Kev2go

Same thing with western RWR's.... They two are more limited IN game than they are IRL. I didn't need to play FC jets to judge RWR on its effectiveness.. Just from reading about. Just becuase the SPO15 is not anywhere as poop as the SPO10 doesn't mean it isn't crude by by the time of the 1980s. t Just by the fact its a analog system and indicators are more limited and not as "smart" or user friendly relative to other types. They in turn have Alpha Numeric symbology for more accurate and specific threat type identification, threat rings give a better idea of the severity of the threats, general distance, more precise direction , threat prioritization and such. To summarize the way the information is presented is just far more sophisticated and more user friendly for the pilot on stuff like the ALR56 or the ALR67 than the SPo15 by a fair margin. No one here is going to buy the farm your selling

RWR and Radar mostly. if you bothered to read

and?? The first turbojet engine was invented and patented in 1929 by an Englishman. SAR capable radars were already developed in the 1950's... yet realistically you dont see SAR on certain fighter radars until what? the late 80s ? In this context when the technology was initially developed or tested in some way doesn't as matter when it was actually applied to practical use.

The Su27 was behind in certain avionics. Spo15 is relatively crude RWR for the time period. And the APG63 > N001. N001 radar borrowed many design elements from N019 radar from the Mig29. And its not just better detection ranges. but also better ECCM capabilities, and having additional features like RAID and even multi-mode capability. ( A/G modes) as a cherry on top. Even before Aim120. the Su27 was only a superior WVR, and largely due to R73 and off boresight helmet monocle cueing. IF anything the N011 radar antenna for the Su27M was more similar to what the APG63 was.

the likelyhood you can find that aforementioned 1992 prototype that was the Su27M for cockpit modeling and necessary documentation on that specific model today is slim to nil, relative to the actual modernized Su27's that were produced or upgraded and put into actual operational use along with export sale. But of course ED has thier reasons for not doing too recent redforce. and no for 1992 that not that advanced aircraft when you consider that designs like YF23 and YF22 first flew as early as 1990. More like it Su27M would have caught up , or rather closed the gap with neer peer avionics s to other gen 4's at the time if it had actually approved for mass production and operational service back then.

F15C, likely if it was a version that included Link 16 , JHMCs and Aim9X i wouldn't be interested for a su27 unless its the SM. But the reason why thats not going to happen any time soon has been discussed to death countless times.

Although Hotel still has 18G max G overload limit at sea level like the GOLF, there is more to missile than just that. What does matter is that the Aim9H has IR seeker track limit increased from 12 degrees a second to 20. So i think it would still the Aim9H be indeed a worthwhile upgrade from the Aim9G. It was regarded as the best IR missile of the Vietnam era, even to the USAF's Aim9J.

Both modes are described as having TWO FOV modes and digital zoom. ( levels 0-9) for CCD Wide FOV is 3.5 x 3.5 degrees, and for WIDE FOV FLIR 4 X 4 degrees. For Narrow FOV both types are only 1 x 1 degrees.

yup but even the Huey and F5E are well post nam era version

And? thats not a requirement. The chances of finding a F16C in the USAF still using the same avionics and exact same software tapes from 2007 is also pretty slim...... OR and F/A18C lot 20 as it was circa 2005..... No one is saying the Super Hornet has to be a 2008- present day vehicle...... In fact this is exactly why the Thread is only about Block 1's and only up a early block 2 lot 26, and no further ones. Programming launguage used RL thing is irrelevant. ED only emulates. DCS modules is not an exact replica of the aircraft. Just look how much stuff ED was able to streamline from Hornet development into Viper, and those are totally different aircaft altogether made by entirely different defence contractors.

Actually Lot 26's were still fitted with APG73's. Lot26's didn't get fitted with APG79 operationally at the start of its service life. It was s post production refit that came some years later. That is why Lot 26's are included into the poll. Hell even ECP 6038R2 ( fibre channel switches and 8X10 displays for F/A18F) was a refit for LOt 26's. An early life Lot 26 is barely a block 2 aircraft. ( but then thats why you had the marketers come up with block 2+ nomenclature) It has the provisions for lots of planned features at the start of its life but isnt really much more capable than the block 1 lot 25 until they are retrofitted eventually. Although Block 2's were planned to have APG79's from the get go, due to operational development and testing issues of the APG79 this didnt come into fruition as initially intended, One of the first aircraft with this APG79 radar was actually F/A18F BUNO 166639, A lot 27 production aircraft. ( and mind you this is only in "operation" with a test and evaluation squadron VX9 during 2005), same year it was only being declared for IOC. Up until 2007 only 28 APG79's had been produced. Lot 30 is when the APG79 went into full scale production. Hence why USN ordered 135 upgrade kits to have various block 2 LOt 26- lot 29 aircraft refitted with APG79 post production.

even worse. the newer Litening 2 G4 has 1K ( 1024x1024 p) FLIR res. the L2 AT( the version in DCS) FLIR imaging only is supposed to have 640 x 512p

Its FM "fix" are a resultant something breaking (bug) since 2nd last OB patch. If it was an intended FM change there would notes of it in the changelogs, but there never were.

naaa game just has poor fps in general ever since the last couple OB 2.5.6 patches. many are complaining about performance issues, even those with higher end CPU's.

there is sense to what he is saying. He doesn't need to be a fighter pilot. What he says is a generalization but more or less consistent with modern psychology and neuroscience related fields that have explore such things under cognitive and developmental branches.

4:19 to 4:28. is a A/G map image. But honestly because its a VHS era of recording the quality of the recording itself is subapr. and is not an ideal indication, nor do you see any of the modes operated. IF people did some open source hunting on thier own you can get a decent ballpark idea from open sources you can get of what to expect from imaging quality of generation of mechanical radars of a comparable generation and timeframes.

where are you getting that from? NWP 3.22.5? https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/941015lessonsgulfiv-chap05.pdf it certainly seems not during the gulf war. This is a publication from 1994. "It is also planning upgrades to the APG-65 radars on its F/A-18s that will provide an all-weather stand-off imaging capability, and a strip mode radar coverage for reconnaissance purposes, as well as hardware and software changes that increase synthetic aperture radar capability" However for all intents and purposes those series of "upgrades" Lead to development of the APG73 which replaced the APG65's. https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=328

Really? like a quick search would tell you this. The Radars the Hornets were using in Desert Storm was with the original APG65 radar.... APG73 ( phase 1) was adopted starting 1994 with full rate production in 1996. A few years later PHASE 2 upgrades followed which addressed improvements in A/G capabilities. The very last APG73 Phase 2 was delivered by 2006. Our DCS Hornet will almost certainly have be the APG 73 phase 2. So medium resolution SAR will be achievable via EXP 3, which certainly means better A/G map resolution and additional level of zoom to what was available during the gulf war. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=192382

BUNO stands for Bureau number. BUNO is basically the equivalent of serial number issued for any other product you see on the market. This specific DCS hornet with BUNO # 165407 ThiS a very specific F/A18C from LOT 20 batch ( block 51 production aircraft) which was produced in 1998.

AN/APR39 RWR. something that should have been included to begin with given the 3d model.

That would be even better than the UH1N due to the greater engine power and quad rotor blades, giving it superior utility transport/lift abilities, and some will like the full on glass cockpit setup, BUt the classic Hueys with the dual rotor blades still have that classic "whomp whomp" sound, that is closely reminiscent of the older Bell 205/ Uh1H series. Uh1N is that interesting middle middle ground where it has enough modernization to be relevant for 21st century scenarios ( proper defensive suite, EGI and FLIR), but still has that classic huey fuel due to still mostly analog cockpit, and the satisfying sound it makes twin rotor blades. That and the Uh1N represents a broader set of users. Uh1Y is only in use with USMC atm, wheras with the Uh1N has seen serivce beyond the USMC. The US navy and US air force have used it, along with a fairly long list of foreign export users, which may make this more appealing to a broader amount of the DCs player base ( even if the focus of the derivative aims to be mostly based specific model for single user type like most modules) I dont know if enough legally obtainable information is around for the dev's to decide to model a Uh1Y. Yea theres a operators manual you can find online, but likely even more documentation needed beyond just that.

yeah funny enough the AI Uh1H's also absorb 7.62 from miniguns like a sponge as well.

would be nice. Although would rather see a something from the UH60 family. That being said i certainly wouldn't say no. The Uh1N would still offer a classic Huey feel but improve on the huey design where it lacks most ( relative to mi8 ), by having an analog flight control system and a Stability and Control Augmentation systems coupled with some basic Autopilot functions. IF its recent enough version is represented from the late 90s going into 2000s then it would also mean a UH1N that has been further refined with Helmet mounted sight ( HUD) EGI, AN/AA47 Missile warning system, AN/ALE47 countermeasure suite and option for FLIR system, which would make it far more usable in modern scenarios and in a contested environment than the UH1H.

The Jf17 may be, however The Hornet or Viper are not representative of 2015 iterations. Even ED has officially stated many times ( especially when reminding players asking for newer weapons) the Hornet they are simulating is roughly circa mid 2000s ( 2005 ish) whilst the F16C block 50 is circa 2007. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3394160&postcount=5 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3751826&postcount=9 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3916880&postcount=24

No. Well beyond the current timeframe of our fighters even if you could get enough information for it to make a halfway believable guesstimation of its performance. Aim120D only achieved IOC starting in 2015. http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2015-04-09-Latest-AMRAAM-variant-achieves-key-program-milestones Would be more reasonable to ask for the AIm120 C7 first before jumping straight to an AIm120D anyways, but even for that i wouldn't hold my breath.