Tiger-II

I'm not asking for much: * Realistic range * Realistic missile tracking (this is not the same as kinematics) Missile physics should not be a problem for ED, and I don't think this has ever really been in doubt. It's the rest of it that is the problem.

I've skipped the last couple of updates, so I'm going to do some flying and test to see what it is doing now.

Flying last night with the Sun behind me, and the panel completely washed out (F-16). Couldn't see a thing. Not seen a similar problem with the JF-17. I also flew into the Sun. I don't recommend it, but I could see mostly fine.

That is a great point actually.

I saw it. It's in the SD-10 mega-thread.

I take missiles to the face just to hear it. :megalol:

It's not a slant at Deka so much as frustration that the missile has gone from being reasonably accurate, to being so under-modelled it's beyond a joke. ED's position isn't helping matters. They seem to think their missiles are fine, when they clearly aren't. ED has two major problems to address: * Their philosophy that BVR is bad and they must force a merge through artifical and wholly unrealistic mechanics as rediculously short-ranged missiles and highly inaccurate visual ranges/scaling of aircraft * Some bizarre idea that helicopters need protecting from AA RADAR missiles, meaning the missiles actively avoid the target if they meet certain conditions What is wrong with realistic modelling of missiles, and accurate scaling/visual ranges of airborne targets?

That alluring voice saying softly: Missile...Missile as you face impending doom is somewhat incongruous to the situation, don't you think?

I think PL-15 will be made vailable to the JF-17 Block III. From what I read it requires AESA RADAR to fire it (not sure why - operating frequency of the missile can only interop with AESA modes?).

Interesting read: https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/pakistan-s-pl-15-missile-equipped-jf-17-block-3-is-a-serious-game-changer-how-india-can-respond-to-regain-superiority

That was March 2019. Any sign of it since? I also think it is fake - juist look at its placement on the rail. While Block III might be getting it, I doubt it would be mounted so far forwards on the rail. More likely, it will hang lower to clear the flap/aileron. I've also read that Block III will gain two additional hardpoints, bringing the total to 8.

Steps to reproduce: * Over-fly runway at 500 ft and 200 kts * Eject * Walk up to canopy :lol::lol::lol::megalol::megalol::megalol: I did find this:

That looks so wrong (dare I say, fake?). I doubt it would hang that far forwards off the rail? I think it more likely that it would hang off a lower rail and be sat further aft to clear the flap/aileron.

I didn't see IRST mentioned regarding Block 3, either. HMCS, yes; AESA, yes. Also, it is already capable of slaving the TGP to the RADAR for AA visual ID, and IRST isn't as great as they claim it to be (anecdotal evidence). I did find this (with photo): https://quwa.org/2016/04/25/ideas-jf-17-block-iiis-irst/ It's appearing that JF-17 might become the de facto replacement for the F-16 in the future for PAF. This has been posted before, but worth re-reading: https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2020/01/02/china-touts-use-of-stealth-fighter-systems-on-upgraded-jet-for-pakistan.html

Huh... Time to find an efficient profile for them then... I'm surprised they don't have nose-cones.

I love nothing more than perfectly executed DTOS where the bombs hit the target and I never even saw it.

Don't zoom in. ;)

Hi, Has this changed at all lately, or have I really not been using the BRM-1s that much? Took the jet for a quick flight today with just two pods and a TGP, and was struggling to get much over 400 kts (dry thrust). I started looking for a problem like I'd left the gear down or accidentally deployed the speed brake or something. Apologies if it's just me!

I think it is capable because the Block 1 pylons don't get it to MTOM. It only makes sense in the case that certain weapons are carried on the outer pylons that are currently restricted to the inner pylons (e.g. 4x GB6 or 802 as already mentioned). Is the wing strengthened thus "different"? That's possible. Do we know what the difference in basic weight is? Maybe that would shed some light? As I understood the 3rd radio, I thought it was an avionics update but it retained the same head so visually in the cockpit, no change? As it is now, the control panel on the left side for the radios is just a programmer. The actual "radios" are in the avionics bay.

There are tactical nukes for that. Oh wait... :lol:

Is that a vertical climb (+90 deg. pitch) after the acceleration? What g to pull to go vertical?

30,000 ft in 30 seconds is "only" 60,000 ft/min or "only" 83% of its stated maximum performance. If he entered the vertical from 600+ kts at max power, why not? 600 kts = 60,760 ft/min in the forward direction.

All aircraft in DCS to a greater or lesser extent have too much drag, no matter the config. Just try gliding any aircraft at best L/D AoA and watch as it bleeds speed, unable to glide as it should (engine idle or shutdown completely - makes no difference).

It happens within 5 mins of startup. I doubt it is INS drift. I even did a full 4 min alignment in case. I need to check it again (though now I think, I think it was fixed an update or two ago). I'm not flying DCS nearly enough lately!

It's not just an Eastern thing to work like that! :lol: