okopanja

Within weapons training, the gazelle will start with no weapons. Clearly mission needs update

Yes, this is true, it looks much worse than e.g. Apache or Ka-50. Would be nice to have this reworked.

Kind of a workaround (I am learning to fly this damn thing): stabilize manually in hover engage hover (Q) stabilize again hit Escape to get menu (it appears this places helicopter into hover) leave the stick in neutral position return to game (ESC) Voilà: redneck hover. (do not attempt to 'E')

Gazelle needs 3 minutes for the Viviane to "warm" up after switching it on (Ass --(90 sec)-> Pilot (ready to move) --(90 sec)-> Ready to shoot. Check if this time has passed for AI.

Well done!

in f16 just fly at 10 degree until you reach Mach 1.0 then 40-56 degree climb. See the graf link I posted earlier...

Yes, maybe they are right about flight model, but not in the way they believe... Anyway to be honest: this is 1% fuel + unlimited fuel. Need to try it with some realistic load. And also: comparing 80s record holder with 25 years newer jet is not quite fair, plenty of things did occur within 1/4 of century.

Yes, it was similar, civilian + 1% unlimited fuel. Meanwhile for a fun I did F-16C... Disclaimer: I am really bad at flying F-16C https://snapshots.raintank.io/dashboard/snapshot/1mBFrg9X93G3DJZpie6clm0oaaYIGd8M

@Ironhandslighlty worse than you: https://snapshots.raintank.io/dashboard/snapshot/Trofr6wHWdBKim7gP65TrFsmoD0rd2U2

I think this occurs even when AH-64D is not flying at all (although to be best knowledge slot exists for AH-64D).

The page mentions: "Quest 2 Gets New Lower Prices, Plus a Performance Upgrade". Any influence on DCS performance?

I think this was not stated in words but in a sinmple image reply. Later people quoted this as clear statement by DEKA.

Did you find any reference to the actual original climb profile. While the П-42 was actually a serial production airframe, it was also modified heavily. That said Streak eagle was also heavily modified. The way I see it you will end up creating a mod.

Likely kgf, DCS is metric internally. Needs to be crosschecked...

E.g. here is how hypothetical Mig-25 intercept would look like from rear aspect, add a 0.6-0.8 Mach on top. Notice that other Su-27 with full missile load , being actually out-accelerated by eagle. At the same time, carrying 2xR-27T and 2xR-27R allows you to catch up with the target.

Forgot to tell you that soviet variant was not only voice GCI, but also had воздух-1 command system. This means it could have been allocated a target from ground, thus some computer was in the aircraft, but not what we understand today. As for multiple launch, this was probably not possible against multiple targets. E.g. Mig-25 that took out FA-18 was armed with 2xR-40RD missiles and it fired only one which practically disintegrated hornet. If I remember correctly this engagement took place in night conditions. Pilot considered attacking second FA-18, but got GCI order to return. It is worth to note that another Mig-25 got shotdown by FA-18, when it actually went into close air combat. Book describes accounts from both side, since author made great effort to collect feedback from both sides. His books tend not to be single side propaganda fairy-tales. Reading this book made me rethink the way I fight in a flanker (used to be full load, now I carry 2-4 missiles, and this results in drastically different aircraft performance). You could say that I fight the Mig-25 way (above Mach 2 when attacking) and do not pull lot's of G. This means that I do not bleed energy when turning away to escape superior ARH missiles. I found out that this tactic works actually pretty well on the average, even in the modern environment. The additional benefit for co-fliers is that usually large number of missiles get launched (everyone see one large PK circle, that suddenly starts shrinking). Flying Mig-25 would require you to be aware of your fuel state, and be realistic on what you can attempt to do (attack from distance but not on direct path) and what not (do not come close). I do believe it would be fun to fly aircraft capable of reaching Mach 2.8+ in DCS.

Actually this is one of popular myths. The aircraft was designed to be high speed interceptor, but it's shape and secrecy made many attribute him fighter role. For what it was design for it did well, except that treath it was supposed to counter turned out to be a disaster project. Not really original Mig-25 had a RP-25 Smerch A1 (600kW) radar which was a pulse radar. These were delivered to Iraq mid-80s along R-40 missiles. By that time it was know that A2 was compromised due to the Belenko's flight to Japan in 1976. Upon complaints Soviets were forced to upgrade the aircraft to Smerch A2 radar (better jamming resistance, increased reliability, look down and better low level clutter tolerance) + deliver R-40RD and R-40TD missiles. These were known as Mig-25 PDS. Radar was in I-band low PRF pulse and had similar performance as F-4D's AN/APQ-109 3rd radar was modification of Saphir-25, marked as RP-25M. It increased the range further. (book page 26, 27). A curiosity of the Mig-25 was that they carried 2xR-40RD and 2x-40TD. Both TD and TR were slaved by radar to target and upon launching the TD would launch first, followed by TR. The missile was capable of up to mach 5, and had range of about 50km.

You can get rid of pylons on positions 3 and 8, by placing double racks and dropping them, but this sadly does not change drag. (measured this!) Pylons are simply modeled in.

There is a nice book written by Douglas C Dildy & Tom Cooper: "F-15C Eagle vs Mig-23/25". You might want to check it out.

Likely module would need to model each variant separately just like gazelle does.

Point of view:

Stop derailing the topic. Patriot in DCS had obviosly bad performance for long time. I think it is good that it got fixed. However it is wrong to request more without providing evidence and bringing further unrelated claims. Comparing two very much different missiles based purely on relative DCS performance, is also wrong if person does not provide solid evidence or detailed calculation that proves ED' calculations are wrong. So, show us the math. Anything else is crude attempt to upvote the case.

Trying to figure out your thought process, but I fail to see any coherence. Mixing unrelated events and not even being able to quote them correctly. Can you show us the targets that got down during last salvo launch?

Thanks, I did not know this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_search_and_track @bies I was not aware of IRST on Mig-25, do you have picture, article, reference? Where was it located? I believe it was used to bomb Teheran though lofting of bombs tens of km at high speed. Accuracy was probably not great. Running away was a real tactic, as well as notching and arriving at crazy speeds... However, it likely did score against FA-18 (single launch and hit with R-40RD, pilot got recalled when he considered going after another one) and likely damaged or shotdown F-15C - very little to no evidence exist, potential wreckage may have been picked up, so maybe in 50 years we will know. The upgraded variant of aircraft is probably still considered sensitive and still serves in at least Algerian Air Force.