USARStarkey

I never said they arent.

In the documents for the -220 on the ED page under user files, there is a chart for VMAX vs MAX Thrust which shows higher speeds at low altitude than the clean plane. (The VMAX chart specifies the eagle is carrying AIM7s)

I think it should there anyhow though. I mean, thats a big performance knock, and you could logically filer out whatever system you wanted to just because it isnt ASM......I dont need a clickable button to model a key push.

They should totally model the VMAX ability. I cant imagine why it wasnt done in the first place given that this is PFM. Maybe will get it when It comes out of beta or something

Ok, "these" days then. Still doensnt change the ludicrous nature of specific performance comparisons based on general aero design characteristics.

Every modern design? So the F-15 isnt modern?

So you completely missing the point, which was you cant just spit out general qualities and the make specific performance predictions. the percentages between the comparisons are irrelevant. For one, nobody is arguing that the flanker doesnt turn better, just that the difference in sustained turns is not "huge." Since were making general statements, the F-15 is significantly lighter and has a better T/W, both of which would play a role in overall turn performance. This issue is too complicated for your to make such broad statements based on nothing more that "hey look guys! LERX and blended wings! It clear the flanker has a huge (whatever that is) advantage!"

Lol really? What, you post more vague data regarding the general characteristics of aero design features and were supposed to take that as the holy grail on Su-27 vs Eagle comparison...much less assume a "huge" difference. Thats like posting a chart on how slots work and then telling me that the 109 can supposedly out turn a spitfire.

You did zero math. You made vague comments about the aerodynamic design of a plane and then made conclusions about it. I am hardly saying anyone's estimates are perfect, or even correct, but its quite a bit more scientific than your rudimentary analysis of these two aircraft's design.

Inst turn is better for the Eagle is it not? when I made this statement I was referring to high speed turns, which both graphs show the eagle being better or equal at.

Ill take that over your vague guesswork about wing design.

said gap is in point of fact, not huge. ED SFM: quite comparable:

What I think is more interesting is that a private group of individuals has had more say on the matter than ed, even if it is only one missile

Right. Because we can safely assume that in every video of a plane losing part of all of a wing, some other factor other than the obvious wing loss accounts for the death spiral every time. Also: in the one where the plane goes left after losing the wing, that aircraft was already most of the way over the apex of its roll, after losing its wing, momentum caused it to continue its roll, and you can notice that the rate increases on the side with less wing(and less drag) after it flops over.

Ok, but noone is saying it isn't WIP. I think what people would like is a in depth explanation of what the limiting factors are in making any meaningful progress on this and other issues afflicting BVR. The AFM for the missiles was introduced ages ago. The fundamental issues with it haven't changed much since then---a year ago. If it is a information problem, what specific information is missing? If its a math issue, why does it take a year to make zero major changes? If ED doesnt know exactly how to fix it and there isnt any expectation for the required information to ever surface, then that should be stated. If that is the case, what is ED's intention? To just sit on it forever and not tell anyone? Again, if the issue can be fixed, what is the limiting factor and when might ED get what the need to fix it?

:)This whole game can be considered work in progress. But a decade of not having the Data Link is just crazy. This is only one of many issues that have not been fixed despite being known for eons. Criticism is by definition negative. People are tired of the nonsense, which is why this is one of about a billion threads on this general issue. Cant imagine why that would be. Given this, one would imagine that perhaps people don't actually care very much about rocket 3d models and Tu-22 gunners over basic fundamental game issue like having broken missiles and missing unclassified features and not being able to see anything. :) Perhaps, just perhaps, when you have 90 zillion people complaining about it, and even those who go the length of writing whole reports on reverse engineering missiles in a attempt to get things changed----Then it might be the thing people care about. :) Perhaps it shouldnt take 11 years for planes in the original iteration of this game to get functional modeling of systems whose existence and general capability is well known. Perhaps peoples expectations of ED 's realism would be less if ED wasn't constantly touting its "unrivaled" realism as part of ever bloody model when they release it. :) Smiles to enhance positive nature of post.

100% Agree. Getting ED to do anything about realism on some things just isnt going to happen. Just look at the the Link 16, been missing since lock on. They had time to add a gimped "AFM" for the missiles, do a PFM for the eagle, work on a graphics engine that still isnt release, add several WW2 planes, many other projects, and we still dont have well documented systems for the F-15 that has been in game since day 1. Yet the flanker has its data link...hmmm

I agree with you completely here. But if they change all the missiles I still think this would be DCS F-15 more or less.

So while I agree Blaze that 15nm is still BVR, and that there are many more kills at this range than others, I have to say that it absolutely changes the ballgame when you scale down the ranges. It is simply false to imply that everything is proportional. Note, Im not quoting just your post here, but statements made all over the forums about this being relatively proportional so dont think im going after just you here, Im going after this general idea. When you reduce the effective kill range of the missiles in half, or whatever it is, you change everything because nothing else is proportional to that changes in BVR. we ar still flying at the same speeds etc. So instead of a airplane having to dodge a gauntlet that starts 20-50 miles out where there is a very good chance of dying if you screw up, he now only has to do this for a third of that distance or less. Right now below 20K at co alt and medium speed, 8nm is about where the 120 and others start to get somewhat effective. This means that every tactic designed to avoid BVR fights is more effective. Therefore, planes whose main strenght is WVR (like the flanker....) have a much better chance of negating their inferiority in BVR and closing for the use of their off-boresight missiles. Take for example the notch. As you and I have discussed before, if a smart flanker pilot stays low(especially with mountains) he can try to constantly notch to slowly inch closer until he is under his target and he pops up for a close range kill(or ET shot). Lets Paint a picture of things Features missing from Eagles that result in relative realism imbalance compared to IRL: 1. No Eagle data link 2. No inertial guidance after lock lost. 3. Missing radar features of APG-63 make tactics like notching or ducking behind mountains far more effetive 4. Across the board BVR missile ineffectiveness. Reducing effective range. What this ends up meaning is that a hostile opponent is under essentially no threat until he is about 9-20nm depending of the geometry of the engagement. If he is trying to hide down low, he only has to effectively notch perhaps once or twice to get under the enemy radar assuming the eagle is adjusting flight path to constantly require. (especially since he doesnt have to fear continued detection via AWACS or a wingman on datalink) If they are both low and no notch is occuring, then can still close much closer before any effective shooting begins. Essentially, the window of opportunity for the BVR person is much smaller than in IRL, meaning that the WVR person has a much higher chance of closing. I end up in dogfights because of this all the time. I have seen people dodge multiple missiles as close as 5nm. And this all gets quite irritating when you think about how if they ever fix the visbility in this game to a reasonable level, WVR will get pushed out to about 7nm.

This is the second bloody thread started by that video.

Granted that is the one exception. The Mig cannot do the cobra however. And what he does in that video in game is not a cobra.

Seeing as the Mig-21 is not capable of the Cobra IRL, it should not be possible. The only fighters capable of the cobra are certain 4th Gen and 5th Gen ships. However, Im not convinced that what you did was necessarily a Cobra. Mainly, I think the distinction between what you did and a proper cobra was that you came in from a dive, rather than in level flight, and your aircraft continued to fly in the direction the nose was pointed more or less. In a Cobra, the aircraft travels almost perpendicular to the AoA. You did not, as your plane began to accelerate upwards almost immediately.

You guys are nuts if you think a Mig 21 can turn at low speeds with modern fighters like the Eagle F-16, or Flanker. Not in this game, and not in real life.

Do you mean High alt or high speed? Because High speed turns feel tons better to me in the PFM. The F-15's inst turn is crazy. One of my favorite tactics is always to be over 400knots and when I merge with a Flanker I whip that thing around faster than he can for that first turn, which usually gives me a missile shot. If you meant High alt, it doesnt seem much different from the SFM, although I feel like it stalls a bit less.

I dont know if the F-15 is spot on or not at low speeds, but I dont understand how its current performance could be called poor. Quite frankly, I feel like its more agile that it was. Instantaneous turn rate seems much higher at all speeds, and low speed turn rate is still pretty good, you just dont have a perfect Fly by wire system anymore that prevents your from exceeding your limits. Maybe its more agile, I dont know, but Its certainly not bad right now, the AFM in my opinion is a all round improvement over the old plane. For example, the new F-15 is about 17 knots faster at SL.