of its more hysterical proponents, I honestly think its more likely that these decisions are driven by market forces and their perception from a business standpoint of what will sell and won't. Understandable, from their point of view.

However, am I the only one slightly concerned about the *boom boom boom* barrage of mooted releases from some companies? I suppose I'm thinking about 'standards'. The whole area of standards and 'definition' of such seems to be pretty nebulous and I'll admit to being confused lol. I do recall a thread (ED Forums?) where some quite vague explanation was given by one of the devs; along the lines of some aircraft being given an "Official DCS brand stamp of approval", and others not. A kind of "two tier system"? If someone can find a link to the post or even provide some clarification I would be very grateful....I don't live on forums and I may well have missed more important news. I probably have, tbh. Thanks if you can shed any further light.

Are there any real, substantial details about criteria that need to be satisfied to get the "DCS" stamp? Disclaimer: I don't know much about RAZBAM other than they are well established in FSX (which I don't play) but the cynic in me finds it hard to believe that all can be of a high standard of fidelity if many are being developed in parallel (not to say they are, just don't know). More info from the developers on order of priority, and perhaps some 'rough' kind of timeframe would probably be helpful and put some doubts to bed. I saw a massive list of aircraft in one post that RAZBAM intend to do (really looking forward to their AV8B+ Harrier II and GR9), and if they can do it well, then great. For my part, I'd rather have less and slower volume of releases at a better standard, quality trumps quantity for me every time.

It seems likely we may get Beczl's Mig-21Bis earliest which I'm hoping will be good. I get the feeling that its a kind of "labour of love" for sure (as I think the DCS A10-C was), and that passion for something usually shines through....in any Profession or walk of life. Equally however, "oh we'll just flog this" unenthusiastic afterthoughts and people just going through the motions can be painfully obvious as well. It generally results in crap. Have to say I'm not getting the "yay we are really excited about this" Passion type vibe on this occasion. I'm just hoping that DCS World is not saturated with a high volume of half baked crap lol. Always a danger and temptation when a financial motive is present to lower the bar a bit in order to make a quick buck. Think dodgy car manufacturers. If all people think of is filthy lucre (necessary of course, but still filthy) then there aint no love anymore, and all dat loving feeling be gone. Happens all the time.

It would be madness for ED-DCS to allow that to happen. Their brand is all about quality and fidelity and to let that slip would be extremely bad business in the end. I know they are smarter than that though and know this themselves, so probably much ado about nothing.

Not saying that this will come to pass, just being a world weary cynical bugger again. Don't worry. It might never happen.

From the other drawings of the wing, it looks like they're tossing around a MiG-29K as well?

Looks like the SMT (CMT same?) upgrade from the drawing, and they might be doing a K as well? Have to wait for official announcement I suppose. Not an expert on the Russian birds, but I'm sure the SMT has a much better avionics suite, 2 MFDS and upgraded radar etc. Cat will probably know.

Interesting.

If you want a DCS level fidelity aircraft, and unless RAZBAM knows something I don't, which is possible but not likely, the only aircraft you can model with that goal is the 29A/B.

Biggles was right to say that there's no conspiracy. The market thing isn't the only thing happening - Russia has really tightened its grip on available information regarding its aviation assets for example, and given that ED is Russian, even if these peeps found something to model, it is unlikely they want to go to jail.

From there on, things only get more complicated - yep, it actually gets worse, but no one is likely to offer explanations.

Regarding what ED will allow people to model - there are no restrictions, but there are definitely criteria to meet to get the DCS stamp. So yes, people could model X-Wings if they wanted, or low-fi planes. X-Wings aside, FC3 (or slightly better) level aircraft definitely do have a place.

PS: AFAIK, RAZBAM aims to have all their modules qualify for the DCS stamp.

AFAIK, and by experience so far,

without a license, it seems like you'd have to code everything yourself without docs.

with a license, ED will supply some help.

Nothing is off limits, and looking at Files that change every patch,
ED is adding stuff piece by piece to help 3rd party developers with integrating the basics for the systems they need.

One thing people are overlooking is the expandability/flexability of the module setup,

Each system has it's own folder, it's own LUA Init. file and own DLLs, so the extent of the systems is only limited by Reference Material/Documents and a persons Coding Ability.

Of course Ghost, agreed. Should be a lot easier getting info due to the GDR connection too. I suppose it matters not really though since Typhoons and Raptors etc are being made, obviously going into extreme guesstimate territory. End of the day its a computer game, as much as I love simulation aspects and prefer the 'go with what we know and can verify' approach, I think even the A10-C might be capable of a few more things than we know at present through the DCS sim. So it goes. I'd love to see ED make a Mig29A/B for the next project after the US fixed wing, or an earlier Flanker. That would be great.

Yeah I can imagine it being a nightmare getting the gen on Military info in Putins Russia. But..... please, Comrade Yetevsky....I'm....just..... making a computer game...*'Putt, Putt' muffled silencer shots....Silence* Doesn't bear thinking about, really.

coding the details and specifics of the raptor's systems will not be accurate, i dont care what anyone says, those systems are not public, and are classified.

what they could do, is work with pilots, who tell them what button does what, what pages are on the MFDs etc, and they can model the systems to resemble those functions and tweak parameters using F-22 pilots as test pilots.

How do you think they do it for FSX. (avionics/systems wise, as FSX's flight model is rubbish outside of FedEx/UPS 747s)

Well what you say about the F-22 also holds for the Eurofighter. Don't disagree with you on those points. I don't think you would get any pilot talking about the systems IMHO. There is info available on the WEB and I think that would be the place to get information but it still would only tell you what it resembles so to speak. Good enough for most simulation but would not pass ED's requirements for a DCS aircraft.

Well FSX is doing better of late. Some of the new aircraft coming on are great. Yes the old stuff was a little lame but things are vastly improving for FSX for what ever reason. P3D, photo Scenery etc. and yes it carries price tags.

There is Wind Tunnel data for the YF-22 and EF-2000, just have to know where to get them.

i wasnt saying pilots will describe systems in detail, just a general map of things, and program from there.

if they were able to get a hold of a pilots manual, then that changes most of the guess work. but that's not gonna happen.

The SuperHornet is still mostly classified outside of Windtunnel Data and some systems.

The A-10C itself has classified systems in it.

The guys who are making the Tiffy add-on actually have sufficient information to earn a DCS label
On the other hand, no such info exists for an F-22, so the F-22 is all guesswork.



That's right. Even if we were to go back in time to the actual software version of the A-10C modeled in DCS, there is a lot of stuff missing. To give you a hint, I don't think you've ever seen a flight sim with an accurately modeled modern RWR ... never mind the inter-operation of that with the radar etc ...



It will come at some point.



Yep, pretty much. FOr the moment, may as well stick to MiG-29A/B and their known upgrades, and the Su-27S/K.

That data isn't terribly helpful. It's performance charts that you want, since that will eliminate guesswork when modeling aircraft performance.

for the EAFMs, our team uses Wind Tunnel data and controller logic. with the performance charts.

Performance Charts give you a Performance Chart, but it doesnt give your Aerodynamic Data that you need to input into the API to model Aerodynamic Characteristics of the Airframe.

Without that data, the plane will not fly, stall, or fall realistically.

Without the Controller Logic (thrust, pitch, roll, yaw, dampening etc), the plane will not react to control inputs realistically.


Realistically we prolly dont need Perf Charts to make an EAFM.

Performance charts are there for a Benchmark Comparison of the Flight model with Aero Data. which if you're using Wind Tunnel Docs for the Aero, teh Data should be correct and when you run a test, the Performance of the FM should match the charts.


Using only Charts, all you can do is extract a few numbers to make an SFM, which uses the same STALL and General Performance Data for All Aircraft.

The drawing is written in cyrillic alphabet, were what we see as the letter 'C' actually is an 'S', think 'CCCP' and 'SSSR'

Yes, and that's great for making the aircraft work with controls and edge conditions realistically, I agree. Without the performance data however you won't be able to check if your simulation performs correctly.

like i said, we use them for benchmark/comparison.

I can make a SFM match the charts for flight, but the plane will stall like the FC3 F-15C/SU27/SU34/MIG29., and all other SFM planes in DCSW, which is unrealistic,

I dont code EAFMs for the team, I can do SFMs that we use on AC while the EAFM is being coded.

Which is basic data and basic engine data. but as I've said, the plane will stall and fall just like other planes in DCSW that use SFM.

when the VRC F-16 AFM Flight Model Demo is public, fly that and then turn around and FLY the F-16 with the DCSW SFM. (might wanna have a barf bag ready), as the difference is that much.


(edit, By Team, I mean team VRC (Virtual Reality Combat), not RazBam). Just to keep people from getting the wrong Idea.)

Hehe, aye thats what I thought when I wrote 'same'. Crazy Easterners with their funny words. Took me a while to figure out the S and C models were one and the same lol.

and I wouldnt mind a MIG-29 with an EAFM.... as the FC3 SFM MIGs blow Chunks in High AoA Stall situations.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1616041&postcount=42

I don't get the announcement then.

And tbh, I think the market for a DCS Mig-29 might be bigger than for an FSX one.

Can be ED others plans?

prolly dont want a MIG-29 Module competing with their FC3 Module.

(blush)!

Gosh, Biggles...thanks for the props!

Yes, the izh. 9-17, also known as the "SMT," is a MiG-29 izh. 9-13 upgrade program. MAPO-MiG came out with it about the same time they unveiled the MiG-21-97 improvement program for late MiG-21s, and the idea was to bring early 9-13 MiG-29s to a level broadly comparable with the MiG-29M (9-15). The 9-17 variants have an upgraded Zhuk pulse-Doppler radar with multitarget engagement capability, HOTAS integration, two color MFDs, and two smaller monochrome displays, if I remember correctly. There are not a lot of them, I think the VVS and Indian Air Force are the main customers for it.

those systems prolly arent public knowledge and heavily classified, which would make trying to A DCS High LoD Version pointless.

If we were going to get a real, no-joke DCS MiG-29, I'd like to see the 9-13, with all modes of the N-019 radar present and accounted for and air-to-ground modes up and running. The 9-13 MiG was my favorite in Lock On Modern Air Combat for its internal jammer and air-to-mud capability.

If I were sim-goddess-for-a-day I'd ask for DCS:Su-27S "Flanker B", modeling the ca. 1987 vesion of the VVS's Su-27 with all modes of the original NIIR version of the N-001 and its integrated RLPK-27 targeting system on deck, and the a2g systems present and accounted for. The current FC3 versions have most of the radar modes available but for the real aircraft's two-target engagement capability. In actuality, there's probably not a large market for this, so we're probably never going to see a Russian jet modeled to this extent, other than the MiG-21bis and possibly the later versions of the MiG-23, assuming Beczl goes that way. The MiG-21 and 23 will enjoy a wiiide following because they were flown by so many countries. ED won't want to compromise the FC3 aircraft to DCS-ify them, there is no profit in it, and that's understandable.

Thus, I give thanks for Beczl's MiG-21bis. It's the only DCS project I have a real desire to get in and fly at this point; the MiG-21 has long been at the top of my short list of personal favorite jets. The Mirage Factory's MiG-21-F13 (almost always dressed out in Indian Air Force "First Supersonics" colors), a third-party MiG-21PFM and MF, and Mirage Factory's Mirage IIICJ were the jets I really flew most in the Strike Fighters Project 1 series. I'm following the Spanish Mirage F-1 developers, and RAZBAM's A-7 with some interest, though.

IIRC Beczl has stated that the MiG-23 is next in line, can't remember any mentioning of which version though.

The MiG-23MS would be an obvious candidate, considering most of the work in the radar/armament area is already done, but otoh, it might be too close to the MiG-21bis to sell. The MLD or M might be better choices from a marketing view.

That probably can't happen, not on an A-10C quality level.



... but this can.



Such a capability does not exist as far as the operator's manual is concerned. It could be a secret mode, but you wouldn't want to use it ... it has been discussed with certain individuals and the conclusion is that its Pk would be pretty shabby assuming such a mode exists at all. There was a similar sounding mode for the F-15, but it turned out not to be what people thought, either.

Have you read the pilot's manual for the Su-27P or S? Just interested to know. I have not. Though I have read an export version of that document for the MiG-21bis, thanks to the good offices of Beczl.

I found this from the 2004 Fisher Report to the U.S.China Economic and Security Review Commission interesting:



The Su-27SK is the export version of the Su-27S.

http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04fisher_report/7airforcesystems.htm

Interesting. They don't seem to have got the memo you did, GG. Now, these guys:

http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?showtopic=32423

appear to have. Fromn the January 2004 Microwave Journal:



and from the same article,



Very interesting.

Su-27SK (export version of 27S), in addition this has been discussed with ED devs who were able to ask people in the know.





Wouldn't be the first time we find inaccurate information on the net . Originally the Su-33's capabilitiesin FLANKER were based on a Jane's report that was misinterpreted/not corrected regarding a potential (and unfunded, as in never happened) upgrade path, just as an example. We see today also promotional material listing flankers with R-77's and other goodies listed as Su-27SK's, but they're not. They're Su-27SM(1-2-3)K's. In addition, at least as with regards to the S/P/SK, the jammers are usually carried by one of four aircraft in the flight (IIRC) with a special control panel installed in the specified aircraft, thus giving this one the role of EW support for the flight. The Sorbitsja is fairly powerful, but it isn't an SPJ in the sense that you'd think of it like the pod on an A-10, F-16, or the internal jammers of F-15's, F-18's and some MiG-29's. It's more of a cross between an SPJ and a dedicated support jammer. This makes it better than an SPJ probably under SOME circumstances, and likely worse in a whole bunch of others. Unfortunately without tactics books regarding the use of those, well...

There has been a lot of complaining and other theatrics because of these materials ... the facts are that ED acquired the operator's manuals for the Su-27SK, and upgrades to this model did not happen until quite late in the game. There have been others from the 27 family, like the 30M(KK/MKetc) and the 27SM1-2-3's, etc.

Either Ukraine or Belarus, I forget which, also had their own unique upgrade path for the S/SK in the 2000's. And of course, there's the Chinese.

Any flanker that has R-77 capability or guided air to ground weapon capability is not the base Su-27S(K). It is an upgrade that was done in the 2000's, and there is no documentation available that can enable anyone to model these to DCS depth.

Apologies for getting wordy, I just think it is worthwhile to clear up potential misunderstandings regarding this technology.

And I think in the end there you are referring to SNP mode It is modeled reasonably in FC. Of course with a DCS flanker you would definitely get extra goodies, as per the Su-27SK operator's manual. There are definitely a lot of things missing, as there are from the F-15C and MiG-29.

Oh, and there's this, also from Microwave Journal:



Added above.

^^^^

Yes, nor surprising and generally well known, but it only ever equipped a handful of MiG-29's (I believe there have been upgrades based on this radar since, I could be wrong).

What I was saying though is that unfortunately it appears impossible right now to get the operator's manuals for this equipment, so this version of the MiG-29 can't be modeled very well

I'll easily admit my preference for western birds (especially F-15C's, and you might catch me in a well-modeled F-22 if there ever is one ... or well, you might catch a missile out of nowhere rather ) but I also support development of eastern birds because I really enjoy DACT, and I think my virtual opponents should also have the opportunity to enjoy their chosen ride as well.

Sadly, Russia isn't cooperating.

The statement is a bit weird concerning that the ED is adding it to the FC3.. Obviously, the operator manual for the MiG-29 9.13 wouldn't have it as it doesn't have the N019M radar.. IIRC, supposedly only about 45 of those 9.13S were built, with around 20 remaining in the ex-Soviet service (or two squadrons?) and the rest exported as MiG-29SE, so if it's available anywhere, that data should be in the operating manuals supplied with those models, no?

Not when we're talking about the Su-27S/P. Some had speculated that it could guide two R-27's to two separate targets. There was writing on the F-15 radar ... documents that could have led you to the same conclusion with AIM-7, but this was never true, AFAIK. What they usually really mean is that you can launch two missiles at the same target and each has a separate data-link channel.



The MiG-29SE is quite a bit spiffier than the 9.13S, IIRC.