Hiromachi

What devils got to do with anything ? It doesn't either change the nature of the exploit whether it's used by some or all pilots.

Well, you've said always. So what difference does date make ? But to be fair and transparent, this was taken on June 14, 2020. Of course now, according to Alpen rules, this should not happen anymore :thumbup: If pointing facts is considered complaining, than I will happily continue doing so. And you can keep patronizing other users, especially with those references to your son. Are you by any chance suggesting that exploits are fine ?

"Always"

We have some fixes scheduled for this. I dont have any ETA yet, but we're looking into it guys ;)

I'm contesting the statement that something is EVEN, when the other side has double numerical superiority. It's not "complain", its a fact. Numbers are facts. As for their teamwork, I wouldnt know. I just know they had Oracle and Kestrel performing JTAC duty, while Aplen was switching between that and ground assets. And where did I say that RB-24J should be removed ? It should be corrected by Heatblur if its performance envelope, as tests by Lazzyseal show, is unrealistic (i.e. close to AIM-9X). I'm sure Lazzyseal knows how to report that and issue will be properly investigated. And I'm not your "dude", pal. Dont twist my words.

The ones who benefit the most will always defend status quo. And dont try to appeal to Alpen when you simultaneously make effort to exploit his mission design. Secondly, Lazzyseal is not making complains but valid points about performance of certain systems. Precisely because this is a flight sim! Precisely because recorded performance should be accurately reflected. Also, nobody is making complains that 21 underperforms or is too hard. 21 has its quirks, its not easy to fly but rewarding. It requires proper treatment. Nobody also complains about the F-5, so Im not sure what you are trying to point out there. Plus, you lie that 21 can bring six missiles. With current rear aspect setup it can bring four at most, which is not feasible for drag and weight penalty. Me and number of guys make compromise and fly with two missiles only. But even assuming everyone would fly with four, two AIM-9P are more effective than four R-13s. 21s missiles are always restricted in boresight shots. Thats how it was in reality, so it is what it is. So no, I dont get your point because you dont have one. We've had one of the best servers for years with F-5s vs 21s combat. Now we dont have many F-5s flying anymore (last night when I entered there were three, when I was leaving and for the past hour there were none) and we have AJS increased numbers that were supposed to be ground strike platform, but are really used as air to air platform cruising at Mach 1.2 on deck with impunity. I also would like to invite you to file a bug report in Mag3 section regarding the damage model if you have evidence showing 21s combat capability being retained after multiple missile hits. In past two months I had one instance when I was hit with AIM-9M from Harrier and I could barely keep control and land 21. In every other instance 21 lost either control, power or pilot was killed. MiG-21bis had faulty damage model and it could fly with no wings in the past. But this was corrected months ago based on users reports. So if you have evidence showing otherwise and you can confirm so also from 21s perspective (i.e. just because pilot doesnt eject instantly, doesnt mean aircraft is flyable) than provide such. I will be happy to forward it to devs. Really ? I had completely different experience than you because there was nothing even. One team had two - three JTACs and double the numbers, the other had one JTAC who was simultaneously trying to control ground units and save whatever remained of our FARP at that point and mixed asset of 21s and 19s, some of which didnt even participate on comms. Biggest thanks here goes to Alpen for his continuing effort to not only keep server running but also active participation in the missions. But I found yesterday, flying from around 9 PM CET to 1 - 1:30 AM CET, that nothing was even. Especially last minutes of the mission: "When The Mountains Cry" when bunch of Viggens shot down 21s taking off from Kutaisi. Viggens dropped their landing gear to get canards into "proper" mode and kept making circles over the runway. No air defenses acted because none were positioned to defend the field, no RED aircraft managed to stay in the air. Even ...

To be fair this issue is multi-stage: Viggen can fly and maneuver without one canard, Viggen can fly and maneuver without one wing, Viggen can fly and maneuver without both wings, Skipping first instance, in second and third Viggen is still fully combat capable, i.e. it can continue maneuvering, accelerate to its top speed or launch missiles despite missing wings. Also fire of the burning wing does not affect the aircraft structure.

I can gather some documents and plans and send to you over the PM, so you could review if such scenario is viable. Primary Syrian air defense was SA-2 and SA-3 with a few SA-6s. Israel would have Hawks. THis would also be a decent opportunity to try out SPS-141 :) Rest in 1973 was just wrestling between tank and infantry brigades of both sides. Fact that helo pilots got their ass whooped in area of aerial warfare is somewhat realistic though. Egyptian pilots were trained to fly at altitudes of 15 - 20 m knowing that Hawk cant launch against targets flying below 30 m and similarly Phantom / Mirage III will struggle to acquire contacts so low. Still a number of helicopters carrying commandos to Sinai was lost to Israeli aircraft. Thing is that like every "feature" some just prefer to abuse it and you suddenly get 3-4 helos flying and swarming FARP with Avengers / Strelas / Kubs. I can fly helo too and I slowly get better with Mi-8 so could possibly try the same, but this is still primarily a flight sim. Not SAM sim :lol:

So server turned from one stupidity to the other. Now everyone is into helos and spamming AAs around FARPs. I'm not even going to start at how "realistic" it is for Huey to carry Avenger or Mi-8 equivalent, but amount and frequency of that crap being deployed is reaching pinnacles of absurd.

And you run that with Reverb ? Hmm, I was curious if I should try that with my Reverb.

Comrade, havent you heard ? One pilot gets bullets, other pilot gets rifl... Im sorry, wrong tune. One pilot gets missiles, other pilot gets radar.

So ... you're basically interested in air quake ? Last I remember Alpen wasnt particularly interested in that and all kinds of furballs.

Over 60 years ago jets stopped being defined merely by their weapons but what defines them now as a combat platform is a complete set of avionics. Im going to follow wikipedia here since Im not an expert on Swedish designs, but wiki states that first production JA37 conducted its maiden flight in November 1977, but the aircraft was introduced into operational service by the end of 1979. AJS has better engine - RM8B - than original "design", better avionics and rwr. You can remove the weapons just like in the 21, but you cant remove the core of the aircraft. And Viggen is substantially more advanced machine than MiG-21. 21bis is mostly the same 21SM from 1968, save for the added Tumansky R-25 engine. It has the same RP-22 radar and R-3R missile. The most up to date thing on our MiG is R-13M missile which was introduced in 70s. Now fear not, Im not advocating to remove Viggens. Im just not going to support an idea to increase their numbers when they already are primary Blue air to air platform. Because you say, its air to ground striker. But last night and many many nights before, I could rarely see Viggens on the tacview being used in that role. With six missiles, superior avionics and substantially higher top speed it can be extremely competitive air to air platform ;)

I've seen yesterday people flying F-86. Pretty much every evening there is a guy in Sabre. So folks do fly them :pilotfly: Although four slots might be too much. But same goes for MiG-19. While people fly it, its 21 that everyone fights for. But Im not sure if increasing Viggen numbers is the way to go. Its already the most popular Blue air to air platform. For a Cold War server a post 1990 aircraft to dominate skies would be somewhat ... peculiar. Wish we had Draken :)

Yup, armament manuals state that R-55 can only be mounted on inner pylons.

We've been there: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4377958&postcount=142 And as for the above. You're landing with twice the fuel load thats prescribed for landing configuration.

Mr Wannabe Hartmann, I dont even know what Devils are and how many of you are there but judging by sheer volume of users joining server you seem to be numerically insignificant and yet eager to take credit for a lot more than you really achieve. Well, if you're getting filling than that might explain a lot. But USSR had no all aspect IR missiles until R-60M. And in case of SARH missile, the R-3R, its only useful for head-on shot as its limited in the same way as R-3S in terms of maneuverability.

Check Tacview. Since there are no R-60s its either R-13M1 or R-55 (only two possibilities). Plus, what I brought up as numbers is related to launch limit, not missile tracking limit. Maybe he had a better angle ? And yes, real life and dcs despite sincere attempts are all too often still far apart. I for one cant score a hit with missiles on helos. Launched R-13 on Huey that was floating over the ground (not even flying, he was just hovering over some base) and it still missed.

I'm not sure about exact specs of AIM-9P (not disabled P5) since I havent looked into my F-5 papers but R-60 (not M) is comparable to it missile, with shorter range but a bit greater maneuverability. The R-13M1 is much inferior missile to AIM-9P, as although it has better than R-60 range, its very heavy (four R-13s make you dump energy faster in maneuvers than six R-60s). I'm contemplating taking only two of them since four make me waaay too slow, while it has limited "advantages". R-13M1 has mere 3.7 G launch limit (R-3S has 2 G, R-60 has 7 G), so its - as pointed by m4ti140 a missile comparable to AIM-9D which we dont even have on Blue side. The other thing I'm contemplating is taking R-55 which has 5 G launch limit but it also has abysmal range so ... Thing ultimately is that US simply had superior missile designs to what USSR brought to the table. In reality this was a problem, for example during Yom Kippur war where AIM-9D armed F-4E fought Egyptian / Syrian / Soviet / Iraqi aircraft armed mostly with R-3S (save for a few R-13Ms). By the end of Yom Kippur war, Israel received another generous gift from U.S. in form of AIM-9G. But we also dont have realistic advantages in form of multiple redundant EWRs and sophisticated GCI network, which allowed to lure targets and bait them for someone else to take rear aspect shot. Yesterday combat clearly has shown that when RED EWR was disabled in first 15 min of the game and for the remainder of it RED was blind. So most of our fights that comprise dog fighting render R-13M and R-3S useless. And added drag / weight of R-13Ms poses problems in dogfights. In fact its better to dump them when entering turnfight. At the same time you dont have to make any sacrifices with F-5, as even though you have less capable 9P variant, its still superior to anything RED has.

Six in case of double pylon but if you reduce to R-13M1 or R-3S its four. Four R-13M1s are however heavy and draggy as hell. I normally take four R-60s and fuel tank.

MiG-21SMs used by 135th IAP of PVO that was based south of Cairo had same RP-22 radar and according to Tom Cooper some 21MFs delivered to Egypt also had RP-22. Thats a bit confusing to me, since I expected MF to only have RP-21 but regardless, it's not like radar makes any difference. It never was a factor for MiG-21 when opponents had much better ones in Mirage III CJ or F-4E. As for F-13, PF/PFM/PFMA (whatever that last one is), I'm sorry to disappoint you but unlike my poor country keeping PFs until 1989+, Egypt was rich enough to purchase large quantities of MFs - as of October 1973, it had two squadrons equipped with MiG-21F-13, two with MiG-21PFS, one with MiG-21FL, one with MiG-21PFM and six with MiG-21MF. And more MFs were to come. Syria got the shorter end of the stick since they had five squadrons of mixed component of F-13s (some of Czechoslovakian production) and PFMs/PFS, two of PFMs and four with MFs (however in sheer quantities, MFs were becoming predominant over any other version). To that you have to add IrAF with two more MiG-21MFs, one MiG-21FL squadron and one MiG-21PFM squadron slated for re-equipment with MiG-21MF. So thats as far as math is concerned :) Now when it comes to personal favorites I can make up my mind whether I'm more into F-13 or PFS. One thing is certain however, with each of those you trade something. First one has no radar (unless you consider range finding unit as such) and extremely limited storage options. PFS has no on board gun, and although Polish ones were modified to be able to carry GP-9 pod you end up that way with seriously limited fuel load. Anyway, I hope Alpen wont kill me for this historical rant offtopic :lol:

While MiG-21bis is a bit of a stretch for those conflicts, it's not drastically different to the popular in those conflicts MiG-21MF operated by Arabs and Vietnamese or MiG-21SM operated by PVO contingent deployed to Egypt during the Attrition War. The only difference thus is presence of 2nd stage afterburner and SAU-23ESN instead of more common AP-155.

Thats the biggest problem. There simple are not enough 60s and 70s iconic jets for immersive experience. I still wonder how things would look like when we get Syria and someone makes mission attempting to replicate 1973 war. Strip MiG-21s of R-60M / R-60, leaving only R-3S and R-13M and F-5 of AIM-9P. I'm curious how dynamics would change if people actually had to maneuver behind and launch in a lot more G limited environment.

Instead of Mirage Id rather see as a legit cold war (even fitting 21 and F-5 timeframe) machine F-14A with early AIM-9s and Sparrows (hope HB will deliver it with earlier Sparrows).

The total server cap is limiting anyway. I dont see the point in reducing 21/F-5 numbers since thats what most of the people want to fly. It's just the way it is. This is the only server where they are truly and properly in place. Plus MiG-19 and in future F-8J. On the other hand you can fly A-10, Ka-50, Su-25, Viggen and few others on modern servers with all the fancy weapons, that are absent on MiG-21 and F-5, and they fit just right. Instead all those newer aircraft are used to hunt 21s/F-5s since they are equipped with more advanced missiles, actually useful rwr (Harrier in particular) and sufficient load of countermeasures. Thus I absolutely disprove the addition of MiG-29 and Mirage. The balancing point should be closer to 70s, not 90s despite the fact that server timespan is really stretched and goes through several jet generations. As for furballs. The answer to that problem is greater dispersion of targets and spawn bases without changing player cap for the server. Maps are large enough to utilize them fully. That way you can add more 21s and F-5s so people wont be fighting with pitchforks every evening for the spot yet it should deny concentration of whatever number you consider making a furball.