FoxAlfa

Unfortunately, it is hard to tell, only a single part and it that goes like this: "Missile R-27 has a semi-active radar head for self-guidance (RGS) which uses quazinterupdet method of target marking with the help of RLPK. In RGS the guidance of the missile is by an inertial method with radio-correction without radar head tracking the target up to 70% of the distance. Signals for corrections are sent by side arrays of the radar. On the end flight path of the missile, the target is illuminated by the radar head for self-tracking and semi-active self-guidance". What is the inertial method and how the radio-correction is calculated it is not clear, I need to dig deeper. But it is clear that the plane is doing the corrections and not just relaying the data. https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=202124&stc=1&d=1547491344

I am speculating here out of top my head based on what I read about the aircraft datalink commands for the 70% of the flight, maybe the answer is obvious. the missile has no better logic since the complex logic is in the plane. It would make engineering sense since you can reuse it for more missiles, it makes the missile more simple and cheaper and also it frees room in the missile were space is a premium. like we said a different approach. Soviets did design their planes and missiles as integrated weapon complexes. It also explains why adding the missiles to other aircraft would be costly and it wasn't done. the last 30% you can have the pure pursuit or anything else since the missile is close enough.

Keep in mind that the R-27 was designed as a primary weapon for MiG-29, a high maneuverability light fighter, and a Su-27 air superiority fighter, Soviets had other aircraft as bomber killers... so something is odd that it would be that bad... and much under the envelope but I don't have any documentation to say otherwise. Only thing I can quote is that Yugoslav-a MiG-29 manual that instructs the pilot to do a dual launch of R-27r on the Rmax1 (first mark) and other on the Rmax2 (second mark on the HUD)... so for sure the Rmax1 isn't the absolute range but a max range for non-maneuvering target like stated before. But no range information is given. The only difference between the DCS and the manual I can find is that the missile flights 70% of the flight path accelerating guided by the aircraft datalink commands (so it does have some type of autopilot) and only semiactive self-guides the last 30% in the real life, in DCS it does maneuver from the start, but this has probably been covered before

:Sarcasm On: Can I replace my R-27r with Mistrals.... since they outperform it? :Sarcasm Off:

I am not asking for them to change any radar parameters,I just wish for the radar to keep settings if off or switch to EO, since the radar panel switches don't reset either on the real plane. Picture of the control panel included. https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=201939&stc=1&d=1547302145

Bump

Noted, take it from a former medical simulator/shader programmer, you would be surprised how many stuff in simulations is just on and off since it is "close enough for government work" otherwise everybody would have 5 fps ;)

Ok, just to clarify. Nobody is saying to change the smokeless motor in the one with the smokes to give the advantage to the 'red' players since that would not have to do anything with the reality. The proposal is that to apply the contrailing/vapor effects (for which there is already a framework for planes) to the missiles with the wider altitude range like in reality, in the end, making a better and more realistic simulation. And I do respect your opinion, but I would love to hear EDs opinion on this also.

If you check both videos, neither of the planes are contrailing, since the missile burns at a higher temperature it will generate contrails/vapor at a much lower altitude. At since, in my humble experience, most of the engagements on PG Blue Flag start near contrail altitude of 6000-8500m where it would help a lot with launch detection. And once Hornet gets TWS I think it will become vital.

Technically it shouldn't be too difficult since there is a particle system already for other missiles. Probably it would just involve tweaking the trigger to simulate the vapor and the settings of the particle emitter that is already there. But it is up to the ED to figure out their priorities, but the thing like this really would really help the 'red' side in the MP which is already sparse and declining since everybody wanting to fly the Hornet and full fidelity jets...

Even if we cut them in half, but most sources claim 25-35% difference in range, according to the graph the range would be 14km, and the missile is fired from 9km well within the envelope and almost dead by 3 km from target. Nobody is saying the R-27 is a wonder weapon, but that is underperforming due to faulty guidance. I feel that the missile is kinematically correct and would reach correct ranges if it doesn't maneuver, but the current guidance cause too big of G-loads and speed bleeds. Both R-27ER and R-27R are heavily impacted by it, but it wasn't that noticeable before since all the missiles used the same algorithm.

Maybe yours are too low and that is the point of the whole thread. Using the graph you provided and I know it is for the R-27ER and not the R-27R, but keep in mind the target is much slower than 900km/h, the target parameters are at the red dot and well within any envelope. https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=201829&stc=1&d=1547155780

https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=37859 it's the engagement envelope (range) of the missile on the head-on (left axis), side on (top axis) and escaping (right axis) target. the full line is for the target traveling at 1100 km/h and the dotted line is for the target traveling at 900 km/h. the blobs corresponding to the engagement altitude of 1km, 5km, 10km. So per example, the range against a target traveling 900 km/h at 5km equal altitude head-on should be around 38km and for the same target side on around 17km.

We can compare all we want with other missiles, the bottom line is R-27r is useless as in the game. Even head-on a slow (0.5 mach) target it will run out off steam in 9km (~5.5 mil) or less... I don't think such a missile would pass any Military trial... it is simply bleeding too much energy https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=201825&stc=1&d=1547151964 https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=201826&stc=1&d=1547151964

Is it just me or the AMRAAM is a bit too much smokeless in the DCS? or I know temperature, altitude, pressure etc has to do with it and this has probably been discussed before to exhaustion, but I never seen in DCS even this short smoke from the AMRAAM...

Hello, I love every minute of flying in the 21. Excellent work! One question is there a now a more exact time frame for the SPO-10 RWR improvement since it is limiting the fighter a lot...

I am expecting the PAK and Egypt Air Force will be included in the MiG-19S version that should come later.

The thing I would love to see it buddy sharing target illumination with other aircraft of which ER is capable, making it way harder to notch and much easier to be sneaky. About the interception algorithms, the good reference is the Sam Simulator. When you see all the interception modes and leading modes an S-75 Divna had and it is a 25-year older missile then R-27ER you would be amazed. To conclude, I feel that the R-27ER is a bit underperforming in DCS in the guidance department

The worst models are F-4, F-14, F-16, MiG-23, MiG-25, and Su-17... the F-4, F-14, F-16, and the MiG-23 are being made into the full modules... so where are my MiG-25 and Su-17 module announcements??? :D :D :D

An early Soviet twin afterburning turbojet... I think you will get around 60 mpg on it :smartass:

We can get into details of the proper launch procedure as much as everybody likes, but it's missing the point. it has nothing to do with the missile or how you engage the target. There is a bug regarding the radar losing lock on a non-maneuvering target at high altitude away from any clutter. For me, it usually manifested by the locking the target, after few seconds the radar antenna abruptly jumps to one side and the lock is broken, if I move the TDC the antenna will jump back to the previous position and I am able to reacquire the target. Also, the angle radar sweeps and the indicator of current position fall apart which is a clear bug and can not be explained by "that's how radars work". So can we please get a clear ticket in the bug tracker to make sure its being looked at since it is a major bug not being able to use the radar in an interceptor airplane.

I think, the consensus the flight model is great now, and I do agree with that :) Now we can only wish for the Waypoint panel and countermeasures counter and we are all set :D

+1

Hello, I had a similar issue, it came down to the lock button being somehow stuck and put the radar in some odd state that didn't show anything or targets just blinking and then disappearing and showing up only very very close. Once I changed the buttons around somehow the radar started working.

Looks like the wrong update was pushed, people are reporting a lot of issues with the Hornet too. That happens in software development and especially on the Beta branches...