TaliG

Other thing to propose a better solution to a problem and other to accuse someone of his job and way of taking money from you. I am clearly with you on this but as a businessman myself, and because I think this is how it really works in business, the one that really needs to be careful is the customer. The businessman already had his training on how to get your money so...everything is about you.

Fighters will always be a complement to SEAD and later to ground and CAS attack missions, unless their airbase is suddenly attacked and they need to scramble.:book: EDIT: ''Fighter'' is actually a bad name for me... they should call this type of aircraft ''defenders''. They are only there to ''defend'' other aircraft after all and provide air superiority for other type of aircraft to be able to fly in.

Servers look for ''specific file's'' integrity. I ve seen players curry more weapons, and on pilons that are impossible to load such weapons. Can you please update this integrity check? For lag issues I cannot say anything. All servers that I join ( I join from Greece) I always get pings from 100 to 180, and I find no problem at all. And no other player encountered any problem with me.

I vote TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT :ufo: Because of the Vkrs and The SEAD capability. Modelling the T first, will be easier for moders to take out the capabilities and do the 25a (same airframe) quickly But UB will be even better (carrier training):thumbup:

I am not a weapons expert, but I think the missile with better radar guidance (launch platform radar) should track better (I understand ALL of you in this thread) I just proposed an equal multilayer arcade until we get higher fidelity launch platforms, thats all. EDIT: Kuki and and others, please dnt get me wrong, missile simulation is an enormous and great effort, and it is done, and it is here and it will stay. I ll say it this way. You have an old rifle from 1900. You develop a new bullet that is capable of many things like taking down a tank or whatever, but the problem is that you cannot aim the boolet corectly on the target because your old 1900 rifle cant coop with the new technology. I dont say, destroy the new developed bullet. I say keep it safe (dnt fire it through the old rifle) until you get the proper rifle to fire it from. And I dnt mean only a DCS fighter, I mean all other things like radars, chaffs etc

I agree. I would like to add that a 1-1 BVR in real life is a no go. Simply because all bvr missiles will probably be wasted. BVR fights are more used between 2-2, 2-3, 3-4 flight groups and so on, because strategy and tactics get into play, then, if ALL parts are so well trained, VR fights are coming next. But then again after a good BVR fight, a 4-4 will end up in 2-3 or 1-2 dogfight so... Anyway you all get my point, wich is 1-1 BVR is a no go IRL, BUT in our public servers 99% of the fights take place that way.

I definitely agree with you. My answare above was for a completely different reason than the one you write. Just read his question and you will understand.

I disagree because the AI is arcade modelled aswell. so there is no use of it. AI will always be AI Real players launching the missiles are the real deal (my own opinion though) Because AI is some kind of scripted behaviour that everyone can study and at the end you get bored to it. Having a high fidelity missile fired from a stupid AI is actually worst than having the same missile fired from an FC platform. EDIT: Sorry for derailing your very informative conversation (i just added an ''arcade'' opinion )

It is always going to be that way (this is the correct way) My point was that multilayer AA airquakes are done with low fidelity FC3 planes. There is no reason to put such high fidelity simulation on a ''part'' of a system and bring ''dissatisfaction'' to the community. I truly admire the effort that goes in programming this simulation but for me, it doesn't quite feat in FC3 fidelity gameplay, and at the end spoils it. (the main reason for this thread) FC3 is not ready for this kinf of simulation, and nobody asked for it at the end. Plus no real profit for the producer. They could really put their effort on producing a DCS:fighter first and then start the long trip on simulating AA missiles. People would have been very busy learning the systems (no time to judge missile behaviour) and enough time for the developer to produce a good AA missile simulation.

A seller will sell you what ever he likes and will ask you whatever amount of money he likes you to pay. It is about YOU if you choose to buy something. If you want to blame someone, first you need to think about yourself. Because after all, YOU are the one that have the choice of buying or not buying something :smilewink: If you feel mistreated, most of the times is your own fault.

Proximity fuses are definitely there. Most of the times that I get hit, I can fly back to base for repair. That means that the missile that hit me, was ignited far from my airframe. I follow this post for quite some time now, and I would like to propose something. Since AA radars, airframe signatures and other things are not modelled at the moment, and the main platforms that AA missiles comes from (FC3 planes) are not high fidelity at all, why is it so difficult to bring a ''sence'' of equality to the missiles that we use at the moment, and when other things are modelled, like radars, high fidelity lunch platforms ( SU27-F18 ), then ED can show off their simulation programming abilities. At the moment, AtoA fights are done between airframes of VERY low fidelity (FC3). Why bring high fidelity weapons (which will bring confusion and frustration) with low fidelity lunch platforms (no radars, half working TWS for Russian planes, low fidelity radars in general, broken EOS). All the talk is about online AtoA which at the moment is just an online airquake and nothing more. When you say ''WHEN IT IS READY, or, WHEN IT IS DONE'' just FOLLOW it. High fidelity missiles without high fidelity radars and launch platforms and radar signatures, is far from READY. AA Missiles are not a system by themselves. They are just a subsystem. Simulating a subsystem in high standards without simulating the rest of the system is not only useless but will bring problems like what we have. I read carefully all this post day after day, all conversation have already hit the wall of ''not enough information available'' to further simulate missile behaviour, yet none of you have mentioned that ALL this things are happening on FC3, not dcs world. It is like talking about why you cannot get the World Cup in football, I ll tell you why: 1: You do not have the players 2: You do not have a proper place to train the players The only thing that we really have at the moment is a well made leather ball. Dnt get me wrong, I am just proposing to introduce the AA missile system when it is ready as a ''system''. And once more, AA missiles are a system (radar, launch platform and a guided rocket). WE ONLY HAVE THE ROCKET Sorry for the long post (you can start shooting at me, at 3........2........1.....:bash:

Maybe wrong thread to speak about what I have encountered.. I was on 51st server and I tried the huey, when I cleared the hight of the valley that the farp was in, I was immediately shot down by a r77. Was it a mad dog missile? or I was clearly an easy BVR target for the mig? If the second, then we have a bug here:music_whistling: Then again I know... no .trk no food :doh:

Shooting down an Eagle while you fly the frog, is an exceptional experience. I can tell you, when you manage to do something like that, then you are sooooooo satisfied from your sim life... that you just ctrl+eee and stay where you fall for the rest of the game, having cold beer...And ofcurse next day at work, you make sure that everybody knows what you have done last night :thumbup: Needless to say... the Eagle that you shoot down.. if he is really an honoured man... he will be forced not to come after you like mad, bad just push the disconnect button :megalol::pilotfly:

They are on summer vocation.. do the same :megalol: OK... they just broke something, this time was the annoying atc. I am not surprised anymore...:music_whistling:

YES

That is what I think, too. Do not confuse 6dof with 3d. 6dof is the ability to change your view in 6 directions, and it can be perfectly accomplished when you are in a 3d environment and not a 3d rendered cockpit. It is like you look a painting on a wall. It doesnt mean that the painting has to be 3d for you to look 6dof around it. Those missions are perfectly accomplished by 5-10 drones alone...Why should NATO and air forces around the world bother about those situations? :megalol: Actually, alien invasion is more plausible than this world war 3 scenario that you have there my friend..:megalol: But please lets move the ''Nevada'' talk here please: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=80468&page=196 This thread is for su25t cockpit:thumbup:

Su-25t 6dof pit was available as a pach from mid2012. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=87894 I hope this bird gets a ''new'' 6dof, and not a reworked one. I bet, it is the aircraft with the largest number in sim flight hours, gathered from lock-on veterans around the world, and thus it needs the appropriate love and attention. I wish this baby gets its love in the future with a proper DCS: Su-25t module :joystick: Except from Red Flag (training again), the only ''real'' war scenario that my small uncreative brain can think off is: An alien aircraft was shot down by mistake over area 51 by the USAF (SPAMRAAM:confused:). Negotiation between extra-terrestrials:alien: and MIB went terribly wrong. Extra-terrestrials start attacking area 51, with a huge possibility of attacking LasVegas :ufo:(many human-like aliens went bankrupted there). US government asks help from all air-forces around the world to come and help on defending humanity in Nevada.:music_whistling: You know... ET go home etc :thumbup: Whatever:doh:

Poor little ER...I imagine the bad smell in there..:lol:

Welcome to DCS World :music_whistling:

If the 15%performance deference is correct then the hud tape is also correct (cannotmeasure this exactly) because there is no huge deference in the distance representation between ER and ET. May be you mean that the launch authorization does not come when you expected. This is because the hit seeker cannot lock to the target, eg not enough heat radiation due to aspect ratio of the target... This can be overcome with the ''archer'' technic. If you know your targets speed and ''3d'' direction, then you can make a rough calculation of where your target will be after 5-8 seconds, override launch permission and fire the towards this direction...If you are correct and your target passes through that point then ET will be capable of acquiring the target and enough power to hit it. If you wait for launch authorisation then you will propably end up launching to close to the targe where a 73 would me a better choice:smilewink: It always works for me on AI targets which are very predictable.

You need to ask for rearm more politely, and remember the first time you do it, do NOT ask for many heavy things like large bombs or whatever because those guys are so crazy that may put a timer on one of your bombs and you ll end up taking off with one wing :megalol: I am not kidding... it allready happened :lol: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1824062&postcount=17 And what the F are you doing with the Hog in the mad mate!? They just call it Hog, its not a real one!!!:doh:

Understood. From the tests I made, the difference in covered distance between the 2 missiles is ~15%. So if we can assume that the spherical head has a 15% reduction in aerodynamics than the conical, then we have a pretty good model here and nothing is wrong with ET. :confused:

I made some tests last knight. Conditions was: Su33 at 24000feet 500knt No target, unauthorised ballistic, straight lunch towards the same heading. Both missiles lunched from the same point (separate missions for each missile) and repeated the test at least 10 times for each missile. I measured the distance antil the missiles hit the ground. Results: ER: 26nm average from lunch to ground impact ET: 20nm -//- -//- -//- These are Ballistic , eg the missiles falls to the ground. Wikipedia and other sources state that maximum distance at optimal conditions are 130km for ER and 120km for ET. These numbers are impossible to catch even with 2 rocket motors onboard. What do I have to do to achieve even half the number that wiki states?

So at the moment I think ET and ER are performing EXACTLY as they are modelled to perform:thumbup: :music_whistling:

Hi! Please take a look the deferences currently modelled in our sim... File is located at: C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Config\Weapons missiles_data.lua