AnarchyZG

Almost always autostart: - my time is very limited and I'd rather fly/fight then perform mouse clicks on buttons in sequence - flying multiple aircraft makes it easy to forget a step or two for a particular aircraft - once you've done full manual start a few times...it is boring, so Win+Home for me while I get myself a drink from the fridge

yes and have to do it after every update...

I do not think I have to explain, please make unique viewport names instead of generic LEFT_MFCD, RIGHT_MFCD like we have for Shkval, ABRIS, JF-17 MFDs to make multi-monitor setup easier. It is trivial effort Thank you

I'll record/decode some tracks on DDCS when I get some time to fly. From my experience it is rather poor as of lately with very low probability of hitting the target even under favorable launch parameters. I do not know if it can be explained by only kinematic nerf.

CM-400 and C-102, C-102 is actally the more interesting one with its parachute loitering mode. I don't think we have something like that in DCS (closest behavior would be GB-6 SFW submunitions)

A few days ago I had the engine lose power and restart after strafing a ground target in Jeff. Could that be it? P.S. I did notice similar situations before low level, AB, hard maneuvering so it might be AoA related or something

what?

Which trick are other targeting pods using to be able to stabilize beyond that range? F-16, F-18 don't seem to have such limitation

more effective? with 10% hit rate?

Tried it yesterday, useless, got 1 hit in about 12 launches. Aircraft manuevers do not seem to matter. Targets were stationary armor, point track with TGP, flying directly to target. I don't know if it's realistic or not, but it is a completely different weapon now. You might as well take the unguided version for the same result. P.S. It was a night mission but that shouldn't make any difference for laser guided projectiles

Is this the place to report bugs?

https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/news/defense-aviation-news/2019-news/may/5086-russian-aerospace-forces-to-receive-upgraded-r-27-missiles.html According to press release, there are R-27 upgrades, obviously if the missile is so aerodynamically inferior - those would not make sense. Probably an overhaul with replacing expired rocket engines with new better ones and probably new seekers. They probably have a large stockpile of R-27s nearing expiration date. The only thing that is possibly mistranslated is: I thought P was sort of a anti-radiation ("passive radar homing") missile not ARH ("active radar"). Maybe it is ment to be something like homing on active radar emission? Back in the day IIRC there was a project or prototype R-27AE but never got into service.

I've noticed that exported view port that contains targeting pod video like Shkval, F-16 TGP, JF-17 etc. seems to be very dim compared to the same screen in cockpit. Issue seems to be low gamma value on exported views making them unreadable. Is this a known issue and are there plans to fix the issue?

so, in the next patch?

I don't know if it's a general problem but when you export MFD viewports with targeting pod video on secondary screen it tends to be extremely dark and unreadable. Workaround I found is to really crank up gamma (to 2.8!) on monitor where the TGP is exported (using graphic card control panel). Then it has the picture comparable to in-cockpit display. Is there a more elegant solution to this? Known issue?

You're posting the wrong chart. New one is much closer to ED CFD at high speed but has more pronounced drag spike between M1.0 and 2.0

What is presented is that SD-10 is now somewhat less draggy then CFD says it should be at M2.0 or more and hugely MORE draggy between M1.0 and M2.0 (which is where you'd expect the speed to be in endgame at mid to long range) That's why I share the opinion it got nerfed

Depends. When accurate simulation is not feasible - go for balance. Eg. ECM is done that way in DCS because there is no way in hell ED could simulate how a particular jammer would affect a particular radar system due to highly classified nature of those systems

that's what I thought. Almost always it is instant kill so all those interesting situations do not happen. Only aircraft where I had the opportunity to fly with damage was Ka-50 as you're in position to take cannon/machine gun fire rather then missile

I wonder how hit effects are calculated in DCS, I remember in old Il-2 you could turn on debug hit visualizations which showed fragments and shell/bullet vectors so pilot kills and components damage really happened when fragments hit the component hit box

While this doesn't apply to JF-17 only, but does seem more pronounced with JF: most times you take a hit you get instant pilot killed, would be a bit more engaging if you had a chance of recoverable failure, a chance to drag your ass to the airfield with damaged aircraft or jump to be picked up by SAR helicopter. There are plenty of real world examples of damaged aircraft making it home. Again, this is not limited to JF. What are your thoughts?

Or just hop in a Hornet and go fox3 x 10 :megalol:

I've killed F-15s flying the MiG-21 (with good GCI and terrain cover) that is not the point, I play MP exclusively (don't care much about shooting down brainless bots). The point is that it doesn't feel like a tweak but major change which doesn't make sense in regards to relative performance to similar weapons. I like flying JF-17, but after this controversial change it makes little sense to use it in multiplayer and then it becomes boring airquake of F-1X vs F-1X

If we use F-14/Phoenix as an empirical hype example, answers are: It sees you perfectly Yes All of them It isn't Very effective Very fast Very high Sorry, couldn't resist. Consider this as an attempt of humor

So corrected behavior brings: - increased drag in high speed range (but still supposedly better then it should be) - brick wall bump at speeds which you'd expect in endgame (which wasn't really noticed before as missile came too fast to endgame) - reduced battery life limiting time of flight Previously unnoticed features (are these modeled in other ARH missiles?): - chaff resistance, lookdown issues, notch, seeker FOV? Personaly, of maybe 30 shots since the patch, I got 2 hits (I play MP exclusively). Would be cool to see side by side comparison of fox3s and reasoning behind the data (since many parameters are educated guesses or estimations due to highly classified actual data). In the meantime, forget about JF-17 in AA role, buy an F-16 instead. Oh wait...where's my tin foil hat :smartass: