Azrayen

Mine is not...

Did you ever try an FC fighter? If yes have you been fired at by an enemy using Fox 1s? This is not accurate. The emitter is the aircraft's radar, but the radar receipter is on the missile. If all guidance was made by the shooter, and none by the missile, you would have a "teleguided" or "command guidance" missile (such as the SA-2 SAM for example), but not a "Fox 1" (SARH). NB: this is not the reason why Fox1s should trigger a RWR alarm. You're right to think the missile seeker (passive radar antenna/receipter) cannot be detected by the RWR. But there are other ways ;) A MLWS or MAWS (that is the system you refer to) doesn't care of the guidance type (on the nose of the missile). Indeed it "sees" the exhaust plume of the missile engine (on the rear). The infrared seeker of a Fox2 cannot be detected per se (it's purely passive).

I'm absolutely not saying that. Jojo got it right: there were 2 sentences in blast's post, I answered sequentially each of them.

Hi Zeus, My 2 cents on those 4 points: - no comment - not exactly: there exist a feature in the INS that "learns" from errors (over several flights) and includes an "auto-correction" feature; as such a feature does exist, then it is proof the drift is not really random. OTOH, it can't be predictable precisely either, so positions update are still needed. - yes - this is not exactly true; GPS isn't "smooth" enough to be used as a primary "alone" for all the features an INS provides (provided); the real deal today is a hybrid INS/GPS system, with the INS as primary (still), and GPS as an aid; this has all the advantages of the INS (precision in real time, lots of inertial parameters) without the main disadvantages: 1/ initial position is obtained automatically from a GPS fix (no more typing, slow and error-prone) and 2/ intertial position is updated from GPS fixes all the time without having to manually do that from a known landmark (it's more precise, works everywhere...) => essentially reducing the drift to zero. ++ Az'

Hi blast 1. Not available at this time; you can refer to F-15C manual, but there are a few differences. 2. Indeed. No. 3. No. Yes (but it won't be the RWR anymore, as there is no radar on a Fox2).

Hi, This would be the right direction: ++ Az' PS: there is a dedicated sub-forum for M-2000C related topics ;)

En principe c'est là.

OK, so it's not news... I forgot to include a link earlier. This is how it should have been written: Problem is (I guess), definition of normal conditions. According to you, it's what happens on the 104th server. According to other, it's different. This is why I ensured to be as specific as possible. ;)

It' not random, really. The remaining TWS bug (broke lock) appears when you roll sharply. While waiting for a fix you may, as a workaround, roll slower or use STT. Depends. 1-1 vs MiG-29A? It can. 1-1 vs F-15 or Su-27 full load? Not really indeed. It's a M-2000, not a M-4000 (read about it here). 1-1 vs light load (2xF1+2xF2 missiles) Su-27 or F-15? It can. And 1-1 is not the only way to do it... Equal numbers will give ~ same results, but 2-1, 4-3 will get things interesting. It's all about knowing when to "go for it" and when not to. Finally, 104th style flying is not the only way either. Kill is not the only way to win. ;)

Balance is not what is wanted with DCS-level modules. Accuracy is. So no MICA. I disagree. They are more or less comparable. Some pro & cons, as always. That would require a GBU-38, not a GBU-12. And a GBU-38 has not been tested with the M-2000C + it would need a GPS fix from the aircraft before release... and the M-2000C has no GPS. The price is for the module; it happens it's still in beta, but you won't pay more to get the full version. Yes; and it's normal/intended (given the history and the modelization). No they haven't. So: No it wouldn't. And again "fairness" is not the goal. ++ Az'

OK... much confusion here :) Let's try again: IRL: The M-2000C is not equipped with MWS; it has provision (switch + probably some wiring) to do so, though. Other variants (specialized in A-to-G tasks) such as the M-2000D for example, are equipped of MWS. MWS sensors are mounted on the rear of the "Magic" pylons (longer pylons). In DCS: The M-2000C is not equipped with MWS today. Razbam has said it will be equipped with MWS eventually (justification is above, IRL if need was there, FAF could quicky mount the longer pylons and off you go; perhaps some chips to enhance too, not a true "plug & play" thing, but not far from it) When is "eventually"? My guess here: after other functionnalities are finished. I mean, the M-2000C could be declared out of beta without the MWS. But not without the INS. Think of MWS as the cherry on the cake ;) ++

"Courbe perso" plutôt ;)

IP in English :)

Don't think so. I think Tharos is right, i.e. they exist for the russian FC radars i.e. from "the beginning" (LO) ;)

So, remove the fake targets and keep "only" the dashed line? Personal opinion: why not, actually!

@Tharos: When I said "worth it" (or not), it was in the general DCS context. Of course I agree this area of simulation is currently under-modelled and it would be worth enhancing it, all other things equal. But as Zeus reminded us, lots of other projects exist. And I feel comfortable with the idea that, for the same amount of worktime, it's better to work on matters on which documentation/classification is less of an issue. :) ++

I have to disagree (too), sorry. :ermm: The choice not to want to buy another full price module that "looks alike" the M-2000 is yours only, I won't try to convince you to change your mind. But besides their delta shape, general architecture and family name, both birds are so different that in term of work to do (by Razbam), the "full module / full price" is totally justified IMO. - airframe - flight controls - stability/maneuverability - engine - radar - nav system - avionics - weapons/loadouts (generation) (capabilities) all is different! ++ Az'

/bump because there are talks about the M-III, so a reminder for those who want it (1st post).

That would be a DCS level evolution (all jammer-equipped and all radar-equipped aircraft). So heavy "cost". Not sure it's worth it/likely.

Duplicate http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=167102 ;)

It works here without TARGET (never tried with for now).

Bonsoir SkyEM, Pas à ma connaissance. Je te suggère de te rapprocher directement de Leatherneck, ils seront sans doute heureux de te confirmer (selon les infos qu'ils ont). ++ Az'

Ah, c'est bien ça. :) Mais pourquoi écrire si gros ? :huh:

Rogonaut: https://www.lotatc.com/projects/lotatc/wiki/Documentation ;)

As it's a non-default system for the C variant (that is modelized), I would guess this has a lower priority than other systems that are included on the real Cs, such as the INS. So... after beta is finished? I'm confortable with that.