AeriaGloria

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/351306-sfm-performance-and-inaccuracies/#comment-5459098

The skid is hydraulically rotated. So not as much as Mi-8, but the rear of the skid will move up and down if pressed against the ground. The rear strut is hydraulic just like Mi-8

It helps keep SA around the target before you get into weapons range

Thanks edited for clarity

In your case, the gyro and airspeed to DISS were the factors. ARK settings only affect the direction finding. Hot start often also puts Mi-24P in “DG,” which drifts over time compared to “MK.” it is not required. It is NOT required in real life either because it is for emergencies. If Doppler system fails, the map and navigation can still work using assuming IAS as true airspeed and compass direction as your heading/track with 0 drift. Always keep it off

Did you put the “airspeed to DISS” switch up? If you spawned cold, it also takes 5 minutes for it to even warm up

They have claimed as much. R-27R has like 6-7 km rear aspect range on the deck and like 16-17 km front. R-27ER does almost twice this, and to say either is useless is really something When moved to the new API, having motor plume drag reduction modeled will help rear aspect range considerably

I think what’s important is to also know that IRL the name Flight Director is used to have the autopilot tell you what it would do without doing it. So in this case, it is telling you it would change altitude or heading a certain way if hold modes were on but isn’t. And the dampening in the background is just to help you

No. However, if you look at weapon control panel, top left, you can switch range selection from auto to manual. When you do that, the lights will turn off, but your CCIP will be stuck at the range selected until you switch it back or manually change the range

SMEs can make mistakes, forget, or mis hear the question MiG-29 manual states R-27R/ER has up to 50 degree off boresight ability. Whether this is in semi active or radio correction, it is not stated. If you forced it to fire in that 5 degrees difference between off boresight ability and gimbal limit, maybe?

I’ll send them, but it isn’t much. One interesting way I believe Kh-25/29 do it is by flying level, then when target is 6 degrees below horizon the missile switches to proportional guidance which gives it a curve/slide into the target

If you manually loft one missile and fire the other one straight, they will impact at roughly the same time So manual lofting does not improve time to impact, but it does improve energy at impact The limit here is the 60 second turbogenerator. At about 50-70 km for 27R and 70-90 km for 27ER, you will hit this limit wether you loft or not It seems to me that Soviet Fox 1 design theory centered around having your missile beat the opponents missile in speed, so that their missile loses support before it can reach you. Having a straight trajectory maximizes this, as lofting is using rocket power to gain altitude and fly slower, and thus be more efficient. So I think even if the Soviets were quite aware of lofting, they might’ve seen it as having little benefit, maybe detrimental, and adding additional complexity in deciding how to activate it and such I have also found mention in AIM-7F documents of manually lofting it and its benefits, perhaps the Soviets were aware of this perhaps not I have also learned from DCS to never underestimate what the Soviets might leave out or ignore in the name of simplicity or tradition

Why wouldn’t it be correct? The G load bias should limit maneuvering based on remaining TOF right? But then again I’ve tried to translate everything about the R-27 but haven’t heard of this main beam avoidance maneuver, but of course things are lost in translation I see it more as bringing it to same standard as AIM-7/120 by bringing it to new API, modeling the control surfaces, AOA, inertia/dynamic stability. Changing CG, modeling motor plume drag reduction. AIM-7/120 have all these things, and many air to ground missiles since

Yes that makes sense to me, in regards to “original” launch conditions. But its limitations also bring me to how some sources have said it refers to “power limit,” as ultimately no matter what happens, it can’t fly longer then 60 seconds and the pilot can be 100% sure it’s dead

I have done this before, but I often find it only works on new or green pilots. An experience pilot that has fought many R-27 will know when a launch is outside MAR. For this reason, if I choose to “scare” someone, I always try to fire just below max range while lofting 20-30 degrees. This way my missile will actually hit if they think I fired outside range and go straight, and if experienced will still have to dodge it in some way or fire early themselves. Just like any psychological game, it can work on some people yes. But you can train to be “immune” to it My favorite way to do this was to fire a R-77 from J-11. That way enemy might think I fired R-27, and when it gets close enough to be active they might think I still have them locked when I might actually be radar off or targeting someone else Which brings me to another part of this tactic, you need missiles to spare. Of which MiG-29 only gets two BVR missiles. This makes me even more hesitant to use it on 29, whereas on 27/33/J-11 I might take the bet that I’m flying against someone who will freak out about a R-27 shot at 50-70 km. With how MiG-29 radar often barely has the range to fully make use of R-27ER, I again only find this tactic really useful in Flanker against less experienced opponents

To me it’s more about, it can calculate parameters before missile launch. But after a missile launch occurred and the target maneuvers, I would think calculating that and having to estimate how far the missile has traveled and at what speed, would at the very least introduce some amount of increasing error. All the proportional navigation is done in the missile, but this would be vital information to estimate missile position after target maneuvers

My biggest question is, for what purpose are you firing a missile beyond its max range?

Yes, but we aren’t talking about only in look up. And it is only after 3.5 degrees of look up that the notch turns off, something we have to guess I can see why the designers would see 60 second timer as useful. So even if target goes cold at high altitude, you know when missile is truly dead and can abandon it. I doubt the TTI would be perfectly accurate as target maneuvers and estimated missile position might not be perfect

IRL, you should get IFF when using radar ranging. Which would only happen 8 seconds after IRST lock outside laser range in FC3, you can always blip radar on for a second to get IFF when you have IRST lock, and if you do it fast enough their RWR Won’t see it. Does that not work for you?

1. IRL, you would just know from switch position. It is usually used for missile jettison, very rare 2. If you are out of launch conditions, it may become obvious. Say if you switch to R-73/60 far away beyond Max range/lock. 3. in STT, bottom left corner, you have IFF indication “A” for enemy, “AF” for friendly. I think if it as “Attack” or “A Friend” Is your question about flaming cliffs module? It has its own section. This is for full fidelity, and would tell you via the switch position

Su-27/33 and MiG-29 have exact same notch speed. While MiG-29 radar is very poor in rear aspect (18-30 km), it will lose targets in notch equally And about the timer, we have these other mentions of it being the 60 second timer for the whole generator For example, if it is really TTI, what is this command based on? If it is based only on TOF given to missile before launch, it will be too long or short depending on target managers. Does compete calculate change in TTI as target maneuvers? I find this hard to believe, so I really think it is 60 second timer, but if it was true TTI with real time post launch calculation, that would be immensely awesome

This guys SFM mod is very well researched and would help a lot. I believe he’s fine if ED uses or modifies it. If the gun data was changed using his info that would be awesome to, but I dream maybe

Are we really sure it’s time to impact? Seemed to me, it was merely a 60s countdown to tell you when R-27 is 100% dead

Su-27SK documents show same thing. Nothing to do with SM

Really what I was trying to say was, the same way “MiG-29A” isn’t its real name for 9.12 model, “Su-25A” isn’t the name of the first frogfoot. This is merely western conventions being applied. I would still of course love the module, but staying with “A” suffix for full fidelity, is a bit odd