okopanja

good point!

I think that 3.6s TWS update provides you with just raw input on the target movement. From here the extrapolation is calculated using specific algorithm and this can easily be on the needed 1s update interval. True: it will not be as precise as e.g. STT, but still feasible and kind of acceptable until the seeker gets the proper reflection signal.

Can you tell us more what is the difference between blue/red JF-17?

I asked in other topic...

Is it possible to provide some more technical explanation for this feature. E.g. the only thing I could correlate to was the Selective Availability which was in effect until May 2000.

Link?

Once upon a time precision was limited for civilian use. Someone recently mentioned that speed limit is still being enforced. I am not deep into that topic, so do not consider it as accurate.

@uboatsI just reran the mission from @sylkhan, this time I did it in following way: 1. set hot JF-17 with no weapons on nearby AB 2. request 4xLS6-250 3. setup 2 profiles with each pylon having it's own bomb 4. waited for full align. 5. took off climbed until 25000 and waited for marker and a bit further 6. launched first 2 bombs using profile 1 for stations 2 and 6 (PP 36/37 - finally realized how these thing actually work) 7. launched second 2 bombs using profile 2 for stations 2 and 6 (PP 38/39) 8. out of 4 bombs one did hit and destroy the targets. All other targets were not even scratched. Precision is obviously not great.

I suggest we leave this topic alone for now if there is nothing to contribute to it. Other issues/feature requests you can report in Bugs session or as separate topics.

I have a feeling that this topic goes outside of the intended context, still few of my observations both positive and negative on the state of JF-17. there was an attempt for Deka last year to introduce the SD-10 with amraam API. It was an experiment that resulted in PL-12, which we currently use in some of the servers. Clearly Deka is working on this and we can see that they are preparing to update the A-G bombs. I assume this is still work in progress. I as a newbie to JF-17 do enjoy it, and can actually thank to you for finally trying it out (I was very, very skeptical before), however there are bugs and I have the feeling that 2.9 changes might have disrupted many of the A-G weapons, e.g. glide bombs do have accuracy issues and non functional features. May I suggest you look at the list of active bugs for JF-17? (namely one related to glide bombs). Your experience would be very precious since you were there from the very beginning.

Wasn't a vertical angle supposed to allow to account for that?

91N6 (rotating) is the one that is a search radar. The flap lids are tracking radars. To move both Flap Lids and 91N6 you would need the tractor vehicle. So I gather ED would need to model that as long as let's more complex interaction.

I thought 91N6 is actually on trailer ant therefore movable. Or you meant that unit in DCS can not move?

With risk that this might have been posted before Mig-29 from different air forces:

I believe that a forum user @tavarish palkovnik did do independent in-depth validation of the range based on the known parameters + some assumptions. As for the radar range, I am not sure what are you aiming at, but I would suggest you take the radar equation to compare the ranges for different radar ranges and see if they follow the same parameters. You might be able even to derive some of the parameters ED has used. please do not delete, but let's refocus on PL-12 as you suggested.

There are difference kind of balances involved here. A game manufacturer may choose to balance sides, however in DCS this is inherently not the case. We have airframes from early 80s (Mig-29, Su-27, Su-25A, A-10A), and some examples from early 90s (J-11A, Mig-29S, F-15C, Su-25T). Obviously pitting those aircraft against post-2005 airframes will not produce the "balance". However, even then we could argue that they are not modeled on the same level, or even that they are modeled in a totally wrong way with known faults and further accumulating errors as the time progresses. In this case there is a huge gap in DCS, which something that will continue to progress as more and more of capabilities is added to only one side. Result is obvious: it will be Blue vs Blue story and nothing else. As for available documentation, I do not believe that ED has any IRL documentation on AIM-120C other than the marketing brochures. As a matter of fact I am willing to bet that there is no BVR missile or relevant aircraft radars in DCS for which there is any open and declassified documentation. While e.g. for R-27 and flanker/fulcrum there might be some things available in form of books, large majority of it is not declassified. Therefore I see no reason why ED could not apply same principles to FC3 and it's weaponary, since we clearly saw that they already did it in the past. There is also one more personal asking from my side: I do understand that you are very passionate about DCS and you try to collect and assemble the news for us in a very professional manner, and I really do appreciate that. However sometimes you act as the ED's PR (BigNewy is doing great job at that), while I have a feeling that you are not 100% in your area of the know how. Please do not get offended by this, I will still continue following your content. From what I have seen on comments for R-27ER from people competent in this area, the current range pretty much matches the projections. The major limitations to R-27ER are: 1. apparent inability to require on relock (single sentence statement from leaked manual) 2. it triggers RWR from launch. Probably it did not in early 80s, but by now in 2024 pretty much sure it does. R-77 does also trigger RWR, even though we know it has a different DL updates than R-27. Basically you fire them and they guys on other side start defending instantly. 3. power source of 60 seconds (it's not a battery, but rather a turbine) for both normal extended variants (by far this is the largest problem with ER/ET). The 60 seconds came from book published in Russian in general public. On one side it may be accurate, since reuse was design principle of this missile, on other side there are pictures showing different body part for ET/ER where they should be the same. Until this point I have not found any other evidence that would support existing 60 seconds or more for extended range ones. As for PL-12, longest shot I made was 97km, with missile traveling at Mach 3 at the time of the impact. There are many errors, but range itself is not the most critical limiting factor. I read majority of those papers (I can not claim I have found them all). Can you please confirm what was the source for the 3dB improvement in S/N for hornet/viper radars? Except for argument it's newer, hence better (which is natural to expect). Was some sort of analogy comparison done? (e.g. to avoid depending on IRL documentation).

Well I did not want to dispute you, but just correct some of the things along what I remember the changes were made during last 2 years. Still I am curious how ED will resolve the obvious dis-balance in modern in future. One possibility is that modern remains blue only, while red shifts to 80s and earlier cold war. After all the majority of the skilled user base is there and not in the modern.

First: do not get me wrong, I am here for the same thing, but I noted few corrections. While you were absent many things have occurred: F-15C radar range got extended F-18/F-16 got at least 2 realistic radar improvements F-18/F-16 got at least 2 realistic FM upgrades. Pretty sure we will see at least 1-2 more realistic FM in future. At the same time Flanker: R-27ER/R got HOJ fixed R-27ER/R lost ability to re-acquire of the radar track is lost Flanker's MFD is even buggier than before. Flanker's FM is consistent with real one in landing and takeoff (to put this mild). I am still unable to execute cobra. Maybe I am a bad pilot, but some way better people do not manage to do it. Now to be 100% honest: oppozition is mid 2000s, where flanker is early 80s. That on it's own is a huge gap in term of capability, and I am not sure how ED plans to fill in this. And btw: we will have FF Mig-29A. The capability to carry R-77 was obtained through upgrade of onboard computer Ts-100 to Ts-101/Ts-102 block and additional radar installation (same computers were used both in 29 and 27). This upgrade was possible even with 9-12 frames as early as of 1996, but given the fact that Ts-101/Ts-102 mass production started in 1991 probably earlier. The major differences include: improved reliability improved range better resistance to ECM (e.g. no drop from TWS to search more due to the faster digial computer) ability to carry R-77 ability to carry Kab-500 Addition of Pl-12 improved the gameplay there, although I must say PL-12 is inferior to AIM-120C in many respects. The most noticeable is absence of INS, PL-12 must be at least guided long enough to pass the highest point of the trajectory, to have chances of acquiring on it's own. Furthermore seeker in AIM-120C is much more reliable and it looks like PL-12 is actually using older version of AMRAAM API. With meteor I think we will see AIM-120C7 or AIM-120D. I do not think this is the case. From what I read the PL-12 out of collaboration that involved R-77 seeker at early stage, but this should be entirely new electronics. This likely involves better S/N (I think at least a decade in terms of electronics and processing).

"blue" as in english: "blue" as true sense like this? (unsure if any) https://ionovmike.livejournal.com/3756.html

Not really, e.g. HUD color filter is animated, but most are actually 2 state positions and in many cases not even that. Note that there is a mod of clickable FC3 cockpit that actually provides mouse input, and he is at the moment working fully animated Su-27 cockpit. Occasionally he streams his work on youtube.

I new about the first link, but other I did not have. Tank you so much! I think you made mistake here: it says заход. I do not speak Russian, but it appears that meaning is "Sunset". It could indicate perhaps landing?

I think it needs some time after you start engines. Tio be honest I am not sure even if this is realistic. E.g. if Su-25 had INS in the first place or was using radio/doppler navigation. E.g. it's kind of funny to have precise heading in NAV mode only to have imprecise when you switch to A/G. Kind of not logical.

Hi! Not sure how you did this, but it seems you are an expert for 3D models. Would it be possible to check the color filter for flankers? It seems that the look from the screenshot is actually caused by some reflections. E.g. I am able in J-11 to see some symmetric fish-shaped red stripes that I do not see on the body of the pilot. In addition if I move my head right, in HUD I can actually see the pilot's notes that are located on left leg. I am not sure if there is even if they have a direct line of sight.

I am not doubting Chizh, just for the sake of facts I clarified that more capable 9-12A/B was possible as of 1996 at least. Ts101/Ts102 production started in 1991 which roughly checks out with the appearance of R-77. This off-course would be subject to certain well known restrictions. For now appearance of 80s Mig-29 FF is what we are all eagerly looking forward to.

No worries I am in this thread from the start. No need to worry about R-77, yet...