Max1mus

Я пытаюсь сделать довнгрейд на 2.5.4, ну ваш апдейтер не разрешает. Когда получется, очень легко могу треки зделать которые показивают не только как новый 120 летит на махов >2 на много дольше на высотах >10км, а тоже как новая помехазашита 120B такая тяжолая как у старый 120C и у новый 120C на совсем новом уровне. Я ОЧЕНЬ долго у глобоко эти вещи в DCS изпытал и изпытываю. На счет эффективности Р-27 - вы сами сказали что она зависит от радара самолета и что так, как вы зделали в DCS тоже из-за того, что старый Н001 80их помехи должен видить и против их цель терять. Если это правда, тогда на Су30МКИ с Н011 ракета без вопросов более эффективная. Я согласен что красные много плачют, как и синие (Спам "БМС ЛУЧШЕ" потому что пуск 120 правильно выполнить не умеют). Но это по другому чем 2 года назад где это било просто изтерия. Красные по настоящему прекращают играть. Например на баддиспайке обсуждают поставить Су-27/Миг-29 в тожый самый класс как МиГ-21/Ф-5 и М-2000. Эффективный пуск виполнить без серёзного премущество каличества самолетах не возможно, значит эффективность по настоящему не на много лучше чем у МиГ-21. В SATAL-е русские самолеты совершенно ни кто не изпользует против 120C, и даже против B (каторая более похоже на 2019ый C чем B), не одна группа более 50% русских самолетах не хочет изпользоватся. Раньше почти половина группах летали только Су-27, и они в 2017, 2018ом году победили и в начале 2019ом году ещё более менее хорошие результаты получали. Дайте нам хоть чего то. Если нет, современное сценарий постройть в DCS дальше будет очень тяжело и серверы дальше будут более похожы на тренировку НАТО чем любую войну. Есть огромный потенциал во Су-27СМ3/Су30МКИ/С-300ПРУ/ТОР-М1/М2/Р-77-1 в DCS не только из перспективы красных летчиков, а тоже для синих. Дайте им чели для их 120C, 9X, JSOW и SLAM, зделайте по интереснее им бой, хоть современные боты с Р-77-1 дайте. Сейчас просто стреляй 120C/JDAM/JSOW, профит (ТОР в DCS даже JDAM не видит), ни какая тактика и даже зашита не нужна.

Привет, красный здесь. Был баланс между Ф-15 с 120B и Су-27/J-11 в DCS для несколко лет. Когда в DCS современный ф-18 появился с линк-16, даже против 120B стало тяжело, ну возможно. Появился Ф-14, хуже стало, не только из за сломманых AIM-54, а тоже из за СПО-15, который тип вражеского самолета не дает. И сейчас есть SD10, Ф-16 которая практически являеться Ф-15ом с линк-16, новое сопративление 120 в январе, которое скорость и возможную дальность пуска на всех высотах увеличил, как и новый ФМ на малый дальности похоже на 9X, (почему русские ракеты такое же изменеине сразу не получили мне вообще не понятно). И сейчас с новый помехосащиты, каторая даёт AIM-120 "probability of kill" 100% против чели на скорости более 350км/ч, просто нету смысла ваш Су-27, Су-33 или МиГ-29 даже купить. Мне жалко сказать что я не одну копейку не потратил бы, если я начял летать в симуляторе ни несколько год назад, а сейчас и увидел в каком состянии исторический реализм не только в ВВ, а тоже в воздух-земля синих проив земля-воздух красных (Как в вв, Ракеты 2000их против старые советские системы как ТОР 1979ого года). Летчикам всех красных самолетах это надоело и все (Как из мой группы так и из других виртуальных групп как 51st) из игре изчезают. Новые летчики пробуют, ничего делать не могут и тоже изчезают. Печально, но вы симулятор НАТО против НАТО хотели, вот так и получили. Смысла купить нововую карту, Сирию, тоже нет, ведь в DCS русского вооружение 2000их (даже у ботах) для етого конфликта нет. Уже повый СПО на Су-27СМ/Су-30МКИ, улучшенная эффективность их Р-27ЭР против помехов из за нового радара и возможность стрелять по несколько челях ОЧЕНЬ могут изправить эту ситуачию. Если не "full fidelity" тогда хоть добавите на уровне ГС3. Конечно более сорвеменные игрушки для ботах тоже нужны. Р-77-1 ракета начало 2010их и немнога новая для американских самолетах 4ого покаление без AIM-120D, но посли того, что несколько лет красные в DCS боролись с 120C 2003ого года с ракетам и самолетах 80их, я проблем в добавление 77-1 к таком DCS Су27СМ3/Су30МКИ не вижу. И есть луди, которые за такой современный русский самолет с такой современной игрушки более 200 долларов готовы тратить - обещаю.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699244810418126868/723190029425442856/Tacview-20200618-044250-DCS-superlongrange.zip.acmi

Check a few posts back please. I showed a track of an SD-10 killing a target at mach 3 WAY above its maximum range at 10-12.000 meters mach 1. Developers in DCS do not like to debug from tacview. Also, i criticize everything. -EDs testing process seems severely flawed and their testers are biased, leading to things like near unchaffable AIM-120s when ED wanted to keep their average "PK" up close the same. -Heatblur is prioritizing features that increase the competitive performance in both BVR and BFM and have not fixed issues that make the F-14 (with its 70s avionics and 80s-90s missiles) the best fighter in the simulator in a group environment (with 1-2 regular fighters mixed in at least). -The upcoming Eurofighter developers are showing a great interest in making it perform well competitively, so it may end up being another round of this bullshit when the thing releases, but we will see. Clearly Deka Ironworks is not alone with this, and this 3rd party arms race of making parts of modules overperform within the uncertainty of documented evidence is definitely putting them in a spot where its hard to not do it aswell. But this not war thunder, there should be no pay to win and all modules should be modeled objectively and perform as they should within their respective time frames.

Why when a missile is slightly underperforming, everyone comes crawling out of their holes trying to prove how it should be better, but when a missile has too much range at high altitude (like the SD-10 here), people will try their very best to defend it. Why is the community so biased towards overperforming missiles? Because they want to use them? It is surely slightly disappointing, especially since 3rd party devs know this and are trying to make a profit out of it.

The translation of that document says "zones of possible launch". So it is the maximum possible distance at which the missile could hit a target. I dont know who shopped the SD10 graph in there, the original document is from a MiG-29 manual and has only the 120B in there. So whoever put that graph in there is implying that the absolute maximum possible launch distance (whether thats due to energy or battery life) at 12000 meters is around 80-90km. While in DCS its 120+km. And all longer than AIM-120C which the SD-10/PL-12 is quoted to not outrange.

Even those charts prove that something isnt right. The possible launch at 12000-13000m is supposed to be <90km based on that graph. In DCS right now its >120km as my track shows.

12.000 meters Mach 1.1 vs a 10.000 meters target below m1. 120km, SD-10 arrives at more speed than even the MK60 phoenix . If the battery life was even higher, the missile would kill things 150-200km out. This is nowhere near 20.000 meters, yet its also nowhere near 70km. What is going on there? Unless the Chinese national standard is 6000 vs 6000 meters, your missile is clearly overperforming. server-20200618-044132.trk

Then how the F is this missile marketed to have a maximum range of 70km, when its more like 120+km in DCS. Is the drag at high altitudes too low? Something isnt right.

ED says that the AIM-120 encounters serious INS drift and that the limitation there is not the available energy.

- It shouldnt be just masking though, if i go cold and seperate 300nm away from it, the radar shouldnt keep the track, when i last tested this a few weeks ago it still kept it. - Breaking lock at close range isnt just hard, its impossible. Hard is what i would call EDs F-18 radar (F-16 radar is much easier to defeat in comparision). If that isnt modelled exactly as per some documented or SME data but rather by feeling, perhabs some retesting would be appropriate. It seems very unreasonable for a radar that should be comparable to the F-16s. -The IR signature in afterburner has a value of 2. On the F-16 if i recall correctly it was 3. Its even stealthier than the M2000 there iirc, making it the stealthiest 4th gen in DCS as currently modeled. I do not have the knowledge to counter your explanation on the RCS part, but a fully loaded JF-17 with dual racks surely isnt going to be as invisible as a clean MiG-21.

What about -Radar detection range not being dynamic, it has a set value for anything beyond 91 deg and 89deg. On other modules, even FC3, it varies more with aspect -Radar tracks being completely undefeatable apart from notching or masking, turning cold and flying 300nm away - JF-17 still tracking -Radar unnotchable at closer distances, multiple times harder than DCS F-16 and even F-18 -Radar unjammable apart from denying IFF -TGP in Air to Air mode tracking targets perfectly under all circumstances at 20nm. F-18 TGP and even IRST systems are not that good in the sim (F-18 <8nm) -IR signature too low (much lower than F-16 for some reason) -RCS too low (3, lowest for any 4th gen in the sim, even F-16 has 4) Maybe the feature list is complete, but these things seem to need tuning since in some aspects they are modelled worse than FC3 (infinite radar range on tracks, near unnotchability aswell as unjammability and detection range not changing with aspect properly). For me personally these (quite essential for air to air combat) features need to be finished before i could consider the module in a buyable state.

This is exactly what i mean by A thing i forgot to add which i found particularly distasteful is that the F-14 developer added a jammer with among the lowest burnthrough values for a fighter in DCS, which also flashes on and off, abusing the ECM mechanics in DCS and making HOJ impossible. In short, an excellent jammer. But the radar does not see jammers, is not affected by chaff etc. after 2 years of release. I hope this developer is better and capable of interpreting whatever data/SME information objectively aswell as, more importantly, showing interest in modelling every last imperfection of the aircraft. But after 2/3 3rd parties being unable to do so with their 4th gen module, my expectations are low. Please prove us wrong and show that you can be objective.

Its not like these biases are not a thing in real life with real pilots.

No offense, but 3rd party devs being overly enthusiastic about the competitive air to air performance of their module gives reason to worry. I really really hope that we will not get another long and frustrating phase of issues like: -Heatblurs F-14 being unbeatable in BFM (1 year before fixed), overly tanky damage model (1 year before fixed), Datalink/radar seeing air to air missiles under any circumstances (fixed after one year), undefeatable (unjammable/unchaffable/unnotchable) radar (not fixed yet), magically tracking AIM-54 (not fixed yet), Jester spotting every single missile like R2D2 (not fixed yet) -Deka Ironworks JF-17 radar tracks being undefeatable (not fixed yet), bad radar modelling in favor of the aircraft (not fixed yet), overperforming BVR missile (fixed after 1/2 year), overperforming TGP air to air mode Biases in these areas affect all modules and can create a very unrealistic environment for the entire simulator. An example is the F-14s AIM-54 tracking, which does not necessairily negatively affect the immersion of the pilot/RIO, but forces the opposition to study desync/magic tracking patterns of the missile to counter it. Please do not go down the same path and try to deliver an unbiased module with all its relative weaknesses modeled with a priority that is as high as it is for its beneficial features. There are groups of people that take these things into account before deciding if they wish to support a developer and buy their module. But while these people will on average have played this game for many years, its only a minority since most people enjoy flying overperforming aircraft and using overperforming tools. The feedback you will receive will usually be biased towards that direction.

Still not adressed. This should also affect the A-10A and eagle. Please fix or clarify.

Bump, this has not been adressed at all yet. Still an issue.

I need to clarify: THIS IS NEW. THIS IS HAPPENING WITHIN A FEW MILES, NOT RELATED TO FLIGHT TIME. I am well aware of long range desync. Its mostly fixed on the amraam, but still a large issue on the 54. But thats not whats happening here. This is new.

Спасибо за ответы, Главная ракета Су-27 и даже его китайского варианта в игре всегда была Р-27ЭР. Если время для настоящего нового ФМ нет, можно хоть тоже самое изменение сопротивление получить для Р-27ЕР раньше? Сейчас просто даже на любом сервере подняться в J-11/Су-27/МиГ-29 безполезно.

That is exactly what i mean. These positions where an AIM-120 has a PK of exactly 100% are way easier to set up since the last 2 patches. But they existed with the previous versions. The word "unreliable" is just inappropriate when the missile (unlike others in the sim) never just missed at mach 3 without the target even having to turn the nose away from you.

Ракета Р77 на 50км еле-еле да цели добратсья может. R77.trk Почему тогда новый AIM-120C на <<максималной>> дальности еще при попадание ма мах 2.2+ катаетсья? AMRAAMbattery.trk И почему батарейка токая слабая (80сек) и отключает ракету на скоростях более мах 2.5? Если как вы сказали INS ракеты после такого путешествие не работает, тогда как у AIM-54 таких проблем нет и ракета не отключается после 80сек? AIM54.trk

As said the mistakes that you can get away with have gotten less numerous and the situations in which the missile is impossible to chaff have increased in number. But it was consistent before. Fire a missile at 5nm head on-> he has to find a non kinematic defensive option. You may still have had to finish him with guns (super easy in the F-15 anyway) as he is locked in his notch, but he is dead either way. But nothing random or unreliable. You just needed range tables like disciplined squadrons like SF have put the effort in to create, training to time shots with 0.1 mile precision. But if youre lazy and practically try to approach the fight like CSGO, sure, every missile shot is random and if you die youre just unlucky. If it makes you happy, the russian missiles still get out Gd, defeated by a barrel roll within AMRAAM no escape zone, chaffed. All without any notch needed. So in comparision to that even the old AIM-120 were wish-you-dead weapons.

The guidance has always been deterministic, so it is currently exactly as reliable as it was 1 year ago, as long as you studied the thing properly through testing. What has changed is simply its actual capability. The zones in which there is no possible escape have always been consistent. The spots in which there is no possible escape with any DCS fighter have just increased massively. Same for the amount of respect that needs to be given at long range, it was always consistent if you spent the time researching it. The actual number in any given situation has simply increased. So in short, the thing has already been the best air to air weapon in DCS in comparision to for example the russian missiles. Now its just barely even in the same class.

Gryphon 33 | Maximus MiG-21

All of the above is entirely irrelevant. There are 2 R-73 versions that we know if which are in service. The R-73 RMD-1 from 1984 (DCS one with 45/60 deg, which in DCS due to a bug with LA override has 60/60) and the RMD-2 (60/75 and improved CCM conpared to RMD-1) from somewhere between end of 80s to 1999. I can say with massive certainty that no one here knows anything about the status of R-73M, R-74 or any post 2000s R-73 projects. There is even a chance that the modernized archers were not in service until very recently. And as previously mentioned, the AIM-9M has also had different block upgrades just like AIM-120. There is an interview with a Luftwaffe pilot that flew east german MiG-29 and test fired the R-73. If you want a minimal amount of knowledge, that would probably be a place to start. He explains how both the 9M and R-73 were designed to reject different kinds of flares. The R-73 was good at rejecting flares thrown upwards (like on soviet fighters) but not as good at rejecting western flares that were ejected sideways. The AIM-9M on the other hand was good at rejecting the western ones, but not so good at rejecting the russian ones. If these missiles were not programmed in some way, there would not be such differences. On top of this the 9M/73 comparision makes little sense since in DCS the upgraded AIM-120 has the same off bore capabilities as (and pulls as many G) than the DCS R-73, with the added benefit of being undecoyable in such a turn fight.