SharkShaun

Was J-8PP ever operational for the PLAAF? I don't think so. Is it reasonable to derive the performance of this jet for its variant's documentation? Maybe. Is the J-8PP completely unbased? I disagree. I think the project is a mix of uncertainty, educated (hopefully sufficient) trials, and excitement of finally modelling a classic yet mysterious airframe in full fidelity. People simply shouldn't label it as "True or False", but rather a module that has required more technical compromises than the existing ones due to its complex background. I totally get your point of raising the concern, and I agree with most of your arguments. But it's the way you presented your conclusions that outraged people, because nobody wants to see their hardwork / dedication / love to be labelled as "fake". Yes, I wish they could do a full-fidelity model of a variant that actually entered service, but I am more glad that we could even receive a compromised model verus none. I like your argument of using the F-20 Tigershark example, but what if the base F-5 doesn't exist and is impossible to implement, would the community still reacted the same way? F-20 would be more of a cherry on the top for the fans, yet a standard J-8 is something cannot be modelled at least within the next 15 years. I personally don't think it lowers the DCS standard, especially if Deka and ED determined that there is enough documentation to start the project, but it is in the end less ideal. And like everyone else says, if you don't like it don't play it, but please also be friendly to those who cherish it.

I tried this a bit more, and seems like it also needs to be relatively level with my jet, so more like a 10 degrees cone detection range. To put in context if a missile goes active on me, it shows no distance info initially, and I pull an aggressive vertical split S. During the maneuver I don't really get distance info, and it only starts showing after I have turned cold and become level with the missile chasing me. Sometimes I get confused whether it is showing distance or not (I wish they have a more obvious indicator) during the maneuver and don't defend enough, since the lethality ring can be misleading in distance scale. And yeah it's particularly useful for faster reengagement if you manage that distance nicely and also pull vertical in the process, since the jeff is already lacking in power and sus turn rate against jets like 18 and 16. It's not quite useful to range it head-on because when against a skilled opponent you typically gets TWS locked. It's so much safer to start defending by looking at their flight path before missile goes active. I'd rather range that thing with my butt as much as possible... I appreciate the info.

Interesting... I've always thought SPJ is simply better at detecting radar emission strength to determine the location of the threat. Usually what I do is a direct split-S if a missile is incoming, and apparently triangulation doesn't work well in that scenario (also because of RWR blind spots). Thanks for the info.

I love the feature on the Jeff where SPJ pod could provide distance information about the incoming fox 3 missile track, not this feature seems very inconsistent. Sometimes I don't get any fox 3 missile warning until a few seconds after the aggressor has completely turned cold (guess this is not a SPJ problem), and sometimes RWR would show the missile is at the outer ring mark but it will still hit me in the butt. Is this a bug or a feature to model the real system? Even if I give the system several seconds to settle and detect the source, it can still be pretty unreliable and display the threat further than it should be.

Hi, just wondering if you are still looking for JF-17 pilots. I sent you a DM, thanks!