FoxAlfa

The just going to notch for less then second to trash missile fix will already help a lot. Other arguments are all connected to the turning performance of the missile. The straight ranges against non-maneuvering targets are excellent and on the ball, unfortunately when the missiles starts to turn, the drag and turn radius seams way too excessive compared to other missiles... If you look the results from my test, Aim-7m was able to have ~30-40% higher turn rate with ~55% shorter turn radius, pulling 3x times AoA with a much lower speed loss ( 9% vs 39%). All other tested missiles speed loss for such a turn was in ballpark of 9%. I know to be exact CFD is needed, but I am not sure if turning drag can be reduced a bit as stopgap measure before the full CFD is done?

Unfortunately that will probably be the case since R-27 family has approx ~30% bigger speed loss when turning that all other missiles in DCS: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3887106&postcount=263

Ok, thank you for the info :cry: :cry: :cry: Is there any time frame when you expect to begin with it? I am really looking forward to have all the air to air missiles having uniformed standard modeled in Multiplayer.

Is there any new information how the CFD update for R-27 and R-77 is progressing or when can we expect it? Thank you in advanced

I am not completely sure of the point of this post. Although you are raising valid points, I feel you are missing the point as whole since those apply to ALL the missiles, and not only the R-27. And such posts muddy the water. Also I disagree with "this sucks" approach of some ppl. I understand it comes from frustration, but ED did spend a lot of time and passion to make it to the best limitations of the system then... it is only that those limitations trough again EDs efforts have moved now and that is why those misslies are getting an update. I am just hoping that as ED is progressing they might share more info on CFD update progress and timeline and also finally resolve the 'Fox-1 notch trash bug' since it affecting both the Aim-7 and R-27 family.

<64c>Fox - MiG-29a Fulcrum

+1 for the MiG-29

I understand a 'lack of faith' since Red stuff was on back burner for awhile and got to a derelict state, and we might not agree with their focus but ED does good work. And based on IASGATG and nighthawks work we should see improvements, not necessarily in straight line range, but for sure a millisecond notch or limited maneuver won't defeat the missile.

The good thing is R-27 flight model is getting updated to the new standard now so we should see improvements in turning performance, hopeful it will make it in the next patch. Currently the R-27 flight model is quite old and made to older standard so it is not a straight forward comparisons to the updated flight model of the Aim-7

Also keep in mind that most of the weight difference is rocket fuel, and it tends to go outside of the missile pretty fast...

Thank you, it is much appreciated. I hope you make it a priority, since it is really hurting the SARH combat. The issue is present in all SARHs, AIM-7 included, often it is enough for a target which is in lookup position and close to pass trough notch for millisecond, for the missile to be lost.

The generally a lot of things DCS are too reliable, RWR, TWS, Missiles, Locks, CMs, etc. The main reason modeling and calculating such things adds a lot more calculations and complexity and the simulator is already pushing the hardware limit. To keep in on topic, this correction of range is quite needed, since 30% difference has a large impact on volume scanned and also it is clearly documented.

You can re-test with any aircraft you like, the look-down above 3000m will always be 25-30% weaker then a look-up for PPS. And due to aspect and alt of the target, noise filtering is straight forward so the difference should be minimal as the tables of RL documents also show.

The drift is function of movement and G loads, not just time. INS Drift is quite different for straight subsonic flying airliner crosschecking 3 ins systems and a supersonic missile chasing the manuvering target. I am not sure INS can be disregarded that easily.

I had so much fun last time, great and different event! Unfortunately due to family obligation I can't make it this time, I hope somebody will stream so I can enjoy it that way! Best of luck to both sides!

Honestly my biggest issues are cue leaving the HUD, counter measures counter and PPS look-down range... but for sure others such a nav panel would be very nice to have.

I just wanted to check, will the look-down radar range for targets above 3000m be adjusted for the Fulcrum? All the documentation points that in ППС it should pick 3 sq m target at ~60-70km yet in DCS it is picking it up at ~45km https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=268058

Yeah, there is some blinking, I still haven't narrow it down to report it, to many variables.

It is more complex in the real aircraft, but this is just that you can't do that on FC3 aircraft standard way without the bug. I didn't check that recently, it could have been fixed.

SPO-15 lights too dim again

Adding radar lookdown adjustment as number 11. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=268058 and marking 9. as fixed

3m squared as well

Thank you, looking forward to it!

Also as this presentation referencing "Радиолокационный прицельный комплекс РЛПК-29 истребителя МиГ-29. Ч.1. - Рига, РВВАИУ, 1990." the similar values are presented and PPS Look-down above 3000m gives values of 60km to 70km, yet in DCS target(JF-17) is picked up at ~40kms

Excellent, thank you! Yes, I agree it raises more questions... for which part of the radar wave R-27 guides, how does RWR respond, and which range is this is feasible, etc... that it provides the answers... but such behavior is interesting since it quite contradictory to the 'western norm' of SARH missiles behavior. I guess for such behavior to be modeled we will have to wait better times and hopeful Full Fidelity MiG... thank you again.