Ktulu2

You can't expect system failures from FC3 :( wait for the hornet :D Personally, I think an important improvement would be to add a chance of rocket failure for missiles. It would most likely encourage formation fights. Getting significant data could be hard though...

Were the bags empty of full? I remember reading that in training a 15 was broken due to pulling 9Gs w/ 2-3 bags.

Well... That IS like the real one

Wondering who's the genius who called it T-50... That planes looks much more like a 4th gen fighter than a trainer! Wish we had that in dcs instead of 70's trainers :)

The flight model impacts how the plane flies, there's no visual impact. Also, every AI uses a simplified flight model for CPU load concerns, so putting a non-flyable plane with an AFM wouldn't give you anything.

F-16 AFM? Why would you want that! Its not even flyable.

That's fine, I just wondered haw that could be, thanks for explaining!

Do you have a link or an explanation for that? I trust you, but I just don't see why something optimized for absorbing radiowaves would be as good in IR.

If you go in triggers, there's an option to make it explode...close enough lol Otherwise you could set a failure to happen when you want it if its a DCS module

The way I see it is that, while the eventuality of a fun kill is not a thing of the past, crossing BVR will put the ennemy at a big enough disadvantage so, if someone goes gunzgunzgunz, the suporior training/equipement will make it so that it is not a vietnam head-on merge, but more about attacking a target that bled all of its speed/position or that is cold.

Got 8Gb of RAM and had this often. Also, going in STT fixes it which I didn't see mentionned here.

Having flown it a couple of times recently in pvp, the mirage seems to resist pretty much everything lol. Its to the point where i don't know I've been hit untill I realise I lost radar cone. Once I lost manoeuvring capacities, but couldn't understand why untill I saw in the chat I had been hit by a missile, as I had no clue I was damaged.

I think the main reason why the majority of virtual pilots are flying low (<15K') is the missile retardation DCS is currently prone to : missile don't use height as they should. I don't think the actual range of the missile is the problem, or at least the priority. To me, it's seeing 120s going pure towards their target when they have a massive height advantage, instead of going parabolic and minimising the travel lenght at lower altitudes. I won't even talk about russian missiles for this...A shot taken directly towards the optimal intercept dot might result into a 9G turn for the missile. I'm sure that that if we get a better guidance, or if missiles get better ranges as darkfire suggests, we will see high, or at least Pk-Band BVR become norm instead of the bird-eating challenge we currently have. And although I wasn't here during FC1, high altitude flights were more common which proves my point. So I think the problem is much more the way the missile manages it's energy much more than it's capacity to retain it's energy in a passive way, as the range of high altitude shots are fine.

Thanks, in that case I will modify it according to whatever LN decides.

For the meteor or the R-37, no idea, don't even feel like digging into it as we wont have them in DCS until the DCS : X-wing comes out. For the Phoenix, it does need a hard lock : Yes, it has a final guidance that would require no lock at all, but we are talking about 10-ish miles. Now, the AIM54 could be launched in TWS at medium ranges, but at that point, it's no different from an obese 120. For long ranges launches, I've read that the missile requires a STT lock to get a strong enough signal for it to see the target.

Planes cause contrails because they heat up a large amount of air, expending it to create its trust, which then gets cooled down quickly. I'm not sure a missile would cause contrails as they do not directly heat up air to get their propulsion, instead they use a reaction which yields heat. I would tend to think that this might not be enough to create a drastic temperature change on enough air molecules to end up in a contrail. Also, the hypersonic speed of missiles would mean that there are more air molecules to heat in a given amount of time, making conning harder? This is just an educated guess, hope someone has a real answer to this

Having to force it really depends on what you fly. A WW2 bird might not be fast enough to make you regret it, but I can say for sure that if you flew the F15, or any jet without bif FBW system, you would have learned not to pull -Gs since a long time. Also, as you always turn towards the canopy, in combat you will only experience +Gs

Ok, I checked to be sure I wasn't crazy and wikipedia seems to be where I read my thing about brain damage...Sorry for the confusion!

I did read that red-out was an event that did not happen to every pilots, we are already lucky we do get it. Furthermore, the only realism problem I can see in the sim is that you do recover from redouts, while if you do a ''suddent'' and harsh negative G pull, you should get an AVC [no idea of the actual english tranlation for blood vessels bursting in the brain] and it should be fatal. This being said, I'm not really sure I'd want a -G instant kill... SOURCE : http://www.avstop.com/ac/ac91-61.html ''A condition termed "redout" may occur'' The article also mentions that the cause of the blackout would be the slower hearth rate, if this is true ignore my satement about the blood vessels, although I did read it somewhere else.

AIs use different damage models and flight models than players for cpu-loads questions. This explains the difference beetween our constatations. And beside, a 1-wing F-15 should be able to fly (although he shouldn't be able to pull too many G's, so no dogfights like it used to be possible). Personally, I don't really care about AIs being simplified as if you want a real fight, it's gonna be PvP, AIs are for training, but I can totally see why one would disagree on this. Pepin, can you precise if it was a mirage AI or if it was flown by someone?

Absolutely not. Since the hydro failures as soon as the 15 gets hit (even by a bullet...) it looses all control surfaces. Seems like a 1-wing landing is not a good enough proof lol. But missile wise, I did survive manpads hits a bunch of times, which is plausible and can only remember one or two instances where a real air-air missile (not R60) did not remove my engines.

My intention was to say that being low rendered SA easier, but that missile wise, being high was optimal. I'll see how I can make it more clear that high is better. Thank you all for the feedback!

The following guide is meant to share some of the basic BVR (Beyond Visual Range) concepts I have learned. BVR tactics are highly subjective and depend on acquired combat experience. Therefore, they will vary from one person to another. What I am sharing is my approach to BVR tactics and what works for me. If you have any comments, suggestions or questions I will be happy to answer! This manual summarizes in 15 pages what I think is essential to do well online in BVR combat, hopefully this document will help you improve your skills. :pilotfly: Link: http://www.mediafire.com/download/ry3yeh547a1jcrs/DCS+BVR+STRATEGY+GUIDE-FINAL.pdf

[ame] [/ame]

That's how you recognise a real good flight model!