Ktulu2

Here you go. I changed the aircraft description, added su-33 and slightly modified ranges to fit what we see in DCS a bit more. I did not touch SAMs, as I don't know them too well, in DCS go defensive when they shoot first and you'll be fine. Also added Russian names for missiles. Threath list (1).pdf

I might do so instead of playing guitar, got some time today. Also, you have to consider versions of missiles i.e. AIM-120C-5 has a wikipedia range of 105km, but the -8 is said to have 160km and the -7 with it's 145km (that entered about at the same time as the 77-1, so the later never had an upper hand), but in any case, these are R-max figures and are 200% meaningless in combat :).

For anyone using the BMS guide, keep in mind that AAM ranges are different in DCS, that plane armament is different (ie the su27 doesn't have R77 and the mig-29 does.). Also, R-77 outranging the AIM-120!? lol not sure what period the guide represents but...

Well, I disagree that FC3 is a reference. The planes are rigged with so many problems (due to simplification) that is truly gets frustrating at times. While I agree its a good start, to this I reply that any DCS-level module can be played in game mode. Also, the margin of error between 100% fidelity and the 5% accurate FC3 is pretty big too.

Weird, can you post specs, just in case you are running a 1990's cpu.

My problem is that you say nothing about the quality of the approximation, and the way you talk about the F-35, it seems to me you are talking about guesses instead of approximation, which is VERY different! With an approximation, you can give a maximum and minimal value for something (i.e. the thrust of a plane). With a guess, which would be what the F-35 would have been for many things, there's no way to prove whether you are right or wrong and by what error margin.

Yep, yesterday.

So, the lag for the shooter is fixed!!! Piper are working and missiles (though i'm not sure about the proximity fuze) BUT for the guy defensive, you still have big sync problems (ie you get hit with guns even though you see the bullets are 30° off)

Not sure I understood the right thing, but what I got is that you say that red handle should only be lit when the gear is switching state? Or only when ready to land? I know in many nato planes, below a certain speed (around 200 knots) the handle blinks red even though gear is up, so that the pilot doesn't forget it for landing. (and so that he doesn't do like that M2K pilot...LOL)

What I found : if you turn electronics while you have the gear handle down, your gear goes up. Once electronics are on, the lock mecanism kicks in and you need down lock orride. Guess I missread you first post, my bad. For me it worked n both 1.5 quickstart and ME

I happen to have tried it yesterday : It didn't work normally and worked with Down. Lock. Oride. This was with the gear up/Gear Down controls, not swapping gear (g).

Yep, watched it a few months back and it's great!

Humidity should also be a factor, though not sure it's in game. In 1.5 they vary a lot : The lower I had them was around 3000' (crazy cold weather) and the highest something like 30 000' in nevada in hot weather.

A2A : Wings are easy to pierce, but a small hole isn't too problematic, so you want something to set those wing tanks on fire, so Highly explosive/incendiary. For A2G : depends on the target, if you are taking out soft target (cars&trucks) either CM or HEI If you don't know/have mixed target/are against the average armored target, go with CM. If you know you'll face 20 tanks, take AP.

I do not contest the missile drag has an effect, just that it is relatively small, but to really have a solid proof you need a double integral, which already makes it hard to explain and than you have to consider the flight characteristics (temp, pressure/altitude, new lift coefficient, etc). BTW, the point of the wing being less effective because of the missile is something I hadn't thought of, and that I do not (yet) have the tools to study. But seeing how little DCS does according to you all this seems pointes LOL (had fun anyway) In any case, I want to be able to keep on fighting without jettisoning my second missile me too!!!

They are not as always, I've had 1.5NM miss on a head on target that aint manoeuvring, aim-9s getting notched (really, no manoeuvers nor flares...)

Sure, as I said...time to waste lol

The yaw AoA should not change the lift of a wing (assuming the wing is a pure plane, which isn't too far for a fighter symmetrical wing), as the area is the same and the speed of the air going over it is also the same. As for the Cl, I do not see why it would change as it is only affected by the ''real'' AoA and the AR. It will change things like the drag of the plane due to the fuselage being more exposed, which would only increase the yaw slip with a symmetrical fuselage. The only thing I see is that the portion of the wing that is behind the fuselage, as seen from the airflow, will have a disrupted/stalled airflow going over it, reducing the lift. But assuming a reasonable yaw AoA (<5°) for stable flight, the impact should be quite small compared to the torque the missile's weight does. The rest is just me having fun, just a very rough approximation to prove my point. We know all the wing will be in disrupted airflow if the AoA is 90°, and none if the AoA is 0. We can infer that the area under disrupted airflow will be proportional to Sin(Yaw_AoA), so 5° would be pretty small. This doesn't take the shape of the wing into account, but assuming a rectangular wing that is at 90° from the fuselage , the area is equal to the triangle formed by both orthogonal projections of the fuselage over the wing at 90° from the airflow and in the direction of the airflow. Meaning the area, for an angle of attack in yaw under arctan(wing span/wing root), is equal to Root*cos(AoA) [height] * Root*sin(AoA) [base] /2=R²sin(AoA)cos(AoA)/2=R²0.04341 This approximation also works fairly well for the F-5, as it has rectangular triangular wings, so as long as we stay below the max angle, it's good. Now, the area of the F-5 wing is 17.28m² and the wing span of one wing is 8.13/2=4.065m. Using an extenal model scaler, I could find that the tip root is 1.12m So A=(B+b)h/2 So 17.28=(B+1.12)*4.065 B=3.13m Area with disrupted airflow = 3.13²*0.04341=0.43m² In comparison to one full wing : 0.43/(17.28/2)=5% So one wing has 95% of the lift of the other. BUT this difference is a the beginning of the wing, so the torque generated by this difference will be even smaller. Now I could get exact numbers for the torque of the lost lifting area by using an integral, but at this point I feel like I'm it's unlikely someone actually reads through this so I'll stop here as I think that I have shown that the torque generated by the lift difference will be MUCH smaller than what the missile brings.

Same for any missile in DCS excepted the R-3R

Didn't get the 15 restart mid-flight, but I can confirm the rest, mods know about the F-15 lag, there were multiple threads on it.

Well, the only aerodynamic force an aim-9 brings in the vertical axis would be the minimal lift of the control surfaces, the drag of the missile will simply slow down the plane and induce a slide slip. Now, assuming the plane is flying at positive AoA, that supplementary lift should conteract the roll that the weight of the missile brings. That is of course taking the missile and the wing as two separate entities, which only works up to some extent and probably won't work at transonic speeds (which is not problematic here). Not sure if this is what you were implying? In anycase, my point was that if we have a roll, it should very mainly be caused by the weight of the missile, and not it's drag.

It should not be a drag issue : more drag on one side of the plane would induce a side-slip,not a roll, the weight of the missile is what seems to be causing the issue.

War ain't fair ;) Seriously though, its hard to balance, as reds are multiple time zones away

All missiles are completely broken

So how about you look into ejection seats. he purpose of an ejection seat is pilot survival. The pilot typically experiences an acceleration of about 12–14 g (117–137 m/s2). Western seats usually impose lighter loads on the pilots; 1960s-70s era Soviet technology often goes up to 20–22 g (with SM-1 and KM-1 gunbarrel-type ejection seats). Compression fractures of vertebrae are a recurrent side effect of ejection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejection_seat#Pilot_safety