Viper33

Not to mention that on the Winwing F-15E throttle they messed up the radar elevation axis and made it a slider instead of a spring loaded return to center axis like in the real thing. Don't understand why companies sell something as "replica" but don't do the required research or add their own stuff to it.

I did not mean the seeker mechanics but simply 3D model and textures. Again, like was done last year with R-27 and recently with the R-60.

Yup, usually if a plane is kept running there is no need for extensive re-checks as most systems are up and running. No different to aerial refueling in that regard. Of course you'd take a general look for open panels and hatches or potential FOD/BD.

Will you update older missile models like the AIM9M/X and similar like you did with the R-60, R-73 and R-27 this year? Currently, especially the older AIM9 models stick out like a sore thumb on the newer modules. Mostly the 9X and M.

That GPU truck sure would be nice to have with a new model.

Not well at all.

Yeah DCS numbers may be compensating for how thigns work in the game itself. Will be interesting to see the rework or have more info on it.

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.

That plays a role of course along with multi-ship large scale exercises and formations, as well the the very basis of an operational doctrine. Given these low flight hours said eastern jets were also heavily GCI supplemented and the top down command chain was rather on the ground. But you could ramble on about this topic for hours as it can get very complex. As far as DCS goes obviously the Mig-23 can and will be flown using better and more adapted tactics like any other jet in DCS. And depending on what it'll face it will fare either quite well or quite bad.

Mig-23 was nowhere near cheap or easy to maintain, hence why basically none are in operation today - even compared to Mig-21's. The whole numbers things wasn't as stark as some make it out to be and the numbers of ML's and up were rather limited when compared to MF and M. Especially once you got reserves into the picture. If you take actual war and combat employments no soviet machines really have too great of a record.

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.