OB1

I'm hoping some of you have knowledge of what is to come in the future, or perhaps ED can input. I'm hoping if there is going to be in future a feature update at least for the fighter line up of the FC3 aircraft. If some of you can confirm this - There is allot of HUD information missing from the Su-27, 33, 29 etcetera.... such as TTI numbers and some symbology. I understand FC3 is designed to be simple however I believe this is too simple and detrimental to the pilots performance. On top of this some interesting capabilities have not been implemented such as buddy support for SARH missiles, if we can confirm it is a capability of the current variants we have right now ? Such additions would elevate these FC3 aircraft to a whole new level and I'm sure would be welcomed by all especially the multiplayer community.

My survivability and fighting performance in DCS has drastically increased ever since I have stopped using that paddle switch and fly by the numbers instead. Only use it when I'm about to fly into the deck and on rare occasions for a cheeky AIM-9X launch. I find this side of the forums an interesting perspective considering the 18 has underpowed engines and poor throttle response. I don't know about the rest of the general flight performance but the DCS 18 definitely doesn't match the military's 18c sim capabilities in terms of engine performance.

ah ok thanks !

I'm not sure it this is intended or not but it doesn't seem right to me. For example if you change your radar elevation in any mode.. lets just say RWS to point strait down, then switch to any ACM mode, boresight for example. You will be unable to pick up a target inside your boresight circle as it is actually offset to point down at the same declination as what you had it in before you switched to ACM mode. I would have thought ACM would re-center your elevation. Is there a way to manually re-center the elevation without exiting ACM ?

Ok got a pilot and made a track. Takes a while for us to start and we were having a bit of a joy flight, we made a number of passes on a E3A. Nice fat target and the issue presents itself clearly. Hopefully you can tell me what I am doing wrong however when I replicate in the editor the radar works perfectly and that is against a fighter sized target. I have no issues with the MLC filter. I tried it on and off. Hooking the E3A in TWS or TWS Auto and attempting either a PSTT or PDSTT fails every time. I demonstrate I can PSTT from a Pulse search using the DDD however immediately after trying the STT from the TWS hooked track fails. Again it never fails in single player only multiplayer. Track link : https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_hW8E17brIikbBctqYcY_A3ich7O5JIE?usp=sharing If you have problems with the link let me know.

This issue also affects PSTT, the issue can also be observed switching between tws auto and manual after a heading change given auto is tracking a target. Also persists against targets above 3 degrees elevation with mlc auto.

Unfortunately I can't make a track right now as my pilot is awol. -Need a human pilot and RIO on a multiplayer server and neither can be host. -Track a target in TWS auto and have the pilot crank left or right to change azimuth of TWS Auto. -At any range and elevation hook target and PSTT or PDSTT. = Loose lock You can see the radar azimuth glitch back briefly to last azimuth of a manual radar mode prior to the switch to TWS Auto. TWS auto does not sync azimuth to any other manual azimuth or any manual mode cannot accurately resume azimuth from a TWS Auto changed azimuth, causing the radar to be unable to find the hooked target you are trying to lock as it is looking in a different location. In editor or single player the radar works flawlessly and never have a problem entering a STT from TWS Auto, only multiplayer can reveal this. This maybe related to some lock issues some people are having with Jester in MP but not sure as I am Jester and no pilot.

Exactly as gonk said. easily reproduced. Just move the TDC to the edge of the MFD under the OSB key responsible for changing bar scan, touch the edge and move it back (as if changing range).

At 53 minutes in after take off (second flight) radar behaviour did not seem normal. All bars listed (1B 2B 4B 6B) could not reset to clear issue. Pressing the OSB key to change bars still cycled scan altitudes on the captains bars (TDC) without Bar indication. Some other radar functions did not seem to work and behaved strangely. Other than the obviously noticeable problem with the bars I could not tell you exactly what the other radar behavioural problems are as I am just getting back into it and not certain with the functionality. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xua6dkt3xrne610/Server_1_Operation_Urban_Thunder_V4_1-20200412-190718.trk?dl=0

Well if everyone were that wise companies such as kickstarter, indigogo etc, including DCS pre-order support wouldn't work. Sure we could become so wise and have the ultimate discipline to protect our money but still, the point is what they did was wrong, advertising the feature on the official store page then removing it was what some people call "a dick move". If no one ever complained about what was wrong there would be absolutely no incentive for anyone to do what is right. This is the natural order and progression of things and yes trust, by being burnt we learn and some of us will do just that - no buy until they deliver.

Depends on the buyer. Its not worth anything if you bought it for the multi-crew experience and then they go back on their word. Digital products seem to be a grey area when it comes to refunds. Retail shops in most countries under law are required to give a full refund if requested upon return when the product is not what is advertised. So they 'should' have offered a full refund when they decided to drop the multi-crew feature but they didn't. This kind of behaviour should not be accepted and it is perfectly reasonable for people to express their frustrations when these kinds of things happen.

Just to clarify for those whom assume phoenix spam. We only ever fly CAP missions with 4x phoenix, 2x sparrow and 2x 9's. We only ever fire 1 phoenix per target unless we can confirm a miss. With the F-14's speed we can pick our engagements. We have also switched to using 54A's hoping our opponent has an easier time defeating it and at least perhaps get a visual on the launch, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. Typical engagement we launch the phoenix close between 25-35nmi depending on situation and crank, most of the time its a splash of all targets. If a confirmed miss we may fire a second phoenix or run down the target with sparrows and 9's or disengage if we deem the situation too risky. With this approach we seem to rule the skies, I have only ever witnessed one Hornet pilot executing notching perfectly defeating 2 phoenix without ruining, must have anticipated the launch as most pilots don't react in time. Using the phoenix on fighter sized targets is not all that uncommon as Iran loves using them and have used them extensively in the past. Accurate hit miss numbers seem hard to find however it does seem that the phoenix had issues tracking low flying target and those equipped with the french ECM pod. Honestly it is hard to say but at the moment our hit ratio online in DCS against modern hornet and eagles target seems higher than against the reports coming out of the middle east against antiquated targets some of which don't even have a capable RWR in detecting the missile. Again lack of ECM modelling is a problem but I can't see how they could model it. Not requiring to support the phoenix is a big problem if indeed the missile needs it, at the moment it seems to guide to last known intercept point. Honestly don't see how it is an engine limitation as they can make the R-27 fly ballistic when not supported. Regards to merge performance I have no problem with the result in DCS. Sustained dog fight is a loosing battle for a 14 against both 15's and 18's. I'm no expert with dissimilar combat training but it does seem about right.

Ok so, F-14... I am very impressed with the devs as they have delivered such a fantastic multi-crew module. From day one of release I have trained as a RIO and have become proficient with it as well as the pilots I fly with have become proficient at piloting. We simmers feed on challenge and oddly enough we have ran into a bit of an issue with that... I think there is a number of factors influencing the seemingly immune nature of the F-14 in PVP servers, such as ECM modelling or lack there of, lack of information on real seeker head performance, radar environmental performance, mission makers ability to create realistic scenarios, etc... I am a little concerned as when we get the F-14A and the Mig-23MLA we will finally have a period specific match up. Of course the F-14 has always been considered a superior aircraft however with the current performance of the F-14 eating F/A-18's for breakfast and the lack of IADS modelling for Russian aircraft along with the lack of ECM modelling in DCS the F-14 and Mig-23 match up will be a joke. I am not sure how posting my thoughts on this is going to change anything.. I guess I just hope they start to address the factors that amplify the performance of particular elements that make the F-14 god like and of course most of these factors are not the fault of the HeatBlur devs. I'll share a short story, the kind of story that makes me feel like an ass hole when I RIO in a PVP server (happens often): -We were returning from a self issued mission that was to take out the blue teams AWACS, which later we found was pointless because another one spawns immediately after. Heading back at approx 35,000ft, radar switched off and after dialling in home base for the pilot I was monitoring data link contacts. A sudden popup on our 5 o'clock angels 1 about 35-40 nmi out. Instructed pilot to bank right. Setup radar elevation and azimuth. Data link contact placed inside projected lines, illuminated, got TWS track, Fox 3, instructed RTB then radar off. - Splash one F/A-18. That poor F/A-18 pilot would have had about 4 seconds of F-14 spike on RWR then soon after less than 5 seconds of pitbull. Didn't even support the missile. Felt like a cheep kill. :joystick: The only time we ever get shot down is when we play around and purposely put ourselves in unnecessary danger. Anyway I could be wrong. the F-14 might have been god like !! Why did they scrap it then...

+1 disappointment. Im in a community of simmers and some of us bought them on that promise. I have only flown them once or twice in 5 years, not interested in flying alone. Waste of money and lost confidence in preorder products.

Anyone know if the real J-11A is capable of engaging 2 targets simultaneously with the R-77 like the 29s ? Also could we see the MAWS upgrade to this in the future ? Thanks !

Only Tom Cruise knows how to do that :lol:

So basically you saying if the illuminating radar doesn't get spoofed on chaff the missile should guide successfully ? The only exception would be if chaff is between the illuminated target and the seeker right ? Unless the data link corrects that ?

Holy crap, didn't realise it was that bad. That can't possibly be anything remotely close to realistic. The question is, if this has been known, then why has this problem persisted for years ? The R-27 is the main armament of the Su-27 and is kinda a game breaker especially in the online arena. Why haven't they fixed it ? If it is such a large workload to fix it at least change a few values or copy the 120 model until they can fixed it ? Any quick fix would be more practical than waiting years. Poor Flanker pilots have been humiliated for too long... :pilotfly:

Thanks for a welcome reply. RCS of the Mirage is something I did not consider nor did I know the values. I'll have a test of various other aircraft to observe any difference.

Well... This all started when I got really bored, however I think these findings should be shared, discussed and possibly have action taken to improve some aspects of the missile. I am no missile expert and thus is why I'd like to get some input from people in the know or at least educated guesses/opinions on this matter. I have attached 5 TacView tracks that you should have a look at to determine for yourselves if the experiment is valid. I was able to get consistent results for each. Each experiment was conducted with an Su-27 as the launching aircraft and a drone using a Mirage M2000 on a static course deploying chaff. Basically this shows the ineffectiveness of the R-27 and I believe to an unrealistic level. Furthermore I can only assume that the modelling of how the semi-active missiles track are incorrect, possibly on part of the radar's modelling. Behaviour of the R-27 appears to mimic the behaviour of an active missile apart from requiring constant lock from the launching aircraft. The missile recognises all chaff and can guide to chaff that are not being illuminated by radar, chaff that are outside the radar cone. If someone can clarify this and has information on the area of radar illumination when the radar is in STT mode would be much appreciated. In a 1v1 situation all the opposing aircraft is required to do is crank on gimbal limits at low cruise speed and chaff without any evasive manoeuvre while closing for the kill. If someone has any history documentation on the testing of the R-27 would be awesome. I would assume the R-27 in testing would have hit chaff deploying non-manoeuvring drones with ease. Thanks for your input. TackView Tracks.zip

Kickstarter Launched: In terms of simulation this game poops on Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous. Basic run down. Features: -Dynamic atmospheric flight model implementation based on altitude, density and pressure. Gravity wells. -Highly detailed and modelled solar system. -No loading screens, seamless transitions between space flight and atmospheric flight down to the planet surface, flights between planets and moons. -Day night cycles, realistic lighting and atmospheric scattering. -Speed ! -Multiplayer, initial estimates without optimisation is 150+ players with devs future estimates in the thousands. No instancing. Videos: Trailer - Reviewer - All media on Infinity: Battlescape is in engine.

Ok, do we know what flight model is going to be used ? With the dynamic geometry of a swept wing aircraft is it too difficult to implement a PFM ?

Question: Does this mean the entire F-14 flight model will be based on an EFM ?

Would you actually classify the Libyan encounter as a dogfight ? I'd actually like someone to explain the encounter in detail as it seemed to differ from different sources but the radio chatter can't be disputed. The positions of the 4 aircraft is what I would particularly would like to know. Yeah, by the time the F-14 upgrades rolled out and the B came along, Mig-29's and Su-27's were in service.

The real Su-27 does not have toe brakes, so what is portrayed is realistic other that the fact in the real 27 you can apply break pressure to your satisfaction. The 27 has a break handle. After learning about it myself I actually prefer the design over common western differential toe brake design. You apply brake pressure via the brake handle and manage the distribution of brake pressure using your rudder pedals. The closest setup it would be say on a HOTAS Warthog would be the pinky leaver on the stick unfortunately its only a button and not an axis and of course as mentioned before we need the option to bind to an axis. For more info on this refer here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134099 edit: Or last link provided in previous post...