BlackPixxel

Advanced walls that are transparent from the inside to allow the crew to see the outside without obstructions: And the animation of this radar is broken. It only does a 180° turn and then resets the animation instead of doing a 360° turn. As the antennas on both sides are different, the unfinished animation is very obvious. The animation takes just a few seconds. Just by looking at the new Kuznetsov for a few seconds this obvious could have been seen. It does not look like there was any testing. The animation bug is also present in the over 2.5 years old trailer for the Su-33 module @21 seconds:

JF-17 shows with 12 lamps on SPO-15 at a range of 100 km. The F-14 only has 10 lamps at that range. As the JF-17 certainly has a weaker radar than the F-14, it should show with a lower signal strength.

In multiplayer, the F-16 used to show with a lower signal strength than aircraft with bigger radars like F-15C or Su-27. Using the SPO-15, the F-16 would show with a signal strength of 4-5 Lamps at 100 km. Now after some updates it shows with the same signal strength as the Flanker or F-15C radar, which is about 8-9 lamps on the SPO-15. As the F-16 has a weaker radar, it should have a lower signal strength.

With one of the recent updates the following bug was introduced to with the F/A-18C (at least in multiplayer): The signal strength of the radar shown on RWR of other aicraft (SPO-15) is way to much. At a range of 100 km it used to be about 4 bars, but now it shows at a strength of 12 bars, which is way higher. For comparision: The F-14 has a signal strength of about 10 bars on the SPO-15 at that range. It would be appreciated if the signal strength could be adjusted to the correct value. I don't think that the F/A-18C radar has more power than the F-14 radar. Thank you!

Unfortunately not in todays patch, SARH missiles are still broken :(

I think ET is intended for ECM environment, datalink could be jammed. Plus for tailchase engagements, at those ranges you will always have seeker lock from the rail.

I fully agree, asking for 50$ when someone just wants to get the Kuznetsov is not a good deal, especially since the Kuznetsov does not have any of the big features of SC. Not only lacks the red side any support, but now the red players even have to pay for the features exclusive to the blue planes.

Coxy can you proof that the Su-33 even exists?

Did you maybe confuse the gimbal limits with the R-27ER launch zone on the HDD? Those are much narrower than the radar gimbals (although they should not be that narrow as the R-27ER has +/-50°). I never exceeded the radar gimbals, just look at the dot in the HUD. the dot can be further right than the angle number next to the horizon bar, and my dot never went that far. Here is a video of the track:

Please look again, I am at no point outside of my radar gimbal limit, at least when I replay the track on my PC. If I was outside of my radar gimbals then the ATK symbol would flash. The ATK symbol only flashes because the radial closure speed of the target is within the notch filter bandwidth for a moment (target is notching for a moment when it turns cold). Normal DCS Flanker logic is now to switch to IRST lock. But I have the target outside of the IRST sensor gimbals (below my nose). So the radar stays in memory mode. The bug is now that the Flanker in DCS still wants to go into EO mode. So when the target is cold with a solid radar lock, and I roll out, the lock turns into an EO lock as soon as the target is back within my gimbal limits. This is a bug, the lock should stay a radar lock in this case.

When a target is locked with radar and goes through the notch in a lookdown situation, then the Flanker will switch to an EO lock as soon as the radar lock is lost in the notch. When EO lock is not possible, for example because the target is below the nose and as such outside of the IRST gimbal limits, then the radar uses radar memory and is able to reacquire the target when it leaves the notch quick enough. If now the Flanker maneuvers in such a way that the target would be inside of the IRST gimbal limits and if the target's heat signature is strong enough, then the following bug will happen: The stable radar lock will switch to an EO lock for no reason. The player then has to manually disable EO to force the radar back on. The attached trackfile shows the issue: I engage the low flying target and I bank away, so that the target is below my nose. The target changes aspect, so it turns through the notch. While it turns through the notch, the radar loses lock, but thanks to radar memory it reacquires the target as soon as it left the notch. I turn back towards the target, and as soon as the target is within the gimbal limits of the IRST, the lock switches from a radar lock into an EO lock. This is a bug. Appart from that it would be nice if the Radar/IRST sensor fusion was properly implemented. Even a notching taret should still be painted by the radar, because both channels work together and not exclusive. So a low flying and notching target would still be painted for R-27R/ER missiles. But in DCS the radar shuts of the second the target notches and it goes into an EO lock. radar_irst_bug.trk

There is zero mid course update for R-27T/ET in DCS. All it knows is the target position during the launch, and it turns roughly towards that position using INS. From that point it is flying straight. If the target happens to be within the narrow seeker FOV at some point within the necessary range for a lock, then the missile will start tracking.

You can use yandex with OCR to easily translate scanned/photographed documents: https://translate.yandex.com/ocr These 15° in the manual are something different than described in the Wikipedia article: You don't want the target aircraft pointed directly towards you, but at least 15° away from you (can be up/down/left/right) for a better missile lock. Propably because then because the aircraft exhaust is not covered by the fuselage that much.

For what conditions are those values (altitude, lookup/lookdown, target size)? The MiG-29B document is very clear about the conditions. What is modelled wrong in the MiG-29 is the difference between lookup/lookdown: In PPS engagement, the difference should be very minor. Reason is that the radar return of the target is in a complete different spectrum than the radar return from the ground. The radar just has to use simple filters and the ground return is removed. In a ZPS engagement, the spectrum of target return and ground return overlaps, so here the radar has more troubles and there should be a clear difference in detection range lookup/lookdown. But in DCS the detection range for lookdown is ALWAY 2/3 of the detection range for lookup, in PPS and ZPS. This is wrong, in PPS the difference should be way less. The reduction should be about 10%. On top of that, even the modernized, domestic MiG-29S in DCS has less range than the (export?) MiG-29B.

Isn't that perfect evidence that R-27 series has been improved? Because early manuals talk about 8.6 to 11 seconds of burntime. Then we have 12 seconds. And then we have 14 seconds for very late variants. Unofficial sources say that the R-27 motor has been updated multiple times. Same with the internals, so it can loft and be guided from a TWS-lock with the SARH painting of the target aircraft only during the final homing stage. Modern R-27 should reach the ranges of 120 km for launch conditions very close to the ones from the old launch zone graphs.

With the upcoming R-27 update, will the missile performance be determined by the very same standard as you did for the Aim-120 series? CFD + thrust data? Or will it still be based on thequestionable interpretation of the R-27 allowed launch ranges from the pilot manuals (max allowed launch range = max kinematic range)? What is the source for the R-27ER having a burntime of 12 sec in DCS?

Thinking that the R-27 was never updated while the potential adversary puts out one AIM-120 update after another... Early manuals talk about a burntime of 8.6 to 11 s. Then we have burntimes of 12 s for later variants (DCS also uses 12 s, but then takes early R-27 permitted launch ranges as aerodynamic ranges). And later R-27 are said to have a burntime of 14 s and even more rocket motor fuel. R-27ER completely destroys the Aim-120 in kinematics. And supported with a PESA radar it will have a very reliable guidance.

Maybe his underbelly shot is actually from a Su-33 and he thinks it is a Su-33 because of the canards + extra weapon stations. Or Su-37.

Where have you seen a Su-33 with R-77? Maybe it was a different aircraft?

This is the RCS value for the JF-17 that is defined in the game files. In DCS the RCS is constant, different directions will not affect RCS.

Great news! Thanks alot!!

Unfortunate, the tactical view would really help. Where do you know from that it is not functional for non export MiG-29?

You said that radar should not lose lock when going inverted at ranges below 10km in close combat modes. I showed you evidence that this is not properly working in DCS, and that this range in DCS is just 5km. Then you suddenly dissapear from the conversation :hmm: Could we please have this radar behaviour fixed (at least the 10 km instead of 5 km)? I am also asking you again to get in contact with a real MiG or Sukhoi pilot about this issue. I can guarantee that a MiG pilot will tell you that this behaviour is wrong.

Not having a datalink does not directly mean that there is no tactical view (topdown view) as in the Flanker. The switch is there, above the HDD (TAKT.). I wonder if it should still display a top down view with the targets from SNP or STT when the tactical view switch is used. At least for MiG-29S.

Hi! Some time ago players where asking for the flare count of the F-15C to be increased. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=7815 The previously F-15C flare count was the correct one for the large MJU-10 flare type. Then the flare count was increased to the correct one for the smaller MJU-7 flare type. But: The flare behaviour did not change. The increased flare count with MJU-7 is a result of smaller flare cartidges, so more can be fittet into the launcher. The smaller flare results in a smaller chance of defeating a heatseeking missile. The DCS F-16 has the MJU-7 as well, and with the F-16 the chance of defeating a IR missile is correctly decreased (not sure if that is actually how it is in DCS). With the F-15C on the other hand the flare rejection is the same as it was previously. It still has the same flare rejection as the MJU-10. As a result, the F-15C has the increased flare count of the MJU-7 cartidge size, but still the same higher flare effectivenes of the large MJU-10 cartidge. This is not realistic and should be fixed. Solutions: Either the F-15C has to go back to the old, reduced flare count. Or the flares deployed by the F-15C should have a reduced effectiveness. Thank you!