Harlikwin

Brother, the amount misinformation on IR stuff in general in DCS and especially in DCS is huge. The numbers for the KOLS that Aria posted are accurate. It was never meant to be some long range IRST system. Those ranges drop further if the target background is clouds or the ground by about half. We have RL 29 pilots testifying to the fact it was basically useless outside of BFM ranges (Where it did do well, because thats what it was designed to do). Big engine doesn't matter. Aspect angle, and total solid angle are what actually matters, and to a lesser extent if the target is supersonic or not. For "long rage detection" afterburner can't even be seen as the CO2 lines are rapidly absorbed (it does matter at short ranges because it takes a few km of atmosphere to absorb it all). And how this simple, literal IR 101 fact is lost on pretty much every dev amazes me. But maybe it shouldn't. Also how "hot" you think something is also wrong, because turns out different sensor see different energies in the spectrum based on the detector chemistry. Thats the first mistake most people make about IR. Its entirely like the "flood" mode on western jets. It is what it is.

Ejection I imagine.

I wouldn't be surprised, there a bunch of limits with the tank.

If you want any sense of realism here are the following reasons: Different FM/weapons/pods (weapons/pods can be limited ofc) JHMCS Far more capable radar Far more capable RWR/CM/ECM More capable Nav/INS etc. (usually not a big deal because the bulk of the DCS MP community are F10 map cripples, so nav system modeling while actually really important IRL seldom matters in DCS MP) Datalink (this can sometimes be disabled but it takes work on the mission makers part) Taking something like a F16A blk15 (early) Less TWR/different FM. It did have a CCIP/CCRP capability, not quite as sophisticated as our "C", the only "smart weapons" it could generally use were GBU's (ground/buddy lased only) and "A/B" model mavs were what more or less existed in the 70s/80's (note we don't have those in DCS). Using mavs also meant basically looking into your lap due to the radar screen placement. And for A/B mav models the effective range was like 1-2 miles at best. APG-66 was more primitive and shorter range and lacking the A/G functionality of the 68. RWR was way more primitive and less capable as well, it carried less CM's. Obviously no DL or JHMCs which are major force multipliers for AA/AG. Add to this the inferior ergonomics and more complex operation by not having MFDs. So all in all vastly less capable than a F16C blk50. Yes, every MP server in DCS basically takes off the aamrams and then variously "nerfs" the weapons/pods/systems on the jet, but you can't get around the fact even at its "most nerfed" its still more capable than an F16A in both AA and AG stuff. The same exact argument totally applies to the F18C, and I don't even want to talk about comparing the A10C and an 80's A10 without even CCIP/CCRP. And yes going back to the topic at hand yeah we need a decent SAM/EW spectrum upgrade before ECM/EW makes sense in DCS.

I mean it depends on what you want to do. If you want to drop bombs on mud huts the 14B certainly did that. But as you say its primary role was fleet air defense for the entire cold war. And the "A" variant we have is from the last 3 years of the cold war (and I'm being generous). So clearly if mission/historical relevance is the metric the -95 as well as the iranian -95 would be the far more "relevant" fit. The 2005+ viper we have? Lol what did it do? Bombed some mud huts? Yup for sure. But you cannot use it as a "stand-in" for a 80's F16A where it got famous, or even for a 91 era viper. At best it sort of fits for the 2003 iraq invasion, I'll grant that but thats pretty much it. Thats where alot of people get off the bus and frankly I do too. And the same exact logic applies to the 2003 hornet. So if mud hut bombing in SP is your thing, thats great, and for alot of the DCS community it does seem that JDAM'ing toyotas is "peak DCS" but not for me. Also "modern" in terms of DCS, no way is ED doing a blk60 viper with modern "things". Hell our 2003 Hornet is missing MSI which is rather important, and from a systems modeling standpoint its probably one of the most broken jets in DCS (can't use CCIP without GPS, lol, gimme a break).

Yeah, there was no specificity to it, but yes I'm pretty sure we've all fallen to the guns of Roland the headless BMP-2 gunner. But I assume he meant the radar guided sams. As for the module choices/eras it depends but I'd say its a mix. Like the 21bis; its a good choice IMO saw tons of service, but its not the famous F-13 of either vietnam or the arab israeli wars. Similar story for the F14's we currently have, basically very late 80's versions or 90's versions. Minimal relevance to cold war F14's or the F14 that saw the most combat, the iranian ones (yes someday these are coming). ED's half swiss/half nellis halfbreed F5E, totally irrelevant in either context, or their F86 hybrid (too late for korea). F4E early/late, is a pretty goated decision as its super relevant to the 2nd half of the cold war, but its not a VN bird. The ED F-teens or the 10C, largely irrelevant aside from bombing mud huts, earlier "A" versions IMO would have sold just as well and people would pay for upgrades, it remains to be seen if they will pay for "downgrades".

Coming 2024 and BEYOND

I too would like a better SAM/IADS simulation in DCS... Amusingly in a recent interview Wags said the player base though the current sams are "too hard"... LOL...

Yeah, I think alot of the phoenix kills need context to go with it for the Iran Iraq war. The phoenix was a capable missile, but it was in fact designed for fleet defense first. It could be used against fighters as the Iranians repeatedly showed, but it was not exactly optimal. And the larger context there is the Iraqis didn't really have a good handle on the shortcomings of the missile or the AWG-9 like DCS players do at least initially. So they did well with the missile early on, and less well as the Iraqis learned how to deal with it. I'd say thats a pretty normal outcome of a protracted air war, the key word being protracted. In DCS MP, the good players know exactly how to deal with both the AWG-9 and the Phoenix so are relatively immune to it, which well, thats DCS. Meanwhile noobs will fly straight into a Phoenix fired at long range. I've seen plenty of both use cases in DCS MP. And its one of the unfortunate realities of DCS MP that people rapidly learn to min/max systems/missiles/etc. Its just what competitive gamers do. Like the whole DCS notching "meta" which IRL isn't really used because IRL you don't have perfect angular resolution on your RWR, and IRL modern radars have notch predictors. But in DCS its the gospel due it being the FC3 and even later radar models.

I suspect it was that guy that they tried to recruit to do the IADS module, and he/they bailed.

Cool, be nice if ED would get around to doing the same so we have some early missiles for MP.

I think this is one factor that in general is done super badly in DCS. Like IRL fighters would almost always have a connection back to GCI, its just basic radio planning stuff, but DCS doesn't simulate re-broadcast stations etc for datalink at this point and there would be tons of them around if you read anything about how IADS was done soviet style. I honestly hope ED and Razbam collaborate on this somehow because the mig23 will need it too.

It gets sorta complex, even stuff that uses optical tracking still uses a uplink to control the missile, which can be detected and jammed in some cases.

@Chizh Also any plans to improve the SAMs? Stuff like optical tracking and then of course the more obvious stuff like using non-PN tracking (3 point) when appropriate so you can't do silly things like fly the sam into the ground? Or you know stuff like IADS.

Last we heard ED nor other 3rd parties have plans to do a 16A, so the mig29 will have to snack on F4's. Yeah most likely the Poles didn't buy the 27T. As others have said it was "rare".

Which manual specifically. Cuz there are russian ones, polish ones, czech ones, Serbian ones etc. Yeah same thing as the ER/ET... The E. Germans were just cheap, never bought the missiles. Same thing with CZ migs, they never bought the R73, so they used R60M... But no one is gonna argue that the 9.12 couldn't use the R-73...

Yeah thats how it was done. Again, the US pilots flying the downgraded E. german ones talk about the IR seeker R27... So yes it was wired for it.

Yeah I'm curious to see what it will look like to be honest. The HB RWR stuff should be a pretty solid basis for ARM's/RWR's and other things. Frankly at this point I'd just love some AI units that can do OECM, and for DECM jammers to actually do DECM things vs OECM things.

Yup... Pretty standard thermal contrast things for IRST. Anything "warm" is gonna reduce the contrast/lock/detect range of the Mig29 IRST. And IR signals are absorbed by water molecules and atmosphere in general, so the less of it the better so it works better at high alt vs other high alt things. I'm sure the detect range vs a Mach3 SR71 is 100km+ or so.

Well, the next fun part is that IRST should detect clouds as "hot/warm"... And either see them as clutter, and/or reduce lock ranges if there is cloud behind the target.

How about giving us an Sa-7/14 and redeye or even Stinger basic, and an earlier version of chapperal... The overall unit mix in DCS is heavily skewed to the 90's which unfortunately leaves the 70s/80's scenarios/servers having to quite haphazardly try to figure how to make vaguely realistic scenarios. These relatively simple additions (wouldn't really have to even add 3d models as a guy with a tube on his shoulder is a guy with a tube on his shoulder) would be greatly appreciated by many DCS players.

no, SPO-15 is way more capable than that. But hawk and hercules were the major threats in Europe at the time. It had a programmable database. But just limited "lights".

Different propagation methods mostly. NVIS in particular. Helos used it, the Apache in particular since its quite useful for non line of sight stuff. Not that this is at all modeled in DCS, wouldn't be hard to do tho. Thanks for the clarification so I don't have to go dig it up out of a manual.

Yeah thats the other thing, how you simulate "doctrine" and good vs bad vs innovative crews/armies. The other thing that we also lack in DCS is sam site ARM countermeasures/decoys. Serbians lost very few sam sites to US forces despite 400 HARMs fired, both because they had good crews/doctrine and decoys/CM's. There is no "technology" for this. Its literal HS trig, and trust me SAM guys knew how to do trig. It was automated pretty quickly as well. Beyond that it was communication links that could be field telephones, or radios, or later microwave datalinks.

Yeah the early ones were, AFAIK the later ones could be remoted by at least a few km. And yes multiple EWR's cueing.