borchi_2b

so for all the nonbelivers of the capabilities of the r27et, this is something i found from the press, who got a good inside. this is where i got it from. http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html this is the quote i am reffering too Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile. this is the only official thing i found so far, which proves the fact, that the r27et has nearly the same range like the r27er and that it can be shoot at override at ranges that are about 5-10% smaler then the range of r27er. so please cool-t and pilotasso and all the other nonbelievers who think of the russians not being able to fire IR at long ranges, overthink the facts and look at it ndependantly, like we do it in europe, so you might see the light of knowledge at the end of the tunnel. unfortunatly this is one of the rare official statements about russian doctrines i could find so far in the inet. this should be eyeopening for every f15 pilot in lomac. i really hope that the range of the r27et will be more realistic so that we can fly the soviet tactics finaly with our soviet fighters. greets

hi guys, i have read now several times that the engines of all planes will be changed, or improved, who knows whats in your minds :-) just wanted to know which engines you use as referance for the f15c? we have the variations of the -100; -200; -220; -220E; -220LE; -229(f-15) serviceyear 1991; -220P; and the last one -229A without vectorthrust. this would be interesting for me which datas you used, cause i have the papers infront of me right now. which powerplants will be in the mig29c or the su27b, which you say is the one in lomac, although the stock 3d model does not fit that data. the su27p has AL-31F1 AL-31F3, which one will ist be. it does not matter anyways, cause with both engines the su27 has better ratios then any f15c can have. here the dats from both planes. weith to thrust ratio at certain weights, min, normal and max: su27p - F-15c empty weights (16.380 kg) = 1,48 - empty weights (12.973 kg) = 1,68 normal weights (23.430 kg) = 1,07 - normal weights (20.185 kg) = 1,08 max weights (30.450 kg) = 0,82 - max weights (30.844 kg) = 0,70 in terms of flight performances, i really have to think about the fact, that the su27 needs to have better perfromances in lockon too, when the eagles are getting a more realistic fighter in terms of altitudes etc etc etc. (in advance to GG, please do not tell me that the su27 cannot fly that high like an f15. thats not really true cause look at the wingshape and airframe. it is perfect from airplane designers standpoint to fly high and maintain a good manuverablity. the f15 is perfect too, but both can fly above 45000 feet without having that much trouble like in lomac.) if not, i know that we were cheated on. sorry for that, but i am eagerly awaiting the patch to see for myself what has changed also to the red side, cause the only thing i hear is allways the stuff about the upgrades the f15 boys talk about, but nobody has really said anything aboutthe russians, only words like well there will be something, but no specifications like for the f15 drivers, who can say, yes, the update will give us some more realitics. but whats about the russians? any specific stuff there that can be realeased for puplic, besides the pictures of the mig29 carrying r77 6 times, which is no surprise at all. greets borchi

a rusty airforce does not mean that it is a bad airforce. look the usa has f35 with russian enginetechnologie inside, lol, so please, why cant they ever make thier own stuff, lol. and the stealthy f22 is not that capable how it should be, and s400 can track that b.i.... also, plus old sams from the mid 50ies can do that too, so why should there be any need when old rusty stuff is by far enough for a modern airforce like the usaf, plus the americans allways think of themselfs of being the greatest, which gives the russians the status of an underdog, although they are not by far. that means in a war, the usaf will have many surprises, for sure. fortunatly such things will not happen in the near future, thanks to some smart piloticians in europe

@gg: ok, thats sound good right now. for sure is, that the first things i have to do with fc2.0, check the missiles and the flightperformance again of the planes, so that also that file is up to date :-) will see what fc2.0 brings to us, maybe russian tactics? :-)

@yoda: jup 40% less range thats what i come up with too and thats what i would like to hav an answer too. is it balancing? probably. but when we talk about an update for the missiles performance in Fc 2.0 we also have to take that in consideration. it cannot be the case that the r27et is slimed down in its lockon capabilities of lock and also in seeker strenght, when not even the range itself is right in first place. this is something that aims for me to the direction of the f15c pilots, who allways complained about to week missiles, which had no safety setup like real once do, or a max azimuth of 55° of the charly which means a max scan area left or right of 27.5° when the missile scans. to be honest it is ok when the r27et is not that strong anymore, but a low probability of getting a lock on a target when it is fired upon in override, although the preaim is totaly perfect, and a weak representation of the SARH system, means that the su27 will be just a fighter joke compared to the f15c in lomac, cause the tws and datalink are modelled in certain extend, thats what we figured in our testing too, cause i shot missiles after all, i mean the aim120b/c at ranges the missle would only be able to hit a target when there is a datalink provided. now there is still the problem of the radar eos problem to the russian fighter, that eos shuts down the radar when the bandit jinks out, which is total bull.... that means, fc 2.0 will only bring advantage to the eagle drivers and the 2/3 of the community which fly russian fighters, are actually screwed, do to the fact that thier planes are underdogs, although they are not in real life. @gg: well this is something that is true, but why then the changes to the weapons, also fuses, cause there is no other chance, as far what i have read about the update, to get an eagle killed with a russian fighter, unless you try to get into a close fight at fisual ranges, which means i have to ditch the 1000 amrams that are shot at me, before i get close enough, and even then i am not sure i will even hit the bandit at all, do to the fact that the missiles and radar combination work like crap. if we have fuses, they are set to about 15m in real life. when i ditch a missile, not with a barrelroll, but similar, then most of the missiles will pass my underside at distances like 25 -40m. the fuses will normaly detonate at 15m, will this be the same in fc2.0? if so, ok, if not, then the russian flyier s do not need to take off at all, cause there is no way to get close to an f15 in the end.

to yoda, the data i have posted is directly taken from the simulation. no closure speeds taken in account, this is only the missile itself in its ballistics, like a bullet shot ba a sniperrifle. period. and we have tested it all the same way, we had a certain point over the ground, launched the missle and used ingame and tackviews for multiple methods to analyse the missiles ballistics in the game. you are right when you say that the range over ground should be shorter do to the fact that there is nothing that comes to the effekt of the equation. but the data is taken direktly from the simulation, no need to fuss about, cause i can prove it with tackviews. i can alos set for you a reference point on the ground and you can maesure the tangent distance between the 2 points and you have the alt too, 12000m, then you can calculate by simple 3 grade math the distance the missile traveled, and in addition you can also see the speeds and can measure the time the missile flew. if you need more prove thena tackview, well then ....... my ..... cause nothing hard can shock then the facts the simulation gives. i have not programmed anything cause i do not know how, like you do, what i also would not do, cause i can satisfy myself with what ED gives to us. just give me a few hours then i have the tackviews done, maybe also as a vidoe on youtube, in which you can see both missiles fly at the same screen to have a comparison, and to prove that the diffrence between both missiles is in lockon, way greater then 5%-10% just give me a little time and then i maybe, cause i am sick of the argueeing that i might be the dump ass, and that i am full of shit, provide the document to the whole community, so that everybody can check for themselfs, and see what a bukllshit this is we did in 2 month. yoda, you want to tell me that this work is shit? believe me, the grafics from ED are nothing compared to the things we figured in that time, the graph shoes what? the flightpath of a r27er, lol, funny, cause that not how it flys for example at an altitude of 12000m. just to give you an inside to our squad, we are not just a bunch of little fighterjokes and idiots. we have nmore knowledge and resource options in our virtual squad then we tell. we know what we talk about. to the 5%-10% of difference, well thats what we also calculated in the preperations. now compare the fired r27er in 7500m to the r27et, or at an alt of 12000m i give a damn shit about the alt you want to test i can give you prove that the range diffrence of the r27er and the r27et is greater then 5-10% now just compare the times we figured. the diffrence between 54sec. and 123sec is 5-10%? sorry, the speed is about the same when the burntime of 11sec has ended, so both should, do to your 5-10%, fly nearly the same time, or at least the r27et should fly, when we take 10% diffrence, a time of about 110sec. you see the diffence, 110sec minus 53sec make all together a diffrence of 57sec, which is by far way more then 10%. so just simple math proves that you have never really tested anything in lomac. sorry to say it with these hard words. but you will see for yourself when the prove is online and everybody is able to see it for themselfs. @gg: # ►R27et Infrarot mittlere Reichweite (ALt. 10000m) - Max. Range = ca. 55Km - effective Reichweite mit hoher Trefferwarscheinlichkeit zwischen 20Km u. max. 40Km - IR Suchkopfrange = 15Km - Selber Motor wie bei der 27er - Brenndauer des Motors = 11 Sek. - Zurückgelegte Distanz nach dem Brennvorgang = 12Km OG - Entfernung zum Flugzeug nach Brennvorgang = 8,4Km - Geschwindigkeit der Rakete direkt nach dem Brennvorgang = 4130Km/h - (manöverspeed = 1000Kmh) Distanz OVG = 30Km Distanz Flugzeug-Rakete = ca. 17Km Flugzeit = 45Sek that are the data of the r27et we figured in game at alt 10000. it is about the same when you take the closure in account, so that sums up with your data, but now here is the data of the r27er which is only 5-10% greater in range how you and yoda said it. --- 3.12 ►R27er Semiaktiv (ALT. 10000m) - Max. Range = ca. 65Km - effective Reichweite mit hoher Trefferwarscheinlichkeit zwischen 30Km u. max. 50Km - Brenndauer des Motors = 11 Sek. - Zurückgelegte Distanz nach dem Brennvorgang = 12Km OG - Entfernung zum Flugzeug nach Brennvorgang = 8,4Km - Geschwindigkeit der Rakete direkt nach dem Brennvorgang = 4160Km/h - (manöverspeed = 1000Kmh) Distanz OVG = 51Km Distanz Flugzeug-Rakete = ca. 28Km Flugzeit = 1Min 20Sek see the diffrenc ein time and distance travelled over ground. the et travels 30km over ground at that alt, right thats less then 40km. but the r27er travels nearly twice the time and 51km at same burntime and final speeds. twice the time and 21km more, by a total of 51km and 30km, is way more then 5-10%. do the math and find out how much more it is. and thats unrealitstic, you named it with you approximities of 5%-10%. make the math, i can prove it to you on all altitiudes, that Ed has trimmer the r27er up, or the r27et down. only one of both has been done. now comes the question to me, which was done. i have read things about russian weapons that tell me, that the r27et was trimmed down, no dupt about it.

to yoda, the data i have posted is directly taken from the simulation. no closure speeds taken in account, this is only the missile itself in its ballistics, like a bullet shot ba a sniperrifle. period. and we have tested it all the same way, we had a certain point over the ground, launched the missle and used ingame and tackviews for multiple methods to analyse the missiles ballistics in the game.

@gg: to the range of 1/3 tweaked down, well this is something we figured out after making about a month of testing in addition with a month of preparing. we calculated, one of us, the expected range the missile flies to the point of 0 speed. you can imagine that this range was very very long, we ended up at a calculated range of 90km+. the 27er had a range of 110km. we knew that these numbers were just math, no real thing cause no missile flies to the speed of 0. thats for we have set a minimum manueverspeed of 1000km/h over ground, cause we figured that in lomac this is the last speed that might produce a hit, do to the ability of manuevering. we also figured that in the mathematical calculation that there will be slight diffrence between the r27er and the r27et, do to the shape of the nose, but this was a small percentage that was at 7 diffrent alt. the same. so we checked the balistics of the r27er again, to be sure we have the right data and compared that with the official data vympel released. vympel says the r27er has a range of 75km, period. we did not know at which alt. they tested it, but we figured that an altitude of 12000m the balistics of the missile without lock are the same and the missle travels a range of 75 km over ground till it has reached a speed over ground of 1000km/h. we also mesured the flighttimes of the missiles and all the relevant distances compared to you own plane, etc etc etc, also the angles you have to fire to get a straight flightpath. so we really went into the depth of balistics in lomac. what we figured is thatfollowing data at angles 12000m: 3.11 ►R27er Semiaktiv (ALT. 12000m) - Max. Range = ca. 75Km - effective Reichweite mit hoher Trefferwarscheinlichkeit zwischen 40Km u. max. 60Km - Brenndauer des Motors = 11 Sek. - Zurückgelegte Distanz nach dem Brennvorgang = 12Km OG - Entfernung zum Flugzeug nach Brennvorgang = 9Km - Geschwindigkeit der Rakete direkt nach dem Brennvorgang = 4220Km/h - (manöverspeed = 1000Kmh) Distanz OVG = 75Km Distanz Flugzeug-Rakete = ca. 40Km Flugzeit = 2Min 3Sek --- 4.11 ►R27et Infrarot mittlere Reichweite (ALt. 12000m) - Max. Range = ca. 60Km - effective Reichweite mit hoher Trefferwarscheinlichkeit zwischen 25Km u. max. 50Km - IR Suchkopfrange = 15Km - Selber Motor wie bei der 27er - Brenndauer des Motors = 11 Sek. - Zurückgelegte Distanz nach dem Brennvorgang = 12Km OG - Entfernung zum Flugzeug nach Brennvorgang = 9Km - Geschwindigkeit der Rakete direkt nach dem Brennvorgang = 4180Km/h - (manöverspeed = 1000Kmh) Distanz OVG = 37Km Distanz Flugzeug-Rakete = ca. 23Km Flugzeit = 54Sek sorry that it is in german, it is copied directly from our documents. what i want to point out here is the numbers in blue and in red. all the data is the final result we figured in lomac. the blue numbers are the distances of the missiles traveling over ground after launch till they have reached a speed of 1000km/h OG (over ground) the red number is the flighttime till the speed of 1000km/h OG is reached. both missiles have the same airframes expect the nose which does not affect the missiles ballistics in a very very big number. calculated by math and physics, also airpressure was taken into account! also the burntime of the motors is the same = 11seconds weight is the same etc etc etc so why is there such a diffrence in flighttime, cause the missiles have same airframes and same rocketmotor, also nearly the same speed after they have burned out, marked in orange. 30km/h is absolutly nothing at speeds that reach mach4.0 so please tell my why the flighttime of the r27et is half the time of the equvilant r27er. for me this is an evidence of tweaking a missile that would be capable way more in real life, plus, both missiles have datalink also the r27et in real life. they can be steared like the aim120 with tws in lomac, which means, yes i need a radarlock but the missile will be steared to the target till it gets is own seakerlock on the target. why is that? they are datalink steared cause the mainpurpose of the r27et was , to be launched at very long distances at b52 bombers, which are mainly covered by escorts. so the russians had to find a way to get a shoot at the bombers before they have to engage the escorts. with the r27et they are capable of shooting at such high asset targets before the escorts would engage the flankers, or while they are beginning thier engagements. the r27et was never ment to be used against fighters, although it is a way to use that missile, cause it has a heatsignature too. nobody would really think of getting to a bomber close, i speak of 15km here, cause this is not possible. you cannot give bomberpilot a kiss good bye on to his windshield. the datalink stear tells me that the seaker could lock a reflection or a steam from hot tubes of a manufacturing facility, but do to the datalink, it will not do that so it is not right when you argument like that about other heatsources. sure you need a lock to hit the target or get the missile close to the seakerlockrange, but you will not have a dump missile that locks what ever it wants. so thats why i asked for the r27et if there will be done anything to it. if not and there will not be done anything to the SARH problem of the su27, and the problem that the radar eos combination does not work properly, like it does not right now, then the improvements will eb f15c improvements only. period!!!!! hope you are willing to answer in a friendly tone and very constructiv. p.s.: the abouve stated brought us the fact that, after we tested all missiles, also the aim120, aim7 and aim9, that the r27et and r27t was tweaked down by 1/3 of it original range. to the hit possibilities of maddoging an r27et, sure, the hitpossibilities are slim, but when you preaim right, the possibilities of a hit, go up very high, untill the bandit changes its vectors in a bigger ammount. also the missiles, also the r27et has a certain window of its infrared vision. on a range of 15km, 2° or 3° make distances of 1000 or 2000m, so there is no magic to it of hitting a bandit in an override, it is basic flying when you know the facts. in additon, or flightpaper is not complete, but allready has 57 pages, of pure data taken from lockon

so when i read all that, i think the effectivness of chaffs to the SARH will stay the same old crappy way? like the video of 16 su27 shooting at a single f15 and not getting a single hit? is that a fact that stays or not. i mean, people say and roumour about the r27et, that the seaker will be tweaked down and that no override launch without lock will be possible,although the range of the r27et is allready tweaked down by 1/3, cause this was the only way for the su27 to get some effectivness in combat, do to the poor modelled r27er, unfortunatly. if this is true and the r27er in its poor effectivness of fc1.12 will stay, then we really have an f15 update only and i am very sure, the community will not be amused, to say it with the words of the queen. plus the fact that the radar of the su27 shuts down when the bandit has jinked out to some certain level and the eos switches on and there is no more radar lock, although i see the underside of the bandit which gives my radar the biggest cross section i can have. same for the mig, and we have an old DDR technigian in our squad who worked on the mig29g who said that this is by far not real in lomac, cause the radars were still on, but eos only switched to aktive as a suport and laser range finding, not more and not like it is represented in fc. i really would like to read an answer to that

THANKS ED and matt for the announcments. will 3d artist like me get new tools or can we still use the old once then for our 3dmax ? this is something that i am really interested to know, cause all the other important things were allready covered greets borchi (aka boom boom) p.s.: lets see what we can do about the simmod a10 if there will be any possibility to get it back for FC 2.0

thanks for the pictures tom. i have about 2500 pictures now, but i take all i can get. so thanks alot. klar wird es tom, im moment frage ich gerade auf einer seite an wegen einem bauplan, damit ich weiss wo die markierungen sind. vielleicht frage ich auch nochmal bei boeing an ob die mir vielleicht einen plan schicken könnten, mal sehen ob da was zurück kommt. ich glaube es nicht aber versuch macht klug

for all, what i really need are pictures of all signings of the eagle. i need some plan or something like that for all the markings like "no step" or anything else markings. this is something that is needed right now urgently

well you will get new fueltanks, but no new missiles, cause the missles in lomac are well enough i think. it could happen that there might be new missiles at some time, but that only as an update. it is not intended for now though

what do you need them for? it is kind of odd to ask for such things without any reasoning

this is what i am working on and the first basic skin

yes still alone, unfortunatly :-(, but it is ok in some ways, cause you are not limited and can try things, but also equal to that, you have no support on things or questions

thanks for the offer. well it is no JHMCS, although i would have loved to make it. but i was not sure about it, and we had a pol in simmod long ago and it was decided not to go for JHMCS how ou maybe noticed, i wore once such helmet. left, is my avatar picture, and yes, thats me :-) when i visited my cousin in lakenheath and it is awesome :-) les then a kilogram of weight, although in high g turns it becomes very heavy. and alot of information in the helmet display, what the pilots dreamed of before :-)

right now they are only usable for ki when they end up on final parkin i am not sure if i can manage to make it work on the playerside. i have to check that with the arguments. i thought of the hydraulics posit in the argumentation, but i think when the bird has a hard hit and no more hyd. then this would interfear

well it has been done allready:-) it was no big deal so far. but thanks for the offer

ok, little update. i managed to get the eagle compatible with the SIMMOD a10 and the 3GO Su27. for pictures, well i am in the skinning phase still now. sorry, this no up to date picture. this picture is maybe 2 or 3 weeks old. you will get some screenshot of the skin as far it is done in first place

danke dragon, werde es ausprobieren.

ohh boy, then i could ask, why are there no strike eagles, etc etc etc, or even eurofighter, or raptors, right. so this is not the point. if you think the aim120 behves right in lomac, well, nope. 45 -50, well i talk of a lock in lomac, that happens at a 65° left of center, or right of center, for example, this is more then unrealistic, but well, you will again argue, like i am dump, i have no clue, and so on ....... what do you think, nobody has ever seen that in lomac. and by the way, i do not know where you come from, but check your sources

GGtharos, you smart a... Lockon takes place in 1994, thats about that correct time. so there was only a crapy, compared to the aim120c of today, aim120a available. so check out what updates have been available at 1994 for tha aim120a. 55+ gimble, LOL, at that time, nope

i think to chnge a 3d model like a plae is something that should be possible to be made. i think too that there is so much more that needs to be fixed, just for the aim120, that tracks something like 90° azimuth. LOL this missle is capable of about 25+° thats about all, but how often did an aim120a push me out of the fight altogh it was never capable to track me, in comparison to the real missile. like kuky said, there is way more that needs to be done, but for that it should be talked about where to start and what is possible in regards of LUA. i do not want to be rude, nothing is way further away from my position than that, but what i have seen is that things were done, but nobody ever, at least it seems like it, thought of the importance of change, and the balancing of change.

LOL this has nothing to do with being rebelious or anything else. and just by saying that something is not realistic equals being unfriendly, that is nonesence, but i am through with that topic and i only hope that the patch will incoporate not only things that are made by yoda and arre more realistic then the things that were done in the past. like pilotasso said, lets see in the end what is realistic and what not. LOL, yoda did what, aha, i have never seen such things in the mod, that there has ever been a programmed ECM. but how i allready said once. i am sick talking to you. end of the story