Bimbac

In real life, as far as I know, R-27ER should activate the seeker only in terminal phase (chaff countermeasure), also it is INS/Datalink (Mid-course updates) capable. However, a target shouldn't get any Launch warning, because, as I stated already before, there is no change in waveform, what-so-ever, from the launching aircraft, only STT lock. Since the missile has an SARH seeker, it is completely passive, i.e. doesn't emit anything, except for the proximity fuse, but that cannot be recognized by RWR. There is a reply from one of the developers on this forum that Russian SARH missiles produce a Launch warning (in contrast with reality) to make it easier for the players. I my opinion, it spoils the simulation very badly. Either people want it realistic, than make it so without exception, or not. Then there are other games, but these simplifications, in my opinion, don't belong to DCS, at least not in the Simulation level. The other side is the capability of the developers to make a realistic simulation. And I believe that it would take a much larger team a tremendous effort to simulate all aspects of modern aerial warfare, including real ECM techniques, Radar modes, Comms jamming and deception, and things like that, combined with the fact that most of this stuff is highly classified. So I accept a certain level of "downgraded" capabilities, but that shouldn't go for principles. I'd be happy if DCS World simulated the environment properly, like IADS, GCI, Datalink, AWACS/EWR, ATC Comms, etc. That would recreate a current combat environment in much more realistic way. Some steps have already been taken, but the progress is very slow. I think that without an RF/IR Physics simulation engine, we would never see radars, missiles and sensors simulated properly to their real life counterparts. But I'm still hoping.

Well, when it is, it will make thing interesting. I have a question for you though: Is R-27ER seeker active right after launch or only in terminal phase? If the latter is the case, implementing this into DCS would definitely increase the Pk.

We did some computations at my work recently, because we needed to figure out a way to properly simulate R-27ER vs AMRAAM C scenario (I am talking about a military grade simulation now) and how to counter the ER. The launching platforms had the same airspeed and altitude, flying in perfect nose-on aspect. The result was that since ER goes straight at the target instead of lofting, along with stronger boost and lower Lift-to-Drag ratio at hypersonic speed, it will have the same kinematic range against a non-maneuvering target as AMRAAM C, but will reach it sooner. AMRAAM appeared to be less draggy in terminal phase along with better momentum, which meant better maneuvering capability. Our data were based on public information. The seeker performance was not taken into account, but I assume AMRAAM to be fairly superior in the end game (we have just compared the kinematic abilities of the missiles, not the fuse, seeker and launching platform radar capabilities. I used a simplified description in order to make my reply shorter, thus I am aware of some missing info. Anyway, if ED can make a true AFM for missiles in the future, the final result of the same test should be very close to our study.

Sorry, it must be my bad English. My point was that R-27ER is superior to AMRAAM in range and kinematic performance, but definitely NOT the seeker wise - it was improved over time but still SARH. Western aircraft are superior to Russian ones in terms of avionics, electronics and radar performance, which, combined with AMRAAM, makes them lethal in Air-to-Air combat (Russians are superior in aerodynamics and recent engine technology). Also, Western pilots generally get much more flying hours and get better training, which increases the effectiveness even more. But as a matter-of-fact, Russian missiles, if properly used, still present a significant threat that would be unwise to ignore - they are far from being harmless. Also stating that a weapon or a plane didn't achieve any kills in real combat doesn't necessarily mean they are not effective. The best fighter aircraft in the world would be a heap of scrap metal if it doesn't get a pilot who can use it to his advantage and vice versa. It's a combat system and the airplane is just one part of it. If, for example, a MiG-35 would have (and I guess it has) a radar and missile of the same quality as F-16 bk. 52 with AMRAAM, it would probably, and I emphasize probably, win a fight. But no one can be sure, before it actually happens. You are right about your statements, but latest fighter aircraft generation and AMRAAM especially were designed to combat and negate the Su-27/R-27ER combo. If it wasn't worth it, a lot of money could be saved, don't you think? As I said before, you are right in many things. But so am I. This thread was originally about poor missile performance in latest build of DCS, and we should stick to that.

My point was that AIM-120A and B are the same missiles, only the B has better warhead, radar and computer, along with other adjustments, but aerodynamically, they are the same. Yet the B is better than A in both body and seeker performance. I hope I made myself clear this time. I don't want to fight, really.

OK, maybe I didn't express myself correctly. You were right that given the data available it is possible to make a good model for commercial military aircraft simulation, such as DCS. My initial post was about the people's thinking. I guess we are discussing different problems. Of course, right now the missile performance in DCS is poor and it could be improved with current data available for sure. I'm just tired of reading that, for example, AMRAAM has to be better that R-27 or R-77 because it's newer or it's American made, that was my point. I overreacted a little, so please, excuse me. It's kinda frustrating if you have the knowledge that could be a real game changer, but you cannot disclose it. Please accept the fact and forgive my ignorance. :cry: If there cannot be peace around the world, let's try to have it here, at least. :thumbup:

Hello, would it be possible to adjust or enhance the Map view (F10) in the way that the airbase or FARP data would include local weather information including: wind direction/speed cloud cover local QNH air temperature elevation Thank you very much.

Missile performance data of the latest versions is still classified, unfortunately, these missiles are now in DCS. That's why I said that no one is able to model it correctly. You are never able to precisely simulate any missile performance in computer simulation, no matter how accurate, because of many variable you need to take into account, say air humidity, temperature and density/composition. The aerodynamics is a very complicated science. Also, computers are used to DESIGN and COMPUTE, live fires exist to EVALUATE and VERIFY. You have answered the question yourself and proved that my thesis is correct. You are denying your own statements. Physics work for everyone on Earth the same way. 20 years can be a long time in computer world, that's exactly the reason why the airframe of the missile remains the same (rules of physics), while the internals get upgraded all the time. Same goes for the airplanes. You just have to assume that my knowledge may be superior, I am just not in the liberty to disclose it. Believe me, or don't. Since I am in the military, I certainly have that knowledge along with reliable sources. This debate is pointless because I'm saying something and you are saying: "No, it can't be right." See, you ASSUME I'm wrong, because you just cannot accept the fact that I know something you don't and since you are unable to confirm or verify the information, you ASSUME I'm lying. Why would I? If you have an answer to that, we could get rid of the ballast and start a good discussion. And please, watch your language. I think that even a heated debate can be run in civilized manner. Thank you. P.S. If you really think that missile instantaneous and top airspeed is affected ONLY by its motor's dry thrust, you either don't know, or you didn't state it.

Missile performance myths Hello everyone! I think that discussion is all about a different subject. I understand that many of you are very frustrated about the Air-to-Air missiles performance in the latest DCS version. Frankly, me too. But the main problem lies somewhere else. First, you have to assume that all missile data in this sim come from public domain, therefore they are inherently inaccurate. Second, without an accurate physics simulation engine, you are unable to simulate radar performance, kinematics and aerodynamics properly, therefore even if you somehow obtained real missile data, their performance within the simulation would be different from real world. Third, most of the missile performance data in DCS, concerning seeker sensitivity and tracking ability are, in my opinion, based on assumptions. Most people just ASSUME that since R-27 is older than AMRAAM, it HAS TO BE worse missile in terms of seeker performance. All this just makes me laugh. Most of the people here have simply no idea or knowledge how actually these systems work at all. Most just assume. And, there is also some bias, of course. The Americans assume their missiles are superior to Russian ones, the Russians tend to think opposite. Let me tell you that R-27ER is very deadly, even today. You have to understand that R-27ER built in early 1980s is (internally) different from R-27ER made in late 1990s or early 2000s. Its performance in terms of top speed should be much better than those of the AMRAAM C, in fact, in every second of its flight, the Alamo C is twice as fast as AMRAAM. The mid-course guidance and data-link features of these missiles are currently not modeled at all, or the capabilities are severely degraded. You also have to realize that DCS is still a GAME. Very accurate and well done in some aspects, indeed, but still a game. Therefore, there are some features implemented that make it easier than real life. For example, MiG-29 or Su-27 radars need an STT lock to fire and guide the R-27R, but there is no switch to a different mode or CW after it is fired, so technically, your RWR system shouldn't give you a launch warning at all. Therefore, every Eagle driver, when locked in STT by MiG or Su, would immediately have to consider the possibility of being attacked. And this is just one example. So please, be patient and give ED some time to correct these deficiencies in the future. I've heard a rumor that in times of the very first Su-27 simulator in 1995, for being very precise and accurate, some people from the programing team were arrested and questioned by police and military. So, let's accept the fact that because of obvious reasons, the DCS will never be perfect, but I beg the ED to make it as close to the reality as possible. The simulator deserves it, and so do we. Have a good day!

Let them try! :mad: Anyway, with only 12 Gripen C fighters, we are able to protect our airspace on 24/7 basis, while protecting Baltic allied countries (24/7) for 4 months per year as well (twice). So I assume that 32 Hornets would be OK. :thumbup:

Hello guys, the most important task in peace time air policing missions is the Visual ID procedure: you simply have to visually confirm the identity of the bogey, hence the IR missiles are sufficient given the range of possible target. Sometimes, radar guided missiles can be carried if there are adverse weather conditions, because as you may know, IR missiles seeker performance is rather limited in clouds or heavy rain. In general, all QRA flights always carry LIVE ammunition, because you never know if you are going to need it. Heaters are cheaper, both for maintenance and replenishment and are generally lighter, so they do not take too much stress on hardpoint and wings. Also, usually there are two members of QRA flight, one takes "Eyeball" position to get attention of the bogey, to ID and communicate with it, number two takes "Shooter" position behind the bogey in optimal weapons range, so he can immediately (when the leader breaks off first, of course) fire if necessary.

Just to clarify things up: both Su-25 and Su-25T have 3 flaps positions: Full up: normal flight Middle: maneuvering (attack) Full down: take-off, landing. When taking-off, first set flaps to "maneuvering" position, and after the airspeed starts to increase, bring the flaps fully up.

I stand corrected, although I was referring to Su-25 flaps. Anyway, valuable information from a subject matter expert is always welcome! :thumbup: Have a nice day.

Same goes for Su-25/25T. Flaps are held in retracted position by locks, so no matter if there is no hydraulic pressure, the flaps stay retracted. This, however, doesn't apply for flaperon equipped aircraft, such as Su-27. The flaperons drop down by their own weight if the hyd. pressures bleeds out, which is correctly modeled in DCSWorld.

Hello guys, Grey color is the least visible color to a human eye, therefore it is mostly used on military aircraft all around the world. Of course, you can always see a moving object in the sky, so the camouflage is most effective when looking from above. Best regards! :thumbup:

Same here. Support Ticket # 16415.

Warning! Hello guys! Thank you very much for your interest, but I'd like to ask you to calm down. I will address your requests one by one as my time permits. However I am quite a busy man and cannot provide all the information at once. Some of the manual pages are already available as JPEG images scanned from the manuals, but these are only excerpts and not very useful. For last two years I tried to scan all the pages, but it's one hell of a work. If I am allowed to take a few months to scan everything I'd like to share, I will try to get it into PDF files. But I'd also like to emphasize that I don't have any time for translating those manuals to English or any other language. So, if you liked to try it yourselves, you would make my life a lot easier :thumbup: Best regards to you all!

PM sent.

How about Czech manual? Edit: It wasn't a question, it was an offer.

Hello guys, unfortunately, you got it wrong. The difference between Assault rifle and Machine gun is not about a caliber. Assault rifle can shoot single shots, while the Machine gun cannot - it only fires in bursts, though short.

I'd be delighted to help you as much as I can.

Hi there! The Idea for the campaign is quite interesting. I could help you a little, but my time is rather limited, so, if you don't mind possible delays, count me in :) How about enhancing a story line? What would you say about this: I suppose that US main base of operation would be Batumi Airport, since it's close to Turkish border, so a potential retreat would be quick and easy. Also, in the beginning there will be a limited warfare, mostly precision strikes against known rebel positions and taking out units in urban areas to prevent unwanted collateral damage (you need civilians on your side after all). Second phase would be to secure Georgian sovereignty over its territory and to cut local insurgents from their supply lines. Limited strikes against Abkhazian an South Osetian armies would undoubtedly attract Russian attention, so it would be likely for them to increase readiness status on airbases across the border, perhaps reinforcing their allies, which would require some preemptive strikes - carried out by Georgia, because direct US involvement could escalate the turmoil into an outright war... There could be 2 possible outcomes of the campaign: You win: Georgia is liberated and permanent NATO base is established to prevent further attempts of insurgency. You lose: Russia and its allies invade Georgia, so all US and NATO force must leave the region. So, what do you think?

Hello, I've had the same problem in a mission I have created. After some experimentation, I found quite simple solution: When adding a CAS flight, under "Advanced" waypoint setting the Mission Editor automatically creates "cas -a" task, which is then inherited to every new waypoint. If you remove this task, your planes will attack designated targets only. This option has some limitations as well, because it will prevent the flight to engage pop-up contacts, but if you need to attack just some specific targets, this may be it. Please, let me know if this was what you've been looking for. Best regards! :thumbup:

Done. Thanks for your reply.

I have missed the information in ED Wiki. I have updated computer BIOS and installed Oracle VMware. Unfortunately, I have spent my last activation trying to solve the problem before I got familiar with this known issue. Could you please help me out or should I wait 30 days for a renewed activation? Thank you and best regards.