okopanja

This is SNR-125 (SA-3 target tracking and fire control radar). It does have TV channel IRL, as well as thermovision on later upgrades. The TV channel can be used for silent tracking, but the SAM itself requires the radar to lock and track target afterwards. The SAM itself transmits the commands to the seeker, which arms ~450m before the impact the fuze gets activated and will trigger explosion within the 45m of the target. Only small number of batteries had thermovision in 1999 (possibly only 1), since the already purchased upgrade kits were resolved before the war to Egypt. I am curious to find out who was the person who pushed and authorized this. However in DCS this SAM has no TV sensor implemented (checked in LUA). Also missing is the control cabine as well as power supply which are deployed in close proximity of the SNR-125. Other SAMs which should, but do not have have this DCS: - SA-6 (e.g. capable of passive LOAL launches IRL!) - SA-8

I am certain he can add some more colorful description next time. @tavarish palkovniknadam se de se ne ljutite zbog mog komentara: možete da obeležite mišem deo legende u gornjem tekstu i potom odaberete boju sa ovom ikonicom: Siguran sam da će to smanjiti broj nesporazuma.

Read his comment. He mentions them sequentially, plus later 2 have 2 time designations that you can spot on the diagram. And yes legend would be graet, but text can do as well.

Its not possible to manipulate SAMs from server side scripts, available options that can be set are rather limitted, and some are even missing compared to CA UI. RWR can show false readings if there is a desync between server and clients.

I think this is not modeled for neither BUK nor KUB. Btw KUB is capable of LOAL launch IRL as well as fake launches (SA-3 can do this as well). As for visual/ir things are still half baked there with corner cases, but ED makes incremental improvements.

While the colors would help, the text with basic understanding of motors provides enough information to conclude which use case: 1. red 2. green 3. blue

Super precise INS for this missile would mean that it does not need expensive seeker, once the position of the target is determined (e.g. pre-launch on carrier), it would simply be enough to use it's INS without GPS if this was a real thing. Sadly, this is not the case and even the later version you mentioned had to have GPS updates for this particular reason. Depending on the mode the trajectory can be calculated based on the rough distance or without it in which case only the angular position can be used. Furthermore range/azimuth estimation is very rough at the start and requires to be constantly updated with the corrections based on the seeker readings. E.g. firing HARM at long distance and loosing signal earlier would result in much higher miss distance than e.g. firing it from just 5km away. As the distance at which the HARM is fired is longer, the time required to reach the target is also longer, and the drift of the INS will be progressing and cumulative. At the current state in DCS you can fire HARMs for 100-ish km away and still get it to hit the target with accuracy, simply this is not realistic. One additional note: thanks to this change HARM now also hits objects that move. This involves e.g. Tor (features ability to move and shoot), but e.g. very maneuvering Su-27 while it is jamming. To conclude this change was half baked and results in yet another departure from realism.

null

I think I never mentioned blame here and I feel many believe my comments were anti F-35. It's not the hate, its more of an a critique on how the ED's DCS ecosystem is built. To understand this better lets consider how the MP servers work. To play this in MP with reasonable level of authenticity, you need both sides if the server/mission intends to have healthy population. In PvE this does not have worry about this. You can happily have 60 F-35 racing each other to kill more Mig-21s and other lower aircraft, as long as you spawn enough of opponents to keep them happy. There is certainly a customer base exactly for this kind of level of commitment. In case of PvP this assumes that both sides have equal chances of winning the game. F-35 will not have the counterpart which means that the server will have unhealthy and unbalanced population, unless server owners bring F-35 on both sides. Historically even the most famous servers did struggle with maintaining the healthy populations. After a while one side would simply stop playing, and almost always the server owners go for introduction of PvE elements. At the end these servers stay with low count of players only to deplete completely when a new server with healthier and larger population arrives. This is how practically most of famous servers died over the years. Now some may mention the skilled players may try their luck with low tier aircraft. In the wast majority of cases they will not do this, keep in mind that they are actually the smartest players around.

J-10C would be very OK for everything but F-35/F-22. It even has excellent combat record.

I think you would benefit from Nvidia introducing subscription model. E.g. 2000 EUR per year. Once they release a new version you ship old one back to them, they destroy it, and you get a new one. It's a win/win for both you and Nvidia, they benefit from: - having you constantly as customer - getting rid of the card you could potentially sell to another user

OK, understood.

why would a normal user need to easily enable this? It's equivalent of download program from internet and run it.

It's not the assumption is the experience gathered witnessing various balancing moves in MP servers over several years. One does not need to realize that majority of red players will not accept to fight stealthy all seeing F-35 with no analogue on their side. Hence, the only realistic solution is F-35 vs F-35, just like we now have F-16 vs F-16.

So which additional functions will be added to this scheme in future?

Realistic in MP, involves matching the aircraft era as a baseline. If one side would have advantage or other some counter balance is another matter. In this case you can match F-35 only to itself. Alternative would be to take out the stealth properties as static config in ME. That way you could match it to EF.

In DCS you get Tone only in longitudal. IRL you would hear it the seaker locks. Especially usefuly in shlem (which also has more nore symbology than in DCS, see ka50).

I believe F-35 in DCS will actually be great for MP. Looking forward to the succes of F-35 servers. It will attract lots of people not interested into realism, thus causing other servers to have more realism oriented average.

As the integral part of aircraft, I do not think so. Perhaps depending on air force, but note that 29 did fly in night conditionsnin combat in 1999. The opposing force did not have the NVGs in their F-15c either.

Can you tell us more about non-downgraded soviet radar and exactly what got downgraded?

I would say it was increased since the guidance could not be made more accurate, which also appears not to be the case with IRL. For the kill radius please listen and read to the actual interviews of pilots. I made some available in 29 FF section, and one of them even contains damage report. Focus was not really on amraam but you can see hopefully it will help you understand why the current modeling in this respect has nothing to do with the reality.

Kindly read again what I wrote. Proximity is one thing, and kill radius another.

No this is not fixed, rather its a dirty workaround further empasizing overperforming warhead. You do not survive on DCS the hit. IRL majority of pilots ejected and landed safely. Furthermore If it gets proved that the blast radius is correct, then the accuracy of the guidance should be less.

Observer 4 long fins directly on the path of the air in front of grids... These change the behavior and likely have multiple effects, given the fact that this "bulge" was kept across 3 variants.

I think you can not always calculate the drag as separate components giving a sum. Maybe for some simpler shapes this would work. The USA study used complete body, but different configuration than R-77.