Max1mus

85 километров на 15000м? Только что проверил, для полности тупую цель в автопилотом в игре, такой пуск Р-77 только возможно со скоростях М1.55+.

Я думаю что если в DCS Р-27ЭР летал бы так же, как Р-27Р, значит как в оффициальних документах и как симулятор СУВ-27 говорит (графика - 20%), Р-77 вам не нужен, даже с лофтом. И если новая логика помехозащищенности АМРААМа была бы тоже у Р-27, тогда я даже лучше не одну -77 бы взял. Тем более если у вас есть например Су-30 с Н011 из начяло нулевых (Почему даже у ботах нету я до сих пор не знаю). Можно сопровождать ракету с углом более 100 градуса от носа самолета.

Вам ведь не важно, что говорят настоящие лётчики. Помните здесь вашь разговор с Максом? Или когда я вам показал несколько видео амермканских лётчиков по теме Р-27ЭР против АМРААМ. Кстати мнение Макса и этих лётчиков тут 100% одинаковое. И документы вам тоже не важные. Говорите что правильные или не правильные - без "Пруфа". По теме Р-77, вы точьно здесь сказали, что лофт будет. Мнение изменили?

AIM-120 missile. Reduced the missile guidance error to the target performing a barrel roll maneuver. - Latest changelog. Will this decrease of lock-breaking be modelled on the other missiles, including R-27ER and R-77? People are reporting that AIM-120 are much, much harder to defeat than some months ago. To the point where at high altitude, the only thing that can save you is a random aiming error. Meanwhile all the other missiles can still be defeated reliably at all altitudes.

The R-27 launches were against the clear sky. As you can see by the altitude. The AIM-120 launch was against the ground clutter. As you can see by the altitude. Wiggling will not save from the AIM-120 in that situation. The aircraft is infact in an even better notch against it than against the R-27s. As you can see by the lower speed.

Could you elaborate?

Can't wait for R-37Ms and R-77-1 on the soviet Su-27 then. Interesting how the same people who complain about realism are now here celebrating these news.

I got 10 warning points for this post. No rule stated, reason: "uncorroborated accusations" (edit: Another 30 points for this post now) To corroborate: (against sky, higher radial velocity) (against ground, lower radial velocity)

Это ещё не всё. С ракетами сейчас просто полный хаос. Р-27 дальше против свободное небо имеет эффективность 0%, а АМРААМ на средних и большых высотах опать почти полностью несриваемый, против любую скорость и любое количество диполь даже против высокие горы. За то у неё какое-то странное поведение с помехом есть. Стрелай 10 ракет в одно и тоже время, 9 попадывают, одна нет. У Феникса Хитблура опять всё по другому. Ракеты очень стпранно ведут себя, пригают между цели и диполях 2 раза в секунду (даже -54A из 60-70их годах). Ракетный дым выглядит как змея. И 530D Разбама опять по другому сделана. Ракета почти полностью на диполи не реагирует, значит против свободное небо эффективность близко к 100%. А Р-27 и AIM-7 против небо легко сриваются. SD-10/PL-12 на много лучше 120C, а не "немного хуже, но лучше 120B" как должна быть. А разница между моделлированием Р-27Р и Р-27ЭР вам всем сейчас тоже знакомая. Общий стандарт не сушествует.

@Chizh Не интересно, что разница между СУВ-27 и диаграммы всегда 20%?

All the information below is public and posted by ED. The R-27R in DCS has a 20% energy reserve compared to EDs real-life Su-27 DLZ simulator at all altitudes. The R-27ER does not. It is noticable that the difference between the graph from the manual and the DLZ in the real Su-27 is always 20%, no matter which R-27 variant or what altitude. What this means is that either all the documents are wrong, and the DCS R-27R is overperforming by about 10%, or the R-27ER is underperforming by about 10%. I could not find the DLZ values for 5 and 10km for the R-27ER, but the difference between the diagram and DCS is the biggest at low altitude. Hit condition is target speed+150 m/s. Uncut version of the documents below: Tracks: ER_ingame_1km.trk R_ingame_1km.trk R_ingame_10km.trk DLZ simulator proof:

Its totally not like FC3 contains every single red plane. Unless ED delivers a russian-made striker with a TGP, a modern flanker and a modern red carrier fighter, we're stuck with this. What else do you want us to fly? MiG-15? Yak-52? An unfinished version of the worst in-game fulcrum, in 2 years, maybe?

Air to Air is not any different in SP/PVE than in multiplayer. Just easier. And usually more scripted, since dynamic campaigns dont exist in SP yet. The sim is all around air to air, since thats the very first thing that will be done in any campaign before other tasks are started. You need some sort of air superiority. Also, which youtube videos of DCS get tens and hundrets of thousands of views - not ones of someone doing a startup procedure or an ILS landing. Stand in aircraft dont work because the fight is too symmetrical and you cannot recreate real time lines. Part of that problem is also EDs double standard with russian missiles, they claim that all the real sources are wrong and thus severely undermodel it (true story, check out "ракеты в DCS" thread). But even with realistic missiles, more modern aircraft are needed to fix the lack of historical opponents. Dont forget that the 2nd most used fighter in the world (after F-16) is the modernized flanker - something DCS does not have.

Honestly this. Who gives a crap about PvP. People want to fly a capable machine with multirole capabilities. They want to play with MFDs, they want to be able to fly in a modern Syria etc. scenario like a normal fighter - and not some guerilla cockroach. That gets boring pretty fast. Especially with dynamic campaigns coming. Lets be real, how many people who have no clue about variants will try the soviet MiG for free, see that it has trouble taking on an AIM-7 carrier one on one and be like - hey, im gonna spend 80 dollars on this! I would be interested to know how many people bought the old soviet Mi-24 vs the Ka-50. Especially when the upgraded BS3 comes out.

I would go further. All of the full fidelity, 4th gen fighters are unrealistic in EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the fight. Apart from switches in the cockpit, theyre mostly worse than Flaming Cliffs. Some Modules are worse, but none of them truly represent the true weaknesses of the real things avionics. Lets take the F-18 as an example: RWR: Way too accurate and reliable, even with multiple incoming missiles/locks. You can precisely notch an active missile with a 5 m/s filter using it. Radar: Immune to jamming apart from the letter J showing up. Missiles guide and loft while radar jammed. Radar lock not breakable by ECM. Detection range almost halved a while ago. Radar strength is stronger than F-14. 32s memory mode allows to guide missiles while cold. This is known and has been a thing for over a year. The missiles will also immedeately find a target that has been lost half a minute ago, just because of memory mode. This is mostly because the radar works like the FC3 ones. But those have memory modes that work no more than 4 seconds. Missiles: Radar can target and shoot down incoming air to air missiles with ease. The way to win fights is to load 10 missiles and just pretend to be an AEGIS. ED allegedly considers this accurate. Datalink: Position of enemy AA units, even MANPADs and little guns are either perfectly marked or fully hidden. No ambiguity. JF-17: Radar: Immune to jamming. Infinite tracking range on a cold target. Immune to notching and ground clutter at certain ranges, no matter what the backround of the target is and if its flying at stall speed at 90 degs at 5 feet of altitude. Pickup is faster than FC3. MWS: No false warnings or undetected launches. Missiles: Should be energetically between 120B and 120C, are severely longer ranged and faster than 120C. F-14 Radar: Immune to jamming and chaff, even with filter off. Desync between RIO and Pilot make the experience unrealistic and sometimes unacceptable for both the crew and the target. Missiles: Reaquire from CM better than AIM-120C, follow entirely different chaff rejection standard than the other missiles. Datalink: Limited to 8 targets, yet the selection is completely random, instead of being prioritized by a controller. A target 5 miles ahead might be randomly missing. RIO: Jester spots missiles, including ones he cannot physically see. I can go on and on. The avionics of all these planes are only a rough parody of the real, classified systems. Apart from modelling the contents of MFD pages and cockpit switches, any modern flanker or fulcrum variant are absolutely no issue. At least anything short of a Su-30SM2 or Su-35.

Stop using the Russian Air Force as an example for the 2000s. It was shit. And it was allied with the west in an entirely different kind of war. The MiG-29K entered Indian service in 2009. Thats 2 years after the DCS F-16. The Su-30MKI is a beefed up SU-30SM, and its from 2003, thats 1 year before the DCS hornet and 4 years before the DCS viper. The SU-30MK2 from 2005, with the mix of russian missiles and PL-12, is arguably superior to any AMRAAM bus in the game right now. Lots of stuff that the sim is lacking. Apart from laws, there are 2 main reasons why ED is not going to add modern opfor fighters to DCS: 1 - They despise low fidelity and do not wish to make any low fidelity modules for artistic reasons. I have had this confirmed by ED guys. Since thats the only way to ever get anything modern, the flyable module option is out of the window. 2 - Politics. In short: ED is seeking an artificial imbalance in DCS World. People from ED like Chizh have been getting heavily into political discussions on the forums, and if you follow their posts, you can see it heavily affecting their judgement. Why does the DCS AI not have modern SAMs, and modern red fighters? Because people like Chizh from ED think that the current units "represent the units in service at the beginning of the 21st century". Chizh from ED (but certainly others too) has mis-identified the dates introduction of US datalinks and aircraft by decades, for example claiming that the DCS F-16 is a 1991 variant. Spoiler, its from 2007.

Just re-release it as a Su-27SM and we will buy it again for 20$. Fix the issues with its missiles and systems on the way. You should probably do the same with the MiG-29.

Это отчет об энергии ракеты в игре. Ничего об исследованием. По этоиу нам только есть вам знакомые документы и ваш симулятор СУВ-27. Вы говорите что обы не правильные, но доказательства нам не показываете. The DLZ chart is old news, and that ED considers all of them except the R-27ER one accurate. Im talking about Chizhs apparently real-life Su-27 DLZ simulator. Read the posts from before for context. In short: The difference between chart and DLZ from the simulator is consistently the same for both R-27R and R-27ER. But the R-27R in DCS consistently has a 20-25% energy reserve compared to the DLZ, and matches the chart. R-27ER has 0-5%.

Вы нам неделями про СУВ-27 рассказываете и сейчас говорите, что он ошибочный? Эти исследование вы нам не показали. А эти "не корректные" документы и симуляторы. Которые все доказывают, что с Р-27ЭТ и ЭР в DCS не всё в порядке.

Ну вы согласны, что разница между СУВ-27 и настояшей дальности должна быть одинаковый у Р-27Р и Р-27ЭР?

Я спрашываю как вы получили эти результаты. Более конкретно: В репорте написано, что вы сопротивление всех Р-27 снизили. Почему тогда оно между М1.4 и М3 (большынство полёта) так выглядит? Для этих скоростях есть какие-то доказательства, что и как CFD был сделан? Если зелёная линия будет на или под синий, аномалии с Р-27ЭТ/ЭР и СУВ-27 не будет. Запас энергии будет одинаковый как у Р-27Р. А сейчас, он ~0% против >20% у варианта с меньше топливом.

На большинстве высотах 0-5% (ЭР) против 20-25% (Р). Как это не огромная разница? Что это были за исследовании? Вы для Р27Р только на графику посмотрели, или CFD сделали? Пожалуйста поделитесь с нами, как вы получили к СУВ-27 +0-5% для -27ЭР и +20-25% для -27Р.

Почему у Р-27Р разница между СУВ-27 и имплементации в DCS (такая же как на графикой) такая огромная? А почему у Р-27ЭР разница на так много меньше?

@Chizh Как это возможно? +25% у одной ракеты и почти одно и тоже у другой?

How do you explain the massive difference between R-27R and the DLZ simulator, and the comparably small difference between R-27ER and simulator? To be specific: R performs 20-25% better at all altitudes, ER only "matches" (as you said it) the simulator?