Cmptohocah

I highly doubt that is true. I mean the only reason why it has been simplified is because all of the FC/LOMAC airplanes were modeled in such a way. I can't really accept that they pulled all of this from public sources. There is just too much detail and systems modeling for this to be true. One thing I know for sure, is that MiG's roll rate was pulled straight out from the performance section of the RL manual.

Sorry you are right. Nighthawk is still actively in service and the only reason why it was shot down is because USAF let it be shot down. Also, no SAM in DCS should be able to hit it.

One thing that does not make sense to me is, how come the current FC3 modeling is allowed by that same law? Also, does that law apply if the data obtained does not come from Russia but another MiG-29 operator? Like the US, for example? I mean F/A-18 and F-16 are fine to model. Why not model a US owned MiG-29?

Flaming Cliffs 3 modules don't have programmable ECM, so one is left with good ol' manual key/button punching to release them (there is an automatic dispensing option but it's hard-coded to release every second or so). Many people use external programs or controller settings to implement their own "programable" ECM. On of such is this one here : Funny enough, even though I created the example from above, I don't actually use it due to my laziness.

I think you miss-read the part about the B-2: the crew claimed that they have shot down a B-2 bomber, but this was never confirmed (officially). F-117A was taken out of service couple of years latter. My point was that if it was not for this shot, we would probably never be able say: "Hey, this thing can be brought down - in special circumstances." We would follow the official statements of the manufacturer and that would be it. The entire forum is full of these kind of discussions that stem from these kind of claims of abilities. You mentioned a lot of planning. Yes of course, the system they have used was developed in the 1960's. And it's an inherently static system, so of course they had to put in extra effort. The USAF was complacent, sure, but combine that with a resourceful crew on the Serbian side and many interesting things can happen. When it comes to statistics, I would like to use a very common anecdote: "Statistics is like a bikini. It reveals a lot, but doesn't show anything." Statistically speaking F-15C against MiG-29A has a 100% success rate in combat.

Lol @dundun92, where was that 2nd ET going at the beginning of the video? Ground attack You forgot to mention that you are using a script to deploy chaff. Try doing it manually and AIM will stick to you like a nicotine patch.

Similar SAM units yes, but what about the operators? It's not the same having two sets of crew with different experience, training, etc. If it was that good, F-117 would still be in service. That's really a general problem we are having in DCS. Everyone is hooked on what the NATO sources states the capabilities are. Luckily we have RL to show us that this is not always the case. Mind you that the exact same SAM battery, shot down an F-16C and unofficially shot down a B-2 bomber. I would say it says a lot about the crew capabilities.

It doesn't specify. It's a part of the climb-out procedure to 12000m, in preparation of getting the aircraft to its: 1. speed/mach limits 2. service ceiling I am guessing no economy is considered in this case, but I could be wrong.

Not really an expert on the subject at all, so pardon the ignorance, but is there a possibility of the seeker being oversaturated at below min distances?

On the graph above it says: "minimum seeker tracking range". Dunno if they meant minimum range in general.

Don't know if it's relevant or not: official 29 manual recommends 900km/h TAS for the climb.

Thanks for the explanation @BlackPixxel. I guess then the current implementation could be considered "satisfactory" even though it does not match the real thing 100%.

Hi @NineLine, I agree that we should treat each other with respect. However, I didn't understand why are bias accusations a problem? There is a noticeable bias and if needed I can provide a point by point factual list. It's just a fact, nothing more and nothing less. Whether or not, this is intentional or not, I will not get into. If "pushing" from our side to make things more correct and improve, clearly neglected Russian/Soviet hardware, is considered hostile, this is a bit worrying IMHO. I would dare to say, that handful of us still flying MiGs and Sukhois have a responsibility to "fight" for improvements, 'cause clearly there is minimal effort exerted from ED regarding this matter. Sure we are not the buyers of latest the NATO toys, but if there was a "red" module on offer, I am positive we would be the first ones in line to get it.

I did an entire post on kinematics of turning, but can't find it now after the forum update. The gist of it, is that in a turn, the "G"s provide the radius of a turn. The higher the Gs for a certain speed, the smaller the turn radius. In short, for the missile to turn, it needs Gs to pull it into a turn. No Gs, no turn.

Oh wow, I did not realize that. It makes so much more sense. Thanks @dundun92

I don't fly A-10C, so maybe you people could help me understand what's the deal with the A-10Cs air-to-air "superpower". Here is a link to a video stream recorded by, a very capable A-10, driver against me in a MiG-29A: https://streamable.com/x7pwob The video starts after he turns 180 degrees towards me from being cold, then he somehow gets two very short tones on his AIM-9s and he fires both of 'em. The first missile launch happens at 12km, followed by the second one at 11.1km. My questions: does the A-10C have some sort of targeting pod which allowed him to "see" me at that distance? How come such a short tone allows firing an AIM-9? Was he able to "see" me visually somehow at 12km? Was he just lucky to pick me up (I highly doubt this one)? Edit: just realized he had an GCI window showing him the bearing/distance and height. Thanks in advance.

Also, people forget that all those details add up and influence the combat quite a bit. It's just enough to remove the F10 map view and you already have a different experience. Not to mention things like IFF, setting up correct switches, engine management etc.

I know it's not as sexy as AMRAAM, but hopefully someone still cares.

In EOS scan mode there is an option of moving the scan zone to three different positions (just like the radar): left, center and right. However moving the scan zones does nothing, as the target marker keeps the same position on the HUD regardless. Here we have 3 screenshots of the same target with all 3 different zones selected:

Can't the developers at least match this part from the video? I mean, it's better then nothing. I agree it's little to go from, but it would bring us one step closer to proper flight performance. Or am I wrong?

You know what they say: if at first you don't succeed... How many Mega G's were involved in this "fish hook" maneuver?

If you fly in a Su-27 against an AI F-15C, the Eagle will blink its ECM on/off when you attempt to lock it, so you won't be able to get a lock until the burn through. This is exactly what the Hornet does now. Disparity comes from: I can't do the same thing to the Hornet that the Hornet does to me. I could, but then we have the timer set. This is the reason why I said: "Let's remove the Hornet's ECM affecting the FC3 planes radar." Just like the FC3 planes' ECM did nothing to the Hornet before.

This is how all ARH/SARH missiles behave in DCS. Chaff does nothing to the launching radar also, and it should.

Wishful thinking.

I have a suggestion: how about ED releases a patch where, human flown, Su-27/33s and MiG-29s are not affected by the F/A-18's ECM? Does that sound fair or sound familiar? Then ED can take even years to fix all the ECM issues that were are experiencing. Oh wait, but who's gonna represent target drones for the Hornet boys in multi player then?