Max1mus

Instead of this crap, they could add some alien spacecraft! The Independence Day scenario would offer NATO flyboys a challenge while allowing them to use their modern equipment. It may just be more authentic than export MiG-29A vs Meteor-equipped Eurofighters.

A-10C. From what i have heard it has great immersive campaigns where you get to do actual CAS with 9 line briefings. And the potential is endless, you can make missions infinitely more challenging if you ever feel like youre bored. F-14 cant really be used for the things its built to do yet, since we lack: - Large enough maps - Radar reacting to chaff/jamming to add a need for tactics they were going to use to counter them (there are some great articles for it) - Proper Missions. Most are just CAP turkey shoots. F-18 is even worse, there is nothing even remotely close to the late 2000s on the Opfor side in DCS, so youll end up always turkey shooting with no tactics.

Because it takes away resources from things this simulator needs much more urgently.

WIll never happen. Accurate matchups by time frame is not what ED or the majority of its customers want. The main purpose of DCS MiG-29A will be as pornography material for people who enjoy NATO stuff ("look how bad this is, im going to fly it because of how bad russian planes are"). For all other purposes (including BFM) the Flaming Cliffs variant is enough. Especially given that on top of the exactly same flight model, you get 3 different variants, including the slightly superior S one. ED is setting themselves up for failure, and the poor sales of this module will not motivate them to ever make something more modern, even if they could. I think they should cancel this instead of wasting resources.

A-6 coming: For people who like paying for the same capablities twice and thrice. Resources well spent. Good job. Im anxiously waiting to pay 80$ for the 4th and 5th F-16 variant in 2 years.

Only R-77, and its missing the loft, which is yet to be added. R-27 did not improve much at all. It performs exactly the same on a nonmaneuvering bandit, and it only performs slightly better on a maneuvering target, the only major difference is performance close to minimum range (2-3km) where they can turn much better now. The other limiting factor of R-27 is the supporting radar, so no matter what treatment it gets from ED, any redfor aircraft (including AI) in DCS carries the old 80s N001 which will do things like breaking lock on a split-Sing bandit at 25km, or loosing lock when flying inverted. In short, for R-27 to become significantly more threatening, you will have to wait for: - ED reworking the FM - ED adding more modern Flanker/Fulcrum variants Both of which is unlikely to happen until in a few years. If you like fighting as or against Russian 4th gen aviation, i recommend that you drop DCS. It will only get worse.

REDFOR AA systems in DCS are not a threat. They are 20-30 years older than the DCS F-18 and its weapons. Newer systems are not in DCS and ED is not planning on adding them anytime soon. If youre looking for capability, use the F-18. However, you will not get to use a lot of the unique weapons and systems due to way more advanced weapons and systems making them irrelevant. Examples: HARM and AGM-65 for A/G (JDAM and JSOW are the only weapons you will end up using), BRAA/Air to Air waypoints and AZ/EL for A/A (SA page and JHMCS integration of Link-16 eliminate their purpose) I attached a tacview file showing how a single F-18 can eliminate any redfor opposition within a few minutes with no support. TLDR: Use the F-18, though coming from the Harrier and A-10C i believe you will find it too easy (2010 vs 1970s equipment) and get bored of it very quickly. 1xF-18vsRussia.acmi

What would be downsides of enabling this? Given that its not enforced as a standard option.

Can you not give a rough estimate? If its really planned, surely there is one.

The way you made it sound a few pages earlier, that research will never happen. "Once work on all current projects including Mi-24, Apache and MiG-29 is finished" means many years. We have already been waiting for over 1 year.

This graph for R-27T shows it vs R-27R, but for R-27ER/ET there is only a combined graph. But why does AIM-120 on the other hand overperform relative to this graph this much, when in DCS the R-27E can barely even make it against an opponent that leaves is controls entirely and on a perfectly angled shot? Is this extra speed calculated in for terminal maneuvering? According to the Su-35 pilot in these forums R-27E has those margins too. Straightline 120A/B on your graph at 10.000m at 240m/s - 17.5km DCS - 21.5km, (+22.9%) AIM-120B_outperforms_graph_10000m.trk Straightline 120A/B on your graph at 5.000m at 255m/s - 10.5km DCS - 11.6km (+10,5%) AIM-120B_outperforms_graph_5000m.trk Can we expect a similar overperformance of R-27 relative to its graph by 10.5% at 5000m and 22.9% at 10000m? Thats what i would consider modelled to the same standard, which you will that agree all DCS weapons must be, since youre going to be doing all weapons for all DCS modules soon.

Its the same missile without loft. Yet the DCS one severely outperforms the one on the graph with no loft.

@Chizh Please review this. In DCS the R-27ER will barely be able to fall short of the graph, R-27ET cannot achieve anything close to those numbers. This Pilot says cutoff is defined where more than 3G is not possible (Target G?). Can you also comment on why DCS AIM-120B in a straightline shot outperforms the chart posted by you?

2 seperate 1v1s is even worse. There is absolutely no way to win that against AIM-120s with R-27ER. Unless once again, opponent is inexperienced. You cant fight AIM-120s with R-27ER at the moment at all in DCS. Ask any real pilot on either side of the fence what he thinks about that.

Do AIM-120A loft? If yes, the posted chart by Chizh from the MiG-29 manual does not work in DCS (DCS AMRAAM too long ranged up high)

But why are the DCS AIM-120Bs able to hit things way beyond those numbers (+33-50%), as the red and green mark on my picture indicate? If it is as you said, a nonmaneuvering target? (For reference, this picture) https://m.imgur.com/aGuRlMH

Those timelines in fact do suggest the opposite - why would they go to 6-8000m and only shoot this late? If the DCS missile range gap between 120 and ER is correct, then the best strategy is like in DCS, to climb to 40-50.000ft, fire long before the ER carrier can, and win the fight by just pressing forward without any kind of defense needed. No timeline needed either. You can fight it like a SARH fight and win. You would only start the fight this low and shoot this late if the longer missiles forced you to perform some maneuvering prior to the shot. The tactic suggested by Klarsnow only works against horribly inexperienced people on public server, and even there he admits that it only works "80% of the time". Because it assumes that the enemies dont have enough braincells to sort properly, or it assumes a 2v1 situation, which can be won even with F-5/MiG-21.

The above is what ED answered, when asked why the missile can hit way beyond what the graph shows (the green and red DCS marks). ED says Vm=Vt is the missile speed as it arrives at the target. But thats not what the graph says, it says that that number is the "flight speed of the fighter". I dont understand.

More evidence, a discussion between 2 apparent real US pilots. One of them mentions how R-27ER range advantage over AIM-120B was all they talked about back then and how they were "more sanguine about AIM-120C" https://forums.mudspike.com/t/sim-vs-reality-tactics/7803/41 I remind that even DCS AIM-120B outranges the DCS R-27ER.

This is an indication that R-27 range up high is indeed limited by radar and not by energy.

Do you have an explanation why the pilots say "R-27ER outranges AMRAAM" when the DCS AMRAAM outranges it instead? I dont hear them say "within 60s without lofting". To show the specific information and numbers more clearly, i collected the evidence i posted here in the last 2 days all together (including the tracks that now have labels): PS: I removed the part about terminal speed

Without loft. With loft, 120C overtakes R-27ER well before the 60s mark as my screenshot above shows. Why are you lying and showing straightline AMRAAM?

@Chizhi forgot to add labels to 2 tracks, i uploaded them to the post above.

While this is still a thing, you wont even make it to that point:

Согласен, просто официальное "НЕТ" ЕД до сих пор нам дать не хочет. Но за то говорит что саддамский МиГ-29А против Метеора, это допустимо потому что "так и в реалье"...