Avimimus

Reminds me of the Lunar Lander game. I'm actually really pleased - a lot of civil flight sims couldn't keep my interest - but throw in advanced systems modelling and flight modelling... and it gets interesting! I really hope we get a fixed wing transport at some point :D

I'd love a Su-35 or Mig 1.44 myself with some guesswork on the avionics... but that is me. I always liked the old sim EF-2000... and I want a realistic flight model and realistic radar model ...things which matter for combat and for the flight experience. But after that... I'm fine with letting the avionics have some guesswork in them. Of course the exception is in a civil flight sim - there I want systems detail to distract from the relatively peaceful environment.

I'd be willing to pay to upgrade my BS1 upgrade license to BS2 proper... ...that is kindof a sad situation!

They just need to replace the central hard point with a heavier duty one - correct? Shouldn't be that hard. The trigger mechanism is self-contained. So, it would just be producing graphical changes to one part of the 3d model. No changes to avionics, or other features required!

Alternatively, you could get the A-10A or the Su-25T (a very good bird). These are cheaper and a bit simpler to learn. They should tide you over until the next sale.

I have the original (DVD) and the upgrade serial for 1.27 - but DCS 1.5 beta is demanding that I already have the 1.5 version of the original installed? Any ideas for a work-around?

Were you in afterburner?

Now you just need to land it!

Kind of half off-topic - but does anyone know if ED is considering doing a more complex visual seeker model? This could also allow things like contrast impacting Maverick or Shkval tracking (not to mention ship launched flares, attacking ground targets with IR AAMs as has been done periodically, and improved atmospheric and counter-measures effects on AAMs).

That would be great :D

For those of us flying a Mig-21 over a service life of >35 years it seems a good feature would be to pick the 'generation' of flare being used then... as DCS gets more eras it makes sense that everything isn't modelled as statically existing in 1998 (or some other arbitrary date).

My real question: Does the AI know how to use an optimal pattern/amount? If it doesn't then the gameplay isn't really different from Jane's Fighters Anthology from the 1990s where the AI didn't employ countermeasures properly and thus could be easily defeated (even with realism mods).

No one has ever modelled night combat properly - there was a freeware attempt that failed (Target for Tonight), and there was one commercial product that didn't get out (predecessor to Jane's Attack Squadron). Of course, Americans don't typically care about this (despite the fact that just as many bombs were dropped at night, just as many aircrews were lost, and the night campaign lasted longer) - mainly because it isn't their iconic part of history (the Mighty 8th) and thus they never learned about it. As a result, Americans and Russians generally are dismissive of night combat as uninteresting and simplistic (whereas the opposite is true - it is tactical and complex).

So if we just release a larger salvo of flares we're guaranteed to be safe (assuming we spot the launch in the first place)?

Even a system with simply an additional probability check for damage (to simulate the uncertainty of internal damage) and three states (functional, disabled, destroyed) would be an immense improvement!

This should really be fractional. By my definition of proficient I've got a 0.4 something between 0.7...

I'm feeling rather confused by this discussion: The R-27ET has the same motor and controls surfaces as the R-27ER. So it should give off the same amount of smoke and have a similar flight performance (albeit slightly different due to the different seeker head). The R-27ET has the same seeker as the R-73... so barring minor differences it should have the same acquisition range and resistance to flares as the R-73... Right?

Rise of Flight has pretty advanced system models. For example, every cylinder in the engine is modelled differently. It is just that there isn't very much to model (assuming you aren't doing your own maintenance). RoF could do with better AI and continued development ...but the fact is it would be much better than a DCS based WWI sim simply because the flight-model, damage model and AI was designed for a WWI environment. Of course, one could use an external flight model but... still... probably best just to get RoF II going!

Yeah, I didn't even realise that the 9M120 wasn't in the files! It'd be nice if they also enhanced the loadouts of some of the AI aircraft (although they did a few fixes last patch - so I probably shouldn't complain). The Mi-24 has operationally carried 10xFAB-100, the Mi-8 has carried 4xS-24 etc.

Of course, it is worth noting that atmospheric conditions can also boost the performance of IR missiles as well. With high altitude night time conditions it should be possible for the R-27T to acquire a target at several times the usual range. Even the R-40T could acquire targets at around 40km under such ideal conditions. So, yes, modelling the interaction with the atmosphere would be wonderful!

Definitely - this is the way to go! It would also allow programming group level tactics (e.g. approaching a helicopter and opening fire simultaneously in a close range ambush).

Yes, the SPPU-22 turret mounted gunpods... they actually work pretty well from high altitude to rid a convoy of manpads... with practice one can even use them first and then switch to iron bombs.

Extremely interesting finds ...so the reduced weapons load *is* used as an operational payload!! It was also interesting to discover that the Mi-28 often flies with only four 9M120 missiles per hardpoint (i.e. a total of eight rather than sixteen missiles)! This is particularly apparent in the gallery at the end of this article (a 1/2 missile loadout is visible in the majority of pictures): http://lemur59.ru/node/9466 It would be nice to have for AI (even if the Mi-28 isn't flyable).

Would making such a mod also effect the weight of the system? Or would it just be the ammunition amount?

Exactly. Mountain flying is demanding. You also can get a bit more performance if your target doesn't need the extra firepower. Have you tried flying the Su-25 with just six hardpoints used? A pair of drop tanks, a pair of Kh-25s and a pair of rocket launchers? It flies much better (which allows for easier defensive manoeuvres, more precision and less time over the target).