DarkFire

3 degrees for the N-001 sounds right. Heh, F-35 missile deflection shields activated :lol: I'll do some testing over the next few days to see if I can work out where the limits are. Going to take a lot of launches for it to be a statistically viable answer, but we'll see.

Looks exciting, will definitely give this a try.

Probably not via a script, but I believe that the weapon specifications of various units are controlled by lua files, so it should theoretically be possible to change what missiles a given ship has available. Not sure if this would cause any issues with launcher types or that sort of thing. I haven't personally played with editing sea unit loadouts, so I'm not sure where the relevant lua file is.

All the sources I've been able to find indicate that radars from and including the APG-63 / N-001 era should have a main lobe (50% power) width between 2 and 6 degrees. So yes, that sounds entirely reasonable.

Difficult to say without knowing the exact characteristics of the Flanker radar, and what "out of view" is taken to mean (outside of main lobe, not visible to any emitter lobe under -10db etc etc) however very preliminary and totally anecdotal results indicate that it may be an issue. Much, much more testing needed and I may be entirely wrong. On the subject, is the emitter pattern of the N001 published anywhere that could be considered a reliable source? Edited to add: this web site: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html gives the following characteristics: Radar Type: N001 Myech Antenna Design: Twisted Cassegrain MSA Av Power [kW]: 1.0 PAAVE [dBWm2]: 28.0 Pk Power [kW]: 4.0 (25% duty cycle) PAPEAK [dBWm2]: 34.1 Range [NMI], 1m^2 RCS: 43.0 - 53.0 unspec LNA NF [dB]: ~9.0 However these figures don't appear to be referenced so their provenance is unknown.

Experience sufficient G load and you'll black out, same as the pilot of any other DCS aircraft. On the subject of the G-loading, the DCS Su-27 has maximum structural G loads (plus an in-built safety factor) that are very accurate to the real Su-27S manual. The Su-27 is not an F-15. They were designed for different purposes and with completely different philosophies. Missiles? All SARH missiles are poor at present, this is apparently being worked on. As for the MiG-29 AFM, we don't have it yet, so let's wait and see how it matches up to the handling notes in the real MiG-29 manual.

Yes. In the real Su-27 at speeds above 600 Km/h the rudder is limited to 33% deflection by the flight control system. This doesn't appear to be modelled in DCS yet, hence the ability to break the vertical stabilisers at higher speeds.

I'll echo what others have said: this is by far the most helpful and respectful game forum I've used in 21 years of taking part in various internet fora. Compared to the rampant toxicity of some other game forums I've been a member of in the past the DCS forum is a veritable oasis of calm, tranquility & knowledge. Good job moderator team, long may it continue :thumbup:

I'm planning on using a JTAC for a mission I'm writing. Early stages yet so this thread is very useful :thumbup: Is there a list anywhere of what units (ground & air) are capable of performing the JTAC role in-game, both NATO & Russian?

Agree. When I used to fly the 25T regularly I always used the HSI to get me on track and on bearing. The flight director circle is handy as a 'ready reckoner' as it will also direct you to the desired altitude, but for fine alignment on course & track the HSI is definitely the way to go. This problem highlights a common issue with mission design: designers need to bear in mind aircraft capabilities when designing desired routes, particularly when it comes to changes in altitude between waypoints and even more so desired TOT. This can have a very real effect on whether or not the desired flight plan is even possible. For example, giving a fully loaded Su-25T strike flight a TOT which means they have to fly at 900 Km/h for 750 Km is clearly impossible. Likewise asking an Su-27 flight to escort those fully loaded Su-25T's is also impossible because the minimum stable flight speed of an Su-27 is often above the maximum speed of a fully loaded Su-25. Having the Su-27's perform a fighter sweep would be entirely sensible whereas an escort would not.

Apologies for somewhat derailing the thread... What specifically are the issues with the Flanker that people are struggling with? I'm sure we can help to solve them for you :)

Are you effectively wanting to lower the seating position? I don't think the F-15C offers that ability, outside of potentially adjusting some lua file somewhere..?

All SARH missiles use the same algorithm, though the individual numbers seem to vary per missile, if that makes sense.

Sounds very cool! If you need voice acting let me know, happy to help.

Tried it a couple of times and didn't like it that much. To be fair it's useful as a quick, coarse adjustment but stick-to-trimmer makes it difficult to make fine adjustments. I suspect that it's much more useful for people who use sticks that have extensions. Personally I've mapped one of the hats on my stick to the trim controls and find that it works well enough. Might be worth you trying stick-to-trimmer for coarse adjustments and then mapping something like the arrow keys to the trim keys for fine adjustments.

Fair enough. The reason I asked was that I wondered if you were landing at a very slow speed which could potentially produce a high-AOA situation of some sort on touch down. FWIW I usually come over the runway threshold at around 280 and land at anything between 220 - 260 depending on how heavy the bird is, wind direction etc.

Out of interest, what sort of speed are you touching down at?

Rules of the Flanker Club: 1) Thou Shalt Trim. 2) Always trim. 3) See no. 1 & no. 2. In all seriousness, this is probably a trim issue. If you have a lot of nose-high trim, perhaps due to a low landing speed, then there can be a tendency for the aircraft to maintain a nose-high attitude after the main gear has touched down, but I have to say the one and only time I've ended up dragging the tail after touch down was due to being seriously over-weight on landing as opposed to being light. Attached is a test track (apologies, first time I've flown in about a month, and it shows :disgust: ) in which I landed with about 350 - 400Kg of fuel remaining. I didn't experience any nose-high tendency, but then I'll admit to being lazy and I normally drop the nose after touchdown by using the pitch trimmer rather than stick input.

That would be unhelpfully dismissive if that is what the response was. Claiming that BVR never works is just as foolish as claiming it always works and that WVR is totally obsolete. Neither view is supported by reported reality. Actual official reports from Gulf War 1 and operations around the former Yugoslavia support the notion that SARH missile effectiveness, when launches occur within acceptable parameters, is somewhere in the region of 5 x better than currently modelled in DCS.

What SAM unit are you using? Some of them have set-up times unless they're in red state on activation.

Something to bear in mind is that cloud data is entirely client based, so in an MP mission what one player sees in terms of cloud positions is not necessarily what any other players will see. Not sure how this impacts dynamic weather though, but I think that actual cloud position is still client-side.

I'm trying to imagine what the doppler notch 'surface' would actually look like as a 3D projection. Hemispherical possibly? Hmm, probably more complicated than that.

This. Parked 'active' aircraft have ridiculous amounts of health and will take about as much damage as a buried bunker to destroy. Unless you need them to react in some way, or for the survivors to take off or similar, using static aircraft objects gives them a much more realistic health value and they're much more realistically susceptible to damage.

The R-27ET and R-73 share the same seeker head, but around 5-10° sounds about right.