Maverick Su-35S

Yes, my mistake! After looking at charts like these for decades once in a while you get confused. Most that I saw were usually showing the best instantaneous rates while the IAS can't be held (decreases), but yes, the title wasn't wrong as I initially supposed and it resembles the constant G-load that settles at a constant IAS and AoA for a given MSL. To not flood this thread with the same pictures again, you can find it a bit above as the initial link is gone so I've uploaded it as a picture. Cheers! o7

":megalol::megalol:" here you have it "genius", this one's complete, not just with the sustained (indeed sustained, not instantaneous) max G-load/turn rate, but also the constants graph:

Exactly "garrya"..., but just like him, there are tens of others who understood the laws of physics and especially the aerodynamics so wrong and ironically it also makes sense to them (although very wrong). If you can't fight them with numbers (correct charts and accurate data), you cannot fight them with the knowledge that they don't have right!

When (if ever...) the Mirage 2000C's maximum lift coefficient would drop from 1.9 (where it shouldn't be) to 1.25-1.3 (where it should be) when IAS gets below 300kias AND it's maximum engine thrust performance would respect the rules of physics for jet engines that all other fighter jets in DCS seem to respect, then yes, things would be different and the F-18 would own the Mirage 2000C with ease at constant high AoA, but until then..., this remains SOME funboy's game that doesn't take correct and real data accordingly!

I guess that even the latest "mist" gives the same issues. With version 4.3.7 (latest found on this forum) I get a similar issue of not completely simulating the aircraft that respawns using mist. For instance, each team's awacs respawns using a trigger plane with a trigger zone if it dies. The communications with the blue E-3 awacs work flawlessly when this awacs is at it's first life (haven't died yet). If it dies and then you respawn it (with the trigger aircraft) you may no longer communicate with it from certain aircraft. For example, you can still comm with it using the F-15, but using the A-10C, it no longer responds. It's not a mistake that I do or anything for this to happen. First time it works when the awacs first appears in the mission, but after it dies and you respawn it, you can no longer communicate with it using some aircraft (like the A-10C). I didn't have the opportunity anymore to check whether the earlier issue (regarding the fact that some respawned AI fighters are no longer physically existing for clients, but kill clients) still exists in this version too, but I consider that nothing changed even in this last version. Here's the mission again (similar to the earlier one, but modified) with the awacs communication problems: Awacs comm lost after it respawn.part1.rar Awacs comm lost after it respawn.part2.rar Regards!

Grimes, the last version seems to be 4.3 from your thread. Is there another link for 4.4? Thanks!

But, related to the same subject, when I also entered different servers (as client) and went near enemy sam defended areas I would also experience the same stuff myself now. I would get no warning and no missile trail but only saw my cockpit view bump (from the missile hit) and the subsequent loss of both engines and shrapnel clues on the plane (Su-25T), yet again, the same thing happened as my clients experienced. I have done a DCS files repair just to make sure something wasn't wrong in my DCS installation, but no, everything returned normal. So, no missile trail, just suddenly getting hit by something yet there was nothing around other than less harmful enemy ground units that had no surface to air capability (trucks, soldiers, etc.). I went to the enemy side now (switched coalition) just to see what a heck had hit me. Surprise..., whatever hit me was not visible on the map nor physically either in the area that I found those units, yet I could tell for sure it was a missile, as nothing could've hit my Su-25T and every time I retried going in the same area the same thing would happen over and over again. Very weird otherwise if this may not be related to scripts which respawn units that are not physically being shown to the clients, yet the server simulates their effect. I don't know what to say! I'll try to join the same server again and give you the track, cause this is very weird and annoying to everyone playing. Regards!

I also thought about that lately but didn't get the time to update mist. I'll try and see what the clients will tell.

Hi, If you want to limit the number of weapons allowed by an airbase (from FULL INFO) and uncheck the "unlimited" box from the "EQP" section, the Vikhr missiles are no longer available to be loaded during the mission. It's somewhat logical that the game can't recognize this weapon during the mission and not show it to you in the corresponding pylon's list as long as it doesn't even exist in the EQP ammunition list from where the available weapons numbers can be limited. For example, you can't load Vikhrs anymore on a Su-25T (although all the other ordnance are available) if you have just unchecked the "unlimited" box from the airport's EQP section from FULL INFO. Correct me if I'm wrong! Regards!

Hello Grimes, Here you have it: Invisible AI shooting clients.part1.rar Invisible AI shooting clients.part2.rar Regards!

Why can't they just make the "late activation" function be a respawn function of an X unit when Y trigger takes place, when X unit is made alive using the "Group activate" action (or any different action which fits to make that unit respawn forever when Y trigger takes place)?

Well, that isn't something that affects the gameplay, but what if you as server or another client have bombed an enemy runway or taxiway and you can clearly see the damage and be affected by the holes in the ground while the clients (the clients who connected later at least) aren't able to see any damage nor get affected by it while rolling over it to taxi or whatever, gives you nothing but a bad taste! For myself, I have built a list of very important unsolved bugs and issues that greatly alter the player's experience and performance which haven't been fixed to this day since DCS A-10C came in. Forced ignorance seems to be a great rule for gaining success. Regards!

You know..., I wonder. Why the heck is ED so focused on money only (new products every now and then) than their reputation. Perhaps they don't care...! Why couldn't ED implement these simple things that we need to have in the Mission Editor, such as planes respawning and other non-complicated scripts rather than leaving us on our own and be forced to utilize these separate apps and stuff that create such a headache and more bad than good. Someone asked me: "Why have you become so disappointed of DCS over time?" My answer was: "Because every day there's something new to add to the ever growing list".

Hello, Yes, the ghost is here. It's an AI! After creating a server mission in which I used the "mist" script in order to make certain AI units (mostly aircraft) respawn according to triggers, it was proven to me by the clients who encountered those units that they do not physically appear in the game nor on their radar. For example, I have created an AI fighter aircraft which respawns (dead or alive) using the "mist" script whenever a player selects a certain plane that appears in X zone on the map (that's the trigger for the script) and head to head with the spawning AI. Surprisingly, some clients are sometimes able to see AI both on radar and physically, as well as their fired missiles smoke, yet sometimes they don't have anything on radar nor any physical appearance of the existing AI nor the AI's weapon that comes towards them. They see nothing all around which would appear as missile, bullet or AI aircraft and only witness how their own plane blows up apparently for no reason (when the AI's weapon hits them). I don't believe that a track would be useful, because from the spectators I was able to always see both the respawned AI and the player against it, but the client player was only randomly (but somewhat rarely) able to see the enemy AI after they re-selected the according role plane which makes the AI respawn.

So, who else has the feeling that everything which goes around in DCS is pro-western? Don't know why but I have the feeling that the F-15 is made to have an exaggerated/unrealistic lift and control at very high angles of attack on purpose (where it should normally have almost no lateral-directional control as well as a reduced lift). All that the red side has at best is the J-11!

You can't beat an AIM-120C with R-27ER at this moment in DCS. Head on or through whatever magic tactics you can think of. The ER doesn't have much greater kinetic energy than the AIM-120C, just some 5-8% more, so that's not helping you much at all as long as the AIM-120C is chaff resistant while the ER loves chaff. It's virtually no match. One good F-15 player can fight against 2 same good Su-27/33 players armed with R-27ER and both will always end up either smashed by an AIM-120 or running away. After the Su-27/33s get into the no escape through maneuver range of the AIM-120C, the Eagle pilot makes fun of their ERs with chaff and turns while keeping them locked with TWS and puts them both on the run for their lives with the remaining AIM-120s (usually at least 4 left).

Hmm..., that's the reason why many aircraft in DCS have flight model problems, because they're done by real life pilots and experts, right? You're being sarcastic I believe? Sorry, this is a whole different story and it's not related to this thread and my answer is off topic, but... I just couldn't stand to see that without giving the right reply! No hard feelings, but this is how it is! As for coming back to our subject, because I don't know much about it and don't have the patience to look into it, I personally accept what the first people said: that the Su-33 isn't a dedicated anti-ship platform. Regards!

Ok. Thanks for confirmation! I couldn't know if wiki is wrong there too about Su-33.

Ok. Maybe you don't, but me and others still do...! As high as to get a pk of 0.3 as you've said? Of course, but before the burn through range, what happens? You want to say: to help you notch, not prevent. In other words, to help you achieve a notch on the enemy's radar easier by using the jammer. What did I understand wrong? Ok, I wouldn't complain about the AIM-120's pk even it would be perfectly 1 in all possible conditions in real life! I don't care as long as this would be real. Real life is real life and no one can argue with it. My wonder is just this: are all other radar missiles so easily deceived by jammer and chaff while only the AIM-120B/C seem to be so resistant? Ok now, besides the fact that you say you don't want to come with a track to prove how easily the AIM-120 goes for chaff against an F-5, I've made my track about what I was saying. As you will follow the track, only once or twice did the 120 go for a chaff on the descending and turning Su-27. The PK of aim-120 is much higher even than 0.5 anyway. I've also tested the same scenario against F-5s too. Who knows, maybe the F-5 has some magic in evading 120s, but the same results came out. AIM-120's pk from high altitude.trk

Hello, I don't know if our simulated Su-33 is a different version than the Su-33 described on wikipedia, but logically, a navy aircraft should be able to have anti-ship missiles (if not anti-radar as well) even from the start. I know that if our DCS Su-33 would have these missiles implemented, it would mean that the Su-25T pilots are being eclipsed or are somehow seen as useless, but if in reality the Su-33 does actually use those missiles, why not in DCS as well? As long as the Su-25T is flown for free in DCS, there is nothing unfair to have such possibilities on a payware product like the Su-33. The "game" is already "upset" by having the Harrier with anti-radar missiles and the JA 37 with anti-ship missiles versus a poor Su-25T with no anti-ship dedicated missiles at all, although it carries 2 good anti-radar missiles (the KH-58). What is the reason for not having the Su-33 carry the nowadays Su-33 missiles? Thanks you!

Lol man..., what a heck! And I also tried again shooting 4 missiles at 4 Su-27's or Su-33s and all hit. Ok, let's make tracks together and see what is going on. I believe you, but it's strange. Copy. Well, yes, I made the mistake by generalizing, yet again, I'll make a track for that scenario where it is 1 though. What 0? More like 1 you mean. The jamming against the AIM-120 didn't seem to do anything, while against any other radar missile the jammer does make the missile turn wild now and then! Got it now! Thanks for the efforts to explain.

About the near immunity to chaff for the AIM-120C/B simulated in DCS, I agree with you. Although GGTharos said that it's PK is around 0.3, I agree with you that it's much higher than that in DCS right now. Just after the F-18 came out, I took some tests to see the susceptibility of both the IR and radar missiles to flares and chaff respectively. I used the F-15 with AIM-120s against 4 AI Su-27's coming head on. My plane and the 4 Su-27s were at 8000m at a closure speed of around 1000kias. At around 20nm I fired one aim-120 at each target using TWS. The Su-27s also launched R-27ER at me. Each AIM-120 hit it's target although the targets were doing descending turns while popping chaff and using ECM. 4 aim-120 missiles fired, 4 targets hit. I only used the ECM while performing a split-S and thus all the R-27ERs went wild due to my jammer and I didn't need to pop a single chaff=)). I've done this test over and over several times. Same results. That proves a PK of 1 for the amraam in this condition, not below. I tried the same scenario but now I was in a Su-27 against 2 F-15 AIs. Same altitude for me and the 2 F-15s, 8000m, same closure speed. I fired all my R-27ER at one F-15 (The Su-27/33 radars can't engage more than one target and the missiles are just SARH) from 20 nm away while each F-15 fired one amraam. All my R-27ER went to lala land in no time due to following a descending and jamming target that pops chaff. All I could do next was to run away. If I used R-77 against the F-15s in the same conditions, then only about half of them would hit their jamming, descending and chaffing target. Is the R-77 that bad at ECCM in reality compared to an AIM-120? I know, the discussion is about the 120, but I wonder. Only when I was in the F-15 again at 8000m while the 4 Su-27 AIs were at about 1000m and fired one amraam at each from the same 20nm range I could see that some of the amraams would snake towards chaff. Only in this condition of following a target well below the horizon (becoming affected by ground clutter) and after dropping a lot of chaff would the aim-120 go for it. Even in this condition which seems to be the only one to make an aim-120 go for chaff, from 10 shots, about 4 would hit. So it would be around 0.4 but only due to ground clutter. I haven't tested the same over water though, idk if the same results would occur so maybe I should come up with a track next time.

Hello, You've proven to be able to correctly simulate the aircraft's in flight behavior as well as it's systems with a high level of accuracy. No other words. Heads down towards Heatblur Simulations! I've just pre-ordered the F-14 (one my childhood's most liked 70's fighter) and I immediately thought about it's natural competitor, the MIG-31BM with R-33 missiles. Is there any possibility within the near future that the MIG-31BM might arrive? I don't want it from anyone else but you...! Congratulations to Heatblur!

Yes, but maybe I forgot to tell: with unlimited fuel checked (hopefully bug free now) and in ISA conditions at sea level only no more than 500m high to not string too far from the expected results. The only bad thing is the drag which will increase the calculated engine thrust error as speed builds up (reason why the first method of tail standing is a faster approach), thus if I want to use the 2nd law of Newton I should only do trial tests with short time intervals and near a zero lift alpha (to reduce the drag as much as possible). If the engine's thrust would also increase with the same percentage as the drag increases, then it would be compared as not having drag while the thrust is constant, but I personally believe that the thrust increases slower than the drag builds up, at least for these military fighters inlets with rectangular shapes, because the pressure recovery isn't good enough at lower speeds.

I totally agree with you, honestly, at whatever you said, it's just perfect, and yes, I act rude sometimes, but according to the fact that all the jetfighters in DCS receive almost a flat 15% maximum thrust reduction (85% of the thrust rating told by manufacturers), what Tharos said is reflected in DCS, except for the Mirage which hasn't received any engine thrust tables fixes from RAZBAM yet which proves to have 0% thrust reduction on that plane (at 9400kg, the Mirage-2000 stands on it's tail in DCS) and the Su-27's engines in this discussion which seems to suffer the highest thrust decay ever. Indeed, as you say and also Tharos did as I remember, the resultant maximum engine thrust output primarily varies due to the aerodynamics of the plane's inlets designs and also secondarily due to the shape of the aircraft (but in smaller proportions), but maybe Tharos was correctly giving that amount for these DCS fighters. Regards!