Viper33

Waiting for the full reveal of the planned features. Until then one can hope.

Sounds very niche for when the missile is basically almost close to impact. In all other cases the target parameters are not changed and the missile will fly according to the last known command. You'd need a constant target illumination unlike the periodic sweep a BVR search provides. May work against bombers that aren't turning much.

It should be VHF so LOS only.

Given the "G" is already in FC3 I can see it being an additional option. Granted it is a bit of a botched G with only the HUD and voice warning system being changed but if they already have all the voice files required then why not.

I am really struggling to decipher what you are trying to say here. Can you at least try to form a proper and coherent sentence in English? If you can't then please type it out in your native language and use google translate as I am sure this will have better results. Now, to get back to the specifics of the N019 radar and R-27R operation. The radar switches in intervals of 20,48ms and 30,72ms between illumination and radio correction (IL - RC - IL - RC). A full radiocorrection cycle for one missile requires 358,2ms. If during that time the interval is interrupted (lock is lost) there is no way for the radar to recover it as it does not have a track based memory system (there is a short memory period where the radar tries to re-establsish a lock) nor does the missile have smart enough electronics to extrapolate a track outside of the last received RC command. As for the AIM-7's, in particular the newer variants they do have INS and the illuminating radars often enough have a track memory based architecture as well as CW illumination should a lock be dropped. Either way even a Sparrow should be trashed if the lock is dropped for a sufficient enough period of time - no idea how this currently works in DCS though so maybe there is something to be corrected either way.

What does this even mean? Or with HMS.

That's not what I was getting at. It shouldn't track through clouds for one and also depend on atmospheric conditions. Actual lock on ranges will be much shorter than its useful range in most cases. All depends on how ED model it.

ER and all the T variants are supported by the 9.12 29 out of the box. It's just a plug that tells the WCS what missile it carries. The reason why a lot of 9.12 operators did not use the ER was mostly weight an cost, as well as the radar not really taking full advantage of the ER anyway. The T and ET is mainly not used because it is too restrictive, requiring lock on before launch as well as haiving a limited coolant time. Ontop of that the T and ET should have worse aerodynamics due to the more rounded nose, resulting in less practical range. It's simply not as useful or fire and forget like it is in DCS. But I guess we should wait until the 29 featurelist is annouced to confirm all of this. For any soviet era LARP you'd stick to the 27R anyway.

That's not how that IRST should work (not like in FC3). Laser ranging only works out to 6km in unubstructed conditions.

Nice! Would also love to see proper turbulence effects and icing especially when entering clouds. The flight itself is simply too smoth in DCS right now.

9.12 can use ER/ET.

Wonder why it was not implemented yet.

I mean, this issue goes back several years and is marked as "reported" - why exactly do you need new evidence? Also, even what is in the 742-100 is more than enough to come to a conclusion unless you are dead set on it not being a thing and need a word by word evidence that an L&S designation can be attacked with a missile. Why would L&S be called Launch & Steering otherwise?

A lot of the sources explaining and delvng into MSI are actually unclass research papers, public brochures and articles as well as the regular NATOPS containing some info as well. So there really shouldn't be an issue here considering we have the HTS pod for the Viper (among other systems in the Apache) which there is exactly 0 public info on outside of a certian other sim. So there is either an unwilingness, in terms of allocated resources and time, from ED to do this properly or inability to correct the already old codebase for such a feature. A Lot 20 C model Hornet without MSI isn't really a Hornet when it comes to its combat systems and capabilities. I'm sure this can be done in DCS but at what cost and in what timeframe is the question. There really needs to be a willingness and urgency from the develoepers to do this properly as I don't really see any other way.

Yeah, animations and netcode have gotten substantially worse. I remember watching butter smooth landings in the past and now almost every jet sinks into the ground on touchdown.

@MARLAN_ is correct here. Think about it - what does L&S stand for? Launch and Steering. Why would the missile need a radar lock if all trackfiles are treated the same within the system - the only limiting factor for launch/engagement is the FOV of the radar dish as the missile still needs the DL/M-Link channels for midcourse guidence support. Having a STT for example would only increase the quality of the track and allow to operate single-ship with no off-board support. The public manuals specifically state the requirements for an L&S. All you need to understand is - a trackfile is a trackfile.

It doesnt take the canopy into account among other things.

SRS is still far superior. Both from the use, options available like MIDS radios, modulation and background noise (type of jet and canopy position making a difference etc.).

Also noticed. They looked great when they came out but with MT (or something else) there is this clear grid pattern, which also affects contrails and missile trails now. Lack of particles for a lack of a better term. Would be also neat to have proper fog, wind effects, and turbulence + icing within clouds under proper conditions.

There generally should be Husky and Pitbull indications in the HUD. Not in DCS right now.

The nuts and bolts in the aft portion of the cockpit behind the seat seem to be missing the textures which are present on the moving part of the canopy. Along with some other details being untextured or low detail. Would be great if this can be fixed and improved. Thanks.