Get_Lo

welcome to the French weapon export practices circa 1950-1990. a good story is the one about the Iraqi Super Etendards. or the Martel missiles

It also had random stuff bolted onto it that served really no purpose other than to make it appear more different than it actually was

afaik it was only the last batches of EQ6s that got stuck in France

EQ5 carried 1 on the centerline, EQ6 can carry 2 under the wings, the rest didnt have Exocet, they did however have Martel missiles called BAZAR which were quite effective against ships so long as there was a radiation source to track

The devs havent said no to the missile, but it is known that Spain did not purchase any of the missiles, so none ever made it onto the Spanish F1s.

unfortunately the tracks are too long as this is an occurrence in online multiplayer and I cant seem to find a good way to replicate the glitch, of all the engine flameouts probably 10% or less result in an explosion and I cant seem to find the specific circumstances which result in said explosions.

cant say ive narrowed it down to being my missile but I have randomly exploded in the air no less than 3 times when near a wake of some kind. even about 1nm behind the cause of said wake

TK500 is really the one im interested in, same with JL100

I was referring to why they chose to go with kilometers for determining the maximum lock range, in contrast to all the times they use nautical miles. in the manuals above you can see that nautical miles was the usual trend for even the same modes, just on different countries aircraft. its unusual that they switched from 6nm to 7km, just seems weird to me

Does this mean that for the other variants it is a different value? Weird that the Cyrano would receive a massive downgrade in ACM mode lock ranges compared to previous models. especially considering the radar in all other modes uses nautical miles, but only ACM uses kilometers. Thanks for checking with the devs though, maybe a look at the fuel glitch or lift values is in order?

Wha-what are you talking about. None of this is telling me how the R-60 is able visually identify targets. I dont even want to get started on the Scorpion thing. again, ANY source at all that the R-60 can visually Identify targets? Why would they get rid of this technology for the R-73? What does this even mean, are planes like the B-2 immune to IR (INFARED BTW) guided missiles? you cant be serious.

@SUBS17I would like any proof, any proof at all that the R-60 uses image recognition software to track targets.

This is the greatest forum ive read all week, bless your souls everyone. btw I might add that even sidewinders have been successfully used to target ground units, including the AIM-9X. a missile does not care what a heat source is, just the presence of one is usually enough (more modern ones also use images for tracking)

I think he knows its manually set, but the change would be a big boost to convenience, especially if it accounts for external fuel, dialing the fuel gauge for 8 minutes doesnt really add to my immersion in the module.

I think the Exocet would be a cool missile to have in DCS, not just for the F1 but also for other assets, especially with the SA map.

Largely the same as the CE, although we have some more in the pipeline for the CE such as gunpods, S530F, and hybrid bomb racks. As for the F1M they did say "More advanced weaponry" So im looking forward to that.

I was planning to test a variety of planes to compare to the F1 because I think the F1 suffers from FAR too much missile drag on the tip missiles. Glad others think the same.

Its not such a problem right now, but once we get the S530F I REALLY hope we have an AWACS Declare option, we will need it.

Yeah thats the Aerges manual, how about the real Cyrano manual Or how about the real flight manual

with the addition of the JL100 are we also going to be seeing the other variants of the hybrid fuel weapon pylons? I think we can find lots of utility in these, especially the bomb rack variants.

I think the trim increments are too great as well, hard to get precise trim done.

There are many skill issues to come across on these forums, but I assure you I and others have taken the time to assure that our tests and parameters are fair and accurate, we cross reference not only the Aerges manual but also other public data available about the jet. This issue originally came to my attention when doing an in-depth analysis of the aircraft's rate fighting abilities and noticed some unusual trends in the speed ranges below 400knots. The best way I figured I could get easily referenceable data on this would be a simple landing speed performance test, and the results seem to confirm my suspicions. if you would like to tag on any data regarding the takeoff performance that would be welcomed as well.

the J, P and JULI would be the ones with SEAM. magic shouldnt(?) but im not sure

just because the problem can be ignored/avoided doesnt make it not a problem. Jet was designed to land at 135knots at 13 units AOA, manual says I should be able to land at 135knots at 13 units AOA, I want to be able to land at 135knots at 13 units AOA. This bug report is about more than just landing comfort. lift has to do with your stall speeds, your takeoff runs, your ability to dogfight, and your ability to get out of trouble, climb, and pull out of dives. landing is probably the least of these concerns but its the easiest metric to measure to show the issue.

well if you read the manual and think thats how its actually going to work and you fly that approach, yes its hard to land. but after some practice you can land it nice and smooth, you just have to be going 10-15 knots faster than normal. which is the whole point of this bug report.