USARStarkey

just need to give it AMRAAMS

Yep.

Yes this seems to be the wall I am running into with my own research on this. I was hoping that is was just because I hadn't delved deep enough or looked in the right places. Are the bits regarding MPRF etc modeled? Based on what you said I would assume no but asking just in case. Lastly, is there by chance a ED chart for the radars floating around out there for the in game data?

Given that, giving them both the same range is a little bit more reasonable. However, is there enough info to give the radars a realistic relative difference in performance? It seems quite silly that an airplane known for its radar is equaled in this regard by a plane it is known not having as good a radar. Is the data on the N001 also classified? Research I've done into other things aside from planes has shown me that alot of Russian data tends to be a less closely guarded secret, at least for things from the 80-90's. I have a high regard for ED. But I have a right to give my opinion on something. Like i said, if it is classified, than that is more understandable. I cant help but feel though that there should be SOME difference in performance.

I got kicked because I had to TK him to defend myself. Of course it took a relatively dumb eagle pilot for this to be pulled off, full fuel or not. I just think it is funny that this was possible against ANY human pilot.

So I know this is very general, but if DCS uses 5m^2 then I should be able to track targets at 85nm if I am reading this right. Right now, if you go in game, both the N001 and the APG63 will pick up their first target at 62nm all things being the same. Why would ED choose to do it this way? Is the information classified for the early model 63 and N001? This seems like a awfully cheesy solution.

I apologize. I jumped to conclusions. I will delete me previous post. Excuse my defensiveness.

Yep

Why is what precisely? The Radars having the same range? Please. They are two completely different radars. It is extremely unlikely that they both have EXACTLY the same detection range against the same target. Especially since if you go and look it up, they have different ranges.... the N001 is 43nm vs 1m^2 and the APG-63v1 is 56nm

Im not sure the snide remark was necessary. perhaps you should grow up a tad. Obviously they dont have 1m^2 RCS. My main thing is that in game right now, if you fly head on at each other, you will see each other at exactly the same distance. That would not be the case in real life.

The APG-63 in game is definnately underperforming, but the Flankers radar is overperforming by alot as well. The N001 can track a 1m^2 target head on at 43nm but in game it can find targets at ranges of 62nm. In fact, upon doing further testing, I am beginning to suspect that in terms of power and range etc, the in game APG 63 and N001 are identical.

Speaking of the Radar, in FC3 right now the F-15 has only a smidgen more range that the Flanker Radar in game. I find that very hard to believe. Hopefully we will get a fix for that. If you fly a Flanker and a Eagle at each other Co-alt and same speed, the Eagle will see the Flanker about 3 seconds faster in game. Anyone know that actual radar performance against 1m^2 targets?

Yeah I cant see how anyone would complain about getting more realisim in a sim even if it means one side is going to get more op. The F-15 would already be OP if the missile guidance was accurate + data link etc. The Eurofighter will be even more op, and i could care less. If you want balance in terms of modeling go play aces combat or hawx or something. i cant wait will Eurofighters come out and we have a plane with a AESA radar, and a reduced RCS and super cruise and super agilty. It will be fun to be the person with the OP fighter and just as fun flying things like the flanker/mig29 and trying to figure out how to kill it

Missile Guidance So, I know that is a well known issue that the missiles with the AFM have terrible accuracy mainly due to their awful guidance. In FC2, lock on, etc, there was no AFM but the missiles were far more useful at longer ranges. If there is anyone who knows, what exactly went wrong with the guidance and why is it taking so long to fix? I've been watching the missiles in tacview and F6 and they do the stupidest most unexplainable things, such as pointing to the left while trying to lead a target going down and right.......

That is a ridiculous statement. I'm sure you'd rather I just use your website that pertains only to a single aircraft. Furthermore, your picture is a list of what plane that squadron had, and what plane they supposedly went to. I dont see any primary source documentation showing that they ACTUALLY converted to 1.98ata. This is a point that has been made here before and you seem to want to ignore.

nope. That dude was fresh taken off. It was in a free fight multi server but their were supposed to be teams. He was on my team, but he attacked me and i did the only thing i could do any turn. He had both engines etc.

But then...How will I do this:

He cant because there is no definitive evidence that 1.98ata was ever operationally used. "Aspera G.m.b.H., Kamenz on orders from OKL Chef TLR F1. E. 3 V reports in Geschwindigkeitmessungen mit 4 VDM Luftschrauben auf Me 109 K4 mit DB 605 D dated 4 January 1945 that full measurments could not be reported due to engine damage at 1.98 ata. Trotz mehrerer Stunden schonenden Einfliegens des Motors mit Dauerleistung vor den Messreihen mit Kampfleistung stellte sich bei den ersten Prüfläufen nach der Umstellung auf p = 1,98 ata ein Motorschaden heraus, der einen Motorwechsel notwendig machte. 35 Interner Aktenvermerk Nr. 6642 from Daimler-Benz (internal memo) dated 17.1.45 reports on a meeting held 10 January 1945 at OKL, Berlin. All 4 DB 605 DC engines supplied to Rechlin from DB-Genshagen failed (pistons, piston rods, supercharger), therefore special emergency power DC (1.98 ata boost pressure) for the troops is not released (die Sondernotleistung DC (1,98 ata Ladedruck) für die Truppe nicht freigegeben). 36 Niederschrift Nr 6717 from Damiler-Benz, dated 19.1.45, states that DB 605 D engines from Kassel are delivered at 1.80 ata boost with B4 and Mw 50. Die Motoren DB 605 D werden in Kassel allgemein mit Ladedruck 1,80 ata mit B4 und Mw 50 abgenommen. 37 Niederschrift Nr 6730 of Daimler Benz dated 24 January 1945 details discussion at a conference held 20 January 1945 in the office of the Chief engineer of the Luftwaffe in Berlin: It states that testing of 1.98 boost pressure may be done provisionally at Group 2/11, only engines with 1.8 boost may be supplied and strict punishment is threatened if this instruction is neglected. Also of note is mention of problems due to poor quality fuel as well as a devastating comparison of the Me 109 and the Mustang. 38 Niederschrift Nr 6731 of Daimler Benz also dated 24 January 1945 discusses a meeting held at Rechlin on 16.1.45. Some of the same material is discussed as in Nr 6730, the conclusions being that 1,98 ata is not to be used on the front line. Testing at Rechlin will continue. 39 Messerschmitt's Erprobungsbericht Nr. 15 vom 16.1.45 bis 15.2.45 dated 22.2.45 states that 1.98 ata is blocked, testing done at 1.80 ata: WM 50 Betreib - Nach Mitteilung der E'Stelle sind 1,98 ata gesperrt. Die Erprobung (Funktion und Kerzentemperatur) wird vorläufig mit 1,80 ata (2800 U/min) durchgeführt. 40" "II./JG 11, the Me 109 unit that had earlier experimented with 1.98 ata, also disbanded during the first few days of April: An den ersten sechs Tagen im April war das JG 11 nicht im Einsatz; nicht etwa schlechtes Wetter, sondern allein der anhaltende Treibstoffmangel verhinderte ein Eingreifen des Geschwaders in das Geschehen an der Oderfront, an der es im übrigen während ruhig blieb. Offensichtlich erfolgte in diesen Tagen die Auflösung der II./JG 11, deren Flugzeugführer danach zum Teil auf die I. und III. Gruppe verteilt wurden, während einige der erfahreneren und erfolgreichen – darunter Hptm Rüdiger Kirchmayr, Olt. Erich und Lt. Walter Köhne – zu dem Strahlerverbänden versetzt wurden. Für viele der jungen, unerfahrenen Flugzeugführer, die zur Katagorie “C” zählten, endete dagegen der Einsatz in einem fliegenden Verband und sie fanden sich in Fallschirmjäger – oder sogar Waffen-SS Einheiten wieder, um dort als Fussoldaten noch eine Verwendung im Sinne des “Führers” zu finden; mit ihnen gingen eine ganze Anzahl von Männern des Bodenpersonals, deren Stellen durch die Auflösung der II. Gruppe entweder überflüssig wurden oder die durch weiteres weibliches Personal ersetzt wurden. 43"

Excuse my typo....

I really hope 1.31 comes with a fix for missile guidance, been watching some of my tracks/tacview and this is starting to annoy me.

441 for K4 with production propellers.

Nice Graphs.

Im not trying to justify any of laz's tactical decision's. I just think that seeing that missile would have been very hard even if you knew where to look because of how this game renders things. Even if he did see it, at that range, he would have to perform a near perfect notch(which he did) and since he just flew straight he was basically hoping it would turn into a notch at the last moment. IE: If that was intentional, then he was making a guess that if he flew straight he might go into the notch relative to the missiles path at the last second. If that was his plan, the that took some balls, because the reverse could just have easily have happened. He would have had no way of knowing if that was going to work until it would have been to late to try something else. Sometimes, tactics like that are whats needed to get the job done. Either way, whether he did it that way on purpose or not, that took a considerable amount of luck. Just to reiterate, Im not defending laz'z flying at all, just commenting on the endgame mechanics regarding that kill. Laz could have done all sorts of things differently.

No "wat" I agree with Lazarus here. Its unlikely he knew the exact location of that missile in order to notch it. All he does in the video just before the notch is fly straight and the result is a notch when the missile is just about to hit. That missile was tracking right up to the last second, if that was an intentional notch, the stuge was basically hoping that the final intercept vector would be in the notch. Sorry, but I don't think anyone's spacial reasoning skills are so good that he could know with absolute certainty that it would go 90deg just before impact and miss. Its not impossible that he did it on purpose, but I seriously doubt that.

Isnt edge supposed to release this year?