MysteriousHonza

There is no limitation for aim7s in manuals, neither for later varians of sidewinders that can uncage unless you push your turn beyond seeker tracking capabilities. 2G rule for 9B is recommendation only, not rule where it wont hit, it might not track if you pull more though, but it can also hit, its roll the dice scenario basically. And not even uncaging is requirement, 9D gets no launch limit aswell, mid-late 60s missile mind you.

Yes, in dscg, you will get basic functions like point lock drop. In dmas, you should be able to have datalink pod and fly.the bomb yourself. Iam not sure if flying is possible from the front seat but basic operations should.

Aim-7E had 25G limit, same as any other sparrow after. It had gradual increase in pulled Gs after launch, hence why it was bad at close range. E2 solved that issue and had full Gload available from launch. Thats 3Gs more than 9J/P and double of 9B/E.

Tv guided weapons like walleye, gbu8, 15 or maverick can be operated by pilot. Tpod is only wso thing. For bomb toss or any "precision" delivery mode using radar, you need wso to lock ground to get slant range for delivery. These can be used with laser from tpod too but again, for that you need wso.

All mig21 aa missiles besides r55 were changed in 2.9. R13Ms too, their engine, seeker parameters and i think drag coefs too.

Iam blind as hell on 1080P, way worse than in 2.8. I used 2x msaa in 2.8, now i use 4x and i cant see anything at pretty much point blank. Previously i could spot dots at range, now i cant spot until like 2-5km.

Just to point out, we cant equip P-3 on F-5E, F1, F-15E, neither for AI F-4E for examaple, its like missile is not in the game. Only plane where i found it is Viggen as RB24J. All planes able to equip 9P should be able to equip whole 9P family, including 9Js. All USAF jets should be able to. Even F5E.

It acts like homing missile because its considered laser guided and mig21 actually uses shkval laser to guide it... 21bis needs overhaul badly.

Thats how the button is called in real jet/manual too.

2.9 seems to be absolutely based patch. Cant wait only because of these changes and i suppose its only a small part of it

Thank you, can i ask for a bit more info? Will we get OG Aim-9P (smoke), then P2/3 (smokeless) and P-5 or P just becomes P2/3 with reduced smoke engine. Then even if a bit off topic, its still kinda close to aim-9s. There is huge issue with R3S and R13s and R-60 from magnitude (mig21). R3S is pulling 5-6 Gs more than it should (16Gs instead of 10-11), flies shorter and its IRCCM is 15 times better than Aim-9Bs (0,66 vs 10,0!! 15 times better with pretty much same seeker design), it should be same or atleast similar. Certainly should pull less and be multiple times worse against flares. Its CCM is currently BETTER than 9L(0,75), 9JULI (0,75 - should be better than 9L =>irccm head from german 9Li program) and close to 9M/R73 or Magic IIs 0.5 IRCCM, same goes for R13M, M1 and base model R-60 (0,66). R13s i cant find info but considering they should be copies / inspired by Aim-9D and Aim-9J/P, they should pull similar Gs due to aerodynamics - 9D/G/H were limited by frontal fin design, even stronger servos in H couldnt help it and missile pulled 18Gs max - R13M should be 18 instead of 22 and 13M1 gets same design as 22G J/P sidewinder. Cant comment on these much as i dont know how much stronger servos and different frontal fins changed 9Js pull from 9Es as its 2 things combined unlike on 9G/H where servos did nothing but when they added double delta frontal fins on H, they pushed its envelope over 30Gs (9L development program - it was made on 9H body, servos, engine). So R13M1 could be more similar to 9J 20-25Gs, its doing 35Gs now. All these missiles can track in frontal hemisphere too. Again cant comment on R13M1 and R60 but R3S and R13M certainly shouldnt do that. R3S is almost all aspect in that regard. My question is, can we expect these to be changed with sidewinders, are they worked on or we wont see them changed ever? Thank you. Adding video of R13 and R3S ignoring flares and tracking into frontal aspect - R3S (R3S should eat them from side - it shouldnt track from side at all, it was limited to around 30 deg left/right as these old seekers had to see internal parts of engine nozzles they guided on)

Sorry but can we get the change already? What exactly takes MONTHS to release when its supposedly done already?

Yeah.... same thing can be said about R530 or R3R... both rather short ranged, yet radar guided or in case of comming MLA, R23. R530 even gets slight range advantage over you with way tighter turn. And these three are most likely candidates to face you in CW settings. You cant afford merge with smaller stuff like mig19 and MiG-15/17 and they can give position due to how heavily they outmatch F-4E in BFM. Its Win - Win ONLY in case you manage to connect your missile first as R530 wont simply miss and rest is able to easily match F-4E in BFM or overcome it.

Thats wikipedia. We do have charts, they have this range (its wrong on wiki, its slightly above 20nm) under very high speed closure and very high alt against nonmaneuvering target. At alts youre gonna use AIM-7E. its effective range wont be even 5nm. Against 4.5G turning fighter at alt of 5000feet its around 4nm max range. At 25000 feet Rmax goes slightly above 5nm max range.

It takes approx 0.8 secs for early winders to go through launch sequence.

We do have P-3 even engine wise. I cant comment about power or burn time of engine but what is known that it was longer and more powerful. What is wrong is P-3 generating smoke, it used reduced smoke engine. If i understand it correctly, we might get 9P - essentially 9J and then updated P-3 and P-5. Sadly lacking P-4 without IRCCM capabilities of P-5.

It cant tell range, no RWR can realistically tell range, only how strong the signal is and thats guessing a lot (in case of DCS ones, dunno about uber moder stuff in 5th gens). SPO-10 can tell if youre in STT.

It really isnt, additionally it could pick only certain radars. You wouldnt get anything on it with many radars in DCS. It saw older ones like SA-2/3, zsu-23-4 and some plane radars. It can tell you if its ground, air or AAA with type of the lines, otherwise you need to listen how PRF sounds and determine what is actually looking at you. Its really close to what is on A-4 mod in case of sounds. IIRC, base ALR-45 cant even tell if there is SA-6, one of the most used SAMs in DCS. Its pretty much exactly this, only a bit more modern nullNot to mention they started teasing APR-45 2 years ago.... 2 YEARS

it will start next year . I think it was few months ago? They said either on FB or forum that RWR is holding them at that point and i dont believe it takes months to complete rather basic RWR which doesnt even show vehicle type of the emmitor. It would be really nice of them to atleast tell us, where they are and what remains and how its going on. We dont need dates, just info in which stage and how far it is...

Are there any plans on implementing/changing/overhauling MTI of CyranoIVM? It should be pretty dog down low but currently it performs better than many modern PD radars in DCS, not in range but in ability to detect and track stuff. We can perfectly track helis.

Sooo, in flight simulator, we are now catering to MUH CAPABILITIES crowd even though its not based on real data and its totally fictional. NICE.

Is there any ETA for changes release?

Thanks for info and response i really appreciate it. Wouldn't it be better to worse 9L a bit or place P5 in the middle of L and M? Considering 9L lacked dedicated IRCCM? If not, its good improvement anyway. Thank you

Spotting, especially close in, up to like 10nm should be seriously improved. Huge ammount of people have problems spotting enemy thats below 10nm even tho they are told precisely where to look. Thats how bad spotting in dcs is. Its only.worse on higher res but all resolutions should be same and improved too.

Hello, There are currently several problems with Aim-9P and P-5 in DCS, from FM (Gs) to its flare rejection (P5) i would like to point at its CCM coeficient in LUA of P5. It sits at 1.0 which might be ok or might not, thats not the problem. Problem is, its same as P (which as far as i understand is either P-2 or P-3 in DCS - tho lacking smokeless engine). But P5 introduced IRCCM circuit as first P model. Wouldnt it be in place to modify its CCM somewhere around 9M to achieve its IRCCM? As of now. P and P5 share same flare resist which is wrong. Or simply rename it to P-4 (first all aspect P model without IRCCM) Additionally, Both Ps currently sits at 16G overload. Considering what they are based on - improved export variant of 9J or simply renamed J-1 in case of P (9J-2+ eventually used SR116 engine too). They should share its flight characteristics in that department. Which would be 22G overload instead of 16Gs. Considering, these missiles might end up on upcoming F-15E and F-4E module (P mainly in F-4s case), they deserve some necessary care. Good solution to all, would be bumping G load to 22, renaming current P-5 to P-4, P to P-2 or 3 and giving it its smokeless engine and possibly "reintroduce" P-5 with lowered CCM coeficient to "simulate" IRCCM circuits built into it. null