Croaker47

STR occurs at 6.5G at Mach 0.9 at 15k ft, though, doesn't it? How would 7G be "mere" in that case? STR at Mach 0.65 is also at 4.5G, not 6. Is it over-performing? If so, why the comment about the F-15 at the end? I am confuzzled. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something here, these doghouses are the bane of my existence. Can someone show me the light... again...? :doh:

Thanks again for the information, Zeus.

So it's a pure boost configuration then? That definitely explains its high top speed. And at some point the missile is going to have a high enough AOA that the drag will be considerable, and it would hardly be able to maneuver at all. What's the current fuzing for it, by the way? Is it proximity-fused? Here I am, picking your brain again. :P

Effective range (Let's presume that's Maneuver Range) is usually half of operational, and T&R is typically less than that. The question should be, at what range does the missile (Not relative to the target) simply stop (Out of energy, not spoofed) in various environments. I'm pretty sure the Max Range on a missile is not based on aspect; that's what a DLZ is for. As for the whole, 9nm thing. Is that the range you fired? The target is moving at roughly 166m/s, and roughly 30m/s will get you 1nm/m. So roughly every ten seconds you add another nautical mile to range traveled. From there, you apply all the external forces on the missile during the flight duration of flight. The flight of an SARH missile initially depends, but typically it ends up riding a pure pursuit course in which it just tries to stay pointed at the target, and reading its reflection. Depending on how the missile boosts and sustains, it can just be losing energy like crazy the entire way just to stay on target. Again, not an expert, but something to consider. I have no clue what the missile's real stats are.

I'd rather have realism, especially in the simulator difficulty. You're probably not flying a Mirage against a Su-27 for the 100% PK, and jamming your own radar sounds interesting.

Thanks dudes, hopefully I get to try it tonight or tomorrow.

With rolls at that speed, can you physically center the joystick without a little nudge in the opposite direction? What I mean is, is that bump at the end due to inertia of the plane, or the inertia of the pilot's hand suddenly snapping back in the other direction once the roll ends (And then he corrects for the right bank angle). I've never flown in real life, so that's something I've wondered so far as changes in Gs affecting handling.

S by default I think I saw in another thread. EDIT: Live beat me to it.

Well, the F-16 in old Allied Force aerobraked that way, and it was listed as a feature in the manual. Rotation speed isn't necessarily takeoff speed anyway, and FBW generally assumes that if you aren't touching it, that you want it to keep doing what it's doing. :thumbup:

A smaller search cone (Not to be confused with Beamwidth) simply allows you to search a smaller area in less time. If you are referring to Raster Scans (Bar Scans), then the higher your bar count, the more elevation area you are covering, "hands-off" if you will, at the expense of time spent scanning each individual elevation. Range of a Radar, aside from numerous other factors, starts with an inverse function of Pulse Repetition Frequency, and Pulse Repetition Interval, in which a higher interval equates to a higher unambiguous range. However, if you meant Beamwidth, the Beamwidth has less to do with range, and more to do with resolution at different ranges, where a small Pulse Width, and small Beamwidths in the Horizontal and Vertical, decrease the volume of a Resolution Cell and increase accuracy. In a Pulse Doppler Radar, Velocity Resolution is a factor, which is primarily dependent on PRF, in which a higher PRF leads to less blind speeds (Better Velocity Resolution) but more Range Ambiguity at longer range (In which a Return hits the Receiver before another pulse has been transmitted, leading the Radar to believe something is far closer than it truly is). I'm still reading my source, so don't quote me on any of this, but I got the information from the "Electronic Warfare Fundamentals" supplement published in 2000. Also, I wouldn't automatically presume DCS has any of this modeled, as it's pretty complex from what I gather.

It's the other other way around. Steam works on Standalone, Standalone doesn't transfer to Steam. ;)

F-4 (gunless/pod/internal). Mirage III. Kfir/Nesher. F-16A/C. F-105. Su-24. MiG-23. No specific order or sense, really. What would be cool is a functional EW aircraft of some kind.

Aha, I think I'm starting to see that. Sorry, but my only experience with these charts, really, are the barebones charts on the DCS manuals, and the one in the old Allied Force manual, heh. I'm pretty sure the numbers on the rate graph show the altitude(?) loss/gain during a type of turn under G, but in the MiG graph, what are the lines extending from the bottom left?

From what I can tell, he key just has to not be bound to your account, and therefore deactivated for you to transfer the license for another account to bind it. I'm sure there's someone who has actually done that process on here who could confirm/deny that for me, I'm pretty new here.

It's not bound by default, I believe. Mine wasn't bound during my key check, and there is an option to bind/unbind in that interface on your account.

They do, for most of the year. If you feel the developers need the extra money, donate? I understand the enthusiasm to get the developers money, I want them to as well; however, it's difficult to get people into simming like this from the complexity alone, and then there's the periphery barrier, and then the price barrier of the actual modules, and then there's getting everyone online at the same time to play. The discounts we have now are fine. Not great, it still takes some not-too-painful nudging to get a friend to get it, but fine. Cancelling them is a bit too "let them eat cake" really; sales get the people who would never otherwise have bought the thing, and allows us who are already fans, to gift them to someone else at a discount.

All that being said, a twist stick isn't terrible. It's mainly up to how many axes you are comfortable controlling in one hand. I just got pedals myself, and it's not too much different on the broad strokes. I'd imagine it's more to do with axis separation and precision (less chance of mixing axes by accident as well).

Count me in. Just saved enough for Tacview, so maybe I can use this to help train mis amigos.

This was to show similar performance, right? I'm still trying despite myself to understand these doghouse contraptions, but if I had to guess, it seems that their charts are about even. Seems, though, the MiG needs to pull less G at corner to get the same result at what looks to be the same speed, and has more room for error within that envelope. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I have near-zero confidence in my conclusions from looking at those charts.

Congrats dude(ette)s!

On the topic of the A-10, let's also remember how many times dogfighting has been proclaimed dead, and that one time when the navy was told it couldn't have carriers because conventional platforms were for countries without nuclear deterrents. In the CAS role, there isn't a replacement yet. Striking and Supporting are two different things, and with the visual element, it's difficult to provide CAS when your cruise speed is the max speed of another plane. Back on the topic, I have the MiG-21, and it's a joy to fly. It doesn't work in 2.0 yet, however, and a fix is being worked on (If that's an issue; it works in 1.5 Beta, though). The M-2000C seems to be shaping up, but we can't really know anything until next week about it. I'd suggest looking at a few of the Razbam videos on YouTube, or Matt Wagner's previews to get a good idea of it.

Hope we see more A-10s in the AFAC role. I might give that a try to see how it works.

The question was fairly academic, yeah, :smartass:. Would be cool if the sim had it modelled though. Just in case someone wants to get lucky with a Vikhr or something, ;). On the actual topic, best way to know if something is friendly is to listen to brevity calls, and make sure you make them; running with a continuous program while in the battlespace is another option if you don't mind countermeasures giving you away. Quigon seems to explain what it does best. For my own question., the MWS is mainly for defending non-radar missiles, correct? Does the F-16 have one, or is it a role-specific system for CAS? Sounds like a good system for timing flare launches.

Some IR missiles have laser fusing for detonation, correct?

Thanks for answering all my questions, Zeus. I'm sure I'll have a ball with this thing.