Teknetinium

I'll really don't believe your claims GG, that AIM-120B should have better range then ER-27 nor faster. AIM-120B should be closer to R-27. and AIM-120C closer to ER-27 in terms of range.

I'll live it here, The source I talk to claims the opposite. Me and Frostie tested the file done by volunteers and ER-27 was faster by 2 sec from 25km. It is reasonable for ER-27 to be slightly faster in the game so the one who use ER-27 have a chance to hit the target before Aim-120 hit him. We can at least give it a mutual kill if we cannot prove our claims to 100%.

What does support that Aim-120C burns for 13sec:) The arguments are there and are proven by data that is available to us that ER- 27 should retch non maneuvering target faster then aim-120c. Lofting would extend the range but not the time:) I guise you know where to find those claims on ED forums. As I understand Chiz agree that ER-27 is a faster missile then Aim-120c. I believe Working on ER-27 is done by ED at the moment. If the missiles will get accordingly to what Chiz proposed, Er should become faster in future updates then AIM-120C.

wrong post.

I hope some of this will change, ER-27 should be faster the Aim-120C!!!

Love It, I'll Have to do 51st promo soon enough.

4th gen Fighters fly whit FBW, if not the aircraft would be very sensitive and unstable, or might not be able to fly without it. You could use this to your advantage where the aerodynamics of the aircraft without FBW would make you do something crazy. If you could make this with some sort of control or prediction where your aircraft will be after such extreme maneuver, it becomes useful. I believe that other aircrafts except MIG-29 dont do it because they get different outcome each time they execute such moves. Watch from 1:51 and you will notice that one of them lose control while executing Cobra. J-35 went in to service 1959 ;)

Like both of us saying, it is a demonstration of extreme AOA as the bell maneuver. Su-27 aerodynamics does allow the aircraft to higher AOA than others, Cobra is a demonstration of that, You don't need to take it to Cobra extremes, as shown in Su-33 video. Whit fly by wire you can throw the aircraft out of the control, because of the aircraft's unstable aerodynamics makes it possible. To get back control, you need the right aerodynamic if you don't have TVC. Im sure F-15 can do Cobra but it would take longer time to regain control, that why swedish pilots did Cobra in DRAKEN at higher ALT. I believe I have seen F-15 pull a hard turn whit no AOA limiter, Cant find it.

Dont agree , You can throw the aircraft into AOA with help of TVC, look at X-31, from 41 sec where the pilot force the aircraft into AOA with help of TVC. It can be used for making better turns in supersonic but it can as well be used in dogfight, as Su-27s Cobra ( cobra is a demonstration, you don't need to pull as much as shown in Su-33 video. I have read what you say, maybe we are trying to say same thing. Or I dont understand you.

Then I would claim that F-22s vector engines are ineffective in combat :) lunaticfringe, is it not useful that Su-27 can turn 360° faster than F-15 and F-16 as well :? The beauty about Su-27s airdynamics is that it can handle any situation you throw the aircraft in at low speeds, Where othere 4th generation aircrafts have problems to recover or need more altitude to do that, even if they have better processors for their fly by wire. :) Here is one example where aircraft can get saved by AOA at ur disposal.

How hard is it to accept that it is better to have the Cobra maneuver at ur disposal then not. Su-27 pilots do know what saving energy means. Su-27 doesnt need the cobra maneuver in RL, it can fly slower and have higher AOA than any other fighter of 4th generation. Su-27 makes a Barrel roll when F-15 or F-16 on the six and they both fly by like in top gun. I remember someone was telling the engines with vector was no needed because the missiles will do all the job, still you see vector engines on F-22, execute maneuvers that Su-27 did in 80s :) There are many technical issues as well, as the load on the wings, engines flameout and so on. I have not seen F-18 do the bell maneuver. Do someone have a video of that?

I wish I could share you opinion GG. EDs actions for this two years that have passed should tell us a lot of how they approach the product they are working on.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116134 This looks interesting. Lets hope xcom makes it work.

Interesting, keep up the good work.

Then I can start Play WAR THUNDER, Pilotasso are you joining in:)

Network code, EOS, TWS, Missile, and the rest of the bugs have been around since FC3 release. I believed it would get better in FC3, Now we are all waiting for EDGE. I just hope that ED can dig them self out of this deep hole of WIP, because we can not enjoy the simulator. It is not right to tell enthusiasts that it will get better in the next product we get. And trust me If EDGE will have same problems or as many as FC3, I will start to play WAR THUNDER:). FC3 have given those who run servers more troubles than actual enjoyment. Im sorry to be that negative, But this is not about EOS,TWS, Missiles that are in WIP, Its about that the game is broken. I feel sad to say this because I really enjoy this simulator and have been doing it for years. And if enthusiast as me are about to lose their patience about WIP everywhere what about all steam users that we have lost because of all this disconnect nonsense.

If Air to Air missile change accordingly to Chiz suggestions, where ER-27 reach the target from 25km 2,5 seconds faster then AIM-120C I have nothing to complain about. Me and Frostie tested AIM-120C against ER-27 in this new conditions, where Aim-120C had around 30% better hit ratio against heavy chaff and a beaming bandit at 45°. That is acceptable if you ask me. Anything more than 30% at beaming 45° will make the multiplayer environment not represent realistic reactions by pilots.

Will it not be implemented in DCS F-18C? I would not mind helmet mode on F-18C.

YES, between AIM-120A/B. Aim-120C should fight R-77. Basicly it is not realistic to me because Aim-120C would face updated versions of aircrafts as Su-30 and so on. I know that Russians had only couple of squads of this new modified aircrafts in 1992 but that is what you would get if you fight squad against squad.

GG, MIG-21s missiles are are 40 years older then F-18s not 10, So the difference would not be minimal :)

The question is by how much Aim-120C is more resistant to chaff compared to ER-27? Since that is not known it would be reasonable to make minimum differences in that part of the simulator. As you are saying there is plenty of other systems that could make the difference. Meanwhile we are waiting for DCS F-18 and Su-27S, When it concerns tracking ED need to draw average line between this systems we don't have.

You have no documentation to put up on the table, so claiming that it is better against chaff and maneuvering targets is something you and I can guise. The platform that use Aim-120 against ER-27 get already the edge since AIM-120 is active. Putting in our own bias speculations by how much etch missile should track better compared to another is pointless. Therefore I believe the best approach is to make the chaff/flare resistance to minimum differences. There are other parameters that makes the missiles behave different compared to each other, it doesn't have to be in tracking. Its like us starting to argue witch seeker is more sensitive to flares, AIM-9 or R-73. Until we can see documents or videos as prove, I will have my bias approach and you yours. Therefore it is better to model as little difference in how missiles react to chaff or flares. Because the only thing we can say is that it is a newer missile, which doesn't prove anything. You can still believe that only Aim-120 had software upgrades not ER-27 along all this years, especially when ER-27 has been transferred to newer generation of fighters. Russians are still learning how to advertise their products, they are by far not as efficient as US companies.

There is only Russians and Americans that can send people to space by their own technology. At the moment, Americans are using Russian rocket boosters to get to space, Not because they can not make them by them self but because it is cheaper at the moment. Russians are first to offer space tourism, as they were the first in space, I see nothing wrong with that. Same for those who have been dreaming of flying a fast jet. Its not like Russians are selling chemical weapons or nuclear weapons to anyone who desire it. In the end Russians had to do what they could from 1992 to save what was left.