Harlikwin

I think the issue here is likely the M2k FM, or at least in large part.

Honestly the biggest think with the SC kuz and crew would just be having a guy guide you to the correct holdback ramp position or some "abstraction" to enable that. But I doubt ED does anything.

Any news on a radar model?

Datalink correction signal for R-27 series of missile. Surely you have this information in those vast archives you mention, and I'm sure you will do a great job implementing this unique capability for the missile in the DCS Mig-29 module.

Czech article by the look of it.

Well, the mi24 was done well, so I hope the 29 will be too.

I mean realistically from what I've read is the earlier radar and presumably the export one suffered from being overwhelmed with clutter processing at times over certain high clutter terrain. Also in general they should suffer more than contemporary western radars since the inverted cassegrain antenna while having good gain, also had much larger side lobes compared to planar array antennas. So if ED should elect to do a real radar model like Raz or HB, then it should have trouble on the deck, and then when looking at city "terrain tiles" as one example.

The export version was also missing one of the autonomous search modes. Range is a funky thing as well because of course it depends on processing alot in some cases but not others, i.e. in lookup it should have similar performance to the regular soviet radar. But in the presence of clutter or jamming I would expect that weaker processor to have significant problems and not process as well or use simpler processing schema, hence more clutter. IIRC mig29 pilots of the 9.12 reported a good bit of clutter issues over radar/radio reflective terrain i.e. cities/marshes/swamps and so forth. Similarly, for the IRST, the consensus was that it was worthless as a search instrument, but worked quite well with the helmet in WVR missile cueing. Though ED would have to actually build an IR/IRST model for that, and I'm not really hopeful about it.

Fulcrum "DL" didn't work like TAKT that you have on the SU-27 variants. IF we get one in our "stripped down" variant, it will most likely be some form of Lazur which was used by various warpac countries. Which is basically GCI steering commands. Razbam had planned to have an entire GCI system for the mig-23 with Lazur with both AI and human steering, but I very much doubt ED would even consider adding something that cool. I'll be happy with an IRST that doesn't see through clouds and actually has the limitations of KOLS.

Needs to have some iranian airfields before I buy it... IDK how much the region changed from the 90's to the early 2k's, but it probably changed a decent bit after that.

While I agree one party doing the modeling is better from a consistency standpoint, there are still a bunch of problems, i.e. there are 2 different magic2's in game now with different performance (and thats a recent example). Plus ED is SLOOOW to fix any missile. And, unfortunately you are wrong on the R3S, but its an oft repeated myth, cuz its copy pasta-ed all over the web. The R3S is derived from the sidewinder but not a copy. The seeker is probably the closest part, but it has more gimbal angle IIRC, and a different track rate. The rest of the missile actually has some significant improvements. The main two are the gas generator which has a longer burn time/different composition (more flight time). And then a decently better rocket motor. So overall the missile has a decent bit more range than the 9B.

Brother if Razbam and HB can do a whole decent radar sim on one core, this is vastly easier.

So I realize its likely a bit political, but there are 2 versions of the magic II in the game, your's/ED's and Razbams, maybe since they are IRL the same missile they should be the same in game.

Thats because there is an IR coefficient for the engine for each plane which is a lazy way to do it. And often hilariously wrong because seeker models don't exist, i.e. a 9B seeker doesn't see the same part of the spectrum as 9J seeker or 9M seeker. And also doubly wrong because in the case of some missiles they minimally care about things like the afterburner and plume at long range. For example a 9B should have a huge problem locking the F86 cuz its literally got to see up its tailpipe (which is smol). A 9J should care less and if it can see the rear aspect probably good enough. And finally the 9M lol, doesn't care.

The 9B should basically only really see REALLY hot stuff like the inside of the flame diverters/compression stages of the engine, basically right up the pipe. It should also go for clutter and alot of other things in DCS, but hey we don't actually have an IR model in DCS. Its probably too generous in DCS. J/P should mostly see the ass end i.e. (external parts of the engine, i.e. the feathers) etc. Again, IRL its entirely based on the geometry of the aircraft, in DCS its not because there is no IR modeling going on. Also realize where the seeker is looking is basically the top of your hud not the center. null

nvm

Cool, any chance of a gar8 (early 9b) vs 9B (late) i.e. the uncage behavior difference.

@Flappie Also found this bit on the pushing the firing button down issue. So not clear why many pilots just held the button till it fired (maybe to ensure good/fast ignition of the gas gen) but I guess its not necessary. OP 3352 2-9

Yeah I know. HB "perfection" 101.

Ehh, if we are looking for problems with the F14, the radar could certainly need a 2nd look so it can't be abused into the eye of Sauron by backseaters, and maybe just maybe stop tracking parked planes.

Honestly. What would do ALOT to clear all this up is videos of how all this works, in detail, to the community. Razbam did it, Heablur did it. You guys can certainly do it. Along with the whole what the radar is seeing screen, i.e. Main Lobe clutter in 1D, targets etc. In look up, look down etc. JUST like Razbam did it. Then do A/G SAR stuff like razbam did for the F15E (well at least for the F18 since the F16 doesn't have it). Wags can explain this beautifully. The ultimate reality here is that, once you get into the 70's and 80's jets its the sensors that matter, RADAR, IR etc. No one really cares about the flight model of an F22, because its going to kill everything BVR anyway. So model the sensors right (jesus christ IR and clouds for example).

So its a raycast model like what HB and raz have been doing?

As far as I understand how this works its just rules based with a bit of math thrown in rather than an actual physics based model. Is that right?

Is this serious radar model something different than the phase 1,2,3 radar improvements for the F18/16?

Lets not talk about things like an IR model, or you know Ray-dar