Harlikwin

No fast jets were using NVG's in any sense in the 80's beyond some very early testing. Q3 of 89 was the actual authorization to produce ANVIS on an actual production basis, and the first OMNI contract for ANVIS was in March 1990 (Omni2) for 10k units split between ITT ~6k tubes and (Varian/EOS) 4k tubes. There was T&E being done before then but it was very limited and no one was going to war with those goggles. Fun fact the Very first Gen3 tube cost the US taxpayers over 1 million dollars, (Anvis prototypes used 2 of them). And NVG's weren't really in common use in the USAF till the later part of the 90's. For Europeans and other nations not really till the early 2000's for the most part if at all. The US army was ahead of the curve compared to the Airforce and they were generally homicidal enough issue early Gen2 kit to helicopters crews that generally did a good job kill themselves in sufficient numbers that they helped formulate most of the requirements for the Gen3 tech that was developed. But continued to use Gen2 systems with severe restrictions on illumination levels that were required. I won't cover the even more suicidal Russian uses/experiments that I'm aware of, but they made the US Army look amazingly good. But I'll give them points for bravery. For DCS purposes, NVG's aren't simulated past a fuzzy green screen effect, so it mostly doesn't matter, and ED can't even get the color right, nor the fact that sparklies don't really exist except for light starved environments, which don't actually exist in a cockpit. But for historical accuracy, the phantom shouldn't have NVG's at all.

We already have a few. Galinette from razbam did a fantastic job on the M2k and SE. I'm sure HB has a good coder too. I look forward to adding Aerges to the good radar model list.

Yes basic radar behavior for pretty much any low PRF pulse radar (aka Mr Cyrano) is the following High alt vs high alt target, basically little clutter, and should give the best performance. Low alt looking up, reputedly usable, both the South Africans and the Iraqis managed to use their radars in this sort of regime to get kills. Though there should be issues with sidelobe clutter from the antenna. (modern planar arrays have pretty low side lobes, Cassegrain designs like the mirage used have significant side lobes in comparison). Higher alt vs lower alt target, lots of main lobe clutter, but minimal side lobe clutter, target not resolvable unless using techniques like MTI. And MTI may or may not be very good depending on the implementation, this is where alot of detail will have to be, you have to contend with non-perfect cancellation because IRL it wasn't and then you likely still have further issues like blind speeds and so forth. Again, reputedly Cyrano was not a particularly good performer according to pilot accounts in this specific regime. Low alt vs Low alt. Basically the same as the High alt looking down case due to stronger ground clutter from the main lobe, and then of course the famous side lobe problems that antennas of the type used on the Mirage were famous for suffering from. So it should be mostly useless in this situation. Currently what it looks like we have is the FC3 radar with a sparkly graphic. Given what razbam has managed to achieve with actual physics based modeling and correctly modeling high/medium PRF PD processing for their radars, I'd hope Aerges can at least do the same for the Cyrano IV though modeling a low PRF MTI radar will be quite different.

I will look forward to videos explaining how the backend works like razbam showed.

How about a challenge to develop a better radar model than what Razbam has in the M2k/F15.

Yeah as you say there are plenty of variants. But data for later ones or more modern ones tends to be fairly sparse, and the overall lack of any sort of standards for how sensors are modeled in DCS, i.e. (razbam Great, HB/deka ok, ED poor at this point, other 3rd parties pretty bad) doesn't help the situation. And LOL on your F14 comment. You realize the F14D had literally the best Air to Air radar developed in the 20th century right? That was still better than most radars most militaries are running today?

Or use too much Duct tape

We like to call those "skill issue" players.

Please enlighten us on the Canadian nuclear weapons program? Were moose of unusually large size involved. Also, we must know if Red Green was.

99% sure you can strap an LGB to any airframe. Maybe the migs can't lase it themselves but that would be an improvment.

Yeah I was just saying, since its impossible for ED/3rd parties to do FF versions anything red and modern, well, FC3 level is better than nothing. But I guess at the current time thats a no-go. Yeah Ka-50's ala BS2 were built and flew some. Not many, but they did exist and did fly. The BS3 upgrade not so much, that was my point. IDK, frankly I think more devs should just fill out the 60's, 70's and 80's since thats not restricted and its inherently balanced. Instead of chasing "modern" stuff that is hard to model, and even when its in DCS its questionably implemented.

Yup, a 104G vs mig19s/21's would be fun.

No offense man, but there is no such thing as a BS3. Its your guy's interpretation/guess (i.e. made up) what a Blackshark might look like. I would personally like to see like a FC3 mig29K with some modern weapons both AA/AG since you guys obviously can't do a FF one. As for the weapons stuff, its simple to add and maybe let the community decide.

Yeah, I hope its the G, its the most common version that was used by ALOT of nations.

I mean we have whole paid module that is made up. BS3... And another module that was basically a prototype in the J-8II-PP Also I think ED and other devs should start thinking about adding ways to either enhance or degrade capabilities of existing modules. I.e. One "fully realistic" module is fine. But the ability to say turn off a JHMC's, or an RWR to represent an earlier version would be pretty welcome. Or possibly adding a weapon used by a different AF. Just make it all MP server side lockable. Another brilliant thing ED could do is add a % reliability number to all munitions, and by default leave it at 100% since as wags said DCS players don't like to deal with reliability. But let it be editable by MP server owners. So you can set an aim9B to 50% or whatever to get a bit closer agreement to reality. And ED can stay out of the whole "realism" debate.

Good to know I guess. It doesn't really do much to change the structural reality of ED in russia tho.

This all looks good. But any updates on a better radar model for the F1?

As you say, but DCS doesn't model any differences between different SARH seekers, so its kinda pointless. The R3R is just as good as an AIM-7M or P.

In that sense I'm less worried about the IRAF one (9J and 9P are in game) as long as they don't use SEAM on the F14 we are GTG. But I'd like to the bone stock -95 come with AIM-9G/H (not in game) and 7E4's (in game but horribly modeled).

Wouldn't that be SZ... At any rate everyone knows thats a polite fiction. With the main devs all being in russia unfortunately. Legally, they don't own soviet docs AFAIK... But I don't think ED particularly wants to mess with them.

SA? South Africa?

So this is a bit misunderstood. There are two general families of sidewinders, the Navy versions. 9B/D/G/H, developed by China Lake, which starting with the D were gas cooled from bottles in the pylons. And then there were the Air Force models. The 9E/J/N/P etc. These starting with the E were peltier cooled. I.e. Electrically, these missiles were not China lake built, rather Ford Philco and others. There are however other differences, for example the 9G/H could use SEAM modes and could be pointed by radar. Whereas the 9E/J/N/P could not, though these missiles could accept an "uncage" seeker command that is independent of the firing switch. The 9L, which was ordered by congress to be "common" was developed from the 9G/H "DNA" by china lake. As such it has SEAM compatibility, and its internally cooled by its own gas bottle. I believe Iran was slated to get the 9G or 9H sidewinders with the F14, but never did. So they somehow would have had to adapt the pylons that were designed for the navy missiles to work with the AF missiles they had for their phantoms. Certainly not an insurmountable task as they managed to do it. But for example the 9J/P that they used would not have access to SEAM. The Falklands adaptation of the 9L was mostly good luck on the brits part as the 9L used the 9G/H "DNA" and thats what the RN harriers used, so it was backwards compatible aside from the 9G/H rail had to "modified" with files. Also I recall reading that Iran had to adapt their AIM 7E-2 to work with the F14 like the AIM 7E4. Though perhaps they did have some AIM7-E4's delivered. So hopefully your guys IRAF F14 will have 9J/P's that work like 9J/P (no SEAM).

Hm, I have the FC clicky mod and I don't have this problem.

It would be cool if you guys could do this. For the most part it would be deleting stuff. Since for example Cairo today has ~4x the population it did in 1970 other cities are in that ballpark too. Also you guys need to add "Green Island"

The F1 CE is not a good stand in for the M3... The only thing in common is they are french. A viggen with 2 Rb24's (9b) is kinda close and at least aerodynamically is a delta. Mig17 had way better performance than the 15 across its entire flight envelope due to more thrust and better Aero/hydraulics but at least the cockpit was similar. The 21bis is wrong for the time frame, I think egypt had F-13's then. (give it 2 R3S I guess) I think Egypt had the Mig19S not the P (so no missiles or radar)