ShuRugal

To be fair, those people are in the minority. Most of the operators on the systems I support don't give a rat's how or why it works, they just come running to me when it stops. There are, at last check, two operators in my BN who care enough about how their systems work to learn how to do all their 10-level maintenance and be capable of describing a fault accurately enough that I don't need to spend all day troubleshooting to find it.

What you more likely saw was that you were close enough together for all your RWRs to see the same signal from the Su-27. I see this all the time when i tell my wingman to engage, I will get a lock tone from him until i move out of his LoS to the bandit.

I stopped flying with the SAI uncaged back in 1.1, it turns itself inverted within 30 minutes, so why bother?

I don't understand it either, but that is the answer I was given by ED when i asked.

Need a track or acmi to verify things like that. If the mig was far enough below or above you, or you were steeply banked, then your rwr antennae would be unable to see the mig radar.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_value.html compare with http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html and we see that a GTX 950 is currently the most cost-effective (highest benchmark points per dollar) of all 900-series video cards. By comparison, the GTX 970 costs over twice as much, but only brings a 60% increase in bench score. As far as DCS performance goes, the 950 scores 25% better than the 780M in my laptop, and I run DCS 1.5 at near max settings and see 45-60 FPS, depending on aircraft, altitude, and location.

I wonder what possessed the boys at MiG to design the HDD that way? Unless the HUD is prone to failure, it's almost completely useless...

This is a problem many BS1 users, myself included, have spent hours banging their heads against. The main problem is that, due to legal complications having to do with the piracy-protection software keys, BS1 key + BS2 upgrade key cannot be converted into BS2 Full key. So BS2 Upgrade users are stuck with having to keep a copy of BS1 installed so that the license key registration software for the upgrade version can scan the BS1 install for a valid key... But the DCS: World module-manager does not like to play ball with the BS2 Upgrade registration tool. All this nonsense lead to ED stopping sales of BS1 and BS1->2 upgrade, but there are still enough users floating around out there that the problem continues to crop up from time to time. Personally, I got tired of the headache back at DCS:W 1.1, and just bought myself a full key. Wait for a sale, you can get BS2 for a steal.

I find that braking by keeping the nose up around 12 degrees is also a very good way to slow the plane to wheelbrake speed.

it does not have toe-brakes the way a Western plane does. Most russian aircraft (Flanker included) have a lever on the control stick to operate the brakes.

Not sure I would call loss of accuracy a malfunction... I can't apply SPORTS to fix my shot group, after all ;)

Right, I'm familiar with Boyle's law, It just seems to me that variations in the volume of the atmosphere would be small enough to be negligible in that equation. There may be some other variable I am missing here (probably is) but I would still expect a strong positive correlation between pressure and density.

that could be interesting. decreasing accuracy until repair/respawn if overburst?

Shame the Su-27 doesn't have a binding for brake axis...

pressure is density, the two terms are interchangeable when talking about the same gas.

In my experience, some bikes leak oil because they have seen incomplete maintenance. In my experience so far in the Army (I can only boast 3 years, so the Appeal to Authority argument would kinda fall flat) any piece of equipment that has been around long enough has exponentially increasing odds of encountering an owner who doesn't give a shit and lets "minor" maintenance procedures fall by the wayside. I can definitely believe that the Army has a non-negligible number of M2s with headspace problems, because I know for a fact that the army has a non-negligible problem with equipment owners who don't give two shits. However, this is not a flaw of the weapon itself. It doesn't even necessarily reflect poorly on the current equipment owner/maintainer; just means that someone, at some point, allowed their weapon to be used while it was NFMC, and the wear/damage caused now means that weapon is no longer reliable. None of this means that headspacing problems should be introduced to the sim, unless you are proposing a DCS: Armorer module.

Crumpp, I believe that what the other guys are trying to get at is that while it is definitely correct procedure to check headspacing prior to each mission, that does not mean that the headspacing is prone to wandering out of adjustment. Rather, it is a reflection of the fact that headspacing is a go/no-go setting for the entire weapon system. Just like I check the oil level of my motorcycle every day. I don't do it because it's prone to leaking, I do it because if something does go wrong, running the bike with no oil will almost immediately result in a useless bike.

Don't worry mate, I have the same problem every time i fly the F-15C: I have absolutely no idea where my radar is pointed vertically because i'm used to the way the Russian birds display that info. The problem going between the two birds is a fundamental difference in how the designers approached displaying the radar tilt information. In the russian aircraft, all the numbers are relative to your own position, but in the F-15, all the numbers are absolute, and you have to know where you are in relation to them.

you posted that one already.

Mostly. The number on the bottom of the HUD has no bearing on whether or not you can see the target on radar. All it is used for is to tell you where you are currently aiming the dish. If you have a bomber at 100km, and the number is set to 35, the bomber will show up. Now, on the Head-Down Display, the number there is important, because it will not show targets off the top-edge. However, the HUD displays all detected targets, with targets at long range being latched to the top.

This is an extremely common misconception. You do not "set" the range for BVR mode. The radar will display (on the HUD) all targets which it detects, regardless of the number at the bottom of the HUD. The number there is the expected range of the target, and is used in conjunction with the number on the right side of the HUD to set your vertical scan offset. Both numbers are in km, with the number to the right indicating expected altitude deviation from your own aircraft. If you set this number on the right to +10, and leave the default setting of 10 on the bottom, then your radar will be looking at a spot 10km ahead and 10km above your aircraft (up at a 45-degree angle) If you set it to -5 and 10, then you will be looking down 5km at a range of 10km (-22.5 degrees). One last point that is extremely useful to know: as you set the expected altitude, that number and the bar beside it will slide up and down the HUD. On that same scale, you will notice two short horizontal dashes, which move up and down as you change pitch. The two dashes show the up or down angle of the view through your HUD in relation to the horizon line, and the expected-altitude number shows the same reference. You can use this to manually aim the radar at something you see. Example: point HUD at contrail above you, then raise radar expected altitude setting until it lines up with the short dashes, and your target should appear.

I don't have a good track of it, but I have also experienced the magical 120-RPM aileron roll. For me, it occurred at an altitude of roughly 12km, just around Mach 2 in level flight. I went to roll inverted and pull down for a descent, but as soon as i deflected the ailerons, it snapped into the super-speed roll. I was practically cutting a tornado across the sky... EDIT: developer responded while i was typing. Glad to hear that the issue is being tracked and worked on :D

In FC3 modules, TrackIR likes to take full control of zoom, overrides all other inputs. Darkfire probably has it with this one.

12 13 not sure how many times i'm gonna have to paint this particular picture for you... Do i need to invest in a photocopier, or a braille printer? yes, you quoted the part of that sentence that said "between 60 and 120km". What you failed to quote was the part that said "depending on what source you choose to believe". This is called "taking words out of context", which is a form of misrepresentation. 14 15 Well, at least you are capable of admitting that you're putting words in my mouth. I did? which post? .acmi or it didn't happen. okay... "people" is plural. Were you responding to "people" or to "one specific person"? congratulations, you caught me in a typo. After repeating the same thing half a dozen times. so, uhm, 1 point to Cap? that's how it works, right? Exactly, you were ignoring a post made by another forum member because you found it inconvenient. +1 hypocrisy provide one that is both credible and statistically relevant. the irony is strong with this one even more irony: The original respondent whom you told to check the citations named for you the source wiki cited, before you ever told him to check it. ah, the favourite closing argument of every five year old everywhere: "No! You!" From PM: I suppose that is one way to concede an argument.

Here is a list of my points and counterpoints you have yet to respond to, please note that it is not exhaustive, I simply consider these points to be the primary evidence that the R-27 is under-performing: 1: According you a source you have already given your stamp of approval, the R-27ER has an effective range against head-on targets of 60km 2: According to that same source, it has an effective maximum range of approximately 120 km. Here is an exhaustive list of out-of-hand dismissals you have made so far in this thread: 1: In this post, we see you ignoring a set of well-reasoned arguments to throw an ad-hominem attack at the poster who made them 3: In this post, we see you ignoring the figure for effective range so that you can make a straw-man argument out of the maximum range. 4: In this post, we see you deliberately misrepresenting my words in order to avoid responding to the entire rest of my post. 5: In this post, you deliberately misrepresent my previous post, again. 6: In this post you are dismissing my repeated attempts to take your words back out of my mouth. 7: In this post, you dismiss every argument that everyone in this thread who has NOT stated a desire for parity of performance with the -120 (IE: you've blown off everyone in the thread in a single sentence) 8: In this post, you dismiss several posts I have made quoting a source you yourself often quote. 9: In this post, you forgot to quote the last sentence of the Darkwolf, which was "haven't tested recent patch tho- I stopped su-27 when Mig-21 was released". Since DarkWold has not played the Su-27 in 1.5, he cannot have had success using R-27 missiles in the manner described. A fact which you conveniently ignore to dismiss the rest of our arguments with a single word. 10: In this post, you dismiss everyone who is not wishing for any such thing. 11: In this post, you ignore my repeated assertion, grounded in widely available literature, that the missile has a 60km effective kill range.