BlackPixxel

I do not understand this inconsistency. Why add something to a game that is supposed to be realistic, when it does not exist? Ok ED, please give us R-27EA back, at least that missile actually existed.

I really hope ED has evidence of 3 rail wings that where actually put on a Ka-50. I do not want to fly a fantasy bird.

Same for me, I can only cycle waypoints in one direction in the Su-33.

Yes, that's why I said all has to be synced, and even missile itself should be synced from time to time to remove any error. If the shooters missile is the only thing that matters, does that mean that the shooter also calculates the notching?

Lofting is not synced, and loss of datalink guidance before the missile goes active is not synced. The missile tracks all the time for the target, creating a very different flight path. The lack of loft causes the missile to be much slower and further away from the target, and also causes a different angle to the target if it starts maneuvering. If the target just flies straight, it will get hit by a missile that is slow and dead on his side, with RWR showing that it is still far away. For a "simulation" this so wrong, but also from a gameplay perspective! And of course the issue only benefits AMRAAMs and phoenixes, making them even more powerfull. ALL major events during the life of the missile have to be synced, and there should be position and vector updates in slow intervalls to make sure that the error in missile flight between shooter and target is as small as possible. To notch a missile in multiplayer, does the position of the target to the missile on the shooter's PC matter, or is notching calculated on the targets PC?

Missile synchronisation is still not working. This is a very big issue for multiplayer, as it gives aim120 and phoenix an even higher advantage. They are impossible to notch when they are not where the game shows you they are, and it frequently happens that you get killed by a missile that is dead and 2km away on your PC. I do not understand how this can even be a thing in a game that is about air combat, it is very frustrating.

When a Sukhoi pilot says the system was not very good, then we cannot really say from that if the system in DCS is worse or better. To me it is also not very good, because it is useless in head on BVR. It is nice for chasing someone, because then it has a good range, which is very plausible. The range of the laser rangefinder is certainly overmodeled,

Anyone else noticing that the MiG now needs more than 20 seconds to do a roll at full speed?

These are not bombs, these are containers that release alot of mini-bombs. The containers stay on the plane, they just open to release the small bombs.

Why would the 33 suddenly need positive stability at high speed flying when the 27 flies just fine without canards? To me that seems like a waste of energy (higher drag). To me that rapid change seems very wrong, the adjustment of the canards should be continuous and not ON/OFF. Flying in formation must be scary IRL if the DCS behaviour is correct, with Su-33 suddenly jumping upwards as soon as they reach 900 km/h.

But such a rapid shift? Pitch angle of the canards is either zero or instantly positive. Shouldn't there be a smooth transition depending on speed, not ON/OFF? Why should they go up at high speed at all? The plane needs even more downtrim then than it already needs at increasing speed.

Hi! During regular flight, the canards should be more or less level. But as soon as the Su-33 goes faster than ~900 km/h, the canards will pitch up a few degrees and stay at that angle. This causes the plane to suddenly pitch up and it needs a big abrupt trim correction. The canards only go back to the default angle when the Su-33 slows down to below ~800 km/h. This of course causes the plane to suddenly pitch forwards and it needs a big abrupt trim correction again. Here is a video showing the behaviour from external view and cockpit. Look at the speed and the canard/aircraft pitching behaviour: To me this seems to be a bug, or is this behaviour intentional?

Poor red faction, Main weapon R-27 has disadvantage due to bad simulation, no plane to plane datalink, and a super low quality looking aicraft carrier. I hope red can see the changes soon, after a long period of neglect.

Yes, it would be awesome if the Shkval would snap back to the last position as soon as it is within gimbal limits again like it does in the Ka-50. It is always very time consuming to find that same spot again when doing a new attack run.

Why is there no statement from ED? They are responding to other threads in the FC3 section as well, so they must have noticed this thread. Do they really only focus on the modules that will bring the most cash? Right now Blufor has modern jets with missiles that where built after 2000. With their new datalink they have a huge advantage, both in keeping SA on their wingmen and in sharing radar targets. When the F-16 gets released 3 out of the 4 Blufor air to air jets will feature plane to plane datalink. Right now barely anyone flies the Flanker anymore. Servers like 104th are F-14+F-18 vs F-14+F-18, it used to be West vs East. For the sake of realism and to give red players at least some new tools in their honorable fight against the modern US fleet , please fix the plane to plane link in the Flankers! Since the datalink only works for groups of certain sizes, it would be a good idea to give each player the option to assign himself to a certain group via the #-menu, instead of forcing them to stay in the group that the slot is set to.

Does the round nose instead of the cone make such a big difference that it would require a second chart? Since they are propably just a rough guideline, a kilometer here or there should not matter. The ET is also a little bit lighter, which would mean faster acceleration (but also deacceleration due to drag) and reduced drag because a lower AOA is required to keep the altitute.

Yes, the missile on the shooters side is not doing a magic tracking, you are right. The Phoenix itself is not bugged, but the netcode / synchronisation is. This is a huge problem, because you cannot defend against a missile that is actually somewhere else.

It is only a multiplayer issue and never reproducable on the tacview of the shooter, because for the shooter the missile behaviour is always correct. Both server and client do not get informed about the loss of datalink support as soon as the shooter leaves the target. As a result, both server and target will see the missile fly a smooth curve towards the target, tracking it the whole time. You can see that in Blaze's tacview Additionally, the lofting is only synced for the server, but not for the other players. Other players will see the missile flying the direct path. These two issues cause huge differences in missile trajectory between shooter and target. The problem is that the shooter calculates the kill for his missile. If the missile hits the target on the PC of the shooter, the target will be dead. But the target may not have even got a warning of the missile going active, because for him it was already slow and still far away due to lack of lofting. The target may have notched the missile perfectly on his side, but the actual missile path on the shooters PC could have been very different, so that the target is no longer notching. In such cases the target will die without doing anything wrong on his side, which is not how it should be.

German Wikipedia (I know, not a proper source) also states that the T1 and R1 are improved versions with enhanced range. R-27R: 50km R-27R1: 60km (which is 5nm higher than R-27R) R-27T: 40km R-27T1: 65km (Why more range than R-27R1?) On the export sites there are also R-27ER1 and R-27ET1, propably the equally improved long burn variants.

Is this the maximum range (the range where the missile can no longer keep the altitude and falls out of the sky, as it does right now in DCS at that range) or more of a recommended engagement range beyond that the missile will still fly but be to slow to track even slightly manouvering targets? On some sites the ranges we see in the charts being described as "effective kill range", and an additional maximum range is presented as a kinematic range (Much higher than effective kill range).

It is interesting that the missile reaches the manouvering target on the targets tacview earlier and with higher speed than on the shooters tacview, even though it does not do a loft for the target. But since the target sees the missile guiding towards it the whole time and not just when it goes pitbull it can do a smoother turn and not loose as much energy (more direct path + less energy wasted for snapping to new direction once pitbull). If the target would fly straight towards the launch position, the missile would be slower for the target and further away, while for the shooter it would have already reached the target thanks to the more efficient lofted path. I hope ED fixed this as quick as they can.

The player firing the phoenix and the target see two different fight paths of the missile. On servers where spectator and F6 view is enabled it becomes very obvious. Just watch a random phoenix flying towards a target. You will see that it does not even reach the target and already explodes, killing the target far away. I think this has to do with the lofting, that is not seen for everyone else but the pilot that fired the missile. So lofted AMRAAMS are propably also affected by this, but less obvious (they don't fly that far anyway that the lofting makes a very big difference). I have seen AMRAAMs exploding a good distance in front of my plane killing me on tacview, while on the SPO15 it was still a few bars away.

Interesting! I wonder why there is the speed difference of 200km/h in this chart between MiG and target?

I think it is very unlikely that this hand-drawn chart is still valid for late built R-27's, but these are propably not the ones that DCS is trying to replicate. At least for hot targets the ranges in the chart are almost spot on in DCS.