Max1mus

Red needs capable fighters. Not more 80s AIM-7 equivalent garbage. That means, FC3 variants of late 2000s 29/27/31 variants, if full fi versions of them are not possible.

Make sure to lead your shots. The way you fired it there, you made it have to make a massive turn. On top of you flying extremely slow and low. Instead of posting on forums, i recommend looking at tacviews and figuring out ways to get better positions for better missile shots. These kinds of threads distract from actual feedback.

DCS in its current state can not live without those on top of an upgraded variant of SA-15 like M2. Too many standoff weapons, but no proper SAM counters for them.

This disregard of the red side may seem profitable for you, since the F-16/18 owners are -Happy about updates -Happy that no tactics are needed to win BVR fights https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=240383&d=1592582904 -Happy that no tactics are needed when attacking ground targets https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=240383&d=1592582904 https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699244872657403904/723570862652915782/1xF-18vsentirerussianPVO.acmi But while i dont have the exact numbers, a big chunk of the "red" playerbase, especially the MP one, is switching to games like IL2 and Warthunder. The reason is simply that there is no content for them here. The servers are just NATO vs NATO due to lack of capable red modules aswell as apparently no plans for R-27/77 to be CFD'd in the next months, even one year after rework of AIM-120: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4520759&postcount=9742 If you take look at what is left of the red playerbase (Especially russian groups like ROSS) you will find that most have migrated to flying in cold war scenarios. However, there are no regularly populated servers for this and there is no real Singleplayer content, making Warthunder, which has replayable east vs west content available 24/7, the only option for them. As far as the more numerous, "blue" playerbase is concerned, they will at some point grow tired of having to choose between NATO vs NATO or turkey shooting 30 year older equipment. And with named "other games" leaping into the modern era (Warthunder has AIM-7s already), while making sure to offer replayable interesting content instead of Turkey shoots or red flag. So while this strategy of keeping the red coalition down may seem profitable due to the 3 reasons stated above, ED will loose players. And this strategy (on top of issues like unbearable desync, different modelling standard for weapons between 3rd parties/ED, which have driven away quite a few people) will with absolute certainty damage DCS Multiplayer beyond repair, if not killing it entirely apart from aerobatics/BFM servers. You could care for the russian FC3 modules and at the very least keep supporting them and fix basic bugs (No waypoints on Su-27, MFDs invisible due to sun, R-27/77 not following new modelling standards). Or you could not. In this case please: -Add a disclaimer to the FC3 purchase that the product is no longer supported -Be more clear about DCS being only for red flag-like scenarios, so people arent buying a Eurofighter/F-18 to face Su-35s/S-400, to then be disappointed

Su-30MKI, MiG-29K, MiG-31BM, Su-27SM are all from 2000-2010 (and missing in DCS). In terms of SAMs, we are missing the working horses that are S-300PMU1, TOR M1/M2, Pantsir. Its not the nonexistance of these systems. Its that ED isnt making them, even in FC3.

Mi-35s upgraded avionics and better anti tank missiles/guidance would be more comparable to an apache, as would be a Superhind. Mi-28 of course even more so. The only thing the soviet shitty old Mi-24P has going for it is the ability to carry troops, which might come in handy in dynamic campaigns. But it wont do anything to solve the time frame disparity, it will just make the problem worse. More people flying around in these coffins while all of NATO is in late 2000s missile carriers.

We already have MiG-29A in DCS, both AI and Flyable. Would revolutionize nothing, just eat up resources ED should use to fix the modern era.

I dont think more cold war modules should be on the list at all until ED has given the sim at least one late 2000s redfor fighter, even if its just FC3 level. Make the modern arena viable first, right now its just NATO vs NATO. After that, fill up the cold war era. Mig-23, F-4, F-5 and MiG-21 could overall provide a pretty diverse environment there. ME options to downgrade F-18, F-15 and so on to their A models, and stuff like a MiG-25 and an A-6 or F111 would be nice there too. But first, fix the modern arena, both AG and AA. We need short range SAMs capable of shooting down masses of standoff weapons and we need a modern red fighter, FC3 level so that there is at least something.

If ED makes early 80s garbage variants like Su-25A or MiG-29A, people will just be disappointed and never buy anything russian ever again. We need Su-25SM, minimum. Though at this point it should be clear that we will never get any of these modern upgrades in full fidelity, as stated many times by ED already. As such FC3 level is the only option. An upgrade of the Su-25A in DCS to Su-25SM would be nice.

Mi-24G or Mi-35 are no less iconic. And they have an actual gunner position and are actually comparable to the planned modern Apache.

If you run 90s again, keep in mind that the gap between SD10 and 120C (in favor of SD10) is higher than between 120B and 120C. SD10vs120_high.trk SD10vs120_low.trk

With how modern our mid to late 2000s F-16, F-18 and upcoming F-15E/Eurofighter are, no. ED has trapped themselves into a spot where they need to make a 2000s fighter like SU-30MKI - which they cant. And as such, DCS will be for NATO pilots only. ED has long realized this and changed their priorities accordingly. There are plenty of examples: The Black Shark 3 update being cancelled, russian missiles not being reworked to new APIs while western ones are, not a single more modern SAM being added. ED keeps trying to keep the redfor playerbase in, by making empty vague hints like the recent Chizh interview, where he says they are "looking into options". But the same Chizh has precisely said in a forum post that DCS will never have a full fidelity, modern Flanker. In short, dont buy into this scam. If youre interested into red flag and fictitious NATO vs NATO combat, go ahead. But otherwise, your money can be spent better, especially these days.

If it was just 90s equipment on the NATO side in DCS, there would be no problem. The NATO planes in DCS arent from the 90s. The 120C7 is from mid 2000s, as is the AIM-9X. The versions of F-18 and F-16 are also from 2004 and 2007, some AG weapons that are coming are even newer. There is plenty of equivalent equipment from the 2000s. Su-30MKI would be an excellent match for DCS NATO aircraft. Su-27S in DCS from 1984 with missiles from no newer than 1987, is not. Neither are late 70s models of SA-15 and S-300, that are no match against 2010 SLAM-ER, 2000s JSOWs and 90s JDAMs. There once again, TOR M1 and S-300PMU would provide a realistic counterpart. But its not going to happen. ED has abandoned the red side in DCS. Mi-24P belongs to a museum, its RWR is one of the first, if not the first the soviets ever developed back in the 60s. Compare that to a supposed modern Apache that is coming to DCS - absolute joke. As i said, dont spend money in this simulator if you even want to shoot down russian aircraft - you will not find them here, even the AI has nothing, no modern SAM, no modern fighter. Only soviet dinosaurs.

This game is for simulation of NATO war games (F-16 vs F-14 etc.) only. Do not buy anything if you wish to play as redfor, with the exception of the KA-50 module. Take this warning from someone who has played for many years and many thousand hours. In this sim, you will not see any authentic combat between NATO and Russian/Chinese forces, and you will never be able to fly modern russian and chinese planes. Check again in 2 years. But given EDs priorities, chances are that it will not be any different.

Agreed.

There is a set of 2 dozen buttons on the right side of Su-27S to allow you to label/assign targets to your wingman. Hardly going to have no function. But this is offtopic. On AIM-120D, the 120C in DCS already has perfect loft algorithms. If it was not for the battery life turning the missile off at mach 2.5, it would easily have the 120Ds 180km of range. Theoretically even far beyond that. The current 120 practically does never run out of energy above 40-45.000 feet. In general, it seems that if a missile in DCS has special trajectories, it gets the absolutely best possible ones. As such a 120B will have the guidance/lofting algorithms of AIM-120D, and the AIM-54A from 1970 is getting the best possible guidance with no difference to more modern missiles like AIM-54C.

This "ECM bug" was known to ED and was an intended feature, added at the same time as the missiles became practically immune to chaff. It was removed in this patch, and chaff became more important again. Only few knew of this, and the ones that knew of this added feature were staying silent to not ruin BVR. But i have seen people use it in MP repeatedly and it was only a matter of time until everyone would have figured out. Imagine the shitstorm, if people realized that you can defeat every single 120 at any range by just having ECM on and doing a lazy turn. So be glad that the missiles at least track reliably head on now and that ED chose to start modelling EW properly instead of gamey barrel rolling mechanics.

People are forgetting that you could just dodge the amraam head on with ECM last patch. Every single time with no effort. Do you prefer that? ED never wanted the missile to be untrashable as pointed out here before. Also as quoted already, according to ED (and also right on top of wikipedia if you google "chaff") its not chaff on its own, but chaff+ECM that makes the difference. It is much better if ED finishes their work on EW and applies the changes to ALL MISSILES, instead of whatever the hell the few previous patches were.

Is that any different from other missiles in DCS? If in doubt, just make it horrible and only hit targets under ideal conditions. We know from the quoted Janes article, that the missile can not hit targets pulling more than 5.5G.

Если РЛС цели не в режиме "STT", сделайте как здесь с DCS Х-58У: Цель быстро двигается - ракета не попадает: KH58U_miss.trk A когда РЛС цели в режиме "STT", по слову Janes: "Maximum g-load of the target 5.5 5.5" https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/25394-vympel-offers-new-r-27ep-anti-radar-missile Логика уже у Су-25Т есть. У DCS Су27 может выглядить так: Если цель отключает радар, ракета цель теряет. По этому при правильный реакции, точьность будет = 0%. Не смотря на это, ракета летчикам Ф16/18 может борьбу с красными сделать более интересной.

The F-15 in DCS has less SA. And in singleplayer, even the F-18/16 do not have more SA, since they get fed by AWACS and other fighters, while Su-27 gets fed by AWACS, other fighters and EWR. In the 80s and 90s, practically no blue fighters had as sophisticated datalink as the Su-27. And even in more modern times, practically everything can feed a Flanker, while NATO planes only get fed by AWACS and other fighters. The blue fighters having more SA applies to the fight against 70s-early 80s fighters like MiG-21,23,25 and 29A, since they were designed to be micromanaged by GCI, with the pilots individually only seeing what they needed to. When all missiles are modelled to the same standard (in terms of chaff resistance and drag), our FC3 russian 80s/90s planes will be able to fight 90s 120Bs on more or less even terms. To fight 2000s 120C on even terms, ask 3rd party devs for 2000s Su-30MKI or Su-27SM3/J-11B.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4492123&postcount=89 Мне не очень важно, сколько AGM65 или HARM на Ф-16 вешат, их в DCS практически никто не изпользует, если GBU-38/31 и JSOW/SLAM (и скоро надеюсь ТОР-М1) есть. Я просто думаю, что такой новый стандарт должен быть применен для каждого модуля, а не только когда люди на Хоггите и какие-то Ютуберы кричят.

Ф-16 с 4 AGM-88 и 6 AGM-65 тоже ни кто не видел. Но ED добавит. Лётчик Су35 на форуме где-то написал, что каждый самолет, у каторого есть Р-77, тоже Р-77-1 может применять, просто без его новых траектории. По этому, если JF-17, Еврофайтер, МиГ-23МЛА (СПО-15) и Ф-16 в DCS уже не будут изображать модели настоящих блоках, я не вижу причину, не так же к ГС3 "не блоковые" оружыя добавить.

У Су-27СМ3 в Сирии не было?

У J-11 тоже 6 PL-12 действительная конфигурация. Так же Р-77-1 на Су-27. 120C в игре от 120C7 не отличается. У 120D просто электроника лучше, кроме этого тоже не отличается.