ShuRugal

Same way a real pilot does: take your hand off the stick or the throttle.

so, you would force two fighters to use only one radar between them for the entire flight? Which is fine, if you can guarantee that you always engage with that numerical advantage. You might have a problem with this against F-15s, though, since more Eagles have been manufactured than all variants of Flanker combined... If you broaden that out to all aircraft capable of carrying AIM-120, you get to add the 4,500 F-16s into the mix... In short, it is impossible to guarantee a 2:1 engagement ratio against AMRAAM-capable platforms. This is actually not how SARH missile guidance works. What you are describing is how IR missile guidance works, and is called "proportional navigation". SARH guidance is accomplished by the launching aircraft sending continual position updates to the missile over a missile-link (one-way datalink) until the missile is close enough for terminal guidance. This makes it possible to use advanced intercept paths, such as lofted trajectories, to vastly improve missile efficiency (and therefor, range). M-link information (in addition to seeker tuning) is communicated to the missile at the time of launch from the launching aircraft. What you are proposing would require the supporting/controlling aircraft to broadcast his radar's guidance and m-link encoding information to the launching aircraft. This information could be intercepted by the enemy and used to jam the missile. It would be even simpler for the enemy to simply jam your datalink, making it impossible to ever launch the missile. It is a fairly clever idea, I'll grant you that much. It is, however, exceptionally impractical (at best) or even flat-out impossible. A2A missile guidance hardware simply is not complex enough to perform what you suggest. The only way to accomplish this would be to fit your fighters with laser-illumination pods and retrofit your missiles with laser seekers. However, since laser illumination is only practical at ranges of up to about 10 miles in ideal conditions, you would have to get both aircraft well within range of your opponent anyway. The problem is the flanker will -never- have numerical advantage on the strategic scale. If we ignore the physics and hardware limitations preventing this, it would only work once. The USAF has enough F-15s to ensure that they are never outnumbered, much less fully 2:1, by Su-27s. Add in the number of F-16s owned by the USAF, and it now becomes possible for the US to guarantee itself a 2:1 favourable ratio. Coordinate with the USN and get a couple carrier groups on scene with F-18s, and you will literally have more fighters in the theatre than the entire rest of the world can field combined. If you are interested in how that breaks down without combing through it all... F-15: 192 F-15E: 257 F-16: 985 F-18: 314 F-18E: 342 F-22: 195 F-35A: 71 F-35B: 38 Total: 2395 Yes, attacking an F-15C heads-up in a Su-27 is extremely risky business. If the F-15 driver is on point, there is no reason for him to be killed. Especially if he is flying properly as part of a multi-ship flight and his wingmen are covering their responsibilities. Ignoring the technical problems already discussed, you will never have the numbers to force "your way". It not only can't be done in DCS, it can't be done IRL, primarily due to limitations of radio wave physics already discussed.

The best use of auto-hover is to trim the aircraft manually for a hands-free hover, then engage auto-hover to keep it there.

Unless your flight elements are separated by several miles, in addition to never scanning the same sector of the sky, mutual-jamming will always be problematic if you have two radars operating on identical frequencies. The problem here is not a limitation of the radar hardware, or of the missile seeker, or of the computer signal processors. The problem lies in the fundamental physics behind how radio waves propagate. Two major effects will become problems here: The first is going to be side-lobe interference. All radio wave emitters, regardless of frequency or band, emit omnidirectionally. Various antenna designs are used to capture and focus much of this energy into the desired direction, but the elements used to do this will themselves radiate a certain portion of that energy back out into the environment. The end result is that your beam pattern does not look like a laser beam, or even a flashlight beam. Instead, it looks like this. Note that some of those side lobes are almost as long as the main lobe. If your flight elements are not separated by several miles, they will periodically be blasting radar signal directly into each others' radars, completely obliterating any return signal from the actual target. the second effect that gives you a problem is going to be phase-shifting. When two radio waves of the same frequency similar power arrive at the same location out of phase, some interesting things happen. If they arrive 180-degrees out (one is fully positive, and the other is fully negative), they will cancel each other out, and no energy will be reflected. In this scenario, your target will 'vanish' when the supporting aircraft activates its radar to find the target. If they arrive 90-degrees out (one is fully positive or fully negative while the other is neutral), they will add together, and the reflected signal will have twice the frequency of the two arriving signals. Again, the target will appear to vanish. If the phase-angle of arrival is neither 90 nor 180, the signals will subtract from each other in power while also modifying frequencies. between these two effects, two radars transmitting the same frequency in the same airspace at the same time will never be able to accurately track and engage targets. One radar set will always have to be switched off.

This is something which had been argued to death here. There are two main schools of thought: "press and hold" versus "press, release, repeat". There is ambiguous evidence available to support both as being real world standard practice. I, personally, prefer to press and hold, but in certain situations, I will press and release instead. Both method have advantages and disadvantages. Try both, and fly whichever suits you best.

A quick run through Wolfram Alpha estimates that at 90-degree angle of attack (used a Cd of 1) a 62 square meter surface moving at 600 kph at sea level on a standard day produces 10,076,000 kilogram-force of drag. Su-27 at 50% fuel is ~23,000 kilograms. 10M / 23k = 434 times the force of gravity on the plane. So, yeah, no cobras at 600 kph.

I've just made a quick video demonstrating a few snap rolls in the Mustang. I perform two to the left, and two to the right. Note that all of my rolls began at or above 250 MPH, and ended between 150 and 200 mph. It is very important to not attempt to snap below 250 MPH, as you final speed may well end up below stall speed for your load and altitude. Note also that as I pull the stick to initiate the right-hand rolls, I close the throttle.

one thing to keep in mind is that History Channel animations, while pretty, almost never reflect actual air maneuvering. This is a real-life example of what a snap roll looks like: Now, on actually doing one: In your video, you appear to be attempting to roll right. Since this is the direction the prop turns, you are fighting the engine toque (and buddy, there's a lot of it) to do this. At your power setting in the video, a right-hand snap is impossible. if you want to keep power applied, snap left.

Any chance of seeing this fixed in the foreseeable future?

If there is a mountain peak close enough for the target to get behind it, the missile was not fired in good parameters.

Don't know about you, but I rarely look at the keyboard when typing, and i never look at my HOTAS when flying.

Anyone else disappointed in the Rift price tag? Saw that the price tag for the Oculus Rift has been announced... $600, and it comes bundled with a bunch of hardware and software I have no use for... Here's hoping HTC and Valve get the price point right with their offering...

Old bug. AI flap positions are incorrect. Not a high priority fixing it, either.

That would be your problem. That message means that the time between your client sending a message to the server and receiving a response back was too great, and that this happened enough times for your client to decide the connection had been lost. If you go to this website: http://www.pingtest.net/ you can use their utility to test the reliability of your internet connection. Try running the test on multiple servers (not just the one it auto-selects) and see what the results look like. The most important two factors here are packet-loss and jitter. Packet-loss (as the name implies) means that data packets are physically not making it to and/or from your computer. Jitter is the range of variation in ping time. Ping is simply the time it takes total for your computer to send a response and receive one back from the server. If you have high packet loss, the communication between your computer and the server will be unreliable: your computer will tell the server something, and the server won't get that info, or the server will tell you something, and you won't see it. This will eventually lead to either your client or the server deciding the connection was lost and terminating the session. High jitter is bad because the server attempts to compensate for your ping by offsetting your actions by a known delay (your calculated ping time). If your ping varies too widely, then the server cannot compensate, and you will experience out-of-synch problems: Most noticeably, the server will thing you are at one position, when in reality you are at another. High ping is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. a properly-coded networked application will take into account the ping of each client, and adjust their positions/actions accordingly. In a flight simulator, any ping time under half a second should be largely negligible, as aircraft movement and reaction times when changing course tends to occur on a scale of several seconds. The only place it should be a "problem" (in a well-coded application) is in a guns fight, where the average of your position over a second may vary enough to effect a guns solution.

do you have any mods installed? This sounds like something is wrong with your cockpit texture files. Try running the DCS Repair utility?

Check your bindings, sounds like you have either an extra axis mapped to rudder, or a button mapped to left rudder trim. Also, this may sounds dumb, but make sure your left engine is making the same RPM as the right.

anyone who dies to this deserves it: If they're close enough behind you for this to work, they should already have a heater in the air.

Two things can cause this in the normal course of events: 1: the server terminated the match 2: you got kicked out of the server

You know what I want to see the ET get? a smoke trail that matches the ER. They use the same exact motor, only difference is the seeker head, so why does the ET smoke like an oil fire?

This is true, but at sea level you will be hard pressed to get a fully loaded eagle or flanker to mach 1.2 (though it is doable) whereas at 9km msl, you can easily accelerate to mach 2. My personal favourite way to begin an engagement is at mach 2+ from 14km altitude. This gives my ERs incredible range and allows me to maintain a strongly aggressive posture all the way down to the merge, if i don't mind spending ERs.

erm?

If that is what is happening, snaking before there is a missile in the air is a very bad idea, for two reasons: First, you are bleeding energy to no purpose. Second, if you are not hot aspect to your bandit, his fire control computer is going to tell him that his rMax is shorter. Since the AI always launches their first missile at rMax, this puts you deeper into his kill box when he finally does launch.

Stuge, I believe you will find post #5 in this thread here to be informative: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?97983-AIM-120-range-questions

For me, this is what it comes down to. If I don't have a strong interest in the aircraft, I'll wait for it to be on sale. If it doesn't go on sale, I won't buy it. The occasional steeply-discounted sale benefits ED, so long as they are not overdone, because it gets people like me to drop ~$20 on a module we would otherwise never buy. But i do agree that such sales have been far too regular.

This. The fuel capacity of the Flanker (9.4 metric tons) is almost the dry weight of the Fulcrum (11 metric tons). at maximum takeoff weights, the MiG is 20 tons, and the flanker is 30. Next time you fly against your friend, takeoff with 60-70% fuel (adjust as needed so you meet him around 55%) and, as another poster said, maintain ~700 km/hr IAS for the turning fight.