dundun92

I would agree 9X makes merges a shoot to win, but with 120Cs at least personally I dont see merges being a super big issue. At least thats my take. With 120B rulsets I definitely wouldnt include 9Xs. I personally dont mind either way.

Good points but Im not trying to force "realistic" BVR. I am all for RL tactics when they work, but I have no problem doing "gamer" tactics if they actually work in game. I have no issues getting slow to notch AMRAAMs simply because it works in DCS. I couldnt care less that IRL youd obviously never do it. As for the AWACS idea yes looking at that its quite ridiculous, its just one of those random ideas that pops up that I thought I'd put out there. Also regardless of how AWACS should be used 99% of people use it as a "god's eye view minimap" anyway, and I want to discourage that. IMO allowing full AWACS DL just encourages bad radar mech, and things like this is what I personally like being used. Also I dont think unrealistic tactics forces a merge; if you look at the tacview its "BVR" missile shots that won matches, not BFM fights. This imo isnt about balance, Im just not one of those people thats trying to force super "realistic" BVR. But thanks for the input, its more stuff to think about.

No I mean NEZ shots that miss because the bandit did a lazy 3g turn into you and happened to deploy just 1 chaff for the split second he was in the notch. I have countless tacview of NEZ ER shots missing like this.

I definitely understand you guys, and I will say I did enjoy the last format. The main reasoning for this was actually because this was the original intent with EWRs, I did not realize that ED hadnt fixed them and allowed the F-16/18 to link with them. Again this was just a prelimnary decision to discuss, I personally am fine with or without it, I think it was challenging. Another thought; the terrain chosen was really flat, do you think more mountainous terrain would be better/worse (this would be without DL)?

More like unrealistic redfor? Honestly if ED would just fix basic bugs like the chaff bug the Flanker would be far more effective

The radar is likely changing PRF to MED when entering STT, ive noticed it doing that now

Alamo Squadron Alamo 1-1 | dundun92 Alamo 1-2 | Dankguy

-reserved for future info- Prelimnary .miz REGISTERED TEAMS (7/16): Alamo Squadron GTAG Squadron I 64th Aggressors I 64th Aggressors II Eclipse Task Force Flow3r/TAW_Savior/Redhotita1 GTAG Squadron II RESERVE TEAMS: None TOURNAMENT BRACKETS Mutual Support 2000s -- Caucasus_Kut_Tibl.miz

INTRO Mutual Support is a 2v2 BVR Tournament. Naturally, the smaller team sizes often lead to more aggressive and interesting fights that are focused on solid mutual support. Various editions of it will have various rulesets based on the approximate time era chosen; this edition is 2000s themed. DATE AND TIME This second edition of Mutual Support will start at 2030z on September 26, 2020. The running time will be no greater than 3 hrs. If this is exceeded, the competition will be resumed one of the the following Saturdays at a similar time, based on the teams preference. Registration ends on September 24th. OBJECTIVES AND TOURNAMENT STYLE Each match is conducted as best of three rounds. The objective is to destroy all enemy aircraft (by doing so preventing them from RTBing), and still be able to RTB to the designated base. Note that enforcing the RTB is up to the loosing team; if they want they can tell the winning team to simply respawn. The competition is a knockout-style competition, with teams being eliminated after loosing a 3 round match. Time permitting, looser of the first round of fights will participate in a separate championship. RULES A single team may be comprised of as many pilots as desired; however, only two may be used at a time. Only one pilot is allowed to change between rounds (note that for the F-14, changing RIOs is allowed as much as desired). Aircraft types may not be changed between rounds. Weapons loadout, however, can be. Mixed fleets of aircraft are allowed (e.g, one F-18C and one J-11A). All spawns are ground spawns separated by 100-120nm. Either of the spawn airbases is a valid RTB airbase The competition will be on Caucasus; there are two different arenas that will be alternated between rounds: Anapa-Maykop, and Kutaisi-Tiblisi. The map used first will be determined randomly. There is an engagement zone centered on the RTB airbase. This engagement zone will extend out to the spawn bases. You must stay within this engagement zone at all times; if you exit it you will be removed from the fight and cannot participate further. Weapons employment from outside the engagement zone is not permitted. You may not RTB/Respawn after takeoff. On the other hands, valid problems such as game crashes of a player will constitute a reason to restart the fight. Note that a restart for these reasons is only permitted within 5 minutes of takeoff. This also can only be done once per MATCH (not per round). Ping limit of 300 is server-enforced. Lonewolfs are allowed; the pairings are to be decided automatically the day before the matchup, and will stay that way for the tournament. Alternatively, you may decide on the pairings yourselves; in that case, simply state the agreed pairings no later than September 25th at 2300z. AWACS will be present, but will NOT have datalink enabled [up for discussion: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4485523&postcount=18]. To keep the event running smoothly, I would ask that suggestions/questions be kept until the end of the event, unless they are relevant to/will affect the remaining rounds (e.g, concerns about excessive lag/rubber banding). One squadron may enter up to 2 primary teams. Any further teams will be put on a reserve roster to allow space to accommodate more teams. If a team cannot show up, or registration is not full by registration end, reserve teams will be moved to the primary roster. More Rules TBD WEAPONS RESTRICTIONS This edition features a roughly 2000s rule set with some exceptions. The BANNED weapons are: AIM-9X [up for discussion], Nukes. Restricted weapons are: AIM-120 (all variants) to 4 total, AIM-54 (all variants) to 4 total. COMMUNICATION All team captains must be present on the Alamo Squadron Teamspeak (server info below) during play. IP: 73.32.85.67 PW: 5775 Questions are to be asked either in PMs, or on this thread. STREAMING AND PRIZES There is no anticipated stream as of RN. If you would want to volunteer DM me. There are no prizes, its simply for the fun of it! REGISTRATION Registration format is as follows: [Team Name] Player #1 Player #2 Player #3 ... As an example Alamo Squadron Alamo 1-1 | dundun92 Alamo 1-2 | Dankguy There will be a limit of 16 teams. OTHER RESOURCES For those that may be interested, but may not be familiar with 2v2 BVR, the 2v1, 2v2, and Tactical Intercepts of "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering" are very informative. It is widely available as a PDF online.

Ive seen several servers do it, I'm curious as to how you disable AWACS link-16. I still want players to be able to ask for bogey dope picture etc, just no datalink from the AWACS.

Thank you all for participating! Here is the link for the Tacview: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqkIVPKVcH5NBrm0RjJTmYMSZSy5AyzT/view?usp=sharing In reference to the discussion at the end, for now for the next edition (which I am aiming to happen on the 26th) I will likely add an AWACS to the mission, but disable the datalink, so you would still get picture and bogey dope, just not AWACS DL. FF datalink obviously is still there. Thoughts? Another potential option is to allow AWACS link but a) make it orbit significantly lower (sub 10-15kft), and b), potentially find an area with a bit more terrain, so that the datalink still is far from being an all-seeing eye and will have fairly large blindspots as everyone hits the deck during the fights progression, which was the original intent of using EWRs and not AWACS. It also would make flying high a tradeoff: you have the kinematics advantage, but your opponents get link on you, which you may not have on them if they are low.

Perhaps the missile entered the 15km active range?

DCS CM/CCM is just a dice roll with certain factors (for chaff aspect, range, etc) tweaking the probability, that's a fundamental problem. It's a binary "is it tracking the chaff or the target", with no chance of reacquiring if the dice rolls in favor of it being decoyed, which just isnt how this stuff works IRL. I can't count how many NEZ ERs I have fired that just missed because the guy flew in a lazy 3g turn through the notch and happened to be dropping chaff.

More info With registration now closed, since there are only 4 teams, I will likely run a match between the losers of the first rounds. TS info: Server IP: 73.32.85.67 Server PW: To be given before tournament start Please show up in the TS3 channel labeled "Mutual Support 1990s" at least 10mins before the start, or no later than 2020z.

From the HAF -34: "When ACM is initially selected, the 30 by 20 degree scan pattern is the submode entered, but with the FCR nonradiating. Radiation commences upon selection of one of the scan patterns. The system will lock on to the first target detected and display the target on the MFD. Upon target lock-on, the VMU provides a recorded advisory (LOCK-LOCK) through the pilot’s headset." I couldnt find anything explicitly dealing with going from STT to ACM

As AlexCaboose said we dont have DTT SAM yet, its planned for the future

Youd have to disable IC for that. Not good for MP.

Any news on this ED? Its been a awfully long time

The AI knows whenever you shoot a missile at it, and their radars vastly over preform.

:huh:

If thats the case that we arent sure the WCS etc is compatible then fine, it wouldnt be realistic. I was under the impression that it could use it, and just never did. And yes it occured to me that I should have said PL-12, was too lazy to correct :P. Figured most people would understand lol. And for the R-77 DLZ yes its lacking info, but its pretty clear that you arent getting AIM-120B levels of range unless they used some really odd shot parameters

The R-77 does not have AIM-120B range. Heres an R-77 DLZ chart to illustrate: Also, Nhawk ran a CFD some time ago, and the straight line drag was just a little bit too low (this was before the tweak btw). Our R-77 is simply the earliest variant, and has a pretty small rocket motor. What would really help is an R-77-1. In what sense do you mean realistic? Realistic as in whether the plane can carry it, or realistic as in historically accurate. Because if its the latter, I dont really see that being a realism problem. Its not like the PLAAF doesnt use SD-10s. IMO if the place can carry it and the weapon is in use for the time period represented by the module I dont really see a problem; the triple mavs for tge F-16 and the Mirage D2M are perfect examples. Fully compatible, and could be used if needed, simply never used because it was either never needed, or had disadvantages when using it. IMO I dont see this as a balance issue. But if Deka wants to keep it operationally accurate im fine, im just giving my personal opinion.

That's kinda what I thought, given how easy to trash they are. I think I'll move it to 3.

My thoughts as well. So many insist ED adds triple racks even though it was never operational. I dont see what would be wrong with SD-10/PL-12s on the J-11 since Deka confirmed it did prototype it, just never operational. Honestly the biggest issue would be the blue fanbois endless complaints tbh:megalol:.

OP could have put a poll and at least we could have gotten some stats outta this