Pavlin_33
-
Posts
282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pavlin_33
-
-
On 2/5/2024 at 8:47 PM, pepin1234 said:
You right. Make sense as a Navigation mode. Another one here low res in metric
Is this the HUD contrast how the RL pilots see it? If yes, then our DCS one is way too pale.
-
7 hours ago, GGTharos said:
Yep, so that's the closure component which allows you to easily be in the notch compared to going faster, basically the angle off 90 degrees to the radar opens up significantly.
True, I would have to re-check the geometry from the TView
-
On 2/15/2024 at 2:57 PM, GGTharos said:
At that speed falling into the notch is very easy.
I think Flanker's capable of tracking targets down to 150km/h in look-down, but I am not 100% sure. I will need to investigate further.
From automatic translation service:
QuoteWhen attacking a target maneuvering at angles of less than 3° and
against the background of the ground in PPS (ZPS), tracking is provided
to closing speeds greater (smaller) than its own speed at 150 km/h,
which at subsonic speeds corresponds to an angle of about 80°. -
16 hours ago, jaylw314 said:
And the missile and tracking radar are in different locations
Yes, hopefully - otherwise it's called a mid-air collision
-
1
-
-
Another interesting situation with the "magic" A-10:
three R-27R's missed from 12km and 4km respectively. He was doing 210kph when the first two missed, but radar lock was never dropped and my EOS was off. Same thing with the last one that missed, he was 162km/h.
-
On 2/13/2024 at 10:45 PM, Ramius007 said:
I had similar experiance on BF in F-15C vs Su-25T, missed 3 Sparrows, 2 lost radar lock due pilot flying very low, 3rd Sparrow followed chaff, then missed 3 Aim-9M that liked flares more than plane. But I can confirm A-10 being somehow hard to hit also, think i missed several R-73's, there was a guy on Contention server who made 5 (five) A2A kills in 1 sortie, maybe nobody told that A-10 pilot it's "study level sim"
Su-25T has an IR jammer up it's tail, so if your IR missiles miss from his dead six o' clock, chances are that's the reason.
-
1 hour ago, Ironhand said:
So does your original post reflect a powered glide (idle engines) or a non-powered glide? Just curious.
Both - it works in no-fuel state as well as idle.
-
18 hours ago, Ironhand said:
Since asking the question, I made a few experiments of my own. I assume my engines are out due to having run out of fuel. That seems more likely than losing both due to battle damage since, when that’s the case I’m usually missing a wing or two as well.
At any rate, assuming empty tanks and nothing hanging off my wings, best glide speed for distance seems to be right around 400 km/hr. 300 km/hr, on the other hand gives significantly more glide time, if you’re searching for somewhere nearby (field, road, etc) to touch down.
I sometimes have very low fuel, so I check if I can glide it in on idle power - most use cases for me.
-
On 2/12/2024 at 4:39 PM, Ironhand said:
My assumption was that it was “0” wind. As for the rest? Well…
IIRC the best speed for glide distance in an empty Flanker was around 400 km/hr. So I was wondering what he found. I don’t think I ever bothered to check speed for glide time.
Yes, it's for more-less calm winds. This is by no means a goto procedure to follow in case of both engines goin out, but rather a quick rule of thumb.
My procedure is:
- engines are out
- jettison all stores
- check height and distance
If within the simple rule, chances are high for successful landing.
Sometimes I run out of fuel when flying in MP
-
On 2/12/2024 at 2:41 PM, Ironhand said:
Out of curiosity, what airspeed and/or sink rate did you use to achieve that 10:1 glide ratio?
I usually never go below 400kph. I am not sure why, I guess 'cause the spedometer starts having finer scale there, so I imagine that might be the lowest drag speed.
Airbus A320 has it's best glide speed around 210knots which is more or less within this speed range. I could be totally wrong here, also.
-
1 minute ago, Ivandrov said:
If it's a problem with the A-10 specifically, why wouldn't it be the same?
I have no idea if DCS treats both AI and client the same.
-
Just now, Ivandrov said:
Just do it against AI, you can setup a mission in the mission editor, remove countermeasures, and make sure you get good shots on them before you fire the missiles.
I can also do it myself, tomorrow, and post the results.
True I could try out AI. My only concern is that it might not be the same - I would have to replicate this with a human-driven A-10.
-
5 minutes ago, Ivandrov said:
That was an incredibly terrible shot, it wouldn't have guided onto any plane.
You're not convincing anyone that there is a problem with the A-10 here if you keep leaving in all of these variables that explain the reasons why your missiles miss.
Try isolating things in a test environment, shoot against an A10 with no countermeasures, and with good leading shots.
Problem is with the A-10C specifically. I have no issues with any other target.
Unfortunately I don't own the A-10, but I will see if I can find someone to help out maybe stage these kind of situations, so I can get a track file. -
If you have a look at the TacView Animation, you can see that even though I have landed (on the road) and my speed was below 300kph (not 100% sure how much but prob. around 280km/h or less) the Phoenix had no issue tracking me - I am in the Flanker (not Mirage 2000) that landed.
Is AIM-54 supposed to hit ground targets also?
-
8 minutes ago, Ivandrov said:
Radar lock may have been maintained, did the seeker in the missile even have a chance to find the reflection from that close and off-angle?
There are severe problems with weapons employment and use of countermeasures in both of these cases you just posted.
Oh come on. The missile didn't have time to find the target, really?
Any other air frame in DCS would have been splashed, but not the A-10C.
This is the only airplane I have to actually gun down.
-
2 hours ago, zerO_crash said:
I already told you what the manual is stating! On the accelerometer of Su-27, the red mark covers 8G+ - 9G. That is to remind the pilot that effectively, the air force doesn't want him to pull more than 8G for durability reasons. You can also see on the MiG-29 a red line on 7G, which works in pretty much the same way, albeit here, the manual lists no specific limit, other than general 9G sustain. For comparison, on Su-27SK, the air force doesn't want you to pull 9G prolonged, therefore 8G below red line, and 9G within.You seem to have a problem with understanding that, even worse, you attempt to read a technical manual in a language you do not operate with. Don't do that, you will often lose the coherency of syntax - context.
Looks like you might be right, on this Ukranian Flanker from 2010 the limit (never exceed) seems to be 9G:
-
14 hours ago, MelonenBuby said:
Introduction
AAP "OFF"-Button doesn't work and INS can't be turned off.
Yes, I have noticed this one too. "OFF" button, does absolutely nothing. It has been like this since for ever.
-
On 2/7/2024 at 10:14 PM, antiload said:
Hi, fly the jet to replicate the issue and save the track file. You can then post it here with a detailed description.
Check the fuel button on the MFD to see what bingo is set - default is 2000 lb.
The waypoint selected in the image shows 163? is that correct? that's a long distance to the waypoint.
RWR screen looks okay, apart from missing waypoint sequence
Unfortunately I don't really know how exactly to replicate this one, but it has happened on multiple occasions. I was hopping that someone else could provide some more info in order to narrow down the cause of the problem.
Selected way point is #01.
I did not touch the default BINGO fuel setting and the plane had 100% fuel load.Yes, one thing that accompanies this bug is that the way points don't show up in the RWR screen. They also can't be used, but they do exist in the flight plan with correct coordinates.
-
U fly mostly Soviet/Russian jets and they have a HUD dimmer that blocks out the Sun, but a JF-17 for example doesn't so facing the Sun the HUD is useless. I was wondering, how to RL pilots deal with this? Or is it like in DCS where the Sun is the ultimate obstacle?
-
On 2/1/2024 at 1:06 PM, zerO_crash said:
You are not reading thoroughly! The operational limit is 9G, however it's not recommended as a sustained (again, has nothing to do with what the airframe sustains, only a recommendation as to extending airframe service life) G-load...If you look at the G-meters in respective cockpits of Flanker and Fulcrum, the the numbering on them seems to reinforce what the manuals are saying:
29's goes up to 9G, while 27's stops at 8G
-
And some more: this time R-27R fails to track for some reason - radar lock was maintained throughout
-
Here's some more footage (reply sped up):
3 x 73 miss from very short range
-
This is a huge exploit in favor of the Hornet.
As you can see in my new gif, all 27Rs just go stupid where as only my 73 tracks. Keep in mind that I had target locked on radar only and before they deployed the decoys. My EOS was off.
-
1
-
-
To whom ever it may concern:
Slick Su-27 with about 3t of fuel oe less, needs 10 x height in km distance to glide safely back to base.
For example: height is 3km x 10 = 30km glide distance required in order to land safely with engines off.
Expectation on Air to Air missiles of the MiG-29A?
in DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum
Posted
The picture says export "A" version. I was under the impression that export version is "B". Also I thought that the export version had more limited panel.