BlackPixxel

Of course there is no ground stabilization. But I wonder why there is no attitude stabilisation. I expected the sight to point more or less in the same direction independend of the helicopter movement.

It appears that the optical sight is using gyros, but those don't seem to do much? I was expecting the sight to be stabilized in its attitude, so that pitch or yaw rotations of the helicopter will not transfer onto the sight's line of .. sight. But right now it seems that the sight operator has to counter the rotations of the helicopter by himself. What are those gyros used for then? This website here revers to the line of sight as gyro stabilized. It also says that after firing the helicopter can turn away up to 60° while guiding the missile. With a non-stabilized sight like we have right now this seems impossible to do. http://www.nva-flieger.de/index.php/technik/bew/palr-falanga.html

MiG-29 manual says that the 73 can be used with active enemy countermeasures.

Says who?

The Su-27 radar is propably completely blind to chaff, since it has massive notch gates. Radar/OLS work together in the real aircraft, the pilot can select such combined modes. And with such a mode it is almost safe to say that the target illumination signal would never shut of in the first place if the target was changing aspect, as the radar will be slaved to the angular coordinates from the OLS.

It is not about chaff, it is about the missile doing stupid maneuvers even without chaff due to OLS bug, bleeding all its energy. No chaff required to kinematically destroy the R-27 within seconds.

So fixing issues with red aircraft is "one sided"? I think updating only NATO missiles to the new standard is one sided, if you want to go that way Good to hear about the Radar/OLS transition fix!!

The HOJ appears to give the missile perfect guidance. It lofts as if it was fired on a non-jamming target without support. Fired on a jamming target beyond burn through range the missile should propably not loft, it has no range information for that.

Do you understand what a G-limiter does? Why would the G-limiter work properly at all speeds in the Su-27, but in the Su-33 (with upgraded FBW) it would not work at all speeds? It is a bug.

First of all they are far from resistant to flares, they eat them alot in DCS. And additionally, the R-27T/ET have CCM. In the manual it is described as having a good resistance against active and passive interference. Sounds like you recently got shot down by ET's alot?

This aircraft has a G-limiter. And at high speeds it fails to work in DCS. It suddenly allows for 10+ G. The G-limiter of the S-27 on the other hand works at high speed. It is a programming issue in the game. A bug. Plain and simple.

I think something was misinterpreted. Does the bars on the MKI even have the additional mechanical azimuth gimbal? Su-35 has +/-120° azimuth, because there is such a azimuth gimbal on top of electronic steering.

In this typical example the duration of radar loss was less than 4 seconds, so an F-15 or any other aircraft in DCS would not have lost lock, and the Aim-7 would have guided without interruption. But with the Flanker we don't have that luxury. Our lock will instantly transition to OLS, turning radar OFF, which instantly stops the missile from guiding and causes it to do very stupid maneuvers with extremely high G that completely kill the energy of the missile. If the lock would only switch to OLS after it cannot be reacquired by radar after the extrapolation time, then the R-27 guidance on a Su-27 would be the same as if it was fired from an F-15 without OLS. Unless this gets fixed, SARH missiles from an aircraft with IRST will always guide MUCH worse than those fired from an aircraft without IRST under normal combat conditions. This makes absolutely no sense. And why the radar switches off the illumination in DCS when the target is still locked with the IRST will forever stay a mystery.

Here is one reason why fixing it is so important: I fire a good shot with good energy on a high target. The target should be dead meat, considering it does not really defend it. When the missile is 20 km the target, it still has Mach 4! But now the target briefly enters the notch, and lock instantly transitions to OLS. This triggers another bug: When radar lock is briefly lost, the missile will not keep its current velocity vector. Instead of that, it somehow does a high G meaneuver towards the current position of the target. When radar lock is restored, the missile does another high G maneuver back into the lead pursuit guidance. You can see that happen a few times in the video. From Mach 4 at 20 km distance to target it causes the missile to be down to Mach 2 at 15 km to target. So within a matter of a few kilometers, these two bugs completely killed the energy of the missile. With a delayed transition from radar to OLS, this would not have happened. But also the issue of the missile turning towards the target instead of keeping lead pursuit when the radar lock is briefly interrupted needs to be fixed in general. If I did not have IRST on my aircraft, all of this would not have happened and the target would propably be dead. Another reason why the OLS is harming our R-27R/ER performane instead of helping it.

Wohoo, Fox-1 chaffbug is finally fixed! Thanks so much for that! Now we just need to get the Radar/OLS transition fixed and the Su-27 is a worthy fighter again.

Su-27SK manual mentions vertical scan to be used for visible target up to 5 km, so even less. BUT: It does not mean that the radar in the real one would ignore other targets. Overstratos from RB wrote that there is no 10 km limit in the real MiG-29, and it can lock target beyond that range in vertical scan. So the ranges mentioned in the manual are most likely just recommendations for when you would use this mode. And that is usually to lock a target that you saw with your own eyes, not just to point it at datalink targets and hope for the best, like it is mostly done in DCS.

What do you mean? Currently in DCS or currently in the real world? Real R-77 do loft, as confirmed by the russian pilots here on the forum.

Any R-77 with loft will be a massive stepup for the Flanker and create roughly parity. Link-16 would not be such a big advantage if ED would not keep the Su-27/33 from having P2P datalink in multiplayer. Combine that with the usual lack of skill from Blufor pilots in DCS and they would have no chance.

Seems much more reasonable than current "R-27ED", because there the acceleration is almost linear, as if it was a boost only missile.

Good information! DCS KH-25M has: Boost of 2 s with 2298 Kg of thrust Sustain of 7 s with 1898 Kg of thrust Total impulse: 17182 Kg

Maybe I misunderstood, but to me it seemed like the basedrag is not modelled at all in the old FM, not the absence of it when the motor is on.

Any sources for the 40 G overload of the R-27? 40 G sounds alot. In DCS it is 24 G (max target overload is 8 G, so with a PN coefficient of 3 we get 24 G).

Pretty funny, now everyone will think that ER is much better, when actually it even worse than before With the chaff/OLS related bugs it is impossible to get kills at medium to long ranges, so there is no benefit from the slightly increased ranges. And at close ranges it is worse now because the boost got so weak.

These are the antennas. They receive the radio correction signal and are also used during semi active homing to get the reference signal for the doppler processing. There are 4 of them, one on each side (up, down, left, right).

@BIGNEWY With the radar ranges of the MiG-29A and the German MiG-29 being corrected, could we get the developers to look into the MiG-29S radar? Right now the MiG-29S in DCS uses the exact same radar values as the MiG-29A, which is not correct. Here is what one of the MiG-29 manuals says about that radar: So the MiG-29S is equipped with a different radar than the MiG-29A. The radar is a bit heavier and has the more capable Ts101M processor instead of the Ts100. Next to the dual target engagement capability (that we already have in DCS) the ranges got increased by about 15% (16.7 % in front hemisphere, 14.3 % in the rear hemisphere). It would be great if the radar of the DCS MiG-29S could be adjusted to correctly represent this range improvement. Increasing the current values by about 15 % would be a good approach. Thank you!