Cmptohocah

Was this really written by a fighter-pilot? For "angels" it says "height of aircraft in thousands of feet" which is not correct. Should say "...friendly aircraft..."

I never used VR but would forced slow view re-centering during high load work? I completely agree with the OP, you're not gonna be looking around under high loads.

Looks like quantum uncertainty principle to me - they are no where and everywhere at the same time

MiG-29SMT does not have it either. However Su-27 manual does have it drawn (although not referenced - wonder if it was there by mistake or not) for cannon/rockets in ground attack mode.

Yes you are right, there is a shot at 00:55. Woops, I meant to say "Frogfoot" . Thanks for the correction.

As you can see form the attached image, launch authorization symbol physically obscures both the target and the aiming point: I have checked the 29's manual and there is no LA/ПР symbol being displayed in ground attack mode for bombs, rockets nor cannon. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any RL Flogger Frogfoot documentation, but it also does not make sense that any thing should interfere with the aiming reticle. Finally you can see that in this 25SM RL video that there is no LA symbol either. Although, truth be told they do seem to be launching outside Rmax.

From what I know ECM in DCS covers planes that are in a sphere 1km in radius around the jammer, when scanned by a fighter radar. EWR and AWACS are not affected.

It's quite difficult to find videos of high altitude Russian/Soviet missile shots. I will do some more research in the next days. Here is one of, what I presume, is R-77-1 Another high-altitude R-77-1 shot Here's a high-alt R-73 shot High-alt shots from Su-27, but I am not sure what type of missiles are being fired. I guess it can be either/or R-27, R-73 As I have mentioned before, it's very difficult to tell with "smokey" missiles which part is their smoke and which part is the contrails, but it's a pretty safe bet to say that as soon as the "smokeless" missiles start producing contrails, so should the "smokey" ones. I see no reason why an 120, for example, would contrail but R-27 would not - you can substitute 120 and R-27 for any air-to-air missile in this sentence really.

"FlankerTraining" and "dundun" have very good videos regarding flying Red planes - they're also on YT.

In English: Firstly, it is not analog, but analog-digital. The second moment, where is the delay of 0.5 s in the SDE equation?

Also I found on many occasions that the GR videos really are outright wrong more often than not.

Ah you are right, they were talking about notching - I miss-read the post.

Thanks a lot for replying. On page one of this thread there are three separate real life videos of 120 contrailing. Some of them are contrailing even before the actual launching platform starts contrailing, but since we don't have any data on altitude, it would be safe to say that as soon as the aircraft start contrailing, the missiles should too. I can't really prove that missiles that smoke contrail also, since the trail they leave behind a smoke anyway, but I think it's safe to say thay if smokeless one leave contrails, so should the classic ones. Only altitude info about the Slammer contrailing that is known to me, comes from 1999 Eagle-Fulcrum engagement where according to the F-15C pilot, missile launch happened around 24-27 thousand feet. Fulcrum pilot visually confirmed the contrails and hense ordered evasive maneuvers. I can leave a link to YT videos veirfying these claims, if needed. Thanks again.

Yup, as long as a missle has a physical gimbal limit the seeker can be defeated by flying out side of its limits. Not sure what the video is supposed to show, so I can't comment on it. Think of a missile as a complex system. As long as you defeat any part of the system, you end up defeating the system as a whole.

It's 'cause of physical limitations of the gimbal.

Hi @Flappie, no one from ED really commented on this. Is a track file required or is this not considered a valid request all together? P.S. I called the thread "AIM-120", but I guess most if not all A2A missiles are missing this effect.

Wait, didn't the original post include screenshots of two different graphs from two different manuals? Making a mistake in the first one is plausible, but you are suggesting that they have continued copying over the wrong diagram. That's a bit weird, IMHO. Or I am I missing something obvious here?

I think for any aircraft really, I guess most of the helmets have the visor.

+1

There seems to be some confusion happening here Flamming Cliffs was not included in DCS, but rather DCS came to be from the former. It's just when they technically created DCS as a stand-alone sim, the Flamming Cliffs series became a module - hence why it incorporates a bunch of planes. Regarding the open-source development of FC3 that is mentioned, this is what I meant in more simple terms: - ED does not want to add/remove any features -- make it open source and let "us" do the work, and then ED can just approve/reject these features as they seem fit - I am not talking about unrealistic wish-type stuff, but manual proven features that exist in RL - I never aluded to make FC3 planes full fidelity, but rather improve them a bit and add many missing features so they get the attention they deserve

So you are happy the way things are as far as FC3 planes go?

Clickable cockpit is one thing that all of them are missing, and I am not talking about the entire cockpit, but rather about already existing features/systems. MiG-29: missing navigation, wrong "schlem" mode look and functionality, no GCI data-link, resetting of the radar antena elevation setting, no manual IFF... Su-27: wrong trans-sonic acceleration, missing "time to impact" timer in the HUD... These are just to name a few. Eagle is also missing key features. There is a list of quite a few threads dealing with all the missing features and other issues in various sub-forums.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that what I wrote applies to SARH missiles.

Yes, but many features are missing and it's a shame to have these amazing aircraft "half baked". For X number of reasons (many of them discussed here on forums) this is not going to happen, or not in any foreseeable future at least.

Is trans-sonic region even modeled in DCS?