Max1mus
-
Posts
643 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Max1mus
-
-
I did not know you needed to ask Putin and Jinping for permission to edit some .lua files.
-
Just now, Northstar98 said:
Apart from in Cold War missions... where if modern BLUFOR jets are present, they get restricted to period weapons, no JHMCS and no D/L.
Which missions? Singleplayer? Dont exist. Multiplayer? No players.
-
Just now, stuart666 said:
That logic doesnt seem to have affected Mig21 sales at all.
Which one has sold better, MiG-21 or Ka-50? MiG-21 or F-16?
-
8 hours ago, jojyrocks said:
If we got the Mig 29 9.13. Then it would be good match to tango with modern western jets. At least the Redforce would have just ONE modern clickable plane against Blueforce.
Sorry to disappoint, but 9.13 is not much less useless.
Against Eurofighter and DCS F-15/F-16/18 it has
-SA disadvantage
-much inferior missiles (horrible radar does not help here)
We need a MiG-29K to fight back at all, a Su-30MKI or Su-27SM3 for parity. Anything less can not survive in DCS and will generate poor sales.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, bies said:
Oh, and with full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 it's going to get even better.
Ah yes, a full fidelity export 80s MiG with no GCI Datalink (because ED does not have the info to make it) and with unfinished features for 2 years.
The MiG-29 9.12 is in the game already. Try to have any fun with it:
The 80s servers are dead, there are no 90s servers that restrict hornet/F-16 datalink and weapons.
No proper singleplayer campaigns focusing on its role as a point defense fighter - DCS GCI is designed for western aircraft and will not micro-manage you like a soviet GCI would have.
If you want to get shot down by Eurofighters and late 2000s F-16s, go right ahead and spend 80$ on a 9.12 (That is already in DCS).
But my faith in humanity makes me believe that reasonable people will not.
-
14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:
I freaking well hope not.
The mile-wide inch deep thing where nothing really fits together, where recreating a modern day version of The Final Countdown is getting pretty boring.
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. -
3 minutes ago, Zilch said:
If you don't want a module...don't buy it? Why is it not enough to abstain from a purchase?
Because it takes away resources from things this simulator needs much more urgently. -
On 1/1/2021 at 7:59 PM, Seaeagle said:
Agreed - early 90s versions of the Viper and Hornet would be very doable on the basis of the current mid-2000s ones.
For the Hornet, you could do a Lot 16(from 1993) and practically retain all main features;
- same external model
- same NVG compatible cockpit(introduced from Lot 12) - except MPCD(instead of AMPCD), ALE-39 panel(instead of ALE-47) and no HMD controls.
- same Sju-17 ejection seat and OBOGS(from Lot 13)
- same F404-GE-402EPE engines(from Lot 15)
- same APG-73 radar(from Lot 16)
....while still being fully compatible with scenarios throughout the 90'ies.
Would need the ALE-39 CM system to be modelled and an AN/AAS-38A Nitehawk pod instead of the ATFLIR, but otherwise we already have era compatible armament.
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.-
1
-
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. -
On 1/21/2021 at 5:25 PM, GGTharos said:
they are on a similar performance level as the missiles with the new FM.
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.-
1
-
-
What would be downsides of enabling this? Given that its not enforced as a standard option.
-
On 1/30/2021 at 3:16 PM, MaxMPower said:
If my memory doesn’t fail it is range at which missile can't maneuver with G more then 2 or 3....or something like that.
Is that 2-3G of the missile or the target? -
4 minutes ago, Chizh said:
Yes, we have a lot of tasks, but there are only 24 hours in a day.
Can you not give a rough estimate? If its really planned, surely there is one. -
46 minutes ago, Chizh said:
As a result of future research on the R-27 [...]
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. -
1 hour ago, Chizh said:
About the R-27ET missile, it is indicated that its range is several percent less than the R-27ER.
For the AIM-120 missiles, we conducted a lot of research, made a lot of calculations of both engine thrust and aerodynamics in the CFD. Current performance is based on these researches.
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.-
3
-
-
Just now, Chizh said:
You asking about AIM-120B by chart of AIM-120A.
Its the same missile without loft. Yet the DCS one severely outperforms the one on the graph with no loft.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:
We've learned more on what the VVS/RuAF considers as .7 PK a shot
The assumption that the R-27ER range chart is an Rmax figure was incorrect, it has a provision for being able to maneuver about 2 to 3g at the end according to a former RuAF pilot.
So it has a similar provision at the end as like an AIM-7 chart like you mentioned before its an R opt/Rpi graph.
This should be an important consideration moving forward when ED makes a CFD of the missile @Chizh
I also wonder, do similar semi circle charts exist for the RVV AE and R-73?
I've seen some different types claiming to be R aero figures but I am not sure if they're legitimate.
@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? -
5 minutes ago, GGTharos said:
And yet the biggest problem he mentions is the chaff issue. He's not saying people don't have enough braincells to sort properly, he says people don't train/practice doing such things, nor it is 2v1 (but if you can, do that) he's staying splitting a 2v2 into two 1v1s ... and there are tactics for all of this but it takes understanding, planning and practice. Klarsnow is instructed in this, we are not. It's as if I was telling you of a software design pattern and saying you don't have enough braincells to use it because you haven't been instructed in it.
PM me.
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)
-
21 minutes ago, Chizh said:
Yes, you are correct.
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)
-
3 hours ago, GGTharos said:
There are also timeline tactics available in manuals - and although they are unclass (though I'm not sure you'll be able to find the manuals), those timelines don't support the idea that the R-27ER out-ranges the 120. Such details are hidden in the vault, but again - the basic unclass stuff that you can find has AMRAAM shots being taken at 20nm subsonic and medium altitude - and that little details is in individual aircraft manuals and in tactics manuals. This equates to a range of about 36km, between 6000-8000m and I doubt that it's a low pk shot.
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.
-
On 8/26/2020 at 3:52 PM, Маэстро said:
They did't. In DCS For Vf=Vt=500m/s range is 61km w/o loft. Terminal condition is Vm=Vt.
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.
DCS MiG-29A
in DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum
Posted
Redfor in DCS can not even recreate the obsolete Syrian air force. Syria uses MiG-29SM, which can use guided air to ground weapons.
I refuse to believe that anyone could consider this acceptable, playable even.