Max1mus
-
Posts
643 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Max1mus
-
-
Will an improved effect of ECM be implemented for the new Aim-120 autopilot?
Right now ECM makes the missile perfectly track the target from any distance. An Aim-120 can be launched on a non-jamming target, the shooter can turn his radar off. If the target now starts jamming, then the unsupported Aim-120 will instantly snap to that jammer and start guiding to it with lead pursuit.
This makes ECM 100% useless, as it improves the Aim-120 guidance.
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.
-
1
-
-
Very long IMHO:
If you recall the gif that someone showed (was it you?) where as you mention, you had something like 9/10 possibility of evading the missile when head-on at less than 10km range because of a specific maneuver + chaff.
Your chances should be more like 1/10 to survive if not worse, so in this respect DCS is actually getting it right, but this doesn't mean it is free of problems.
Chizh is right that there is some level of abstraction that has to take place, I simply submit that the abstraction right now is too much and more appropriate perhaps to an RTS game than a combat flight simulator - so is the solution that you have proposed above.
Realistic missile avoidance requires spending time and effort, not a quick 90 degree break with chaff and the missile is defeated - this wasn't even true in Vietnam, never mind more modern missiles.
The issue is that SARH are far too easy to defeat right now (defeat is almost guaranteed), and there is the very real problem that flight sim players become experts at defeating most missiles in a way that RL pilots simply cannot practice.
So, should AMRAAM be 'easier' to defeat? Yes, but not with the maneuver you've shown long ago. That should be next to guaranteed death. Proper evasion should involve a very specific process, for example, flying through the notch with chaff and back - it should take time and you should not be able to be certain that the missile will miss.
The same should be true of SARH - and although they should be easier to decoy (simply because of older technology - and we can go into depth about how to show this difference) the procedure to defeat them should be relatively similar.
In DCS these missiles instantly target chaff, and you can easily tell because of the change in LOS rate.
And while this is a possibility, IMHO these missiles should be more likely to track an extended centroid which would cause them to aim a bit behind the target aircraft, but you would not be able to tell and you would have to continue evading until the missile misses. You could almost think of it as a towed decoy - but the towed decoy is a lot more reliable, while chaff introduces noise.
Likewise, there are other thing to consider such as early detonation of the fuze by chaff or ECM.
But take a 90 deg turn with chaff and 9/10 survive a 120B shot from inside 10km? No. That's just a very wrong expectation - your countermeasures simply don't have time to work.
And if you want to throw ECM into the mix more realistically, those jammers have a limitation as well with respect to azimuth and altitude zones - just like the radar - and the ability to deal with ECCM.
Whatever you believe you can reduce it to mathematically, if you don't force the pilot to really work to evade the missile, you're not doing it quite right.
Making missiles work the same way is also not quite correct. They very obviously should -not-, but in the absence of information that would help differentiate them, it may be the best we can do in many cases.
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.
-
К слову, случайным чистом у нас определяется только вероятность ухода на ловушки и ошибка в прицеливании ракеты. Это те вещи, для которых нет и не предвидится реального математического аппарата моделирования из-за огромной сложности и многообразия реальных физических процессов.
Скорость, маневр, перегрузка конечно также влияют на вероятность попадания.
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.
-
Everyone I think the comment about chaff resistance code applies to all fox 3s, they all have the changed resistance
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.
-
I just ran a missile combat performance assessment based on 10 identical tests. The targets are 4 Su-25s with a full range of countermeasures. I calculated the total number of missiles expended by 4 fighters to destroy 4 targets.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pXGOwbjMZsDnug_wizU4rE-5DXu9jCJ5vx8eJK7g0_c/edit?usp=sharing
As a result, the required number of missiles to destroy 40 targets.
AIM-120C = 60
AIM-120B = 66
R-77 = 68
AIM-7M = 100
For R-27ER I was unable to complete the tests due to a crash. I'll do it later.
But in my estimation, its efficiency is higher than the AIM-7M.
Please look at these attached tracks, i spent some time to make them. All missiles were fired head on, within 8-10km against an A-10 dropping close to 100 chaff every time.
This track was made with no ECM equipped. The results are as follows:
- R-77: 0/24 missiles hit. The A-10 survived all 4 encounters (6 R-77 shot at the same time at no-run-zone).
- R-27ER: 0/24 missiles hit or 0/32 if you count the time the A-10 stalled, Thats 3/3 or 4/4 encounters survived (8 R-27ER shot at the same time at no-run-zone).
- AIM-120B: 7/30 missiles hit - The A-10 did not survive once (6 120B shot at the same time at no-run-zone).
These 2 tracks were made with ECM (removing the 10-20m/s closure filter as a factor due to Home on Jam). This resulted in a decrease of AIM-120B PK and increase of R-27ER and R77 PK.
- R-77: 1/30 missiles hit - The A-10 survived 5/6 encounters (6 R-77 fired at same time at no-run-zone)
- R-27ER: 2-3/56 missiles hit - The A-10 survived 5/7 engagements (8 R-27ER fired at the same time at no-run-zone)
- AIM-120B: 8/54 missiles hit - The A-10 survived 2/9 engagements (6 120B fired at the same time at no-run-zone)
Please remember that i 100% agree that more modern missiles should track better - a 90s 120B should track a bit better than an 80s R-27ER supported by 80s N001 radar and a 2000s 120C should track better than a 90s RVV-AE. But the results in DCS are problematic.
In these situations, either all 6 missiles should hit or all 6 should miss, as is the case with R-77 (when ECM is off), which still uses 2.5.5 chaff resistance code. But this is not the case with the 120B in DCS post-autopilot-patch. Most of the time 2 hit while 4 miss, despite them being the exact same shot seeing the exact same amount of chaff at exactly the same angle. With 120C its even more severe, with on average 3 missing and 3 hitting. This sort of dependence on luck over skill is a serious problem for people who take air combat more seriously in DCS.
-
Now R-77 has chaff resistance close to 120B.
Thats a very vague answer. Is it using the new code with the lower coefficients (and autopilot) or will the code not change?
The current R-77 is reliably defeatable with an unprecise notch and chaff, while without an exact and consistent notch in the same situation (which is impossible on russian planes due to SPO-15) the AIM-120B follows pure RNG, sometimes it will kill you and sometimes it wont, the only player input is to spam more chaff and decrease the speed, and pray for a good dice roll.
I hope that Semi Actives get a similar change in their chaff resistance like the AIM-120s did.
As you can easily test with 2 players, 4x 120B launched at the exactly same time (At very close distance) against even the best player in a Su-27 or MiG-29A can be survived <5% of the time (With 6x or more 120B, <0.001%) since if the missile grabs chaff is random even if fired at the same time (i.e. 1/4 will almost always hit). The chance of survival decreases exponentially. On one 120B, its 75%, but as you add more it becomes 25%, 10%, and so on, completely independent of the actual maneuver. In 2.5.5, you could survive 100% of the time given the correct maneuver, slow enough speed, and enough chaff.
4x R-27ER launched at the same time at close distance can be defeated 100% of the time, since if the target is slow and drops 10 or more chaff the R-27 will reliably go for it (while bandit is outside a notch of the illuminating radar). Im sure it would still be bad (since the R-27 is an old missile), but with the new logic you would never be entirely safe unless you notch the Su-27 radar (and stay in that notch).
In my opinion, either all missiles should be consistent in having this luck factor, or all of them should consistently be reliably chaffable under certain conditions, like speed and while peforming certain maneuvers. But different missiles following an entirely different chaff philosophy, as it is the case right now in DCS, is weird.
-
Yes.
The R-27 is a quite stupid old analog missile without any on-board computers or processors.
But I want to please the Su and MiG pilots a little. We have revised the missiles aerodynamics and made some changes.
- R-27 missiles family. Reduced the value of the induced drag, increased lift. Lift to drag ratio now is more accurate and provides better performance against maneuvering targets, compared to AIM-7 performance level.
- R-77 missile. Reduced the value of the induced drag, reduced transonic zero-lift drag, increased the lift. Missile will better save energy, slightly increased range at low altitude.
It will be in the next update.
Nevertheless, in the future we will conduct CFD research of these missiles to set the record straight.
Will the R-77 get its chaff resistance changed to the new code like AIM-120, SD-10, AIM-54?
Are there plans to give R-27 the new chaff calculation too? The new code entirely changes the rules of fighting at the no escape zone (missile needs to be defended significantly more than in 2.5.5), so it would be good to not have different missiles with similar technology follow entirely different physics.
- R-27 missiles family. Reduced the value of the induced drag, increased lift. Lift to drag ratio now is more accurate and provides better performance against maneuvering targets, compared to AIM-7 performance level.
-
Да, МАК это наследник FC и будет популярен у игроков не глубоко знакомых с авиацией и не готовых к процедурным ЛА.
Для нас, единственная возможность в мире летать русские самолеты 4ого покаления дальще будет МАС и ГС3. Мы по зтому не глубоко знакомые с авиацией? Это обидно.
Современного русского фул-фи -27/30, -29, -31 в DCS не будет. По этому очень важно, что в МАС чего-то современного получим.
Мне вообще не понятно, как почти 1 год после изменения АIМ-120 ракеты этих самолетов ещё не изправлены. Как будто реализм воздущного боя не важнее (Сейчас тактики НАТО как их Timeline не нужны, против всех красных в DCS кроме МиГ-31 надо просто крутится и дальше 120С стрелять), чем ешё какие оружие воздух-земля НАТО. Их интересно изпользоватся из-за небытия Тор-М1 и Пантсир (и из-за низкого интеллекта ботах, которые в игре управляют КУБ, БУК и С300) в лубом случае не возможно.
Чтобы так изпользовать современные оружие как в реале, нужны такие же противники, как и в реале. По этому JSOW/JDAM/SLAM нужны современные ТОР также как и Ф16/18 с 120С нужны современные противники с опасными ракетами. Без этого просто очень быстро станет не интересно. Так как сейчас, один Ф-18 может уничтожить в игре целый контингент РФ в Сирии в одном полете. Можите посмотреть трек, 4 Су30, С300, несколько ТОР и БУК уничтожыл очень просто через 20 минут, только с одной Ф18 без помощи.
https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=240383&d=1592582904
-
Modern russian fighter in MAC?
Is there a possibility of a MAC level modern russian aircraft, since the chance of a full fidelity one has been outruled?
In the current DCS environment, to provide any sort of fight for the new generation of NATO modules in the sim, the Su-27SM is the absolute minimum. To even the field, an early Su-30MKI or a Su-27SM3 with R-77-1 (while that missile is quite modern, im sure that with the CFD methods used to make the AIM-120 models, its not impossible) is needed. The latter 2 have been used in Syria and would provide an excellent addition for the upcoming map. The bottom line is that the russian fighters in DCS (unlike years ago against an equally unmodern F-15) are no longer adequate for a game that labels itself as trying to recreate reality, here is why:
As far as air combat goes, there is little point to fly as redfor in this simulator at the moment, even with the weapons restricted to the 1990s, since that does not fix the avionics edge of a mid 2000s version of a fighter over a mid 80s one.
The multiplayer servers consist to 90% of F-16/JF vs F-18/F-14, which is not really immersive either. A big part of that is simply the unviability of the soviet FC3 aircraft compared to about 2 years ago.
The issue doesnt disappear in singleplayer, where you cannot fight the modern counterparts of mid 2000s F-16/18 (thus either having to restrict missiles or create an unchallenging turkey shoot that barely requires tactics). On top of that, the AI in their 80s soviet aircraft does not use anything remotely close to correct tactics to achieve their goal, even when set to excellent skill level. Although a part of that issue is that they have not been updated to defend the new missiles (and will thus under respect them and die to very long, turn signaling shots).
This will all get even worse with the Eurofighter and F-15E coming out. A MAC version of a modern flanker variant is absolutely necessairy to give these planes time frame accurate opposition.
A clear yes or no answer would help me personally in deciding if i want to spend money on the Syria map.
-
Considering anti-china is so popular these days, it should not be a surprise Deka getiing A LOT pressure of giving REAL manuals and name our SMEs, from inside and outside of dev community, which means Deka should suicide.
someone want intellegence from Deka, and someone want anti-china drama get hotter.
Deka have a feeling: we are not welcomed by people inside and outside of ED.
On the contrary, a guy at paf-def site, precisely tell the manual version we use, claim dcs JF17 is uderpowered.
yes, he is right.
While i am the furthest from anti-china in any sort of way, i think that deflecting criticism by using that kind of argument is extremely poor and unprofessional.
You have clearly shown that your priority is not the simulation of a specific aircraft block and its weaknesses, but to inflate the performance of your systems and weapons as much as you can get away with. There are many examples of this, like you adding features from block 2 and 3 however you like to increase the block 1 JF-17s performance. Or only decreasing drag after ED tells you to INCREASE your missiles drag at high speed AND DECREASE at low speed. Or you leaving out important features many months after launch like the radar notch.
Of course, your politically flavored forum posts also have not done a good job at hiding it. Right now a majority of the community is in agreement that Deka is the most biased of all the 3rd party developers, at least from the ones that are developing planes for DCS. If you want to change that is up to you, but the idea of mixing capabilities between 3 different blocks in my opinion is not a good fundament for a positive change in that regard.
I would like to add that i love non-NATO aircraft, but i cannot purchase the JF-17 in this current state.
-
However their seeker heads are of very similar power irl, too, so chaff resistance between the C and the aim120 is more or less the same. The in game ccm values come from ED, not us.
As an AIM-120A (As Heatblur stated in their interview with ralfidude, you can find it on his channel) or B makes sense, that would be a coefficient of 0.06 for a B and a bit higher for the 120A. Its currently 0.04 in the game, as the ED 2000-2001 120C5. Im assuming that is to be looked into before next update, same as the 54A having this same coefficient.
The always active bug seems gone nowWhen fired in TWS Auto with the F-14 going cold right away, all AIM-54 versions still keep correcting perfectly with no support required, although they do not loft then. If thats what you mean by "the always active bug".
We want the Tomcat to be good for both sides, those who fly it and those who fight it.Thank you, there has been some progress there, like the now much more reasonable damage model, but its still a long way.
From the perspective of us "who fight it", the next important fix after that the missiles is jamming and how it interacts with the F-14 radar. The radar itself seems to be modelled very well in an environment thats clear of any ECM or chaff. But simply due to how old the radar is, jamming and especially chaff should affect combat with it quite a bit.
2 examples:
- Initial long range engagement. With modelled jamming and it denying TWS to an extent and it being able to break locks would change the rules, even if it became entirely ineffective within 40 miles.
- Hiding from radar and breaking AIM-54 support with chaff. Currently the F-14 can turn off its filter and pick up/lock any aircraft within range (competent RIO assumed), unless it is cold at a higher speed. With the notching filter turned off or in pulse mode, chaff should be visible, this obviously goes for other radars too, although it is somewhat translated into DCS through the bad chaff rejection of SARH missiles according to ED.
This would change the rules in many situations, like over the water where the F-14 radar is currently entirely undefeatable within range apart from picking up boats sometimes and the other example mentioned above.
-
Gryphon 5 | jerkq
Red GCI
-
Gryphon 33 | Maximus
MiG-21
-
Гриф мешает.
Конкретно скажите, в ДКС 2020-2022 будет красный самолет 2000их кроме Су25Т (хоть на уровне ГС)? Или ждать безполезно? Всегда думал, что после Ф16/18/15Е появится хоть чего-то.
-
Ракеты без проблемы можно оставить на сервере какие угодно.
Не один админ сценарии 90их больше строит. Потому что не кто ДКС Су27/Миг29 больше летать хочет, и те которые хотят, не могут потому что бой 90их нигде не найдёшь. Красные из ДКС практически исчезли.
Кто мешает делать самолёты уровня ГС?Да, если фул-фи не будет, хоть какой то современный самолет к ГС добавите, а то ДКС на всегда будет симулятор НАТО против НАТО. И если другая игра современный русский самолет добавит, возможно что вы вашы красные покупатели на всегда потеряете.
-
Не надо фантазировать.
Ни на одном существующем самолете пуск Р-27Р по двум целям не заявлен.
МиГ-31 уже в начало 90их Р33 по 4 даже пустить мог (и в ДКС может).
-
So??? You saw that on Russian / Chinese / Indians / any Flankers / Fulcrums?
FlankerSu37, if you will look only at aircraft vs aircraft confrontation, we didn't have any good chances vs western aviation until Su-35 and Su-30SM + R-77-1 came to the service, R-77-1 came in 2015 only, until that moment all RuAF fighters flew with R-27E family without modifications.
Против Ф22/Ф35 один на один да. Но против самолеты 4ого покаление ты забываешь, что эффективность Р-27Э зависит от РЛС самолета. На более современном самолете, даже без модификации 27ЭР возможность есть выпустить по 2 целям, выпустить без предупреждение в начале полета. Защита против нотчь и помехов у более современного РЛС тоже лучше. В ДКС по словам Чижа эффективность Р-27ЭР против помехов тоже плохую эффективность РЛС Су27С включает. В игре даже у ботах этих игрушек из 2000их нет, а у синих есть. Плюс, в начале 2000их самые эффективные фланкеры не были русские, а Су-30МКИ.
-
Я не отвечаю за файлы ACMI.
Вы сами можете записать пуск ракеты в версии 2.5.5
Не могу, по этому только acmi ракет 2.5.5 есть. Как вам доступна версия раньше чем 2.5.5.41371 (когда вы изменили сопротивление)? Я все скачять пытался, не возможно, мне кажется что ED уже их стерли. Дайте мне версию со старом сопративлением, сразу зделаю.
-
Я уже четко сказал, что максимальная скорость новой ракеты меньше чем старой.
Тогда как возможно, что здесь в тоже самых условиях новый AIM-120B на 0.20 мах быстрее (мах 5.01) чем старый (мах 4.82)?
2.5.6
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699244872657403904/724983185686921226/New_AMRAAM.acmi
2.5.4
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699244872657403904/724983189163999343/Old_AMRAAM.acmi
Тоже видно, что ракета на скорости мах >1.8 не
(как вы сказали
)Из-за изменения сопротивления ракета стала летать меньше на больших высотах и больших Махах и больше на малых высотах и Махах менее 1,8.больше энергии теряет, а меньше.
-
Ты опять не прав.
Проверил ракету AIM-120C. Пуск на высоте 13 000, скорость 2М.
Максимальная скорость старой ракеты - 5380 км/ч.
Максимальная скорость новой ракеты - 5300 км/ч.
А 120B? Если максимальные скорости новый и старый 120C на 13.000 почти одинаковые, тогда попрубуть на 14.000 и 15.000 >мах 2 было бы интересно.
И что на этих высотах новая ракета дальше на махов >1.8 летит (вы сказали что она должна на таких скоростях больше энергии терять чем раньше) заметно?
-
Другими словами - Мы не хотим, чтобы вы могли пускать что то в ответ по синей стороне из зоны "побега", хотим чтобы вы делали это из зоны "смерти".
По этому, если в игре не получим Р-77-1, главная ракета всегда будет Р-27ЭР. Если появится самолет из 2000их с более современном РЛС (Су30МКИ), преимущество 27ЭР в сравнении с РВВ-АЕ не уменьшитсья.
Против старого (<2.5.5) AIM-120, Р-27ЭР для дального пуска всегда являлся единственной эффективной и безопасной возможностью, "ответить" из зоны побега. С новый модели Р77/Р27 в июле я думаю, что это не изменится.
Даже против AIM-54C в игре есть не малые возможности, эффекивный пуск Р-27ЭР выполнить. Для Р-77 1994ого года такой пуск из зоны побега не существует.
-
I don't see the problem and it is the correct result
Its the incorrect result according to ED. The old missile in the tacview does under mach 4.75. According to Chizh a few posts above its supposed to be slower, so i assume <4.75 in that situation, not >5.
This is definitely positive for BVR. It actually put the B back into BVR.
So overperformance is better because it fits your ideals of the fight?
No escape zone is still well within WVR. The only real change to the fight is the ability to take these 13.000m+ shots with infinite range, assuming its intended and will not be fixed by ED. A problem here is that ECM, which is a factor at such ranges, isnt modelled for most fighters and they are immune (which especially vs F-14 makes a massive difference).
all SARH should become more respectable as well, but definitely NOT as capable as a 120 or R-77 or SD-10.
The R-27ER, when you
is not a classical SARH missile. Its comparable to active missiles and is much more valuable than the R-77 simply due to its speed and overall range. A good fulcrum or flanker driver will never take more R-77 than R-27.get a buddy and work up some serious tactics to prevent the launch to begin withAssuming a semi active missile was as modern as an active one - why should it be less capable in terms of tracking - with the limitation being the radar and its resistance, shouldnt a modern fighter radar supporting a SARH missile be harder to defeat than a small, equally modern 10cm dish on a missile? Should an AIM-7MH/P (90s) fired from a modern radar track worse than an AIM-54A (70s) (it does in DCS)?
Ракеты в DCS
in DCS World
Posted
Как тогда эти результати возможные? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4447231&postcount=131