Thirsty

And not even mentioning that how close range this shots are! I wonder how bad the resaults will be if the distances goes from the 2-5 NM to the 10 plus or even 20 plus distance. . .

Please can you get the Track file and send it to Bignewy here? Since I think that will help more with this case. We need to get this fixed

The R-27 doesn't even need to be defended, since it will throw itself off from the target, no turning, no chaff, nothing has to be done. And this happened multiple times now. The API clearly works as inteded, defenetly not bugged. No worries in the end, its only all the BVR armament of the MiG-29, so it is very usable.

Yup, still locking very strongly. Also possibly the A-50 as well? Need to test that a bit more.

Is the reading 100% accurate? No, since its not magical as nothing is. Do you still get to know that you are locked? Yes, and that's enaugh information. And again, several people have provided counter evidence that the SPO works with the radar on in the frontal hemipshere, inculding service manuals, and declassefield manual about the SPO-15 as well. I am not going to qoute the countless point, have fun reading as you will.

?????????????????????? I am sorry, but again who is talking about servers here? DCS is not limited on servers only, some people (most) fly single player only. If you have problems with the servers that are on DCS, complain to their owners, who are running them or make your own, don't try to push your own nerrative down on people's throat, everyone has the free will and decision to enjoy DCS the way they want to, not like how you would like to. If you like to have it the way it is now, okay, then have the setting that way, and have fun. Currently there is a early acsess release that has bulletholes at parts that needs to be patched, people are going to voice their problems with a product that they have spent money on, since they want to be able to use it. This is not war thunder. I'm sorry, but you are just contradicting your own words. You say its okay to disable datalink since it is a timeline wise setting, but the SPO needs to be broken constantly? There isn't even an option between serviced SPO-15 and unserviced. Where does that make sense? You really think that soviet engineers were so dumb, that they couldn't impove upon the SPO-10 but make it worse ? Also, if you have been reading into different thread, and theards that are not only in English, there are multiple SME's that are saying that the SPO-15 is working with the radar on. Not even talking about the countless documents, and repair manuals about the SPO-15 saying things that are completly the opposite. I will kindly ask you to stop with this nonsense, since this is not going anywhere, and this is not proviading anything into this thread. Have a nice day.

I wonder if there's going to be any. There is radio silance about the R-27Rs gudince bug

Then let me rephrase my previous sentance. Lots of things are in a factor when it comes to msl guidence, but the fact that you can completly make a MSL loose tracking by rolling is not due to any glint. And I am not talking about a loaded roll, or with in the play chaff, or anything. Just a simple roll while maintaining heading, that should not be enaugh for a missile to lose complete guidence and miss. That doesn't sound like a radar glint, more of a API bug. Hence why people are waiting for a response from the developers. And I am not refering to the small gif that has been put in by GRY Money, I am talking about the general topic of this thread

With all due respect, the topic you sent it would make sense if its a loaded roll. but things get effect with just a little roll without any G input, that should not affect a tracking quality of a missile that also other support for tracking such as like datalink and igns.

I am sorry, but you clearly don't understand what people are saying or haven't even bothered to read the thread properly, and if you don't have any normal input to this thread anymore just don't even anymore, since this is not about some pseudo Fox 1 servers. If you so wish to have your harcore realistic experinace, good, nobody tells you not to, in the first place this is why options, settings exists, and everyone has their way to set up the scenarios they want their way. Now, why does that bother you so much? Hard to understand. And you can already disable features on jets, such as like disabling data link on 14, 18 and 16s, or even disable gyro drift for most of the aircraft, these are all options that impact realisim, however they still exist for a reason. It would be no different for the SPO either. And your example is the worst out of all. Before saying nonsense, please go ahead and do some research of your own, especially about the F-35's radar reflector that is used on the real jets. Since I can guratnee you, ED will add that option to the 35s, since they won't be able to model the stealth of the aircraft in the first place. Not even talking about the fact that the "simulation" of the 35 in DCS will be the miles away from a "realistic" simulation, since it is all a guesstimate, as they have said it as well. And again, you are talking competitive nonsense in the end that doesn't even connect to the topic of this thread.

I agree 100% I love to see better and better RWR implementations, however the 2nd part is the real problem sadly In a real aircraft, having told that you are being fired on from the GCI that is controlling you is there, where in most cases would be even more accurate than a lock warning what you would get from the SPO, (or any RWR since most of the launch warning for a SARH missile is not realistic in the first place) But in terms of DCS, you can't have a person with you every time when you go out to fly on some server for fun and telling that there's a missile coming, and having such an important thing as your RWR basically completly INOP in the full frontal section (even in MPRF where there should be almost zero interference) just makes everyone blind as a bat since there is not going to be someone guiding you from a radar station every time. So its not even about a launch warning, but we don't even know if there is a lock or not., since if we are going realistic we treat every lock as a launch. And I think this is what lot of people forget in the end of the day.

No, I think you need to read the answer again. And no again, might be lanauge barrier here, but what you saying is about something completly different. For following the logic that you are saying, everything that is unrealistic (labels, F-16s with 4 harms, magic rwrs, list goes on) or just a big estimation should be removed from DCS as a whole since they can't be authentic, what is never going to happen. cough cough F-35 And again, this is a toggleable options in the mission editor (potentionally in the special menu, but enforced by the mission editor) as the original creator of this post suggested Giving options to people how and what they want to implement, so it is kind of hard to see why it does bother you a lot.

That would be the way to go to in my opinion , however realisticly speaking that could very easly take years not months sadly. On the side, this "unrealistic" or "legacy" option would also slove the most issues that are currently going on the forum, with the radar operation synch with the SPO. What is currently dividing the community with also statements of real pilots saying that the SPO can work with the radar on . . .

And again, then what about this few just as a quick example: Plus all the magical RWRs, these are all "casual" when it comes to your term. At that point, all of this should be removed as well? This is not asking for making everything work like the previus one does. but allowing people of making a choice. If you want your missions to have the more "realistic" SPO-15, then you can set it in the mission editor, or if you don't then you have other options. In the end you are still playing a game flying virtual jets. There is no such as "casual" or "hardcore"

I would as well, but since there is no realistic option for those jets, this is the best option of the two worlds, a simple mission editor setting.