BlackPixxel

FC3 radars are neither instant nor all seeing. They have a scan time, and range wise all of the FC3 radars are below their real life counterparts. Meanwhile the F-16 radar is heavily overperforming, because it is right now just like a copy of the F-18 radar.

Mhmm, it seems that just adding a simple condition to ignore the chaff mechanic when the radar is in EOS only would do the trick. The R-27R/ER is completely useless in mutiplayer because of this bug. The only reason I can make kills with the R-27ER is that most opponents are beginners. Any half decent player is immune to R-27ER, because he will always trash the R-27ER using the bug by changing aspect.

With FOV they are refering to the gimbal limit of the seeker, which is propably +/-60°. But the -3dB beamwidth (the beamwidth of the seeker antenna) will be far far less. To cover the whole +/-60° gimbal in both dimensions the seeker has to do mechanical scanning with its antenna which will take some time (not really modelled in DCS).

Bug still present: (Inverted roll in DCS Su-27 close to the ground = radar off. Missiles suddenly switch to UNILLUMINATED chaff as soon as radar = off)

SARH Chaffbug Automatic transition from radar to IRST can still cause the chaffbug. For demonstration I roll after firing close to the ground, which makes the lock transition to IRST only for a moment. The missiles instantly switch from the target to UNILLUMINATED chaff (Radar is OFF when inverted). Track is attached. Chaffbug2809.trk

It appears that the negative effects of ECM on the Aim-120 guidance got reduced alot with the recent patches. So we are back to a state of DCS were taking Sorbtsya pods on the Su-27 results in massive disadvantages when flying against Aim-120, even tough those massive ECM pods are designed to counter enemy radars and radar guided missiles. With the earlier versions of DCS at least the HOJ guidance was worse, and a burnthrough of the missile seeker was represented. But right now ECM allows the launch aircraft to drop the support instantly, and the missile will guide perfectly towards the target, with loft and lead. ECM gives the missile magic INS with no disadvantage. What is the idea behind that?

Significant reduction? It is still basically chaff proof compared to a few month ago. You are asking for a fantasy missile.

Nice to see! To everyone complaining that their 120% PK missile got nerfed: Chizh said very clearly that they did not want to change the counter-chaff-effectiveness of the Aim-120 with the new autopilot. It was always supposed to be comparable to the chaff-effectiveness before the autopilot change. The almost perfect chaff resistance of the Aim-120 was proably introduced as an unwanted side effect of the new autopilot. So the few months of almost complete chaff resistance were actually a bug.

From the Su-27SK manual (export Su-27):

I think a normal Flanker is a much better launch plattform. Higher speed and altitute for higher launch range, to shoot down AWACS or other fighters from far away.

Just look at the previous page: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4498660&postcount=9644 Or here: http://bastion-karpenko.ru/r-27p-r-27ep-maks-2005/ Hence why it is in fact color=missile type

So we have a picture of two R-27EP on a Su-34 that look exactly like the R-27EP would look, but those must be instrumented missiles?? By the same logic I can argue that any picture showing Aim-120C is actually showing a training version of Aim-120B, so ED, please remove Aim-120C from the game!

These antennas are not just datalink, they are also the reference antennas to get the doppler shift of the target for the closure speed meassurement. R-27R/ER need those antennas for guidance. It is HIGHLY likely that those pictures show actual R-27EP. This radome? Only seen with R-27P/EP material. No datalink antennas? Cannot be R-27R/ER (And also no EA). No stripes or fixed control surfaces? No dummy missile.

Here is the ultimate argument for the missiles in the picture being R-27EP: The absence of datalink/reference antennas behind the actuated wings. Or will you also find an excuse for their absence?

The golden radome is obviously just a special skin for the R-27ER that the real pilots unlock after they shot down 20 enemy aircraft!!

R-27ET still has the wrong safety maneuver time. R-27ET can ONLY be fired from the rail type launcher, which means it will ALWAYS have the short 0.4 s safety maneuver time. Please correct the safety maneuver time for the R-27ET from >1 s to 0.4 s (same value as R-27T).

Still wrong radar ranges after todays patch. But F-16 radar has to much range, so on average DCS radar ranges are correct :thumbup:

It can definetly carry R-27P/EP.

Still broken:(

Has ED done CFD analysis for this special scenario? To me this insane behaviour seems to be an unwanted side effect from the missile data obtained from the CFD when it is extrapolated to scenarios that are different from those that were used in the simulation.

Su-27 has flex, Su-33 does not.

The thing is that the idea of ED for the Aim-120 and the implementation turned out to be different. According to Chizh the chaff immunity would not change. And in his test vs AI it indeed seemed so. But against a player that is properly defending there was magnitudes of difference between the new and the old missile in terms of chaff immunity, which is NOT according to ED's plan.

Would be highly appreciated by the RED side in DCS. An important and realistic improvement to the Flanker for very little developement effort!

Would you think it could be implemented that wingmen within the group that are players could be shown in multiplayer as well? Each player in multiplayer has all the coordinates of all aircraft on his PC. I don't see why it would be so much different to show the position of an AI on the IPV compared to showing the position of a player. It would propably be quite simple to implement for ED and improve the teamplay of Su-27 and Su-33 pilots by alot. I am not asking for the full functionality of the plane to plane datalink in the Flanker, just about that one aspect of it - sharing the position between the 4 wingmen in the group in multiplayer.

No, in multiplayer the plane to plane datalink will not show the wingmen of the group. Other friendly aircraft will only be shown when their position is received from AWACS or other surveilance radars. When 4 Su-27 or 4 Su-33 belong to the same flight, then their position and their number (1, 2, 3 or 4) should be shown on the display, the same as in singleplayer. But this is not the case in multiplayer.