Sweep

Is the first pic of a Greek Mirage 2000? I remember seeing that or a very similar picture in an article about them. I think they fly an EG or whatever, EGH? Something like that.

Something something "Take Trump seriously but not literally" something something. Tis only a Yuge 4d Chess game. Worry not.

I think you have a good point with 2.5, Haukka - Once ED gets all that stuff (engine/terrain engine/whatever) worked out, maybe they'll be able to work on all the components of the combat side of things. I believe that the fact that we're discussing PVP in this thread brings another problem to light: The MP mindset. It's all PVP/air quake/etc. nowadays. IMO things can be done to change that a bit and that might affect what we're seeing with missile combat. +1 to the first line, agree 150%. :thumbup: Let the realistic simulation dictate the gameplay and not the other way around! And as for the last line, yeah - I don't really have a huge problem with the Alamo as it stands (I fly Red Air, mainly, in various aircraft). If it's low alt or look down, I know what the odds are for any radar weapon...But in that public PVP environment everybody loves, people will defend a low threat/low Pk weapon, point that sensornose away, and then my element* controls the fight. If that doesn't work, best possible merge entry or separation and try again. *Fighting as an element/flight/package helps a LOT, too. As above, the mindset used and scenarios played definitely affect the outcome with missiles. P.S. - For the thread, try taking *less* R-27ERs. For my average sweep, I bring two ERs and six Archers. Works really well for element/flight tactics...Why? Because you're forced to fight the Flanker's real fight: the merge/merge entry. Also you're a lot lighter/less draggy and that helps for various things (*cough* acceleration for first launch *cough*).

F/A-18XL "It's gonna be YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE!"

KC-130J's have other fun things too...Like missiles and things... Well some of them do, at least.

+1 +1 to that, too.

No no no, it's YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE, folks. But seriously, President Trump is just playing chess again. Yuge chess, at that. It's gonna be great.

I found the troll in the chaff! :thumbup:

Ahh yes let's cherry pick Tacviews and claim that the "other side" (FYI, I don't do competitive stuff anymore) supports the same point of view.** BRB beating a a dead horse with an R-27. :megalol: Anyway, I'll post an anecdotal bit and leave it alone after: I don't really have problems with R-27ERs in practice. I mostly fly the Flanker in PVP stuff nowadays...Though it's pretty "light" stuff (not high intensity like 104th or BF), I guess. But like I said, it's more about realism and that's really ED's call IMO. **Edit II: If that isn't clear enough, the "point of view" is one where that person puts their desire to win in a competitive environment ahead of wanting a realistic simulator.

On the tape, homework, guesswork, and a watch. And yes, this is a BVR sensors/systems/weapons discussion. Nobody's denying that. (Added some emphasis) That's not quite the end result -- The end result is that the missile misses. I think the focus is too much on one probable inaccuracy, to the point where we've lost sight of the larger picture. Look at what is missing from the simulator in terms of countermeasures: We don't have expendables vs FCRs and we don't have defensive jamming vs FCRs or missiles. So the "expendables vs missiles" element is doing all the work, here. The means of generating a hit or a miss are unrealistic, but the results are pretty good. This talk of competitive/PVP stuff makes me wonder, though -- Is the discussion more oriented towards realism or gameplay? :)

I think the video shows a range closer to 2-3km, not 1km. Re-watched it and it looks something like a medium/long range defensive setup. The defender pops chaff on the turn in and until he Rmins the threat weapon (I assume they're simulating 120s or 7s for MRMs). I think it is definitely relevant to the discussion. If an F-18 loses lock at ~6,000ft range, 15-18,000ft altitude, medium aspect target, seemingly no jamming, and no look down... ...How's the Flanker gonna do at 3-15nmi with look down? I'll say this again: The game takes shortcuts to get to the correct goal. At least where CMs and missiles are concerned. The CM-missile "issue" is something that only an EW overhaul can seriously "fix". And so back to DCS: Sit and Wait I go! :book:

"cannot rep this post" :thumbup:

I am glad that the possibility of reliably retrieving Tacviews from PVP servers like 104th is very near. It's great news for the MP community. :thumbup: I'm just tired of the "cheaters, cheaters everywhere" (<--that needs to be a meme) paranoia that's been running around here for a while. ;) Edit: LOL well that is a meme:

That's a fair idea, here's another thing to consider, though: Look at the way Tacview tracks are recorded right now - You have to play the DCS track to record it...The DCS track is how long you were on the server...But considering you can play the track at a higher speed... What if the delay on playback was based on how long you were connected to the server? Like a set ratio of that time, perhaps 50-75%? Basically what we have now with the auto-recording disabled and whatnot, just a LOT more stable because the track isn't going to break itself randomly!

That is another thing where the game takes a shortcut. Chaff affects the guiding radar IRL, too...But it doesn't in-game. It doesn't drag the centroid of track aft or anything like that. There'a a video of F-18s doing 1v1 BFM on Youtube. The defender pops chaff and the other guy's radar/gunsight goes crazy. That's an F-18 with an APG-65 or -73 at 1km! Arguably, the whole EW model needs overhauling. P.S. Thanks for explaining the text in the attachment. :thumbup:

AFAIK the guy you mention said something like "It's a good missile within it's kinematic capability" or something similar when discussing the R-27R.

They're not the same thing, but thanks for clarifying! I understand your point now...And here's why I disagree: Let's take 104th for example since they're the most popular PVP server AND seemingly the most interested in the Tacview anti-cheat stuff. They have a four hour rotation. Let's say I get in there right after the mission changes with my squadmates and we fly for a little while, perhaps 45 minutes. Okay, now we land, decide on whether we want to check Tacview or fly again. With your idea, we would have to wait at least 3 hours if we wanted to check the Tacview recording. Couple of problems with that: 1) People don't have time to wait. 2) You're not fixing the knowledge problem; People who want to see where things are will see where things are. I see no reward in such a delay besides making the paranoid feel better about themselves. Seriously, what is it with this thread? Is this a good yardstick of how distrusting and paranoid the public/PvP community is?

Eh, the E-E War (the only air war where R-27s were fired in anger) doesn't really provide a good indicator of how the missile should work. Lots of questions about how the fights happened, the state of the missiles (expired, not maintained, etc. - Lot of doubts on that), and other things. Too many questions, not enough answers.

The session being the mission being hosted or the client's session?

I feel that enhanced jamming and effects of chaff would offset that most of the time. If you fly lazily and just CM/jam your way into the threat while cranking at co-altitude, probably less sucky there. But overall, missiles are still going to miss. And that's what counts now and when discussing future modeling. As for the videos...Unrealistic modeling but pretty realistic results. Also, for the videos...I don't think they demonstrate what you should be doing in the sim at all. 1v4s, all aircraft shooting, etc. - And I know some of you are probably thinking "But Sweep, that isn't the point" - You know what? It IS. How you fight affects how you defend, and if you simply fly in slow like that, and the bandits spam missiles, all of you deserve the outcome. Aaaand one other thing that I'll note here: the Flanker really doesn't like it when the bandit beams. It goes to combined primary tracking (both sensors/radar emitting) and then if it loses that it goes to IRST primary with the IFF interrogating but no radar emission. So consider that a bit, it isn't just the ER that should be looked at for any medium aspect shots. Thought the R-27(E)R m-link range was 25km, no? As in, inside of 25km it uses the seeker?

The alternative to the current modeling is basically a lot of extra work for ED and you'd get a very similar result. Chaff is treated similarly to flares with IR seekers: As if it were an active emitter - Obviously that is incorrect behavior, but it yields the right result: You pop CMs and maneuver/position the right way, the missile misses. A better radar/EW model overall would be great for this stuff, though - It won't help SARH AAMs get any less sucky, but lets #MakeVirtualElectronicWarfareGreatAgain! Silly remarks in spoiler: And in all seriousness, thank you for taking the time and effort to do this. Even if it's a bit of a dead horse on here, good on ya for going through the motions AND coming to the right conclusion about what's happening in-game! :) EDIT: Oh, by the way, the Mirage has half the RCS of the FC3 fighters. That might play into this a bit.

IMO, the playback delay should be disabled by default with the option to enable it on servers that choose so. I think it is currently the opposite of that...? Also, can we stop flying DCS: Paranoia? That module is OP and gamebreaking. :)

Meh, would rather see an F-104...With high speed takeoff flaps, crazy engines, and pressure suits for all!

If you have both available, and there are no stores conservation problems for you...Take the R-73. R-60s are normally something you'd take when you don't want to add hours to your useful missiles (normally not simulated in-game!) or when numbers of stores are problem. They're also good for historical considerations (not all MiG-29s had R-73s, Original non-export MiG-29s didn't have Archers from the start (I think?), etc.). As for comparisons between them...The R-73 is a far superior missile. High off-boresight capable, very maneuverable, IIRC better flare rejection than the R-60, expanded high-aspect engagement zone, and the list goes on.

Yup, mission design is also (or, "can be") as lethal as the Forum Phoenix. :thumbup: