RedTiger

QFT. I've often wondered why the US didn't use this missile and soldiered on with the Aim-9M.

Hehe, you know what I'm talking about!

Indeed! Nothing wrong with calling your shot and knowing how to set up to work. :gun_smilie:

Tanks in FC are brain dead fish in a barrel made from wet paper bags. They basically have two modes -- alive & brewed up and blown the hell. Flight sims tend to view ground units in a binary way of either alive or dead and therefore give an inaccurate picture of their true survivability. :mad: Or just use it to mask your movements while you attack. Its a hell of a thing to be able to rain smoke down on the battlefield and fight THROUGH that because you have IR sights and the other guy doesn't! Taking away that initial capability is a huge difference.

You beat me to this one. I've seen them sail right behind the bandit and in other cases go completely stupid since they aren't even tracking anymore because the aspect angle is nearly 90 degrees as they go off the rail.

Agreed. But the whole reason it has TVC and the wide bore is let the missile fire from highter aspect angle and prevent you from having to turn your fighter to get within parameters, right?

I probably shouldn't have used the cobra example, although when you attempt this, you are not launching with a 90 aspect, you're just raking your nose up 90 deg to get within the bore limits of the missile to fire. This is not the normal way I would use the missile, but it does demonstrate what I'm talking about. As for the proximity fuse, maybe, but what I'm seeing is that it doesn't even have any chance to intercept or get close. As GG says, the targeted fighter leaves it in the dust. Whoops...how did I not know that one? :doh: No TVC but it still can track off-bore? Brilliant! :D Well, I'm guessing that the translation rate is indeed outside those parameters because *I* have avoided them myself at instantaneous turn rate in the Russian planes, which should be above 20-25dps, right? You are right about needing space. Just about the only time off-bore happens is when I'm fairly far away, and in that case it DOES save you some trouble of having to move your nose around, which leads to... Interesting how being faster and consering more energy actually hurts it at the extemes. :) See the above, I agree that it is a time saver and energy saver not having to move your nose around in cases where you are far enough away! I'll have to try the multiple BFM thing. That sounds fun! You say it isn't meant for extreme 1 v 1 dogfighting, but isn't if funny that this is what all the anectdotal evidence suggests its for? It reminds me of the whole R-27TE datalink thing where you can make a wrong assumption from looking at what is "obvious". Using the schlemm primarily as an advantage in a multiple bandit fight makes good sense in terms of what he Fulcrum was designed to do. Ok, so what inspired the latest Python, ASRAAM, and Aim-9X? Again, anectdotal evidence would suggest it was extreme dogfighting, "shooting across the circle". Did the West misunderstand the use of the archer and design their missiles with a capability they only imagined the adversary would have? If you read about those German MiG-29 fighting the F-16, it seems certain that they were using it 1 v 1 and were getting to call confirmed kills with the schlemm.

Ok, seeing as this forum looks sad and lonely with no posts in the last day, I figured it was a good time to bring this up. We know the R-73 has off-bore capability. We know that the pilot can use the head targeting system to target aircraft that are off-bore. So...how well does all this work in LOMAC? Not too good, IMO. Well...first let me be clear about something. I'm talking strictly about the missiles capability to intercept a hard-turning fighter off-bore. Forget about countermeasures, this is pure kinematics. I don't want to suggest that the R-73 is somehow less flare resistant that it should be, whether it is or not, and go in that direction. ;) So, I'm pretty sure we've heard the exaggerated term "shooting across the circle". Well, with the scripted Cobra manuever in LOMAC, you can attempt this. You will lose all your smash and will probably miss. The R-73 has difficulty intercepting the fighter under these conditions unless it is fairly far away or not pulling any G. The most reliable way to make sure you have a good PK is to shoot your R-73 from a small aspect angle. You would expect this in any case, but in LOMAC this seems to be the only way to get a good PK. You have to negate your off-bore capability to actually stand a chance to get a kill. You can target off bore and get a "tone" in the form of the target ring flashing, but I find that you still have to get in the saddle and pull them into the HUD if you want to kill them. To borrow a very astute phrase from S77th-konkussion, in what way does the LOMAC R-73 "crash at the corner of LOMAC & reality"? Is anything missing?

Nice pictures indeed. :D "Upgrade to pro today!" Any other links for these?

I'd like just a simple mission with some static targets near the airbase you take off from. Here's the catch: NO documentation. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You have to use the producer's notes so far to get it started and figure out what to do. THAT would be fun. :D

Maybe. The only other thing I could think of is that the view down the nose was much more pronounced than previous aircraft. Could be anything really.

Yeah, I'd think so too. You beam to notch. Beam is one of the actions that leads to the result: the notch! :)

This is mainly what I had in mind (as seen in LOMAC) So...what about the Fulcrum makes it so prone to glare that everyone paints that area black? What differs from the Flanker? Or ANY other aircraft, Western or Russian for that matter.

That makes sense. Its like Mower's old "weaponeering" business. After the fence check, you're basically past the complex stuff in terms of avionics.

I'm going to laugh when Pvt. Joe Blow kills your shiny new Ka-50 with his infantry weapon. To be perfectly honest, I'm going to have trouble keeping in the snickering at anyone coming here to vent at how difficult fighting and surviving in the Ka-50 is going to be. What little I know about how to employ helicopters in combat comes from war games that are simulating helos with thermal sights and better weapons than the Vikhr. Using Vikhr is going to be like using SARH missiles against 10s of enemy planes but with no option to F-pole. I'm not totally sure how one is supposed to tackle that problem. Team work, numbers, planning, and good use of terrain I suppose. LOL! In Flanker you couldn't even -start- the engines...or turn them off for that matter. They were always on!!! :lol:

Reminds me of some MiG-29 schemes you see. I bet the glare is the reason for it. Here's one where it just looks crudely spray painted on!

Keep in mind too that LOMAC's "Day 1" is actually June 22, 2005. Days will be longer, since it is summer. Try setting the day to something different like day 40 or something. This will affect the day vs. night conditions too.

Russian version of software: MAYBE! Russian manual: NO, NO, NO! I think you guys are underestimating the complexity of this. You may encounter difficulty and you WILL certainly have to practice things several times before moving on to the next lesson...that that's in your native language. Now imagine doing that in Russian, which probably doesn't even share the same alphabet as your language! Let me put it another way; has anyone ever played any of the Falcon sims? Imagine trying to learn those with a Russian manual, Russian game menus, Russian narration/captions, Russian cockpit, and Russian speech from AI comms. If you can manage that, then you are exceptionally gifted and should be fine with the Russian version of BS.

Took these just a few moments ago, the moment I paused the sim at turned out to be a "happy accident" :): My current favorite mount, the MiG-29"G" :pilotfly:

This is a big reason why I want DCS: BS. I wanna jump into the Kamov and be like "I thought you guys said flying this thing was hard?" :D Ok, so if I'm NOT a natural, I'm still looking forward to an aircraft that takes skill just to fly. The first time I finally "got" the Su-25T in FC was an amazing feeling. It was like one moment I was flying a bathtub, the next, whistling death! :devil: I'm going to be able to fly that thing in my sleep before I move on to the next DCS module!

LOL@ your commentary! :megalol: I'll have to remember the "show me your butt" one! :rotflmao: Anyhoo...not much to add that hasn't been said before. There's a lot to be said for doing things with bandits on your radar gimbals, and by that I don't even mean having them locked, just keeping your radar pointed to the side and them towards the edge of it. It buys you extra time for all sorts of stuff.

Ah...the memories. I can remember going to one of the computer labs and printing the entire TacOps manual AND every issue of the TacOps gazette for the past 5 years or so. That was close to a thousand pages...and no one batted an eyelash. Times have changed though. From what I understand, my alma mater now charges 10 cents per page printed. :mad:

Geasles! :)

He means that with labels on and no GLOC (Loss of conscientiousness from pulling too many Gs), you have unrealistic situational awareness and you don't have anything holding you back from turning your plane however you please. So, you aren't flying an F-15, you've "graduated" to an alien spaceship! :D EDIT: Cosmo beat me to it, but I'm going to see if I can explain this without creating a ruckus. ;) Reduced G...thats a whole 'nuther kettle of fish that has been discussed to death. It comes down to preference I think. The G model on full realism in LOMAC is great...except for the fact that many claim it models an average person not wearing a G suit and not doing any anti-G straining. In other words, your virtual pilot blacks out far sooner than what SHOULD be expected from a real fighter pilot accustomed to pulling Gs, wearing a G suit, straining, etc. etc. etc. The other side of the argument is that with reduced Gs there's nothing to stop you from doing unrealistic things to avoid missiles. You can instantly pull 9 G+ over and over all day long and never black out. This is mostly a concern in multiplayer. If you aren't playing on someone's server with their rules, then its up to you. You can do whatever you like. I like using full G sometimes, but it makes it almost impossible to sustain the Gs you experience at the cornering speed of some of these fighters, especially the F-15. Trying to keep 330 to 450 knots in a turn in the F-15 will cause blackout, if not the first time you do turn then for certain the second time. OTOH, it doesn't effect the Russian fighters as much because they are more at home at lower speeds where you aren't going to be pulling anything more than 5 Gs. If you care about realism, like I do, you can find valid reasons why you should use both.

I didn't think about it this way. I guess to notch you *have* to be "blending in" with something. Like the ground, a mountain, or chaff. If an object was hovering completely motionless high up in clear sky, I guess there wouldn't be anything you would have to filter? You would be able to detect it just fine.