J-15 carrier fighter thread

T

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
DCS is a simulator video game and attempts to model real world military aircraft, some from the past, some from the present.

As a dedicated combat simulator video game, it is among one of the best in the world today that can be accessed by anyone with a decent computer and a credit card, sure.
But if you're asking whether their depiction of specific aircraft in service today, and whether the comparisons between aircraft in service today, is worth any discussion on this thread, then no, it is not.


You don't need to apologize for not being able to demo billion dollar simulators on this forum because no one expects that at all.
However we do expect people to please discriminate and consider whether the results of a simulator video game you can buy off steam is worth being a stepping stone for any kind of discussion on this forum at all.


If you come in and ask whether a DCS death match means we can make an assessments about each aircraft? Or to ask "which aircraft is better"??? Well no, we can't.
I assume you wanted an honest answer, so that is the honest answer.
If you found the video useful, that is fine. It may be useful as a starting point to do reading and discussion.
But don't feel offended if the video is considered less than useful here.

If you wanted to talk about notable differences between a J-15 and Su-33, or even to briefly compare certain characteristics between J-15 and Super Hornet, those would be slightly better questions to ask straight off the bat. But using a video from DCS to form the basis of your question is going to get you dismissed.

Not to mention massively broad questions like "which aircraft is better," is virtually always going to end up with the answer of "it's complicated" for aircraft of a similar or equivalent generation and weight class.



So, to answer your previous question as to why I think "it is not worth talking about at all" --

1. The results of a DCS death match is not a basis for us to make any extrapolations about the respective aircraft in the way you asked, because the relevance of DCS for extrapolating "performance" or "capability" of modern aircraft in modern air combat is limited at best, especially for aircraft still in service today.
2. If you wanted to ask about the differences between J-15 and Su-33 you could've done so without having to bring in DCS, which doesn't add anything productive to the discussion or as a basis of discussion.
3. Your comment about "J-15 seems to be the better plane in this match up" is very much the kind of general comment/conclusion drawn from a video game combat simulator that we would want to avoid because that is a significant statement to make in context of the thin, thin, thin, evidence from a death match DCS video, in context of all of the other knowledge that we know in which how modern air combat operates.


This massive long explanation is frankly the exact thing I wanted to avoid, which is why I wrote "it is not worth talking about at all".
It was my attempt to hint that this was not a productive line of discussion and just inevitably would lead to a discussion about DCS and its credibility and how "professional" or how "casual" this forum is -- rather than the aircraft itself.


Putting my moderator hat on -- if you or anyone else wants to talk about J-15 the aircraft and its details even in comparison with Su-33 or other aircraft in the world, that is fine. (But not as "which is better"? type comparisons)
However any further posts that mentions or argues about DCS will have either the post deleted or have the relevant part of the post deleted.
Click to expand...


I think dismissing simulators that can be bought online just cause they are not used by the military is not based on real dynamics of software development. Its like saying Linux or other open source software is free so it must be bad. But that is not true at all. Often this kind of publicly available software can be much better than dedicated billion dollar software just because they can rely on feedback from general public and enthusiasts who are also very dedicated and knowledgeable in these things. Moreover, such simulators can rely on years of tinkering to perfect their simulation compared to a dedicated military contract developed software which may remain static.

Another thing I must point out is what we are simulating here. We are simulating Air frames which are designs that are completely in the public view and we are simulating engine thrust numbers that are also public for most aircrafts. Simulating how a particular air frame will behave in the air in certain altitude and speed is not top secret material. Anyone with decent physics engine can simulate it. This is just pure aero-dynamics calculation. So, simulating a close dog fight even in a publicly available software should be very accurate since this not based on highly sophisticated electronics but pure physics simulation of air frames.

Same thing with simulating missiles. The dimensions and shape of missiles are public knowledge. So how they will behave when following a plane at certain speed and altitude is not top secret material. Anyone with a physics engine can do it.

So, I won't discount the results of dog fights in a simulator. It can tell a lot about how a air frame behaves in high-altitude/low-altitude vs how it can do in a turn fight. Your doubt about relying on simulators is more appropriate for a BVR fight with long range missile since those fights are much complex and reliant on top secret information about electronics, radar performance, missile tracking ability and so on.

But when it comes to close range dog fights, we can tell a lot about how good a plane is in turning, flying and out maneuvering.

Here is what I will claim based on what I have seen experts say and validated by watching videos of dog fights of simulators on youtube. Su-27 derived planes like J-15 is superior than F/A-18 in a close range dog fight because it has higher nose authority. That's what is required in a Fox-2 dog fight where you want to put our nose on opponent, lock your heat seeker and fire.

Anyone wants to refute me? Go ahead.
 
S

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
The newest IR missile modelled in DCS is the AIM-9M, first made in the early 80s. If you think WVR air battles of today (on the rare chance they ever happen) will be fought like that of DCS, you are greatly mistaken.
 
by78

by78

General
tamsen_ikard said:
I think dismissing simulators that can be bought online just cause they are not used by the military is not based on real dynamics of software development. Its like saying Linux or other open source software is free so it must be bad. But that is not true at all. Often this kind of publicly available software can be much better than dedicated billion dollar software just because they can rely on feedback from general public and enthusiasts who are also very dedicated and knowledgeable in these things. Moreover, such simulators can rely on years of tinkering to perfect their simulation compared to a dedicated military contract developed software which may remain static.

Another thing I must point out is what we are simulating here. We are simulating Air frames which are designs that are completely in the public view and we are simulating engine thrust numbers that are also public for most aircrafts. Simulating how a particular air frame will behave in the air in certain altitude and speed is not top secret material. Anyone with decent physics engine can simulate it. This is just pure aero-dynamics calculation. So, simulating a close dog fight even in a publicly available software should be very accurate since this not based on highly sophisticated electronics but pure physics simulation of air frames.

Same thing with simulating missiles. The dimensions and shape of missiles are public knowledge. So how they will behave when following a plane at certain speed and altitude is not top secret material. Anyone with a physics engine can do it.

So, I won't discount the results of dog fights in a simulator. It can tell a lot about how a air frame behaves in high-altitude/low-altitude vs how it can do in a turn fight. Your doubt about relying on simulators is more appropriate for a BVR fight with long range missile since those fights are much complex and reliant on top secret information about electronics, radar performance, missile tracking ability and so on.

But when it comes to close range dog fights, we can tell a lot about how good a plane is in turning, flying and out maneuvering.

Here is what I will claim based on what I have seen experts say and validated by watching videos of dog fights of simulators on youtube. Su-27 derived planes like J-15 is superior than F/A-18 in a close range dog fight because it has higher nose authority. That's what is required in a Fox-2 dog fight where you want to put our nose on opponent, lock your heat seeker and fire.

Anyone wants to refute me? Go ahead.
Click to expand...


Great, open a new thread on this topic if you must, but this line of discussion has ended and is now off-topic here in my view.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
I think dismissing simulators that can be bought online just cause they are not used by the military is not based on real dynamics of software development. Its like saying Linux or other open source software is free so it must be bad. But that is not true at all. Often this kind of publicly available software can be much better than dedicated billion dollar software just because they can rely on feedback from general public and enthusiasts who are also very dedicated and knowledgeable in these things. Moreover, such simulators can rely on years of tinkering to perfect their simulation compared to a dedicated military contract developed software which may remain static.

Another thing I must point out is what we are simulating here. We are simulating Air frames which are designs that are completely in the public view and we are simulating engine thrust numbers that are also public for most aircrafts. Simulating how a particular air frame will behave in the air in certain altitude and speed is not top secret material. Anyone with decent physics engine can simulate it. This is just pure aero-dynamics calculation. So, simulating a close dog fight even in a publicly available software should be very accurate since this not based on highly sophisticated electronics but pure physics simulation of air frames.

Same thing with simulating missiles. The dimensions and shape of missiles are public knowledge. So how they will behave when following a plane at certain speed and altitude is not top secret material. Anyone with a physics engine can do it.

So, I won't discount the results of dog fights in a simulator. It can tell a lot about how a air frame behaves in high-altitude/low-altitude vs how it can do in a turn fight. Your doubt about relying on simulators is more appropriate for a BVR fight with long range missile since those fights are much complex and reliant on top secret information about electronics, radar performance, missile tracking ability and so on.

But when it comes to close range dog fights, we can tell a lot about how good a plane is in turning, flying and out maneuvering.

Here is what I will claim based on what I have seen experts say and validated by watching videos of dog fights of simulators on youtube. Su-27 derived planes like J-15 is superior than F/A-18 in a close range dog fight because it has higher nose authority. That's what is required in a Fox-2 dog fight where you want to put our nose on opponent, lock your heat seeker and fire.

Anyone wants to refute me? Go ahead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no, in case you didn't know the sentences in the last post in blue were that as a moderator. This is a thread about J-15, not about DCS or the validity of different simulators and games in extrapolating real world performance and outcomes.

Regrettably there is no need to refute you, because as I said before, further posts in this thread about this topic will be deleted, and you will be warned as well if you try to push it further.

If you or anyone else wish to specifically discuss and debate the validity of simulators and games in extrapolating real world performance and outcomes, you should make an entirely different thread for it. But not this thread.
 
by78

by78

General
Finally an un-cropped view of the cockpit, but it's heavily censored. :confused:

50572649351_550377220f_k.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top