Fri13

Here is the versions The Su-27S we have is the first serial production version, you can find it as just "Su-27" in the root. It was upgraded later to SM, SM2 and SM3 variants.

Interesting numbers. Like example R-60 has 35 degrees per second tracking when AIM-9J has only 16.5 degrees per second, telling a lot about how agile the R-60 is. The range values shows that R-23 and R-24 are matching the performance that AIM-7 offers, and offering the "silent attack" capability with the IRST makes it great option for stealthy approaches with support of gci. R-24 having full 2 seconds longer burn time gives nice advantage to intercept AIM-7 launcher sooner and so on save itself if challenging. As well that +/- 1.3 degree seeker FOV makes things interesting considering flare behavior, as if you get it to track flare and not find the fighter anymore, missile will get lost. But same time missile doesn't see flares so easily further distance from the target.

That is a good guess. Someone who know for certain could open that how many IFF returns there can be. As based to the pattern, the left side (my linked short video) seems to have targets that are beaming, why you don't get radar returns but you can see there is someone because IFF. That is why I did mistaken it to ECM system as it was just blinking without radar returns, unlike the full video that Ramsey posted. In it you see properly the radar returns and then the IFF return separated from them, so if you have close-by radar returns then you can't see who is friend and who is not, like so far you have seen a perfect diamond inside the radar return. I think that is what makes it so special, a unique old radar with own limitations. Personally I am little tired for F/A-18C Hornet and F-16CM Viper because A-10C as they have modern systems that are even today operated. I am waiting the F-1 Mirage from Aerges as it will add again something pure Cold War era aircraft. The 70-80's is the interesting era and M2000C fits there well.

So this analogue clock is not yet properly working?

The gun requires 60 PSI pressure, and depending your altitude and Mach you need for required RPM. Example at Mach 0.9 at 1000 ft you have 60 RPM requirement, but at 15 000 ft at Mach 0.5 you need 80% RPM but at Mach 0.7 you need again just 70% RPM. Slower you fly and higher then higher RPM is required. So example for a gun attack at 25 000 ft one needs to run 90% RPM up to Mach 0.7 speed, going faster and you need only 80% RPM. So one can not shoot cannon at high at slow targets as high RPM is required and it means you start accelerate.

Yes he is, he visits at least weekly. But as far I know, he has given up the bug handling for personal reasons to some other people like Myhelljumper etc. He has been months now absent from Harrier forum, but he is active in their Discord, so it is not time related when he has time to chit-chat there. Harrier bug reports has been for years now handled in very odd manner, what now here and then someone does something good.

Because it is "the way how ELMO wants to do report management".... It is annoying as to find out the problems or fixes you can't do it via forum as the reports are all over different places and not organized or even responded by Razbam. At this moment it is just easier to make a new report no matter how duplicate because to find the possible duplicates is either too time consuming or worthless when Razbam doesn't respond to them even when called for it. Example this bug report has it roots deep in the other major systems that has been totally incorrectly implemented or even missing. So to get a major system like the Mission Computer (MC) implemented correctly it would require dozens of big reports all over the places. At that moment it is easier to just say that system is overall incorrect and needs rewriting.

I think the wind is not implemented to harrier if* the ARBS doesn't have wind and moving target corrected calculation to weapon release. So you wouldn't have either then the navigation bug to be corrected for wind. *) Don't know what is current status of moving target correction.

It is not just about attack, it is about landing as well. It is not for debate that how realistic they look, but how incorrect they are. It is correct and true that we should have reflections that affect in some situations the visibility through the HUD or canopy. But it is incorrect and wrong that we do not see through the HUD or Canopy with reflections that are physically impossible, like seeing reflection that is from front panel that is under sunshade below the HUD. Someone would see their landing gear and weapons under aircraft reflected from their HUD and canopy it would be obvious for everyone that it is incorrect and makes things challenging at least. But it is now the instrument panels below HUD that gets reflected. Like there is no way that stick can cause reflection to HUD when there is not a such angle even where it could do that.

No need to be nasty.... Thanks for that, it makes much more sense now what they have done. Made the IFF system more realistic with inaccurate tagging the radar contact with the IFF. So you don't know which one of the contact is friendly when they gets close enough.

So how does Mirage pilot then know what is enemy and what is friendly when the IFF interrogator does not match the radar returns? The IFF is doing nothing more than just spamming the area with random returns that there are "friendlies in the area" but you never know what is what....

The idea in that 1M1M philosophy is that you give minimum that time per module, if you want to continue flying then you extend it with another.

But none of them are never on the same position even when the sweep comes for a second time, everyone is jumping around like there would be 24 different targets.

The upcoming Mi-24P has nice map box in pilot cockpit. Pilot can use a pen to draw on map board where are enemy units, friendly units or routes etc. Pilot has multiple board with them for different areas and scale. Great thing is that pilot could land next to friendlies and ask them to mark on map where enemies are. Then insert map to box, move the position strips symbolizing helicopter on proper place and good to go. Pilot doesn't even need to mark position on map as it is shown there. Pilot only needs to look outside and compare visually terrain and does the symbol match with it, and make correction if necessary. So even for Mi-24P player it is a cheat. I have used it lately as such when training MiG-21Bis navigation system.... I know instantly where I am and how I have misinterpreted the HSI. But for actual navigation I don't need it, I wouldn't have it. If I am lost, then I am lost. If I can't utilize aircraft navigation system to find out where I am, I shouldn't have a magical tick on map at will either. For training purpose it is great as it is 100% accurate. You can confirm your skills with it. But I want it as well be opt-in feature (not opt-out) next to infinite fuel and weapons....

How are they dancing such a way?

I feel little sorry for the OP about how many is ordering this stuff. As one can make small production of 50 or so units fairly easily, but when it becomes hundreds of units, then it starts to be challenge to handle....

Is this radar update coming to Mirage in any near future updates? I have not staid in touch with the M2000 that what is on the screen, but I believe in the final seconds the diamonds jumping around is a target(s) with jammer(s)? If so, that is possbly first time in DCS we have a proper DRFM jammer. Example: https://bsvt.by/en/aviacionnaya-tehnika-i-vooruzhenie/bortovye-sredstva-zashchity/stanciya-aktivnyh-pomeh-veresk https://www.airinternational.com/article/russias-new-ecm-system Razbam does many things before others, pushing the available features and capabilities in these systems. Like if that is now a visual presentation of the jammers, it looks great (and I hope I am guessing wrong...). *) I am just impatiently waiting that ED would take Electronic Warfare seriously and implement even basic IFF systems properly with the requirement for players input the proper codes to their aircraft, as well to start making proper ECM/ECCM functions even if it would be from 60's technology, as everything would be dramatically better than what we have now...

If you look the real world videos and photos about Falkland, there are a lot of small terrain height differences/features. It doesn't have tall mountains and all such, but there is plenty of terrain features what comes to ground units operations. The real Falkland is reason why I don't likely buy the map, because it is so flat. I don't see so interesting missions for it than just create the historic events. That means it is not about Razbam but more about DCS terrain engine that can't produce ground clutter (various different grasses, bushes, rocks, dozens of different trees by height and type etc...). This is similar thing as in the Caucasus where the mountain ridges and hills are without details, the NTTR looks like one golf course at low altitude. This all because the terrain texture is the only main element that is showing the height differences and when you get low enough, it all becomes just smooth hills. But maybe my opinion changes when map is shown in new weather etc.

It is not so much about height map but how it is used and what the terrain engine supports.

On me only for harrier what tested with few. The mirrors needs anyways reworking with field of view as now they are useless with so narrow FOV.

When the 2.7 got released, the laser pointer was gone. It was amazing to finally get it gone. But it was not intended change and people started to hate when they can't click things from otherside of cockpit without moving hand to close, so they returned forcefully the laser beams. Annoying thing.... They were closer back then to VTOL VR experience, while without fancy animations. But really ED should get the virtual finger to be dynamic so that it points to closest button/switch like a magnet in tip of finger when getting closer to them. It is requiring effort to make the range (how far from center of widget and finger straight position) and the effect proper (small smooth animation for finger movement instead "snap to it") so that it would be usable in challenging scenarios like UFC in A-10 or Hornet that has a lot of small buttons next to each others. In Hornet UFC I prefer to have stick finger with small movement but for A-10 I think I could take little more movement. This said, ED has been supporting Oculus for long time, and they really should already have added support to hand tracking. Already not adding the Leap Motion device support years ago has been a mistake IMHO. Back then that device costed 15-20€ (today about 100-120€ last time I checked, because company was sold to another) and it would had added real hand to cockpit for VR and for desktop players. This VR mouse option is important as it is how example Touch Controllers work, you can place hand on proper position and look elsewhere and click when wanted without looking there. So having "mouse cursor" separated from the camera movement is great feature. Think about being able to move mouse on gear lever and then concentrate for approach and just click mouse and cursor has not moved from its cockpit position.

Yes, as I said that ED needs eventually to scrap everything and remake the AI. It will affect every mission and campaigng ever made. But they can't proceed by pretending that every ground unit belongs to specific group that is handled like a fighter squadron. And ED has been on it for years already, at least from 2014 or so IIRC. You can't have such quick fix because it doesn't fix anything that is wrong with ground units and their relationship to air units. No matter how much it is dreamed, they can't just add couple things and have better experience than now. That is the problem, it can't really be done and stay compatible. As long you have units in groups that has instant knowledge of anything that one unit knows, it doesn't work. As long there is no communications simulated between each individual unit (do they have radios or not) it doesn't work. As long there is no proper command structure and units cooperation, it doesn't work. If you can't have dynamic AI that reacts and behave based intelligence, reports, commands and their first hand information, there is no better operation. As long ground units are locked to waypoints that are like one would plan a flight plan, you can't get proper ground war. You need to scrap the waypoint mentality and move to command structure with goals and time tables etc. But it is, exactly that! You can not hold on the old work that you need to scrap to get the required improvements and changes. DCS World is currently utilizing maybe 10% of the current hardware resources, maybe at max 20%. That is not about CPU calculation power or speed, amount of RAM or 3D graphics rendering speed. It is about the DCS World engine being limited to old real-time design where one unit is constantly checked once a second and simulated regardless that there is no one ever seeing what is happening. When every bullet, missile, rocket and bomb etc is handled with real-time idea, you have severe performance issues when anything of those happens. When a future known action is known, it is not pre-calculated when there would be time but it is waited to actually happen and then run it in real-time. When something happens and it is obscured and doesn't need to be done on that specific millisecond, it is still set to be simulated in real-time. So when one does launch 4x32 rocket pods at once 50 km from player location, the game slows down on the moment because everything needs to calculate as in real-time. If you drop a bomb on a vehicle, it gets obscured by the smoke for next 3-5 seconds. There is no required reason to calculate all the damage in the next cycles because it happened so, there is good time to delay it by 150-800 ms and no one would know the difference, but you would have plenty of resources to be utilized in longer period than in real-time. Example, there we have four ground groups and one flying group. One of the ground groups is moving. It doesn't make any sense to be calculating real-time every single unit position, animation, perform checks that does the unit see a enemy unit inside its detection ring. Yet it is done, continually. What is required is to cheat. A master AI that is all knowing, that has only one purpose and only one. To check that what AI's are activated and what are not. What simulations are required to be run and what is not. "If a tree falls in a forest...." is the philosophical question that needs to be adapted, if there is no one seeing or hearing it, then don't waste time to simulate how turret turns, is there a enemy to be engaged etc. The "Cheater AI" will make sure that irrelevant simulation is not processed. When a simulation is required, then the "cheater AI" will allow it to happen, that is when more resources are used to start calculate things. Another core problems in DCS is that it is based to perfect information. Every unit location, position, attitude, status etc is known all the time. That is wasted resources. It is anyways unrealistic as in reality you can not know perfectly where every soldier, every vehicle or even where your companies are located. We need DCS World to be based to "Fog of War" design. Information is not accurate, it is not reliable and not immediately available. It is required that DCS World turns to command structure form where you know that there is a company "west of the X" and their general status (80% of the forces intact etc). You can only issue command for them to position for defensive position at given area and reach the required status at given time, nothing else. You would know that company X has started their march at 08:00 from specific area and they are expected to be ready in defensive positions in commanded area at 09:30. You shouldn't know the units exact position without requesting report and get a generic map coordinates and status. You would only know "Company X is on the move, now south and 15 km of the town Y". It is waste of time to run real-time simulation and animations for every unit in the company on the move when there is no one seeing it. When there is no one seeing, it is just like on mission editor now that you know that at 08:44:14 the units would be in specific position and order if someone happens to jump there with camera. AI runs now already as a slideshow.... That is a hypothetical and unrealistic scenario, and running that will put every PC on their knees because everything is ran in realtime, every animation is rendered and every unit is checking constantly what other units are inside its engagement range and LOS. It doesn't matter if you are 50 km elsewhere flying, that is calculated and your CPU screams because there are thousands of bullets in the air at any given moment and hundreds of LOS checks performed all over the places. DCS was never designed to handle such scenarios because it is just for "There is a SAM on that town, drop a bomb there in Su-27 after shooting down those two F-15's intercepting you". It was never designed for ground war, but just to offer ground units as a targets for practice and procedure. All run in realtime. There are far better methods how one can have thousands of units in the camera view and have excellent performance even with old 2-4 core computers. Nothing like that can be done with the DCS World current engine and AI. It needs to be redone. No small quick fixes is going to improve the gameplay and add the required changed for the experience to be a helicopter pilot in a combat scenarios, unless you want to do just the old Flanker level scenarios "There is a BTR, destroy it and return to base". The AI and the unit behavior structure is not flexible enough at all for required tasks, like get a AI unit to withdraw inside a forest for cover of reported attack helicopters heading to their direction. Unmount automatically the infantry from vehicles to prepare them for incoming air assault etc. Everything without any scripting, based to real world tactics and common sense that AI would need to be given.

You should get warning in the terminal phase when radar locks and starts emitting final guidance for missile. No launch warning given as missile is feed the target data for mid-way and the missile seeker can be even disabled until it is either activated by timer or by a special code that is sent if wanted to change target. If the pilot is blind and unaware of launch visually, they can fly to last seconds before radar lock is made and missile about hitting. As well missiles can be launched without any radar emissions, it is just one switch that is kept Off and guidance is done visually acquired target, missile again flies precalculated point for seeker activation or even using just scrambled guidance commands all the way in if target is non-manueverable.

Thank you ED for your new forum that deletes everything that is written and even just selects couple of the attachements randomly.

People should try 10x binoculars (even 8x works for it as difference is very small) and think about how easy it is to find something with them. Even when Mi-24P sight is stabilized by +/- 60 degree azimuth and roll, and similarly whole vertical range, the optical becomes challenging at lower light or long ranges as you can't adjust the brightness and contrast. But colors help a lot compared to B/W CRT TV. In reality visually spotting military vehicles is very challenging. One can see a car driving on a road or highway from kilometers distance without problems, but moving green vehicle on green grass becomes such that you might spot it at 1-1.5 km at best. Even when you know where to look, it easily is 500 meters or under where you spot such vehicle at open (not a green vehicle middle in a yellow crop field) if starionary. Then start to camouflage vehicle, you park it next to bush or trees and you never spot it from the air. You can even walk in a field and literally hit your head on a parked vehicle as you thought you get past few trees and suddenly on your face is a tank. And it doesn't help to wear NVG or Thermals as you don't see it with them. That doesn't happen in DCS. And people would get angry if realistic ground units camouflaging would be implemented as their targeting pods and visual spotting would become almost impossible unless ground vehicles are required to move across open areas revealing their position. Now think it with the attack helicopters, you don't know where vehicles are, you know the general area where enemy troops are marked to be. So you attack by saturating the area with rockets, and your wingman will fly as well in formation with you and fire it's rockets just same time as you for generic area saturation. So you should be in Mi-24P in DCS attacking just "that forest edge" and hoping to get the hits there and suppressed enough so your ground units can attack with minimal risks. Rockets would be the main weapon as with missiles you don't do so much and cannon is almost useless as well as you don't have such targets to engage with it. Then when enemy is on the move, that is when missiles and gun becomes more useful to get the couple vehicles out.