Frostie

I don't understand what you mean by non functioning iff. Planes like tha A-10 etc. don't have interogators they only have transponders which react to friendly fighters and SAMs that interogate them. An A-10, Ka50 can't iff and rely on intel, good SA and mk1 eyeball. If you're entering a contested zone then you should be going with fighter cover on comms, otherwise you're asking for trouble. If this is what you want then you need to learn to notch and defend to force a merge because if your only tactic is blind firing on anything you see then you need to get back to the safety net and stop trying to play with fire, aswell as potentially ruining others enjoyment. When i'm unable to iff, firing on something i'm not sure of is ridiculous, I will always try and visually id, gather communication or pick up the situation on how he is behaving. This serves me and most everyone else well so why try and be ahead of the curve just for your own gain. It is all part of the learning curve, don't be that guy that doesn't care for anyone else because he only wants to hit the instawin button.

Lacking the ability to create a flight plan, set up and use datalink between a flight, have more dedicated modes is a hindrance imo. The real crux of anyone starting up on the ground is organisation between the package or support flights, starting up the Ka50 for example once learned is relatively straight forward and a joy, not something I deem a chore or particularly time consuming. I agree with your notion that complaints about refuelling are pretty poor in comparison to full fidelity start ups but the time it takes to rearm and start a Mirage is pretty quick also, pretty similar to a fully fuelled FC aircraft, plus you can align in flight. Guys complaining about refuelling FC aircraft should be planning ahead (usually making tea and stocking biscuit supplies) instead of staring at the fuel counter, but primarily organising and being part of a flight and devising a pre flight briefing, this should be par of the course, you don't need a full fidelity module to do this. Likewise you don't need an FC aircraft to just take off and play airquake. But at the moment it is long term testing phase so a large part of it is just hop in and have some free for all fun.

You do know you can nav plan the Ka50 in the air right. Plus you get god mode see all enemy targets just to make it easy.:)

While I don't like the gear exploit, a comparison using this trick took the Flanker 4 minutes to be ready for spool up, for an F-15 to take 3 bags and equivalent fuel to a full Flanker took 4 minutes also. For an F-15 to have 50% fuel (60% of Flanker) and weapons takes 30 seconds (the time to rearm), this happened a lot after every restart F-15s would be airbourne immediately stopping strikers and choppers etc. while Flankers would be still refuelling because 20% would take them only one way if that. It is easy to understand the frustration of Flanker pilots not able to help their strikers whilst F-15s were free to stop them. So in the context of BF gameplay it is not game breaking or unbalancing but in the context of simulation it is just daft, it is simpler and more beneficial just to take less fuel.

Yes I agree, copying one persons dirty trick that has been highlighted as unfair play is not clever. Seeing it happen way too often from blue side now.

Don't do it :)

I suppose this is the difference between a threat warning system and a basic RWR. Even though the real Beroyza uses cards to create a threat database tailored to the mission requirements I guess ED took the route of showing emission strength (and a basic global emmitter type coverage) instead of threat level. It may be that this is correct and certain emissions types are just grouped like DCS, the real SPO does class groups the patriot group being priority, major fighters, euro fighters, weaker fighters, med sam and shorad having their own groups maybe the scale is only limited to strength sort of halfway to a proper threat warning system. Even so I believe like you the logical choice would be threat level rather than emitter strength.

Yes I thought the wording would catch someone, I meant that each set has its own strength always set the same not all radars are the same. I worked the majority of radar ranges in DCS out 10 years ago?;)

50 years ago 30 year olds built a different kind of flight chair, are we getting too virtual? :D

Reread what I wrote. Unless you can visually id an enemy you need to hard lock a visually acquired target with a CQC mode unless Nescafe you're in the habit of pointing your nose at an aircraft mid merge to check it on your VSD.

But only visual targets, you can iff on the radar screen before locking otherwise it is the same situation as the F-15 which needs to hard lock visual targets to get iff. You make some good points, I don't see why people should complain about friendly locks unless this is happening in uncontested territory. I'm sure it is frustrating when pilots come in without reading the brief, take off, fly low get little SA and lock up the first thing they see visually eg. the aircraft that just took off with them.

It is probably a case of being much more reliable than the real one with emission strength always the same value for each radar set in DCS. I'm just speculating but it may even be that the ranges it picks up from could be exaggerated.

No coolant supply to the beely, these missiles drop before igniying, probably not ideal for ir missiles. What first is all dependent on the situation, generally if you're firing ER's then you're doing so because the target knows you're there, so ER first and ET to defend yourself. As soon as you launch ER the target will defend with cm, sometimes it is best to launch ET first to deny those preemptive flares. An ET fired after can possibly lock onto your ER, is this good or bad? There is no right way all that matters is you deny the target a chance to shoot at you.

The first 120C (C3) had clipped wings to fit F22 bay and improved guidance, C4 warhead, C5 bigger motor. But this is of the beaten path.

HOJ in DCS self guides with pure pursuit, SARH and ARH only give a warning at the active stage whether you are locking with radar or not. An ARH doesn't require radar lock to complete the kill a SARH does as without it there will be an extremely low Pk. HOJ is very dangerous for high jamming targets.

1) I know that the missile can be slaved to the radar, but how does it work exactly? Once I have target lock, and am in range, can I just fire the missile and will it track if I break radar lock if it's seeker picks up the bandit heat signature? With launch authorisation, yes, otherwise you will have to override and the missile will have to find the target in flight usually a lower Pk shot. 2) Whats this PPS mode, I keep reading about? is it implemented in DCS at all? Radar set in 'Hi PRF mode' 3) I've seen some videos where players will use the HMD mode to fire the ET, how does that work? Does it slave the missile seeker to a contact just like with the R73? yes, just like the R73 4) How does EOS work exactly? If I have a lock and am in range, can I fire the missile and immediately break lock? Will the missile track at that point? Yes, IR missiles are fire and forget, EOS picks up heat sources, you lock onto a heat source and the EOS slaves your seeker to that direction where your missile then either aquires LA or doesn't ie. the seeker doesn't see the heat source. If the later is true you can still override and fire but your missile with have to find the target in flight, low Pk.

I don't agree that ER is fair set up but likewise I don't agree with this in grained community notion that R vs 7 is somehow alright. The later is just as bad, actually worse than the first. For me R v 7 < ER v 7 = 120C v ER < 120B v ER. In your experience Blaze i'd say your F-15 opponents payed way too much respect to the R-27R because currently in DCS it is diabolical.

While the R-27R struggles to hit mach 3. If pilot A in an Su25 can shoot down pilot B in an F-15 that equals parity of platforms? What you're saying is that having a slightly longer ranged and faster missile (ER) vs AIM-7 is unfair but having a much longer ranged and faster missile (7) vs R27R is fair.

+1 Sweeper 120B suffer the chaff multiplier unlike 120C which rejects chaff to the power of yahtzee. C3 afaik is the next version after B but with clipped wings and improved warhead. The eccm improvements came in with the C5.

Even during war people need to get their shut eye, so keep the noise down please. :)

Not sure if AIM-7 fought R-27R or ER fought 120 either, I don't understand your point. I don't know the exact date, like has been said some sources state back to 83, 85 who knows. The R-27 is a modular design so i'd guess it was all one package. Maybe an emphasis on teamwork to overcome the ER with 7s is something the airquake environment many believe exists could benefit from.

Historically nonexistant? R-27ER is an 80s missile, AIM-120A was late 91/92, and AIM-120B late 94, and the 120C5 used in DCS was 2000. Perhaps they are tired of being the underdog and would like to see an alternate scenario. I'm still trying to figure out whether you like balance or not or is it only when it's moderate balance and only in your favour. Seems to me people tend to play the balance card even having already derided balance as being unrealistic. Just to be clear i'm not suggesting any changes, I prefer full loadout to anything else.

Are you suggesting removing ARH, which is pretty much the general notion around but for the sake of balance remove 27ER because it outranges AIM-7 while the fact that AIM-7 greatly outranges 27R is irrelevant. Please more F15 pilot wisdom needed for this thread.:)

This be HOJ, once radar lock is lost on all aircraft SARH missiles lose track.