AussieGhost789

Speaking from my own experience with the R-27ER, in look down situations it is abysmal. I often see it going for the first chaff deployed when I review in tacview. In look up situations, I find it to be far more reliable. Stat tracking was just enabled on the MDS US server and on it I have a 32% hit rate with the R-27ER. Not sure if that kind of hit rate is what should be expected in the real world, or if it should be more/less? Personally I am disappointed with the missiles performance in look down situations, but whether its performance is realistic in that situation is not known to me. Of course, these are just server stats in a more or less uncontrolled environment, but I thought I'd just throw them out there.

From the way I read Fer Fer's post it is not about uncertainty of the aircrafts capability, rather uncertainty surrounding the specifics of the production arrangement.

Well, that's why it's called a Heads Down Display :P

As I understand it, RAZBAM were given a set of criteria (by ED) to meet in order to reach beta status. A set of criteria that they indeed met. Unfortunately, working IFF wasn't one of those criteria.

One of the things in their pending update fix list is "added transonic drag effects." Another one is "corrected fuselage drag for more correct performance." Yesterday, a squadron mate furthered that and said that the drag wasn't scaled with speed. I didn't ask where he'd read that specifically but I assumed it was related to the items in their fix list, and that maybe one of the devs had said it somewhere in the thread or someone had done some tests and figured it out. Either way, there are problems with drag that the devs are aware of.

Apparently the Mirage's drag doesn't scale with speed, which would explain its extreme performance in this kind of situation. Edit: Not sure if GG misinterpreted this, so I'll clear it up. This is in game. Obviously it's supposed to scale with speed, and the devs have said they are making changes with regards to drag.

Carrying a self defence armament doesn't really make it a fighter though. So in that sense, it isn't a multi-role aircraft. The A-10C also carries sidewinders but is not considered a multi role aircraft, it is a dedicated ground attacker. A true multi-role aircraft is something like the F/A-18 or Dassault Rafale.

Rapid beeps for STT and woop woop woop as your launch warning. The symbol of the launcher *might* flash on the RWR, but I can't remember off the top of my head. The launcher will generally be the primary threat though, so it will usually have a diamond around it.

Just press your normal lock button (Enter by default, I think) to bug the contacts in TWS. Pressing the lock button again on a target you have already bugged will lock them in STT, so be aware of that.

As far as I'm aware jammer priority is a function of the aircraft itself. The poll is about whether people want said function, not whether the jammer, from a development perspective, should have priority over other elements.

Oh... wow! It seems to accelerate faster, but once that motor burns out it really puts the brakes on.

On the first point, I'm sure they'd like R-77's on the Su-27S as well, but just because they'd like it for gameplay sake doesn't necessarily mean they think it should be implemented. When things like that start happening, it ceases being the plane that is supposed to be being simulated and becomes some sort of hybrid variant. Sure, it would be nice, but it takes away from the realism of the sim. As for the answer to your question to Dassault, I'd say they're response would be something along the lines of, "because it's an interceptor, not an air superiority fighter." You need to keep that in mind when flying the M2kC. It shouldn't be treated like an F-15. It's not designed with the same kind of role in mind. Granted the F-15 could carry out the same role, but the Mirage doesn't fit the role of the F-15 so well. And it shouldn't be expected to.

Yes, but that's the Mirage 2000-5 with MICA capability. The capability and role of the Mirage 2000 evolved with the 2000-5. It doubles the amount of A-A missiles able to be carried, and it carries ones that are far more capable of engaging fighter aircraft. Our version is a little more restricted in terms of capability.

I don't believe that the Mirage 2000C is a later version, like you say. The variants aren't named A, B, C, D, etc. like American aircraft. Granted we don't have the very first Mirage 2000C version, we have the S-5 with RDI. But it's still a fairly early Mirage 2000. The Mirage 2000-5 is the one with an A-A loadout more comparable with the F-15C and Su-27S I think that the difference in capability between the Mirage 2000 and Su-27S/F-15C is quite a bit larger than it is between the Su-27S and F-15C.

Pretty sure most short range IR only use a single stage boost motor. Also, if the drag is too severe then the missile will be affected whether the motor is burning or not.

The thing is, if you go high to increase range then your opponents are also going to get increased range on their missiles when firing at you. It's a two way street. Sure, the high guy gets a bit of an advantage in that situation, but when your opponent (at least in MP) is likely to be an Eagle or Flanker, they're still most likely going to out range you.

The problem is we are reading text on a forum. We can't properly understand the tone in which someone replies because we can't hear their voice. I find that the way we read a response often reflects our current mood. It seems blackasdf interpreted Zeus' response as being somewhat hostile. Personally, I feel that the way the OP was written invited a less than friendly response. Saying that, I didn't really pick up any hostility in Zeus' answer. In fact, I'm quite pleased to see the devs actually responding to threads like these. Normally I'd avoided conversations like this, but I hate to see devs getting bashed for actually taking the time to respond.

It's not like it's impossible, is it? AFAIK, there are certain conditions where the F-15 has a greater STR than the F-16, even though the F-16 outperforms the F-15 in STR in most other conditions. So it is possible that the same could apply here, right? It's obviously not as simple as x > y in all conditions. I'm not going to sit here and say either FM's are perfect, and I never could say that, but I guess my point is it's possible that the conditions favor the F-15. Maybe it's realistic behavior, maybe it's not.

Except we know when Christmas day is :music_whistling: :P

That happened to my local weather radar a few months back. Was very interesting to watch over the hours that it hung in the air. Wish I did a time lapse now.

R-27ER's range is very impressive when fired from high altitude against a non-maneuvering target. But once you introduce maneuvering, and fire from lower altitudes, the range is not quite as impressive. I guess this ties back to what was said in a q&a a little while back. If I recall correctly, Matt said that they were more or less happy with missile performance above 40,000 feet, but less so below that, and that it isn't an easy fix because they don't want to end up with exaggerated missile performance above 40k feet. Sorry, I know this isn't quite on the topic of chaff, but we started talking about ranges and whatnot.

Hype intensifies :bounce::clap::bounce:

I would prefer a button as opposed to a time delay. I don't think it's a good idea to have the result of your input change without making any changes to your actual input. By that I mean, I don't want to be at the maximum normal performance and then get forced into "emergency performance." Sure, I could relax the stick for a moment, but that problem could simply be avoided through the implementation of a button, like you suggested as a possibility. My main issue with a time delay is it wouldn't be possible to pull the stick all the way back to it's maximum normal position for any length of time before you get forced into pulling harder. I don't want to bleed off any more airspeed than I intend to in a dogfight.

:bounce:

Well you've only got your ECM on of you're aware of the threat and taking measures against that threat, so there shouldn't be any surprise slammers. You should be anticipating an incoming missile at any given time, remembering that if you are jamming you will hear a lock tone if the target is locking you and has not burned through, and should therefore expect possible HOJ shots. Also, you shouldn't use ECM inside of burn through. So, if the shot is taken outside of burn through in HOJ, then the ECM will help you by reducing the missiles pK due to a lack of intercept trajectory. If the shot is taken inside of burn through, then you shouldn't have ECM on anyway. Edit: one thing I wonder is what the burn through range is for the AMRAAM's seeker. It is clearly affected by ECM, as that would explain the later lock warning (because seeker is in HOJ mode and does not get a proper lock until it's closer). It's possible that this is actually advantageous, in terms of reducing the missiles pK. An extra second or two before the missile flies an intercept trajectory could be the difference between it making the intercept and it missing. Or it might not be... This bit is just me brainstorming.