Cmptohocah

A little late but never the less: 2 x Kh-58 4 x Kh-25MPU 2 x R-73 2 x ECM 1 x L-081 "Fantasmagoria"

Plan is to perform level bombing run at high altitude, so no dipping involved I'm afraid :)

Hello, is the air resistance modeled into free falling bombs trajectory and if it is would it be possible to get some sort of a number on it? I am guessing it would change linearly with altitude. The reason I am asking is that I plan on making 4km altitude level bombing runs with Su-25T :pilotfly:, so I need to factor this into my calculations. As far as I know the system will not give "launch" resolution above 3000m altitude. Thanks,

Thank you for the replies, gave me some new insight into what happens inside FC 3.0.

Hello everyone, the other day while I was playing online, I had something happen to me that seems to be regular occurrence since I switched to new version of FC: My ER's (and also ET's but not as important) seem to be very inefficient in hitting their targets. I was attributing this to 'my poor engagement/enemy quick reaction' factors and, as I taught at the time, inferior speed of the ER's compared to 120's. It was only until I recently watched a track of my 1v1 engagement against a F-15 (online server). that I realized that my ER's are in fact faster than AMRAAM's but they fail to hit the target. I am sharing the video I have made (recorded track and superimposed TacView) and would like to hear your taught on the matter. Quick intro: after flanking the F-15 and picking up a lock warning, I go into offensive and manage to brake the lock (assumption) and acquire the bandit at some 25km out, 5k+ alt at roughly 12 o'clock. soon after that I get a launch authorization and fire my R-27ER [00:15] R-27ET follows at [00:19] and the enemy starts a steep dive for the deck R-27ER initially starts going towards the ground trying to pull lead, but suddenly changes it's direction and starts tracking F-15 again [00:26] but instead of going straight towards it, flies by like a dud. Meanwhile the R-27ER starts intercepting from the moment it leaves the pylon and ends up in the dirt. HUD shows that radar lock was lost for a moment [00:34] but in the other window it is clear that ER was already on the way towards the Moon. My questions: How come the two (ER & ET) decided to take such strange trajectories? Are IR missiles supposed to pull lead, and what information do they use to calculate potential impact point? Regards,

If you keep your AoA in the 'green circle' you should be fine: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1104371&postcount=4 I usually fly it at around 280-300km/h, I can make a video to show you my technique if you are interested.

Oh, I had no idea it requires a manual lock. The previous version of FC had completely diff. logic. Your post was quite useful. I am very glad you have replied. :doh: I taught it was only me, good to know it's just a bug. Thank you everyone for the help.

Hello, I have 2 problems with my MiG-29: Cockpit indicators (afterburner, trim, failures, etc.) are in English language even thought my HUD is in Russian (all other a/c have proper Russian cockpit indicator lights). My 'vertical scan' and 'bore sight' modes fail to lock up a target. They also work only in EOS and not radar mode - perhaps this is how it is meant to be? please see the screenshots:

So as long as the launch platform is communicating with the missile, RWR can pick up on that and interpret it as a launch? Does it mean that the target RWR is issuing warnings until the SARH missile self-destructs, goes out of m-link range or that link is for any reason broken? How would the RWR choose or differentiate that that particular link is aimed at the RWR being targeted? Does it use logic like: 1. Am I locked? 2. Is there an m-link? If 1. and 2. are true then issue a launch warning? Thank you for the answers!

I was wondering for a long time how does the RWR detect launch of a SARH missile. If it detects a change in the radar emission after the missile has been launched: How, and if at all, does it know if the missile is still on the way or it strayed off course and is not a threat anymore? If there are two target aircraft flying in close formation should both of their RWR detect the launch? Thank you for any clarification.

First of all disclaimer: purpose of this post is to get deeper understanding of how this feature works and perhaps challenge the principle behind it. It is not meant to spark any moaning or F-15 vs Su-27 argument. As far as I understand F-15 radar can tell what kind if aircraft it is illuminating. Now, I would like to say that I don't know at what distance and after how long (instantaneous or not) it does this since I don't fly the Eagle. My question is: What 'magic' does the F-15 use to achieve this target recognition? I have heard from people on TS mentioning turbine blades and other, in my oppinion, silly things but to this day I continue to be baffled. Hope someone can shed some lifght on this.

Hope you guys enjoy it :music_whistling::

Of course Su27 is not helpless against engaging the Eagle: there is this neat thing called data link which Su27 uses. You get position of your enemies from a ground-based radar or AWACS so you don't have to fly like a headless chicken at him :) Why online servers don't support this, is beyond me.

If I understand correctly, contrails are water wapour created from the engine by burning fuel. Now since the fuel flow at cruise speed is much higher (read fuel burn), should't the contrails disappear if the throttles are pulled back? For examle, one is cruising at 10km alt and chops the engine speed to flight idle. The trails should at least be less visible, or not visible at all. Please, let me know if I am wrong.

Vy would be the top of the curve, and Vx would be just after apex. I was refering to Vy as the 'optimal climb rate' since Vx is used to clear obstacles.

Sorry I wasn't very clear in my first post: all the pylons were loaded with heavy weapons such as Kh-58 and Kh-25MPU also R-73s and ECM modules. Thank you for your support, I hope you will find it useful. Please leave a comment if you find any discrepancies. Cheers :joystick::pilotfly:

Hello everyone, here are some Su-25T flight characteristics that I got from flight tests performed in Flaming Cliffs 3 (1.2.16): Climb performance Test for climb performance were conducted under following conditions: initial altitude: 200m [MSL] climb thrust: 97% N1 time of climb: 60s payload: all pilons with 100% fuel constant indicated air speed (IAS) flight time: 60s Obtained results are in Fig. 1-0: Fig. 1-0 Curve representing simulator performance (blue) and poly. approximation (dark orange) indicated that optimal climb rate is obtained at speeds ranging from 450km/h to 500km/h IAS. Cruise performance Cruise performance data was measured under following conditions: constant altitude [MSL] constant cruise thrust: 95% N1* bingo (return to base) fuel: 800kg payload: all pilons with no external fuel tanks *- thrust settings below 95% N1 at altitudes above or equal to 3000m are not sufficient to sustain efficient level flight at constant altitude. Flight endurance (time airborne) and range were calculated using the data from table Fig. 1-1: Fig. 1-1 Range results were calculated using both the specific fuel consumption and covered distances at different altitudes. Range data is shown in Fig. 1-2: Fig. 1-2 Data indicates that flight under full load at altitude of 7000m [MSL] and 95% N1 thrust setting, results in longest flight range and longest flight time. Flying with same thrust settings but at altitude of 3000m [MSL] will result in shortest range, but will produce highest ground speed. Please note that the data provided does not take into account the burn of fuel which results in aircraft weight decreasing. Also no climb to cruise altitude fuel use was considered. Comments and suggestions are more than welcome! Regards,

I know the reply is a little late, but here is what eventually happened: I have dissembled my 800$ laptop and found some traces of dust in the fan and cooling ribs area, but nothing major. I was shocked to see how silly the CPU and GPU actually look like (size and positioning) and was even more surprised by the fact that they share a common heat sink and that a tiny fan is supposed to cool all that down. To be honest I was surprised my laptop managed to run properly at all with such a modest cooling solution in the first place. And yes you were right, even though my CPU is i7 and GPU runs on 2GB GDDR5, the setup in weak to say the least. I have 'opened my wallet' and assembled a tower by my self: CPU: i5 4690k (stock 3.5GHz) & Hyper 212 Evo (CoolerMaster) MOBO: Asus Z97 Gamer Pro Graphics: GTX 770 4GB Mem.: 8 GB (2x4GB) Corsair, 1600 MHz PSU: 700W KCAS Tower: Corsair Carbide Series 300R (3 fans) Now I did spend around 1000$, but this thing runs DCS easy and I would say: 'good investment'. Point of the story is: Gaming: Laptop [NO!], tower [YES!] Thanx everyone.

Thank you guys for your suggestions. I am taking my laptop a part in order to check if the wents are clogged. Will let you know how this and other suggestions worked. If I ever manage to put it back together, that is :D

I was afraid of this. In deed my laptop does tend to heat up quite a bit, even with a 'CoolerMaster' pad under it. I had actually to limit the maximum CPU to 85%. Guess I should have went for a desktop solution.

Thanx for the hint Morpheus. I have switched it to 'Full Screen' mode and frame rate is steady at around 7 FPS. I also forgot to mention that I am running Windows 7 64-bit

Hello, I have issues running Flaming Cliffs 3.0 on my machine: I have very low frame rates, don't the exact number and how to show this, by my personal estimate it is not more than 5-10 FPS. This is my hardware configuration: hp Pavilion dv6 CPU: 2.2 GHz Intel Core i7-2670QM [6 MB L3 cache] Memory: 6 GB DDR3 Video Graphics: AMD Radeon HD 6770M (2 GB GDDR5 dedicated) Hard Drive: 750 GB SATA (5400 rpm) Monitor: LG IPS 225 Software: AMD Catalyst 14.12 FC 3.0 v1.2.15 This are my video settings: Any help is much appreciated. Regards, Nikola

In RL yes, in online play-not even close. I've even had people flying braking my lock 3-4 times after my R27ERs left the rails, only to ask me 'are you done shooting?' Then I have one option: RTB :)

I've disscused this in my initial post ;)

Ok guys, I see this topic is straying a bit off, but I still can't but notice how much ridicule my idea has come across. Faking an missile launch has multiple advantages, one of which is not leting the enemy know when and if you have launched the SARH for real. Imagine a 30.000ft altitude engagement with a Su27 encountering an F-15 in a BVR on a multiplayer server (or RL) for that matter. What is F-15 going to do after getting a launch warning is brake the lock and then re-engage, this leaves the Su27 pilot with 4 chances to shoot down at best, but rather deter the eagle for a brief number of seconds. So using a high altitude engagement tactics with a Su27 leaves you with a one minute capability to neutralize the enemy and then it's either RTB or 'low altitude militia' tactics. Faking an actual launch is equivalent to f-15 sending 120s in TWS-supprise and confuse the enemy. Why spend money on throwing away 27ERs when you can 'engage the enemy' with this mode and then when conditions allow send a real 27ER to do the job more effectivly. Enemy is certainly going to react to a lauch warning-trust you me.