Max1mus

I added labels to them. Here they are from my second post: ERdoesnotoutrange_LABELS.trk120Bnotoutranged_LABELS.trk Third post: 120Cflyoutfurther_LABELS.trk Fourth post: 60s_1_LABELS.trk60s_2_LABELS.trk PS: I forgot to add the tracks from my very first out of 4 posts, here they are: Incorrect_Range_Relationship_2_LABELS.trkIncorrect_Range_Relationship_LABELS.trk

Реальность это Ф16 против Ф18? Блин, кто-то быстро позвони путину и объясни, что строить Су35 и Су30СМ не надо!

Ok, lets for some reason assume the AMRAAM only flies for 60 seconds.60s_1.trk60s_2.trk AIM-120 still out-ranges the R-27ER at 60s, passing it at around the 45s mark. Tracks are attached. Is this not enough to make this rework a high priority? The few soviet AI planes that you offer as opposition for your F-18/F-16 customers rely on the R-27, but as you can see the way it is modelled now, you dont need to do anything as an AIM-120 user. No need to crank, dive, defend, or execute any of the timeline/MAR-related tactics from real life.

The AMRAAM lofts and will not just stop flying at 60s. In my now attached track you can see an AIM-120C by far exceed the flyout range for the R-27ER (by 10+km/35%+) without battery life factored in. On top of that my F-15 has sped up to almost mach 2 by the end, so the real value is even higher in favor of AIM-120C. AIM-120C without battery life would have hit that target at 131km with mach 2.6 left (and as i have proven to you before with tracks, it can reach targets as far away as 180-200km easily). Current DCS R-27ER launched at 131km would not even have come close, as you can see in that track. This clearly proves that R-27ER can never outrange AIM-120 in DCS at high altitude. Despite every pilot that has talked about that range relationship claiming that it should. I note that the relationship was as the pilots describe it before DCS 2.5.5. Because back then both AIM-120 and R-27 were modelled to the same standard. Now one has a CFD research based modelling, and one has a 5 year old model. Given all this and that the AMRAAM was reworked over a year ago now, why are there no plans for the R-27 rework now? If for political reasons, youre worried that russian fighters will dominate in your sim, you shouldnt be. The soviet fighters in DCS are still so far behind your new F-18 and F-16 in terms of technology, that you can still easily trash N001 radar locks by cranking at long range and turning cold and recommitting fast at medium range. Add to that Link16, and missing datalink features on Su-27 and MiG-29, and you will find that even an R-27ER with no zero lift drag will still not allow the red planes to compete against AIM-120Cs. And given that there are no plans to ever add modern russian planes, this will never change. But this rework will at least give the NATO guys a slightly more interesting BVR environment and allow Su-27 owners to at the very least beat the singleplayer campaigns without having to abuse AI weaknesses like a speedrunner. 120Cflyoutfurther.trk PS: It is clear that you know of these problems given that EDs "Hard" F-15C Instant Action mission over Syria includes MiG-31s, whose R-33 have not been reworked since FC2 and are significantly overperforming, outranging even MK60 Phoenixes by far while also having a massive acceleration. The state of russian planes and missiles in DCS is so catastrophic that you decided to add a broken AI plane to give the player any challenge whatsoever.

Please check the tracks. The DCS implementation still makes AIM-120 outrange it with no battery life limitations.

As you can clearly see on your graph, even the AIM-120A/B has a longer range than R-27ER without lofting. This has nothing to do with what the pilots in linked videos were talking about. Could ED please finally do the CFD research?

Is your strategy to just flood posts like this so the devs dont see them? Why dont you just look at the evidence before commenting? ED can view my tracks. The pilot is referring to newest AMRAAMs, but since i knew you would flood the post like this, my track includes the A/B motor AMRAAM to further solidify the point.

3:40 - "R-27ER outranges our AMRAAM missiles, we will beat them by using better tactics and getting closer to shoot" In these tracks an AIM-120B and R-27ER are fired at 82km. The ER is launched from way more altitude and speed. Yet the AIM-120B impacts at mach 2.5+, while R-27ER falls out of the sky and passes at Mach 1.5.ERdoesnotoutrange.trk120Bnotoutranged.trk Which AMRAAM missiles and R-27ER is the pilot talking about? Certainly not the DCS ones. Can we please have this fixed? This affects the singleplayer/coop F-18/F-16 community more than anyone.

Then why does every pilot who has talked about it in public say it does outrange it? Why is this guy saying "longer range weapons" It doesnt even outrange it in a straightline shot. Can provide tracks if needed.

Minute 3:19. "Longer range Weapons". In DCS, the AIM-120C at 50.7 miles arrives at Mach 2.6+ and destroys the target. The R-27ER fired at around 46 Miles from higher altitude and much more speed bleeds to less than mach 2 and falls out of the sky a good 10 miles short of the target. How are people supposed to recreate real NATO doctrine and AMRAAM tactics when the number one reason for them, the range relationship between R-27 and AMRAAM, is flipped??? Do you plan on allowing people to use AMRAAM tactics to their advantage? Or still no R-27 rework until "all projects, including MiG-29A and Apache are finished"? Incorrect_Range_Relationship.trk Incorrect_Range_Relationship_2.trk

Why not be honest and just say "No, there will not be a rework". Why do you try to pretend that you care about these missiles? The focus is clearly only on NATO modules and assets (MiG-29A is a NATO fighter). Who are you trying to keep on board? You have the statistics, most of those people have already stopped playing/paying for your game. Just add "No longer supported" onto the FC3 modules and be done with it. You will have more time to work on your NATO missiles and planes and make those even more profitable. I dont get it.

Значит, мы не получем, потому что эта ракета нам не нужна? Ф-18 кстати не нужны AGM-88 и AGM-65. JSOW и JDAM достаточно эффективные. ...

There is a 2020s Eurofighter coming with Meteor missiles, do you seriously still want an 80s Su-27S? Thats like putting an F-4 against Su-35. DCS air to air is only NATO vs NATO, especially in MP. People interested in russian aircraft will move to products that offer a proper environment, and not 2020s NATO vs 1980s soviet air force. With ED confirming that they will do nothing about it, aswell as them even cancelling the missiles rework for at least our old 80s soviet garbage, im suprised you guys even play anymore. At this point even games like Arma offer a better experience for eastern aviation fans, with mods like RHS modelling modern russian aviation and ground vehicles in much greater detail than ED (none at all). Read the weekend news, read what ED staff is writing here. They have 0 intention of filling this market niche. What do want is more humiliation, by adding an export, 1982 MiG-29A for NATO pilots to bully.

Not really. 95% of the time it will still go for chaff due to the poor coefficient, whether the radar is notched or not. Compare the difference for R-27ER between "ECM" and "NO ECM" tests. ECM makes radar unnotchable and the issue youre referring to is irrelevant. (Ignore AIM-120 values, their ECCM has been changed since then). This means that the ER will not benefit much from any radar fixes, because in DCS SARH missiles themselves go for chaff, instead of the radar loosing lock to the chaff. And since the R-27ER has a terrible CCM coefficient, it will still not track through turns, especially against slower targets. For R-27ER to become more scary, you need 2 things: ED to fully rework radar and SARH ECCM so that radar reacts to chaff instead of the SARH missile, and at least an FC3 level, modern, post 2000 Flanker or Fulcrum with a more Chaff/ECM resistant radar.

ER_doesnt_Track_Through_Turns_2.trk ER_doesnt_Track_Through_Turns_1.trk

ED will fall flat on their face with all this hype. Its going to be another AMRAAM/JDAM carrier with nothing new except a different flight model. The most "eagerly awaited" Module in DCS is the Su-27SM3, given that it was apparently already being developed, then cancelled, in 2013. But by using the phrase "eagerly awaited" and "brainmelter" in relation to another half-finished NATO 4th gen, they played themselves. Luckily there is another well-known game developer headed towards at least low fidelity 4th gens. So whether its going to be it or ED, we will not have to wait for a modern russian jet more than 1-2 years.

Upgraded versions of MiG-29 and Su-27 are excellent multirole fighters, with excellent anti ship and SEAD capabilities aswell as TV and laser guided weapons. Unfortunately ED does not want to fill this niche with their simulator despite having the option to do so with low fidelity. To ever fly those planes, we will have to wait for a competitor in the market...

People here are asking for modules that you cannot make in full fidelity, to be made in low fidelity. I highly doubt anyone here enjoys simplified avionics, but we will accept it if that is the only way to get absolutely necessairy modules that DCS is absolutely lacking at the moment.

Even a low fidelity, modern russian fighter would be more brainmelting than anything ED will announce...

Then its not "eagerly awaited". Another AMRAAM/JDAM bus is the last thing DCS is lacking right now.

Why not an FC3 level variant, perhabs with some full fidelity features? You could make a more modern version of either the 29 or -27/-30 that way. We need something, the russian side can not defend itself at all at the moment. https://forums.eagle.ru/filedata/fetch?id=6735775&d=1603062188

This has been a massive problem. I hope ED puts an end to this arms race between developers soon. On the topic of G, the R-3R in DCS can pull 20+G and yet it is easily outmaneuvered inside perfect parameters with enough energy remaining. An AIM-54 could be capable of doing 60Gs but not have the lift to hit anything if it aquires a target too far off the nose. We all await the promised takeover of all missiles by Eagle Dynamics, it needs to be a much higher priority than it is now.

I was taking this bug into context with EDs complete disregard of non-NATO equipment in DCS. We arent getting any modern units or missiles, even AI, while the blue side and hoggit make one post, and get everything they ask for. We cant even get a simple bug fixed that requires nothing but a change of a single line in a .lua, as pointed out above. Thats how little ED cares about the red side.

These first few prototypes never made it into service. The MiG-29M/K that got into service in the 2000s, after it got more funding, had a much much improved radar (Zhuk-ME) over MiG-29S, with ability to engage 4 targets at once, much much better fuel endurance (closer to an F-16/18 ), Link16 tier datalink aswell as EOS which according to some sources covers 360 degrees, can be used as a TGP and detects missile launches. It also has a more modern RWR. In short, it can fight independently and has the tools to fight back against 2000s missiles and fighters, unlike earlier, 80s variants. This variant was also sold to the Indians who use it to this day on their aircraft carrier. In the RuAf, the MiG-29K carries the upgraded R-77-1. Now while there are even more modern MiG-29 variants with thrust vectoring and AESA, it would be pointless to ask for those, even in FC3. To be relevant and be worth EDs effort economically, this 9.41 MiG-29M/K, which found its way into service in the late 2000s just like DCS F-16, is necessairy. Though a flanker variant from the same era would better fit the requirement of being more on par with upcoming DCS F-15E/Eurofighter.

Because ED has decided that DCS is a NATO only simulator. I remember a bug with the MiG-29 RWR that made it invisible for an entire year (making the Fulcrum useless). Turns out that exactly what i thought happened - they had it fixed for months, but only implemented it with the MiG-29 FM update, to maximize profits. It is possible that ED has abandoned the russian missiles for their "brainmelting" disappointment of upcoming module, probably some useless 80s MiG-29 variant. Why should they fix anything now, when they can generate way more hype by waiting for another year. Though i wonder how many redfor pilots will be left to enjoy the fixes then. Im seeing the majority of people from the Su-27/MiG-29 community move to other games like IL-2 and World of Warships/War Thunder, the developers of which maintain their games environment properly. These games are also pushing into the modern era more and more, so at the current rate, we may soon see the day when ED will not be able to get these people back, regardless of what they do.