Cmptohocah

Here you go: Igla hitting a flaring target [03:22]

I don't know about ECMs for other aircraft, but the Su-27's, technically speaking, is not modeled correctly in a sense that the real one has a plethora of modes: - active jamming - breaking lock - jamming missiles But I guess this is not doable at the moment so the current implementation seems like a good compromise. Only one thing I don't agree with, is that (for Flanker and Fulcrum at least and not sure about others as I don't have available info) in the HUD when the ECM is on, we have a "pinpoint-like" ECM source where in reality it's dependent on the range: further away the jammer is the more lines should appear filling the HUD and vice versa.

Any specific reason why it would not be effective against the Hornet's radar?

Yes, but when you fly with a human GCI on multi-player server that's when you can see MiG's full potential. You basically switch on the Radar/EOS only when you need to acquire the target, fire, score a kill and get the hell out of there and then repeat. Sure if you fly the 29 like an F-15, it's gonna suck, but once other elements come into play... the game changes drastically.

Everything that is wrong in DCS these days, summed up in one sentence.

Manpads are super deadly. They completely screwed up Su-25's campaign in Avganistan in Soviet-Afgan war.

That depends on what is your definition of "syper-hyper-winder jet". Is it a capable airplane? - it most certainly is. Can it be compared to any equivalent US fighter? - I don't think so, as IMHO it sits somewhere betweem F-16 and F-15. Does it accelerate like a rocket? - Oh, yeah. Is it a hell of a dogfighter? - You bet. And most important of all: Does it look just awesome? - Yes!!!

I don't really have many FF modules, but in FC3 MiG-29 in full AB is like a rocket, compared to Flanker for example. I am talking purely about a subjective feeling.

Shouldn't it be the case of: "Hey we have decided to model Z variant of X airplane from YYYY year. In that X plane's (no pun intended) manual it states that it can carry A,B,C... weapons."

I could be wrong, but it seems that the AMRAAM's guidance is tied somehow to the traget's AoA, at least from this video. I wonder what's the logic behind it, since there is no way that this data could be read by the missile in real life.

Well the real question then is: is this a simulator or a fund raiser? If it's the latter, I have nothing to more to add then. Also, I guess this would be added as realism option, just like everything else.

RL fighter pilot explains that when starting to slip into blackout, one looses color vision:

In DCS this value is 10m above ground. If you fly at or below this height no SAM will engage you.

For heights above 1000m in HPRF mode detection range is 80-100km and tracking range is 65-80km for a 3sqm RCS target.

The thing is: in DCS it's completely possible to be on the edge of loosing consciousness, keep that state indefinitely and look around and flip switches in the cockpit and after returning to normal state, it's possible to repeat the same thing endless number of times. That's why I feel (think) it's not realistic and a bit arcady-like.

I don't know about the Flanker, but the 29 can be fed target information directly from ground station, turning it effectively into a missile of sorts. That's why it's radar probably didn't need to be that good as it would be used to "home" in on the target that is provided externally. Pilot gets all this data displayed on the HUD.

This is the basis of every fight: use your advantages and your opponents flaws. You can't expect to win with a knife against a gun unless you bring the gun to where you are at an advantage. This is what that SAM battery did. Anyway, my point was that Soviet technology was many times underestimated but also many times proved to be more than capable when needed. Starting from WWI throughout the cold war and possibly even today. People also tend to compare Soviet hardware 1:1 and out of context. Sure Flanker had inferior radar, but it was a part of a greater system in which it operated and same goes for the Fulcrum.

This particular SAM battery was engaged over 20 times if not more (I would need to check the axact numbers) and mind you that SA-3 is a static system. So it's not as clear cut in RL as people would think. A lot of discussions start with "analog, outdated..." Soviet technology, but just because something is not equal on paper does not mean that it can't be deadly. It's wrong to apply NATO way of thinking to Soviet hardware as wrong conslusions can easily be drawn.

Could you give us some more info on this? From what I read in the 29B's manual the radar doesn't seem very dependable in some situations. Mainly in LPRF (ЗПС) and close to the ground where the ranging would have an error as well as false targets would appear.

Smoke is not the issue here and in my opinion it's modeled correctly. The issue is with contrails: for some reason it just does not contrail even when the launching platform does and this is in total contrast to what's happening in reality. From the videos, one can see that AMRAAM contrails even before the aircraft does, but in DCS it doesn't - even when aircraft does. Since there is no way to determine what altitude those airplanes in the videos were, it's safe to deduct that the Slammer should contrail in DCS at leaast once the airplanes start to contrail.

That is correct. There is a contrail missing at altitude at which the airplane is already contrailing - so much for physics. In the YT videos the launching platforms are not contrailing but the AMRAAMS are, but I guess this would be then open to debate, so the Slammer in DCS should contrail at least once the airplane starts doing so. Maybe even sooner, but I have no data to show when this would actually happen. Maybe at 80% of the altitude the airplane contrails?

I mean, look at this guy's face at 9G. He won't be looking around the cockpit much at this force not to mention head movements, like checking his six.

Not to stray too much off topic, but yes, Flanker has a limit on allowed G forces for different load-outs. Even when you strap on pure A2A armament there are still G limits depending on how many and which pylons are used. G limits are also coupled with speed restrictions - we don't have those either. Same goes for MiG-29. All of this is from their respective operating manuals. Yes, you are right. I really do like to fly hard-core and as real as it gets. That's the reason I fly MP exclusively, 'cause nothing can substitute human adversaries, at least not yet. You would get a full "stamina bar" reset only after switching planes yes. Once you "screw up" that's it, your options are limited after that and any X (insert correct number here) Gs cause you to experience lowered G tolerance. You can have a look at this video here, where a real life fighter pilot is talking about how it feels to pull serious Gs in a real fighter compared to DCS: As I said that other simulator covered this topic very well and it makes a world of difference. I've been flying that other sim's old version, where the G effects are basically the same as we have in DCS, for years and I can tell you that the new version forces you to think twice on how you fly your virtual aircraft. I was hoping that ED can do the same in DCS.

You cannot feel fatigue but you can simulate its effects. From what I understand, G-LOC is a complete loss of consciousness (consciousness - really difficult word to spell btw), so you simulate it by cutting off any connection between you and the virtual pilot. I don't know much when it comes to recovery from it, but I am sure RL data can be found easily. Suppressed my self from answering. Not permanent. They slowly creep in as the loss of consciousness progresses. I don't see any issue with that. You lost a fight 'cause of it? Who cares? This is what would happen in real life also. Everyone should be affected the same. Well, there that thing about F-16 I mentioned, but let's not get into too many details at this point. We already have the G-suits, otherwise the virtual pilot would black-out at around 4-5 G. There is a great need to implement this, if we want to get closer to realism. See, this aspect of air combat is currently completely neglected. In DCS it's on the same level as Chaff or IFF - it's too simplified. Having fatigue/progressive G sensitivity will make you change your tactics and adopt to more realistic style of flying as you will be constrained by the same limitations that real fighter pilots are. We keep yanking that stick all day long and come back to normal state as if the pilot is a robot. Think of it as adding that extra layer of realism that separates an arcade from a simulator. For example, you can pull max G in a Su-27 loaded with bombs and nothing will happen, but try that in a MiG-21 and the bombs will detach after G limit is reached/exceeded. Don't know about you, but latter seems much more realistic to me.

Would it be possible to enable 2K12 Kub to be operated by the player? Just a simple radar interface just like the Tor has. I would love to give it a go in multiplayer as the AI is not doing the best job in my opinion.