FoxAlfa

Ask him.... he knows better than me, he trained, went to war, and shot down a MiG... I am quite sure it is quite possible against hot target against the sky but ours does that in valleys on cold close to notch. If you continue to listen to the interview longer, you will see that the guy's radio didn't even work all the time... and one would think we figured that out after 70-90 years of use. My point is lot of our equipment performs like "marketing man's wet dream" without any issue or limitation. And people keep asking for more capabilities, I say we should push for limitation, since capabilities make nice game, limitations make it a good simulation.

Yes, 120s in underperforming when supported should be much less notchable, but when independent it is overperforming. All pilots talks and Air forces I seen train to support it till impact, and even with support pilots train to expect 60% of a PK, our 120 picks that target 100% of the time at 8nm, so big overperformance. Based on talks and I find that 120 and R-77 should behave more like less notchabe SARHs you can drop support if needed and still expect some chance to hit than the current Independent Hunter-Killers we have. ARH with new gens and two way DL are getting to Hunter-Killers but not ones we have in DCS. That is my opinion take it or leave it. With that said MADDOG got fixed and 120 is still being worked on and for sure it is improving, and I am really looking forward to seeing how it performs when it is finished. Yes, they should be applied to all platforms, but currently Viper, Hornet and 120s are being worked on, that is way I am 'stuck' on them. I am really looking forward to having all weapons made to the same standard, but we are not there yet.

You guys got it backward. It is not that R-27 is underperforming, it is that Aim120 and launch platforms are overperforming. The R-27 family will be much better when the bugs are fixed (also if fuse is factored in R-27R will be much better so you want need to haul heavy ERs). I do hope R-77 also get a bit of time and loft. But now you should be pushing for fixes on the Aim120 and the platforms. Instant pickup at max active range for 120, or high overG during instable launch mass shift. For the platforms, less reliable RWR with ghosts, misidentification, angle errors, stronger signals hiding weaker, jamming, realistic ranges on the radars, TWS errors and target drops, TWS single ping DL donations, launch delay for Hornet, 13g pulls for Eagle, Viper overspeed etc ... while ED is "in the shop" for Hornet and Viper. It will be much harder to get those fixed later too and all those things give much bigger advantage then 5 or 10 km in range.

- Yes, Radar provided radio corrections during radio correction phase. The length of radio correction phase is based on target size switch and some other factors. - Radar antenna embeds the radio correction signal into one of it cycles.

<64>Fox - MiG-19

Any chance of getting ЗАХВ АВТ <=> РУЧ switch implemented so we can turn-off autolocking at will at maximum range in CHП? It would help a lot. Thank you in advance!

It should be more toward 20 or even a bit more if the 150 m/s fuse is factored in.

When you know some exact dimension based on photos reference you can model everything pretty accurately, it will still have an error but less 5% or so... the only CFD I am worried is R-77 since of the tail fins will require quite a detailed CFD. Regrading R-27 vs Aim-120 in DCS.... R-27 needs improvements so I will wait for them before commenting. For Aim-120 real areas of changes needed is I feel is not the aero, but being too maneuverable under acceleration (due to weight shift it should be very limited in G it can pull without tumbling) also reliability with which it picks up targets at 8nm. Hopeful ED will get around doing those changes soon as well

That limitation is simulated with FC3 Su-27, you lose lock if you do that bellow 2000-1500m. Again Off-topic for missiles.

here are exact dimension for Р-27Р1, dimension for Р-27ЭР can easily be calcualted. There are also other exect data availible on other places. this is form Yugo Armorers manual for MiG-29.

No, there are a lot of limitation that are unique to F-16 and F-18 that are still not there but are as far as I understand are planned. And they are not in focus since SP community keeps asking for capabilities and not limitation and RedAir keeps asking for unrealistic or not documented stuff. Per example F-16 can do 1.4 mach on the deck even drought after 1.2 mach is should have a lot of issues due possibility of cockpit cracking and other systems failing due to stress. Or F-16 and F-18 TWS and RWR never gets the track wrong regardless of range (check pilots accounts on discords and forums, all of them say they very rarely use if at all use TWS, or just F-14 tws implementation). F-16 radar performance should be just a bit better to Fulcrum's by all accounts on F-16.net (Viper fan and pilot Mecca) now it picks targets at 80nm easy. F-18 TWS will instant donate target to DL even drought it didn't build up its own TWS track with multiple pings yet. Aim-120 will loft on jamming target and do a lead pursuit but it hasn't got range info. Most of them are acknowledged bugs and are bigger force multipliers then 10-15% range difference in a missile, but not in focus since no body or very few people are asking for that stuff to be fixed, but lot of people are asking for X or Y-mode for Harm they will never use. So please start asking for limitation to be added to FFs and I will stop now since this is off topic.

Well, yes, but more nopu.... ARH disregard target aspect and height so overperform on low cold targets for sure and have a bug that they can even track a stopped target on the ground...

Although, I love reading "who is better" and "buff this, nerf this" it's not helping. From my perspective it is important that all the systems are modeled to the same standard, which unfortunately it is currently not. Standardizing R-27 family behavior is for sure a good start, and hopeful in the future we will get Full Fidelity Red fighter, but it will also bring a lot of limitation that FC3 doesn't have. Hornet and Viper currently are overperforming not because R-27 is bad, but they still lack a lot of their limitations, so I do wish ED spends more time on that. I feel for sure, the MP community should more push for those to be added as counterbalance to the SP communities "Give AG radar" push. Addition of their limitation (less accurate RWR and Tws, jamming, realistic radar range, speed limitation) would even more stuff out then making R-27 something it is not. Back to missile topic: When will Aim-120 get limitation for launch G under power since now it is turning way too good to account for instability due to CG change on start.

INS rounds get CEP to ~50m for 60 sec flight and that is new tech and biggest INS error producing part is path change that is more present in A to A missies than arty round. We are not talking about two static points with exact positions to start with. There is a good reason why you do INS correction after take-off SID is done. Is the accuracy still good enough, yes, but error is not neglectable. https://www.army.mil/article/111566/new_guided_munition_sensors_are_greater_than_sum_of_their_parts

I think radar accuracy is more of issue, they are not laser beams. And seriously degrades with distance especially when trying to figure out altitude, TWS is most effected.

Exactly what GGTharos said. I feel that supported missiles should be less likely to notch since of the two radar angles, unsupported should be easier to notch due to small and weak radar (I know some ppl will disagree with me). Also, missiles fired in TWS should be less accurate then STT due to TWS inherent inaccuracies (especially in vertical where it can be off thousands of feet) Contributing factors to this way of thinking, we can see that per example Swedish air force train to support the Fox 3 till impact. Also historically based on pilot accounts all the Aim-120 were supported till impact (also a great quote, missiles miss, that is why the called missiles)

Is the difference in ability to notch a supported and unsupported missile currently simulated?

Keep in mind that also high alt looking at target more then 2000m bellow are also affected. let's say 12000m looking at the target 8000m for the MiG it will pick it up at ~42km... instead of 60-70km as per RLE. Here is track of me pulling a constant 11.2 g turn (I am not that skilled in Eagle, people more skilled than me can do this all day) with full loadout, and then intentional pulling 14g pick up and blacking out, plane doesn't overstress, or any systems fail. I would propose to add a flag if somebody pulls 10 or 11g limit for more than few seconds to trigger radar or random system failure. F-15.trk

Hello, what GG said and to add, Over-G Limit and Sparrow Loft range for Eagle.

Unfortunately, there are no exact graphs for the R-77 like for the R-27, only non-precise marketing ones. I only feel R-77 is missing the Loft.

And R-27T has the same problem, I will do more test later for ER and ET

Any possibility to get that tweak on the current ones before CFD? Aslo the EO taking over delay?

Guys capabilities are nice, but the limitation make a good simulation, so please enforce true limitation. People will learn to work around them, it will make them better pilots.

Yes, but the manual is guideline for the pilot with some engineering safety build-it in... not a wind tunnel stall graph... you wouldn't expect pilot to take account wind, temperature or other factors and do complex math during combat to account for them, so you build that safety in.

I believe Scrape, so please no HARMs on 4/6.