Cmptohocah

AIM-120 for example has electro-mechanical actuators which are powered by Li-Al batteries (4 of them). Assuming that these batteries are not used to power other systems, the question is: how much energy do they have stored? Is it enough to perform heavy maneuvering throughout the flight envelope? Does it have overhead to be the last system to drain out, after all others have been exhausted, while being used under XX% of the load for XX% of flight time?

Looking from strictly energy point of view: shouldn't the missile have shorter range if maneuvering compared to the one that is not? I mean, the missile has certain amount of internal energy and if some of that energy is used to actuate the control surfaces than the effective range should be different, or at least maneuverability should be reduced - depending on the energy source.

Unless I am wrong, this info comes from datalink's duration, and I guess that DL would last longer than expected battery life simply 'cause of safety factor. I mean you can't afford to brake off DL if the missile battery might be still in operation. Also, what does 120 use to power the actuators while maneuvering?

The only thing missing here is the "Benny Hill" music running in the background.

This is not true. Fact is that after an incident in which an Eagle shot down friendly Apache, rules of engagement were quite strict, but the pilots were not obliged to make a visual ID. You can have a look on YT, where an Eagle pilot (Cesar Rodrigues) talks about performing an ID matrix on his IFF.

One more interesting thing, the two F-15s did not realize that there were 2 MiGs until some 20NM (~37km) distance. Eagle wingman was in STT true, but until this, as far as F-15s were concerned, they were dealing with one target. I know for a fact that the MiG drivers were flying in a fairly tight formation (visual range), so it makes one wonder about the radar resolution also. Not really MiG-29 related, but more of a general DCS comment.

My bad, I had the distance wrong. I was more 350km rather than 800km.

AWACS was some 350km (750km) away, if not more:

In this particular encounter (2×F-15 vs 2xMiG-29) it seems that flying low really did hide them from AWACS as the F-15 mentioned that AWACS picked the Fulcrums up only after they habe climbed. The Eagle driver also remarked that the AWACS operator was all over the place and that was actually confusing them more than helping them. The Eagles were picked up by Serbian EWR or GCI some 50km from the MiGs position.

Does this pass the "cheat" test in MP?

Shame, really. I guess DCS is turning into NATO simulator, at least when it comes to air-to-air.

I don't think this is a solid argument. I mean, what is the line that should not be crossed when implementing features in this case (Su-27 time to impact)?

The Eagle has a timer for this right? Can't this timer just be converted to a line that decreases in width? For example: 00:42 is 100% width of the line and 00:00 is 0 width. Would this work?

For some reason the quote doesn't seem complete when using a mobile device to post, but anyway: 1. I am not new - been flying this since LOMAC 1.2 I believe 2. I absolutely don't think either F-15C nor A-10A should be neglected. However ED keeps comming back with: "no declassified docs, no new airplanes" mantra on one side and "we gave up on FC" on the other. So were does this leave us, "newbies" as you said, that like to fly non "F" fighters? Also it's kind of lame to push us aside and call us "irational" since we supported the sim since its beginning. Let's not hide behind technicalities and call things out the way they are - actions speak louder than words IMHO.

With all due respect, I would actually like to get an explicit answer from ED regarding this topic. Would be nice to hear this first hand. Also, if this is true that FC3 will have no more new features, then I would like not to waste my time here anymore. Shame really, but I guess this is reality. Also ED has no problem replying extra quickly to AMRAAM rants that are basically weekly copy-pastes of each other, and yet here we are left in our own most of the time. This is all fine I guess, but I don't want anyone to ever call me out as an conspiracy theory advocate when I say that ED is neglecting red side (not technically only red 'cause of FC3, but in practise yes)

People gonna say I am wearing a tin-foil hat, but not a single comment from ED on this one. m

There are quite a few people flying the Mirage on that 80's server in MP (I don't want to advertise it).

Ah, I see. So the real obstacle is lack of interest in FC3. Ok, good to know. Thanks.

Yes I was thinking of same level modeling as FC3. At what point in time does it become "not OK" to model aircraft due to rights issues? I mean what is the cutoff point, or which year if you will? Also what is the "more detail" line that should not be crossed, so the rights get violated? Honestly, this seems like a very flimsy argument, as I can't imagine something legally being more or less allowed - it's usually allowed or not (I'm not a legal expert in any way). How does J-11A fit into all of this?

How is modeling an MiG-31 (or any other Russian/Soviet mil. aeroplane for that matter), for example, with publicly available data, images and videos, not good enough and considered "fantasy" when this is exactly what all Flaming Cliffs aircraft are? I don't get it. So MiG-29A/S and Su-27S are not modeled by the manuals 'cause it's classified and a big legal 'no-no' and yet no other Russian/Soviet airplane can be modeled 'cause ED makes only planes that have their documentation de-classified. This makes no sense.

The Fulcrum's manual from 1989's batch (Former Yugoslavia, then Serbia) mentions only R-60 and R-27Rs, but on this photo here they're equipped with R-73s: https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-1500/7246848b/fffa37a8/yugoslavia-army-shutterstock-editorial-7246848b.jpg

You mean to say untill going active.

Also #32, the dashed line is supposed to be the pitch indicator I believe.

You can download it from here. It's in Russian.

I am no expert, but in this video shot with a FLIR, the flares seem rather flimsy compared to the F-16's IR signature. They do disappear from camera view rather quickly though. Timestamp: 00:54