Max1mus

The DCS AIM-120C is a 120C5 from the early 2000s. The R-77 we have in game (RVV-AE) was finished and being exported starting in the mid 90s. There is the R-77-1 (RVV-SD) from 2009-2012 is said to be pretty close or even superior to the 120C kinematically, but none of the soviet, severely outdated DCS aircraft have software to support it. That being said, the manufacturer of the PL-12 claims it to be slightly inferior to AIM-120C. Compare the timestamp (506 seconds) shot to this DCS tacview: http://www.mediafire.com/file/2xz01qpl0hphg6m/real120C_test.acmi/file The missile reaches its target with 1 second difference compared to the video and the distance on impact is only off by 0.2 miles. This other attached file http://www.mediafire.com/file/ioos6gjz7t9av8a/120C_63nm_m2.%2Ah%2At.acmi/file contains a lofted 63 mile shot where the 120C arrives with enough energy to make it work at another 10-15 miles, matching and even exceeding the wikipedia values. This together should indicate that at least against nonmaneuvering targets, the ED missiles are not as astronomically off as some seem to believe. Now i have no real understanding of missile aerodynamics, i can only compare official information and missile performance within DCS and get rough clues from that. But by my understanding, and correct me if im wrong: -SD-10 has a slightly longer burn than DCS AIM-120C. -SD-10 has bigger fins than DCS AIM-120C and thus should be more draggy. However, i found the opposite to be true during testing. The missile is equal to AIM-120C initially, but bleeds energy way slower. It simply does not seem to follow the same rules as the other missiles, and outperforms even AIM-54C in its matchup against R-27ER (and has significantly better reach on cold opponents than R-27ER). This is a big issue to me, i agree that all missiles should follow the same understanding of physics. This way, the simulator recreates the challenges each different missile carrier must face in combat more accurately. If every developer has a different understanding of how draggy missiles are, while possibly one of them may make a more realistic missile, it just gives one aircraft a missile that is too good/too bad compared to the others, making combat not only too hard/unrealistic for its opponents, but also too easy and thus unrealistic for the carrier.

Interesting to hear that things are prioritized depending on how "useful" they are in aiding the F-14 air to air competitiveness.

There is no reason for a 2000s russian fighter to not be developed in the near future. There is no more money to be made on teen fighters. Name a module that is easier to produce, and generates more sales than something like a Su-27SM3 or a modern Su-30. Not only would they match and even outclass all the other fighters in the sim if properly used, they also offer a lot of air to ground options and in the case of the Su-30, 2 seats, which has been very popular with the F-14. On top of that, there are a lot of people that would be ready to pay a little fortune for it, since it would be the first proper public modern russian fighter simulation in the world. If someone charged 200 bucks for it, people would still buy it simply because there is no alternative and probably will not be for a good while.

Soviet era rust collectors fighting mid 2000s NATO fighters and missiles has nothing to do with realism. It wouldnt be called an arms race if it was this one sided. It is basically impossible to set up a realistic environment for DCS F/A-18C or F-16C without at least very heavy weapon restrictions without turning it into an unchallenging turkey shoot. ED has added all these new systems and weapons, but the sim has simply not caught up yet.

100% agree on the 2nd part :thumbup:

A new DCS russian fighter needs to be 2000s+, and at least Su-27SM standard for multiple reasons: 1: Missing Air to Ground. Full fidelity 80s Su-27/MiG-29 would not have any advanced air to ground systems and munitions. Just having anti ship/anti radiation weapons alone would greatly improve replayability of the modules, even if they were FC3 standard. 2: Air to Air performance. Even the FC3 J-11 is 80s tech with one mid-90s weapon. While perfectly capable of fighting AIM-120B/9M equipped eagles, also from the 90s, it gets outperformed by the mid-2000 DCS AIM-120Cs and Aim-9X. On top of that come the F-16/18s mid 2000s avionics, the nearly unnotchable radar and helmet radar locking feature being examples. I think that even just to ensure realism in the sim alone, efforts need to be made to give these new western 2000+ fighters a proper opposition again. Multiplayer has become a pure NATO exercise simulator, and even in singleplayer there are nearly no post soviet era russian weapon systems available, which is also problematic in the face of JSOW/JDAM vs SAM matchup. Perhabs a temporary solution could be to add Flaming Cliffs 3 versions of aircraft like Su-27SM3? Despite the missing clicky cockpit, it would add more tools to play with and also restore the time frame balance in air to air.

This standardized engagement may work in singleplayer against AI, however this does not give players who want to compete in multiplayer a proper picture of how the fight works. I strongly advise to not use AI to develop tactics on how to beat human players apart from isolated tests for things like missile ranges. So treat this "guide" with a big grain of salt.

Viper 33 | Maximus MiG-21

The F/A-18 has a countermeasure setup of no more than 60 flares, with the reasoning that a new countermeasure modeling is necessairy to ensure gameplay is not broken. By my understanding the F-16 and F-18 share the same countermeasure suite. Why does the Viper carry more of the big flares while the F-18 still carries the old amount?

No, it was actually more or less a draw with 2 red and 1 blue remaining. We had a GCI that round. Although most of blue casulties seemed to have been TKs.

Event was fun, loved it. Since you said youll be hosting these more often, is there a chance that one of them will feature: Rear aspects only (+R-3R, fits time frame) A flat area like beslan-mozdok or Anapa ? Alpenwolfs server has been running those setups and all people ive spoken to enjoyed them.

ED needs to improve SAM AI, they are just completely autistic, stay radar on constantly and shoot at the first thing they see way above any kind of effective range. You can place SA-10 together with SA-11, SA_15 and SA-6 etc. but an 8x JSOW volley will still easily take them out. Another thing is that SAMs like TOR and Tunguska do not engage the JSOW in a coordinated way and do not engage bombs at all. That, and the fact that the russian SAMs are all soviet era pretty much proves that the new GPS guided weapons have no place in DCS currently. Maybe if mission designers started creating incredibly complex SAM networks and behavement scripts. But even then the problem of un-interceptable JDAMs is not solved. I think it is a disgrace that ED is adding these new western weapons, but not adding the proper equivalents and counters on the russian and chinese side from the same time frame.

Viper 33 | Maximus - MiG-21bis

I am trying to replace files in DCS World OpenBeta\Sounds\Speech\Sound\RUS\Common\Betty\Messages with new, longer ones. The problem is that it will in many cases only play a small chunk of the new sound, then cut out. I think its due to the duration of the old files and the game only being designed to play them for as long as they take. Is there a way to increase that value so the sounds play completely? Also, i am trying to make the J11A to use the Su-27 cockpit and betty sound files. But currently this would only be possible by also making the F-15 speak russian. Any ideas?

What coxy means is that the server wlll often be too full to play. You can NOT switch sides during a round (which can take weeks at times), it wasnt possible in previous official rounds and is not now. You pick a side as an individual player, and then youre stuck on it for the rest of the round. I am not entirely sure if its allowed if the round ends before the event ends and the frontline is reset. You may be able to switch then.

Youre acting as if ED has not made their own research, does not have their own sources. Who are you to say that this individual research, which in case of IASTAG is motivated by biases like him expecting "100 mile range" (actual quote), is more serious than a company that has done this for over a decade and is employing people who are qualified in this area?

That is wrong. If launched from enough speed and altitude, AIM-120C for example can easily kill targets 50-60nm away (if those stay high and dont beam significantly) if you trigger lofting by dual launching. Even without lofting 25-30nm shots in those parameters can be deadly if the target does not fully defend. Also, in the high altitude, initial missile exchange between the R-27ER and the AIM-120C, under some parameters the ECM only gives you about 3 seconds after burnthrough to sort a bandit before having to shoot (shoot later and you can not support the missile and he can stay hot), which can end badly. Against F-14s its even worse, ECM completely prohibits any shot (yes, that shot exists if you know how the ranges) you can take and support while also being safe from the AIM-54.

Literally a few posts back: They have done CFD on AIM-7, and R-27 with an older software. Likely also all other missiles.

Slightly off topic question: Why are the DCS F-14B Sparrows smokeless? All versions from E-MH are not on the other modules.

I dont have anything to add that i have not posted in the other thread about this, but what about pilot death? Is that modeled, or will that be modeled at some point? In the F/A-18 a bullet hit on a critical spot like for example on the canopy causes an instant death despite the aircraft still being quite intact.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/501496403860783104/608113394599460894/Tacview-20190806-034204-DCS.zip.acmi Its not about PK. You can shoot missiles above 20nm and get a reaction from the bandit if youre high and fast enough. And in flankers, for tactical reasons, only detecting the actual range of jamming eagles at only 43 kilometers is a huge game changer when the bandits are not on datalink. The F-15 will always still see the jamming F-14 on scope and see range and altitude perfectly fine, only locking on to the bandit and getting the information is not really possible until burnthrough (which i am pretty sure is still at 43km regardless of airframe). A similar effect is observable when russian aircraft face russian aircraft. My guess is that it is a way to simulate the anti-jamming features of radars, which would arguably be more effective against your own ECM than unknown jammers. I could be wrong. Maybe by your understanding of air to air ECM is not a factor, but when looked at from a different aspect with a different approach it can certainly be seen as one.

You are contradicting yourself. There is the option to have the AIM-54 better than it should be by leaving it in its super-AMRAAM state or you can make it a fox1, or at least add (optional) fox1 versions of the current missile that mission designers can allow, or something similar to that. You clearly pick option 1, which is your right to decide. But that means you dont "WANT" to introduce workarounds that "nerf" the module. I believe you have used those exact words in a previous post, too. About the 15nm, you said it twice so i took it for granted. Please dont take this personal, but it seems to me that the testing of the modules interaction with the sim environment needs to be improved. You claimed that ECM breaks the lock, which was false (at least for RIO) and you were unaware of how little damage AIM-9 and AIM-120 deal to the aircraft (which makes me believe that it was not tested properly).

I know that heatblur cannot fix the bug on their own. The main Weakness of the AIM-54 is that you can notch it off the rail, bypassing the shot. This is not simulated. What makes this 4x worse is that while the missile goes active at 15nm, you only get the RWR warning at 7nm or so for whatever reason. There are workarounds heatblur could have done to simulate the possibility of defeating the missile before it is active, they could even be optional just for server owners, but heatblur does not want this, even though it would indeed make the environment way more realistic for everyone else in this sim. Thats what i mean. The AIM-120 argument is invalid because in 95% of the cases they wont even have the range to be bypassed during the INS phase. Plus, it takes 2, or even 3 hits with desync to reliably shoot down a tomcat.

It would make a difference because the AIM-54 range greatly exceeds burnthrough range. Please model jamming. Let people find out themselves how to effectively utulize it to counter the F-14 supressive potential.

Why should FC3 not have this SP jammer then? Also, in a non datalink environment and with 120C jammers can make a big difference at high altitude. Also, the tomcats SP jammer completely negates any kind of HOJ R-27ER launch which is critical since waiting until 42km burnthrough (not 30 miles as you claimed) to launch against Mk60 is not an option.