bies

Will this new radar model become some kind of API to be used by other developers and modules across DCS? Or it will be exclusive for F-16 and F/A-18 radar modeling? Thanks for your work!

Yes, this would be awesome. We've seen more and more inverse kinematics implemented in DCS modules last few years so probably some day we will have moving hands.

Exactly, thanks for correction.

It's hard to tell because it's FC3 simplified aircraft. It's basically a mix of different variants. In manual its radar is named AN/APG-63(v)1, but it has capabilities of Cold War AN/APG-63 with PSP with only 4 targets simultaneous engagement. It's at least 1985 MSIP II variant since it has 1985 standard avionics elements, radar with PSP and TWS mode, NCTR, AN/ALQ-135 internal ECM, AN/ALR-56C RWR, digital display instead of analog weapon selector, integration with AMRAAM, ALE-40/45 countermeasures dispenser. It is also pre mid-2000s modernisation since it doesn't have AN/APG-63(v)1 simultaneous 6 targets engagement, Link16, JHMCS, AIM-9X integration, GPS navigation etc. In short it's correct for ~1985-2000 scenarios - it doesn't have any capability 1985 MSIP II didn't already have. But being FC3 module it's pointless to rivet count, something will always be wrong, many radar modes are missing even for 1979 basic F-15C like Velocity Search, Short Range Search, Low Pulse Repetition Frequency pulse backup mode, slewable AutoGuns, Super Search, Manual Track, Visual Identification, Beacon mode, Sniff passive listen-only mode, A-G Ground Mapping, A-G Plan Position Indicator for slant range, A-G HUD mode, AN/ALQ-128 EWWS and probably many other electronic gizmos.

Small hint: F/A-18 has been designed for A-A configuration with 2x AIM-7 Sparrow/AMRAAM on semi-recessed low drag fuselage pylons plus 2x AIM-9 on wingtip low drag pylons. And internal gun. In this configuration Hornet created low drag and it was capable in air combat. Taking A-A weapon on wing pylons was possible, but at the expense of disproportional drag increase, making F/A-18 practically a subsonic aircraft. Wing pylons are designed to carry A-G ordinance, they require additional rack in order to accomodate A-A missile and the missile itself create full drag. It's enough to compare drag index of semi-recessed pylon with conventional wing pylon+rack.

All IRST are hugely overperforming in DCS right now, but they are being reworked to interact with atmospheric conditions, clouds. This will reduce their effectifeness dramatically making them useful only is specific situations, like IRL.

Basically half of "not cool" features you mentioned are awesome. No MFDs or glass cockpit make it most appealing to me.

P-42 drag reduction was huge compared to Su-27, it didn't resemble Su-27 performance. It was not only missing many elements of the structure, but also has been polished and sealed over the whole surface of the aircraft. No matter what you do you should never be anywhere near P-42 numbers, both drag and weight. Modifications we know about were: Engines uprated to 13,600kg/f each for additional ~2100kg/f of thrust Weight reduced by few tons to 14,100kg The aircraft was stripped of paint, polished and all drag-producing gaps and joints were sealed to reduced drag Wing high lift devices keyed to reduce drag Cut tail boom Cut vertical stabilizers Removed vental fins Removed drag chute and fences Removed the optical unit of the optical-location station Removed wingtip launch rails Air Intakes has been fixed Keels Reduced in Height Removed radar and weapon control system Radar radome was replaced with a lighter metal nosecone

It's possible. There is an interview with Indian pilot, he flown MiG-25 as well, according to him max range profile was using 1-st stage afterburner and supersonic flight.

Makes sense. I've basically never used INTL as Link16 shows what aspect and range to expect. It was probably different during Cold War / Desert Storm before Link16 when standard was to use INTL not to get caught off guard easily. Thx.

Thanks for interesting and detailed context.

Yes, thanks, my bad, lack of radar radome shows reconissance variant. I'll replace the photo with correct one - not to confuse further readers.

Soviet MiG-25PD used the infrared sensor "Систе́ма контроля положе́ния непри́ятеля" in the nose of the aircraft, being part of a "Бортовой комплекс радиотехнической и инфракрасной разведки и наведения" - Onboard Complex of Radio-Technical and Infrared Reconnaissance and Targeting". Some export MiG-25PD were deprived of this system. I don't have a detailed information of the system parameters, though, it's possoble the system is still partially classified. The system was far less exposed compared to the MiG-29 and the Su-27 IRST, not to compromise aerodynamics of supersonic cruise of the MiG-25. As the MiG-29 and the Su-27 were meant to fly supersonic only occasionally.

My suggestion is: George/Petrovich AI should become an API to be used by all ED and 3rd party helicopters like other parts of development kit. Huey, Mi-8, Gazelle, further Kiowa, Bolkov-105 and others. It already works really good for Mi-24 and AH-64. Unified co-pilot AI = need to remember only one logic to operate all helicopters (with small modifications to accomodate needs of specific type like differences between Petrovich and George). Win - win for all ED, 3rd parties and players. Contrary - every developer forced to use their own different AI logic, and make it from scratch, different for every developer and every helicopter (and player forced to remember all the different logics co-pilot AI) would be just a bad choice. Significanly increasing all helicopters development time, making players uncomfortable to operate different helicopters and DCS feeling less unified, loose cluster of modules. cheers

This is 1990s Ka-50 variant. 2000s Ka-52 is slower, heavier, less maneuverable. Contrary we have 2000s AH-64D. Original Cold War/Desert Storm AH-64A was faster (some 20kts / 37km/h), lighter, more maneuverable.

Is this Japanese influence or original Chinese culture? It was so infantile/sweet. Maybe we don't know Chinese culture at all and we just feed on stereotypes. Menwhile European fairy tale cartoons for children...

No. What you've posted is 2 years old speculation and 2 years old posts from 2021. Later on Deka Ironworks stated they won't be alble to make it or obtain documantation and they would risk jail trying. And they wasnt to make some Chinese aircraft, not Russian license built one. After that they announced they've chosen Chinese J-8II fighter.

It would be great if sufficient documentation is available. It was Soviet PVO fighter though and this were more classified than Soviet tactical fighters. 1970 MiG-25P (Foxbat-A) was spcialised single role PVO interceptor with riduculously powerfull pulse radar. 1980s MiG-25PD (Foxbat-E) was more universal, it was be able to detect and attack tagets below the nose using Doppler radar, it had RWR, additional R-60 missiles, flares and chaff dispensers, IRST. MiG-25R/RB/RBV/RBT (Foxbat-B) were reconissance aircrafts / bombers in few gradually improved variants with ELINT recon equipement and Peleng bombing systems. So overall MiG-25 would be both specialised and multirole aircraft at once. According to US F-15 pilots flying over Iraq, MiG-25, due to its uncompromised performance and weapon, in many situations was more dangerous opponent than MiG-29. Overall MiG-25 would open whole new tactical capabilities for all Cold War scenarios, having distinct limitations and unique very strong points available for Soviett side.

Overall F-14 cockpit looks great in VR, very detailed and realistic. Fantastic work. Some buttons are so badly used/worn out, especially in RIO cockpit, you have to look carefully or use back ligh to read them comfortably though. Minus is cockpit weathering looks realistic - but for last years of F-14 from 2000s. Not for Cold War / Top Gun era F-14 when they were brand new, coming off the production line. I would like at least F-14A early to look like just lightly used, easily readable and sexy - not badly worn out and old. (Similar situation to F-4E - at least early variant from 1974 shouldn't be badly worn out, but quite new.) But overall kudos to HB graphic designers.

Yes, i'm curious as well. Maybe original Cold War JA-37 variant is in Heatblur's reach? I would be interested in 1980s original AJ-37 with Skyflash, RB 24 and gun anyway, when it was still relevant and dangerous fighter and Soviet threat still existed. Not some modern AMRAAM truck when it was badly outdated and mostly replaced by Gripens. I would like to shoot some fighters with this JA-37 ridiculously powerfull Oerlikon KCA 30mm gun, firing GAU-8 Avenger cardridge, dwarfing Soviet GSh-30-1 or European ADEN and DEFA cardridges. When in AMRAAM era scenarios i usually set any aircraft gun ammo to 0, just to be lighter, as chance to use it is basically 0% anyway.

Heatblur's work is second to none, but it's not Heatblur, but TrueGrit making EF and having as access to the data. Heatblur just works with them, help them, having experience with DCS and solid coders knowing how to work with dev kit. Heatblur was not allowed to make fighter Viggen variant due to some classified data. And JA-37 Viggen is deep Cold War machine. F-111 being prepared for developement would be a great news. Obviously Airplane Simulation Company ddin't release any module for DCS yet. Their quality will be visible only after releasing their C-130.

I've noticed when changing PRF in the Hornet the order is: MPFR -> HPRF -> INTL But 90% of the time you want to change from HPRF to MPRF through the engagement, and to do that, you have to cycle through INTL and MPRF. It is very unlikely you would need to change from MPRT to HPRF. Is this order correct to the real aircraft?

Yes, this would add a lot especially for the helicopters, but it would be important for all ground attacks.

First it's low fidelity simplified FC3 aircraft, it doesn't model any real life avionics limitations, radar submodes, datalink operations and limitations etc. - this way it doesn't reveal anything sensitive, anything of any value to potential adversaries. Second - it's 90% just FC3 Su-27S with few changes. This Su-33 was modeled already 20 years ago in LO:MAC, FC3 far predecesssor, in very similar way.

Original Soviet 9.12 may be modeled in reasonably realistic way on par with other DCS full fidelity modules, with documantation, real data, realistic FM, many subject matter experts input from both NATO and eastern block countries, with all its quirks, limitations, real historical performance in many conflicts as reference etc. So called "FBW MiG" - whatever it means, would be pure fantasy with fictional avionics, fictional performance, fictional FM, fictional weapon systems performance, without any real documentation, without subject matter experts revealing real life data or limitations etc. Way less realistic even compared to FC3 standard. Not even close to any full fidelity module. Who knows, depending on the result of current political events - maybe ED will be allowed to renew their work 9.12 in the future?