AnarchyZG

I read it as (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no aeronautical engineer): M 2.0 and above slightly less drag in game vs CFD M2.0 to M1,0 significantly higher drag in game vs CFD with a brick wall at M1.0 below M1.0 ...who cares basically

according to Chizh's graph SD-10 deploys a giant airbrake at M2.0 which explains things. Before it was too fast and you mostly hit targets above M 2.0 so it wasn't that noticable. After nerf you often go below M2.0 at which point missile deploys an even bigger brake chute and drops to the ground

Talk about a nerf of the year season 2020. Now, it is practically useless on low alt, even if you fire on head on bandit mid way between max and min range. Maybe DLZ on the HUD is wrong...I wonder how it compares to AMRAAM at low alt... Oh well, I guess I'll just have to fly the F-16 for a while. Too bad, I really liked the JF-17 ;(

Yeah, Power Grid is no more sadly. MATRIC can do 2way integration, I even made a proof of concept for Ka-50.

Are you using ipad?

There is a newer alternative (for Windows/Android) with many ready made DCS configurations even a rough proof of concept of 2-way integration with DCS DCS integration post on blog https://matricapp.com/blog.html#lp8

They sort of look like R-37s, but that does not make sense...

Similar if not the same issue here. 20FPS, CPU, GPU underutilized, still some free RAM...

I'm having severe issues in 2.5.6 with very low framerate, latest patch didn't change that i5-3570K 16G DDR3 SSD GTX 1080 What bugs me the most is that lowering the graphics settings didn't help that much. If task manager is to be trusted, CPU utilization is <60%, GPU is < 20%, there is still free RAM available yet I'm struggling to reach 20 FPS on Persian Gulf multiplayer. It was fine before 2.5.6. Any tips? I'm out of ideas

Thnx for the suggestion, I updated my signature

what is most puzzleing is that GPU is practicaly idle at <20% and even CPU rarely goes over 60% ancient i5-3570K and GTX1080. My framerate is basicaly unplayable barely hitting 40fps in empty single player mission and 17fps in multiplayer

Hi, there is free option of 6 buttons, one page. Google Play allows for refunds in some time window (and devs can issue refunds in even longer time frame). I am the developer and I consulted the community manager before I posted anything regarding MATRIC :) The issue might be that MATRIC gives you first 6 buttons for free but the 6 free ones might not be first 6 visually in the layout or might invoke a premium feature (like page navigation).

It is possible, here is my config _ = function(p) return p; end; name = _('JF17 + UFCP'); Description = 'Three monitor configuration' Viewports = { Center = { x = 0; y = 0; width = 2560; height = 1440; viewDx = 0; viewDy = 0; aspect = screen.aspect; } } JF17_LEFT_MFCD = { x = 2560 + 50; y = 620; width = 540; height = 760; } JF17_CENTER_MFCD = { x = 2560 + 640 + 50; y = 620; width = 540; height = 760; } JF17_RIGHT_MFCD = { x = 2560 + 640 + 640 + 50; y = 620; width = 540; height = 760; } JF17_UFCP_1 = { x = 2560 + 840; y = 360; width = 240; height = 40; } JF17_UFCP_2 = { x = 2560 + 840; y = 410; width = 240; height = 40; } JF17_UFCP_3 = { x = 2560 + 840; y = 460; width = 240; height = 40; } JF17_UFCP_4 = { x = 2560 + 840; y = 510; width = 240; height = 40; } UIMainView = Viewports.Center

Any news on the template?

If those old R-24Ts (40 years ago!) can lock F-15s head on with burners off, then modern ones would make F-35 pilots sweat bullets...

If 27T/ET: a) does not have INS b) does not have LOAL capability c) does not have datalink Why do they list head on ranges for T/ET far beyond what IR seeker could achieve at the moment of launch? It would be an obvious false statement, wouldn't it? I mean, yes, under right atmospheric conditions you could track a jet in afterburner at 50 nm but head-on range would be much shorter. No way in hell could the 27T/ET seeker lock on a fighter from 40nm in frontal aspect. Or am I missing something?

That is assuming T/ET has to acquire target with IR seeker at the moment of launch (LOBL). It would not make sense to design such a large missile and use it like R-73/Sidewinder. Again, the chart shows recommended launch ranges vs fighter type target head-on aspect well above the range that IR seeker might be expected to obtain the lock so it is probably either autopilot or autopilot+datalink with terminal IR guidance. Soviet BVR tactics supposedly recommended salvo launch T and R to make it more difficult for the target to defeat missiles with two different guidance methods (makes sense, vs R you want to turn and run on afterburner, but then you're presenting an ideal target for T with that 4 meter flame coming out of your engine). If you go head on/9-3 to minimize IR signature you're making it easier for R to hit you. Other possible explanation theories were: - T/ET only for tail chase rear aspect of fast fleeing targets (rather specific scenario, not very likely) - rear aspect shots because of seeker/radar issues on early models vs targets going cold (medium PRF). P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if some R-27R/ER were upgraded with active seekers and sneaky Russians not telling us about it. R-27 family is highly modular design

Multiplayer is the future of everything, I have no idea about the current multiplayer/single player ratio. Digression: I can not understand why they're implementing their own voip. Their resources are limited and there are so many excellent standalone voip solutions. Even SRS if you want to simulate radio. Pointless waste of effort bringing nothing to online experience.

R-27 family is currently terribly undermodelled, practically useless for both kinematic and sensor reasons (chaff and flares). ED is not in a hurry to do anything about it since AMRAAM equipped modules are the cash cows and multiplayer was never high on priority list (wake up, it is not 2001 any more)

Just did a quick test in 2.5.6, I conclude that R-27ER in DCS has maximum aerodynamic range under conditions specified in the chart below slightly less then max range for fighter type target according to manufacturer's data. Target was flying level, directly head on at ~M0.9, not defending, I was doing M1+. Hit can be achievend in DCS at about 60km R-27ER in DCS has shorter absolute max range then real R-27R by about 15km and about 40km shorter then real R-27ER. In line with manufacturer's data, chart below seems to represent max recommended range when engaging fighter type target

I'd like to know more about that Russian chart, I mean those certainly aren't Raero and are pretty short, also unexpected ER/ET having the same range as they have both different guidance and aerodynamics. 40nm for a head on high subsonic shot at 30k feet seems rather short for 27ER... EDIT: Official data http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27r1_-_r-27er1.html Type Range vs fighter type vs other (probably less manuverable, larger, slower) R-27R1 50-60km <75km R-27ER1 60-62,5 <100km R-27T1 65km head-on R-27ET1 80km head-on Chart seems to be based on manufacturer's data for head-on launch ranges vs fighter type target at high alt, co-alt (30k, M0.9 parameters specified in the chart) for R/ER and head-on shots vs unspecified target for T/ET (presumably also high alt 30k feet). Small difference between R/ER vs fighter type targets is interesting (maybe data link/illumination radar limit?) and kind of explains why russian fighters usually carry R-27R rather then ER I doubt you can get to those ranges in DCS As for AIM-7(F) the range data is rather optimistic as it assumes head-on engagement with launch aircraft speed of M2.0 @40k feet, I wonder which parameters are used when specifying other US missile ranges like AMRAAM as this is sort of best-case scenario

Although I don't think it is universally "eagerly awaited", MiG-25 crossed my mind...cause...why not (not in active service any more, interesting...)

Voted no, makes no sense in combat flight simulator If you want to fly a bus in a straight line for hours on end, check out Microsoft Flight Simulator. If you want to feel the adrenaline of battle - you're in the right place

No need, you can sideload Google services and use MATRIC with no problems on Amazon tablets, like this:

If you ask me, they should do a "lite" or "core HOTAS" version of the throttle with further reduced feature set to make it more affordable. As it is the throttle is part throttle part physical cockpit. My wish: Grip - keep it as it is, maybe even a single axis if it would drive the price down significantly Base - max 4-6 buttons (nws, jettison, master arm, em con...whatever you feel would benefit from tactile feedback and is used relatively frequently) - max 3-4 on-off-on momentary switches (hint: gear, flaps, brakes) - optionally a single additional axis (for pitch trim or flaps or whatever) it would make it more compact, and hopefully bring the price down. The important stuff is on the grip anyway.