Max1mus

What is the point of making long snd detailed posts here. I doubt you are going to get such detailed answers in this thread. Only things like: ^ Im sorry. How foolish of us to not see for ourselves that the russian missile should be unable to reach the target on the chart, while the AMRAAM should have a significant energy reserve. The curve diagram must be wrong. It could not possibly be that at low altitude, the differences naturally are smaller. I should have seen for myself that if there is room for speculation, the AMRAAM should be better than expected and the ER should be worse than expected. Funnily enough, the R-27R and T got normally improved to the same extent as the -120 did. It is even better than the AIM-7 now. Those curve diagrams were not incorrect? They are from exactly the same manuals...

It would be interesting to see them. The "well known charts" you have shared with us show that the ER is underperforming at under 5.000m of altitude. Meanwhile, unlike the ER, the AMRAAM has a significant reserve of energy and range compared to any source you have shared or that is commonly known on the internet.

Chizh believes the figures are wrong, and that he knows better.

DCS: ER_falls_behind.trk The missile should not only hit the target, it should do so with an energy provision. That 150 m/s (540 kph) + extra provisions for wake turbulence and whatever else will cause the missile to potentially not achieve the numbers.

Apparently ED believes the conspiracy theory that the whole russian and soviet air force was wrong about their own missiles, and that the engineers supplied the pilots with incorrect numbers. All the data about performance under 5 kilometers is entirely wrong, and you just happen to know what it really performs like? I can´t believe it.

It is just awfully convenient that the AIM-120 overshoots its graph by 20+%, while the R-27ER undershoots it. Meanwhile, the R-27R matches it? ...

JF-17_can_not_be_notched.trk Target is at the slowest possible speed and practically 0 closure speed relative to the ground. No ground clutter or loss of contact. Bug happens within 7-8 nautical miles.

JF-17_infinite track range.trk Tracking a cold target at 100+ nm in TWS, in lookdown mode.

Your testing and your official newsletter say that it flies worse down low. It does not match the graphs it is supposed to overshoot with 150 M/s+. How much more obvious than this can it be? Of course with the A-10C II the figures changed in favor of it. Wait for the Black Shark 3 for an objective analysis.

I saw some statistics of the Black Shark module and old A-10C module... They both sold almost equally as well. I think Black Shark even sold better. Give people good avionics and good weapons, and they will pay you a fortune. In games where developers dont prefer one faction, the Opfor vehicles/aircraft are as popular as, by my experience even more popular than the overly conventional american counterparts. Speaking of weapons. This (from your newsletter) does not help your case one bit: You have reduced the range. The old R-27ER could already not match the "well known charts" as you called them, with an energy reserve of at least 150 m/s for the missile fuze to work at all. Now it cannot match them at all at low altitudes. The missile will not reach a target in the rear hemisphere as shown in the official documents under any circumstances. This sort of double-standard scares customers away.

It does not even work inbetween wingmen! It was tested with a small minority of F-15s in Alaska, one squadron to be exact. The MiG-29S is as capable of using TAKT, but not implemented in masses probably due to the same reasons why most F-15Cs did not get Datalink until much later. Both in DCS dont have either capability. I assume because you dont count these exceptions.

At least you have a half 2000s F-15. We get only soviet aircraft. Su-27SM was not the most relevant flanker at the time. Imagining any war between the russian air force and western countries at that time is nonsense - they were allied in the fight against terrorism. The US was even allowed to have military bases in ODKB (Russian NATO equivalent) countries. Its like comparing the german and and turkish air force in a hypothetical war. It makes no sense. Imagining that you would not be faced with the most sophisticated aircraft the enemy has to offer is nonsense too. In the 2000s, the best and most common Flankers were not the soviet DCS Su-27s. They were infact the modernized Chinese and Indian variants, that were arguably superior to the Su-27SM in the 2000s. The Indian Su-30 had a PESA radar with 100-120 degrees of total gimbals off the nose, allowing to support missiles while almost extending from the target. The Chinese J-11B and Su-30s had PL-12s and even a mix of PL-12 and russian missiles on the SU-30MK2 variant. DCS does not have any of that. Even the russian SAMs are all soviet variants. But this does not explain why ED is using the F-15 as an argument to not fix the Su-27 Datalink. Following Chizhs argument, the only logical answer is that they seek some artificial (im)balance.

All sources i can find do not mention the addition of MIDS datalink in MSIP II. 1-way datalink for the AIM-120 - sure. It is required for midcourse guidance. For some reason, there is a TAKT switch right above the MFD in the MiG-29A and S. And MaxMPower confirms that it had it, but it was not used/installed unless it would have been needed. The MiG-29 in DCS is a 1980s aircraft, if you count the R-77 on the S, 90s. The relevant MiG-29s in use in the late 2000s were way better than any variant in DCS. They all had a tactical display. Furthermore, it is weird how the MiG-29S radar is more modern than the Su-27S standard N001, with TWS2, yet does not even display aspects of the targets without locking them. That makes very little sense.

DCS is a simulator. The real F-15 did not have datalink, while even the oldest Su-27 did. If you counted the Alaska exception, then DCS MiG-29 would have a tactical radar/datalink display. They dont, making them worthless due to the lack of proper GCI in DCS. Regardless, the F-15 has always been the superior aircraft in DCS. You gave it a 2000s AMRAAM and excellent track-while scan, aswell as a way better RWR aswell as ability to tell different aircraft types on the radar (NCTR). Meanwhile, we have the old soviet Su-27 with the old SPO-15 (is it an F-14 or F-18 in front? Dont know, now you're dead) and no proper multi-sorting abilities with the radar. Missiles aside, your argument would only make sense if it was a SU-27SM. But you cannot put the missiles aside, as such even then, there would still hardly be much of a head start.

M...MKI?

Thats an issue with the R-27, not the radar interaction. Its reported and they say that they will put it on the same standard as the AIM-7. The interaction you are asking for (memory mode instead of OLS) will lead to the missile being defeated by chaff nearly 100% of the time in that spot. If youre not convinced, test it in the current patch with ECM on. I dont know if the real N001 radar is supposed to go into memory mode instead of OLS. But the missile would get the most benefit from the current radar modelling and the promised changes for the R-27 itself. So if there is no mention of this radar/ols interaction in any manuals, please do not implement it. And if you do, for semi active missiles,please transfer some of the chaff coefficients from the missile to the aircraft radar.

The missile will just grab chaff in memory mode. Right now, at least the OLS switch protects the missile from being instantly nullified by a target passing the notch. What really needs to change is that the radar must fail to track the target due to chaff, not so much the SARH missile. Right now, it barely matters how modern the launching aircrafts radar is. That means an AIM-7 launched from an F-4 and a 2000s F-18 is not less likely to miss on the latter. The F-14 in pulse mode already experiences this effect, hopefully at some point in all radar modes.

ED announced that theyre investigating the bug with the F-15 a long time ago. For the same amount of years, fighter to fighter DL has not been working on the Su-27. Even after the F-18, F-14, F-16 got it. I am still puzzled by the fact that this has not been fixed to this day. The other thing is that radar performance affects semi active missiles much more than active ones. And the biggest topic, long range locks (and missile shots!) being broken by ECM, affects both the F-15 and Su-27. This does not happen in any full fidelity modules. Please apply this long range track breaking to all planes, or make Flaming Cliffs radars react to jamming like the other ones.

When FC3 aircraft (and Mirage?) are tracking a target, the target just has to turn the jammer on/off, and lock will be entirely lost. The F-18 radar on the other hand, is unaffected by this flashing ECM. So when an F-18 meets an enemy F-18, their SPJs are entirely worthless against eachother, unable to break eachothers locks. Will full fidelity plane radar tracks become defeatable with ECM? Or will FC3 radars keep the track on flashing ECM like the DCS F-18?

Does the upgraded J-11A carry both Chinese and Russian missiles?

It acts as a perfect track. The missile perfectly lofts up and intercepts the target normally. The jammer disables the notch filter and range limitations. So for long AIM-120 shots, youre helping the F-18 maintain the track and support the missile. Thus using the ECM in DCS puts you at a disadvantage, unless youre facing Flaming Cliffs aircraft, maybe also AI. In aircraft, against which the jammer normally works (Su-27/33/MiG-29/F-15C), flashing it will defeat the radar track. You can see this when you face AI and try to lock them up beyond burnthrough range. They will trash your track by flipping the jammer on and off. Player-flown F-18 and F-14 will do this in the same way, with no delay between ECM on/off. FC3 aircraft still need to wait around 15 seconds to turn ECM on.

Test again. The F-18 maintains a perfect track, and when it launches an AIM-120, it will loft and track normally, as if it knew the range. On top of this, you cannot break the F-18s radar lock by turning ECM on and off. In short, its useless, especially if the target is detected by AWACS. Infact, youre helping the F-18 by jamming more than youre hurting it.

In DCS, the AIM-120 is capable of reaching mach 5-6. The AIM-54 will do at least 6 mach. Is NASA worse at testing missiles than flight sim nerds with tacview?

ECM needs to be fixed, please. F-18, F-16, JF-17 and F-14 are completely unaffected by jamming at any distance, while Su-27, F-15C and MiG-29 can not have a lock for more than a second against F-18 and F-14 until about 22 miles, at which point you will have been destroyed by enemy missiles.

2 F-15C pilots on LowBlows stream commented on the F-15Cs flight model that its too easy to unload the energy with maneuvers, but also too easy to gain the energy back with acceleration. That was some months ago in a podcast like format on his twitch.