Max1mus

120B has a higher lift coefficient and turns better regardless of speed. Thus, apart from missile speed, a 120B often is more dangerous than a 120C within no-run zone. This was not different before, but now that both missiles ignore chaff entirely during memory mode (thus chaff becoming pretty irrelevant where you actually need it), you will die more often to a 120B than a 120C at close distance since the notch filter on both missiles is exactly the same. The problem seems to be the memory mode, and im not sure if it works as intended. Memory mode in DCS has often had massive, game breaking impacts. Examples are: FOX-1 missiles tracking when shooter is using radar memory mode, radar timeout giving active missiles magic INS, and now the AIM-120s immunity against chaff in memory mode.

Ну не в DCS. Ракета полностью игнорирует диполи в режиме памяти, даже этого "сложнее" не видно. Здесь тоже в отличие к 2.5.5, 120B более эффективная против такую защиту, чем 120C. Это благодаря того, что ракета в последних 300м полета почти всегда из фильтера вылетающую цель найдет. Здесь 120C часто цель уже не может перехватить, а 120B может. Могу поже треки показать, если хотите.

Ну ракета ведь сразу меня найдет, когда я радияльную скорость повышу. Как она отличяет меня от лувушек там? Если из фильтера (10-20м/с) выйду, для ракеты как минимум должно быть очень сложно, меня опять найти, или нет? Для меня выглядит как баг.

Hello, some patches ago the CCM of the SD-10 was changed from 1.5 to 0.08. This was done for it to be in line with the new 120s. However, the new 120s got a new way of calculating chaff resistance, this seems to not be the case with the SD-10. It makes a large turn when notched (instead of using autopilot or just going straight), which by my understanding means that its still using the old formula (R-77 does the same thing, while AIM-54 and AIM-120 do not). https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=245851&d=1598469966 Am i wrong and has it been changed to use the new formula? The old 120C was at 0.1 and the 120B was at 0.2, so according to the old calculation the SD-10 should have a coefficient of at least 0.1.

If someone finds public information about R-27P/EP, you need to give it to Chizh on the russian forums. He has said that if they get proper info on how it works, they can model it. A similar thing happened recently with announcement of R-73 RDM2 coming to DCS. It doesnt matter how ineffective the missile is. Its a tool and the opponent will have to consider it. Similarly to how the ET, while easily decoyed, still causes major anxiety, especially with new DCS NATO pilots.

Hello, some patches ago the CCM of the SD-10 was changed from 1.5 to 0.08. This was done for it to be in line with the new 120s. However, the new 120s got a new way of calculating chaff resistance, this seems to not be the case with the SD-10. It makes a large turn when notched (instead of using autopilot or just going straight), which by my understanding means that its still using the old formula (R-77 does the same thing, while AIM-54 and AIM-120 do not). SD_10_oldmodelling.trk Am i wrong and has it been changed to use the new formula? The old 120C was at 0.1 and the 120B was at 0.2, so according to the old calculation the SD-10 should have a coefficient of at least 0.1.

30 диполи, после 5сек сразу реагирует after_5s_normally_chaffed_2.trk ~195 диполи, не реагирует memorymode_chaffimune_2.trk

@Chizh memorymode_chaffimune.trk Ракета диполи здесь игнорирует, пока 5сек не прошли, даже если их в 2.5 раз больше чем во втором .TRK . after_5s_normally_chaffed.trk Если не баг, почему Р-27 и AIM-7 не получют? И что с другими активными ракетами, как AIM-54?

Нет. Диполи по прежнему могут оказать влияние. Но для этого нужно чтобы радиальная скорость цели была близка к нулю. Р-77 получит. Когда сделаем полноценную ИНС этот режим будет работать не как память, а как экстраполяция траектории по последним измерениям параметров цели.

What else should we fly, MiG-21?

Даже новый СПО уже очень может помочь, ведь в DCS СПО-15 даже -14 от -16 отличять не может. Что изправленный РЛС умеет, не знаю, но более лучшый РЛС = Р-27ЭР немного лучше попадает. Видно в DCS у AIM-7 Ф18 против AIM-7 ф15. И это даже без возможности РЛС, чель с диполями путать. Если cовременного самолета даже в MAC не будет, надеюсь что до конца переработки советских диносаврах и их ракет долго ждать не нужно. Тоже из-за того, что часами тестировать каждый патчь надаело. Вы часто в списки забываете важные новости, как переработку помехозащиты и реакцию ракет на ECM.

Планы к Р-77 автопилот добавить есть? У 120B и SD-10 уже давно есть, и они из-за автопилота и ногого CCM на близкой дальности в несколько раз меньше цель теряют. К AIM-7 и Р-27Р/ЕР тоже добавите? Когда время найдёте? Говорим о 2-3 патчах или не знаете?

These are quite some mental gymnastics, which would be fully understandable, if this level of precision was the standard in DCS. But after things like M2000C missile approach warning system, JF-17, F-15E and planned unrealistic F-16 maverick loadouts, no such standard exists. As long as these added gadgets are the reality of the simulator, there is no reason to exclude all the Mi-24P that really were in service within the RuAf. You could make the RWR a server setting, as Razbam handles it with their additional gadgets.

It is really a shame how while ED tries to simulate a specific block, and sticks to what the aircraft exactly carried, some 3rd party devs are just adding things from entirely different versions to increase capability. If ED is not going to stop that, there is no reason for them to not join in and add SPO-15, even bits of Mi-35 avionics. Since the red side of DCS has been entirely abandoned apart from helicopters, we will take anything we can get.

By my understanding the SPO-15 RWR on the 27 and 29A/S is programmable prior to the mission. In DCS, the Su-27 is constantly put against a mix of F-15/16/18 aswell as the F-14. In real life, the F-14 and Su-27 never met in combat and were not expected to do so due to entirely different tasks (F-14 supposed to protect carriers from bombers, Su-27 mostly for defense of soviet mainland). I assume the SPO-15 would rather be programmed for different tasks than differentating between the F-14 and other fighters. However, in the alternative scenarios of DCS, the F-14 is being used as a regular CAP platform over the mainland in the mix with other teen fighters. It would make sense to give mission designers a setting to program the SPO-15 differently, perhabs replacing the AWACS © light with one for radar nails from an F-14. If adding such programmability is too much work, just replacing either one of the SAM lights or the AWACS light with one for nails from AWG-9 would help mitigate the uselessness of the soviet aircraft in the current simulator. Other RWR libraries in DCS have also been programmed for the reality of the sim. The F-14 RWR gets unique nails indications from JF-17, even though both aircraft never met. Will we see something similar for the SPO-15?

Agreed, but MAC will have to be maintained and cared for way better than FC3 at the moment. Apart from the lack of modernized red aircraft you already mentioned, there are many bugs that have not been adressed in FC3 for a long time since it got kind of abandoned. Apart from stuff like flanker F2F not working in multiplayer, things like broken waypoints on the Su-27, radar strength on SPO15/F15 RWR being broken (F-18 and JF-17 radar way more powerful than a tomcats) dont seem to be of any priority. While a modernized version would be better, a little wish i have is for the existing MiG-29A and S to get some sort of modelling of their GCI datalinks. The things are supposed to be guided around as chess pieces by GCI, who is supposed to be able to control their radars and even control the aircraft to an extent. It would be fitting since Razbams MiG-23 will have it too. Plus, if some tools for combined arms GCI are added, it would really revolutionize the multiplayer experience and make these soviet versions of the fulcrum viable in at least a 90s environment.

Which is why the gap in the results is so small. 60/66 between 120C and 120B is not representative of the actual efficiency in DCS, and neither is 98/100 between the ER and AIM7M (Both missiles have the same chaff resistance but ER is much faster and gives way less time to turn defensive). If an AI Su-25 gives you a large radial velocity and stays at a high speed (i never saw the AI go below mach 0.55-0.6), only dropping very little chaff, both an ER and 120C will track almost every time. And it gets itself into these bad spots most of the time, even if it has enough room left to get into a proper position and bleed more speed. Not a single time have i seen the AI use the maneuvers used in my .TRK which defeat the 77 and ER 100% of the time. Maybe its because their behavior has not been reworked in years, i dont know. If i run tests where i just fly hot into the missile or stay cold while dropping chaff and keeping the speed high, any radar guided missile will kill me almost every time and the result would also not be diverse enough. To see the real difference, you need the aircraft to get into those critical spots near stall speed where all missiles are the most likely to go for chaff (or guaranteed in case of R27ER and R77 without ECM, as seen in my tracks). The better the target defends, the further the results will go away from small differences like 60/66/68 towards mine with 120B being multiple times better. Even if you take the middle between the not so effective defense of the AI and the extremely aggressive defense in my tracks, the 120B is still way more effective than the 77 and in no way only 1 generation ahead of 7M/27ER.

The tracks i showed you show the ideal method of trying to chaff missiles, and 120B there is clearly not just 2%/33% better as your tests suggest but way over 400% as good. All the 3rd parties have changed their active missiles to the new code + autopilot. The R-77 is the only active missile available in DCS that does not have this new code yet. Either please add it to R-77 or rework the new autopilot/chaff mechanic to have the missiles equally effective chaff wise as in 2.5.5. PS: I tried it with AI. The reason why you are getting your results is because AI defends way too fast (mach 0.6+) and is thus programmed to die to about half of all active missiles, even on "excellent" setting. The only way to test it against a target properly defending at very low speed (and moving through the notch with chaff multiple times) is against a human. There, the probability of R-77 and R-27ER grabbing chaff is near 100%, unlike 120B.

Как тогда эти результати возможные? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4447231&postcount=131

Run some tests please. ECM does have such an effect chaff wise, aswell as in another area that is currently a bit buggy and being fixed by ED. Nevertheless even with these ECM effects, the AIM-120Bs are infinitely times more deadly at no-run-zone than the R-77 and R-27ER (or as the 120s were in 2.5.5) as my tests ( https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4447231&postcount=131 ) clearly show, which is not in relation to the 0 year gap between it and the 77 and the 4-10 year gap between it and the R-27/AIM-7M/MH. Before the autopilot update, the performance against chaff authentically represented the difference in technology and time frame relative to the other missiles.

I dont like how ED is focusing on the beginner friendlyness of MAC and entirely ignoring the fact that it will be the only way to have modern planes on the red side in DCS. I have no clue how dynamic campaigns are going to work and be "balanced" as ED says they want them to be, when one side has avionics and missiles that were put into service 15, in most cases 20-25 years later than what the other has. MAC must be used as a platform for the modules that are too difficult to make in full fidelity, yet absolutely necessairy additions for the simulator environment. Or else forget authentically recreating anything that has happened after the 90s and involved major powers (like Syria 2015) in DCS.

Please look closely at the gif and if you wish my tracks provided. The maneuver used to reliably chaff the 120B involved exactly that -> through the notch multiple times and chaff. This is now entirely useless with the new chaff calculation, its all about slow speed, spamming as much chaff as possible, and praying to the RNG god. So thank you for agreeing with me. On top of that, to get away reliably like in that gif you need to have the guy on your gimbals and be very close to stall speed and very close to the ground. With a simple 90 deg turn plus chaff you were always very likely dead. You can still defeat the missile within 10km 9/10 times if your module has a flawlessly accurate RWR (like the F-18 ). Just keep your wings level, align it at 90 degrees and slowly turn to keep it in there. You have to understand that more often than not, these missiles are shot for effect. If the target decides to go to stall speed to defeat it, just finish him off with a heatseeker and guns, he cant go anywhere. The only time any pilot dies to a single missile shot, is because he decides to. This has not changed.

Реального математического аппарата не нужно. Просто со старый модели активных ракет, была возможность сбросить ракету теоретически каждый раз, если самолет подготовен для защити. Когда вшел в и вышел из нотчьа, как видите в моих треках, из 24 Р-77 из-за готовности этого А-10 (низкая скорость и так далее) 0 попали, все за помехи ушли. Против 120В этой возможности, найти себя в ситацию, где ракета из-за помехов не может попасть, больше нету (как видно в треках). Это то, что имею виду. "Случайность" попадания ракеты со старый модели всегда почти полностю зависила от летчика и своих ошибок (как видно в моих треках Р-77, каторая еще использует старую модель помехозащиты). Поченить это можно например так, что дополнительно к вашей модели помехозащиты, симулятор спрасит ракету, сколько секунд цель была в нотчье (X) и сколько помех цель выпустила (Y). Если X и Y папример больше чем 2 и 50 для 120B, 3 и 75 для 120C и так далее, ракета не попадает. Эти цифры вы могли бы ставить как вам угодно, чтобы изменения эффективности не было. Но важнее чем это, все ракеты должны работать одинаково, конечно с более тяжолами цыфрами, чем более ракета современная. Р-77 нужен получить тоже самый автопилот и коэффициент как 120В. И я по этому думаю, что всем SARH (-7, -27R) тоже нужны новые коеффициенты.

Wrong, not the R-77. Only SD-10, 120, AIM-54. Hence my post, which also explains why SARH should get a similar change.

@Chizh Пожалуйста посмотрите. Все ракеты были выпущены очень близко (<10км) против А-10. https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=244356&d=1596842671 Первый трек был сделан без ECM/САП. Результаты: Р-77 - 0/24 ракеты попали. А-10 пережыл 4/4 раз (все Р-77 выпущены очень близко и одновременно) Р-27ЭР - 0/24 или 0/32 попали (А-10 по ошыбке один раз во воду нырнул), А-10 пережил 3/3 или 4/4 раз (все Р-27 выпущены очень близко и одновременно) AIM-120В - 7/30 ракет попали, А-10 был сбит каждый раз (все 120В выпущены очень близко и одновременно) https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=244357&d=1596842671 https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=244358&d=1596842671 Эти треки были сделаны с ECM/САП. Из-за этого 120В попали немного меньше и Р77/27ЭР попали немого лучше (против 77/27 лучше выклучить в DCS). Р-77: 1/30 ракет попала. А-10 пережыл 5/6 раз (все Р-77 выпущены очень близко и одновременно) Р-27ЭР: 2-3/56 ракет попали. А-10 пережыл 5/7 раз (все 8 Р-27 выпущены очень близко и одновременно) AIM-120В - 8/54 ракет попали, А-10 пережыл только 2/9 раз (все 120В выпущены очень близко и одновременно) Я полно согласен, что более современную ракету/современное РЛС тяжелее сривать чем старую - Р27ЭР из 80их на самолетах со самым старым вариантом Н001 должен хуже цель держать чем 120В из 90их, и РВВ-АЕ из 90 их должна быть хуже чем 120С из 2000их. Но результаты в DCS очевидные. Я тоже думаю, что если 6 ракеты выпущены одновременно, или все 6 должны попасть, или все 6 должны цель вместе терять. Ситуация у 120В в DCS такая, что как видно в моих .трк, почти всегда одна или две 120В попадают, я другие 5-6 цель теряют. У 120С ещё хуже, более как 3 против 3. У Р77/Р27ЭР этой проблемы при отключения ECM/САП нет, или все 6 попадают, или все 6 цель теряют. Такое "RNG" делает DCS меньше интересно для серёзных виртуальних лётчиков, которые несколько десяток чясов в недели занимаются воздушным бою в игре. Вероятность попадания должна полностью зависить от маневра, скорости, и так далее, без такой случайности.