Harlikwin

Hopefully the fix the friggin Optical sight stabilization, or actually model it in the first place, to call that "arcade" level is being nice.

I'm talking about the GCI "human" bit. Pointing you at a target is trivial. Setting up an ambush using several planes is a whole other ball of wax. And while Razbam does "good stuff" (tm), they are still likely gonna be limited by DCS itself in this case. Though I wonder if a "jester" like GCI where you ask it to setup different kinds of intercepts on different targets might work well. Or adding some sort of F10 map GCI functionality for humans.

Yeah, I know how it worked IRL. I have my doubts it will work anything like that in DCS.

Thats the GCI system that was trialed on the M2k but never adopted. Its in the game. Hopefully better than TAF... Lazur controllers could direct and coordinate flights quite well. Meanwhile all TAF in the game does is give you steering commands to the nearest enemy.

Yeah, 2.3-2.9 is very much not in the traditional MWIR region (3-5 microns) associated with all aspect missiles. So undoubtedly a cooled PbS seeker head. And at least if I understand the 120 degree reference as being 120 degrees forward of the rear of the jet then there is little chance of the seeker seeing the tail from most aspects in any reliable fashion. Whatever data exists for the 9H seeker should be generally reliable for cooled PbS seeker heads and generic acquisition angles, though of course that's all actually geometry and image dependent on the specific aircraft and its nozzle configuration. The one IR101 comment about the paper listed above is that while MWIR seekers can see IR plumes centered around 4 microns (plume is predominantly hot CO2), plume is RAPIDLY absorbed in atmosphere (as you can see the transmittance is near 0 in that region). And this seeker if it can see from 2.3-2.9 microns it can't see anything at 4 microns. The major advantage of MWIR seekers (PbSe and InSb was to be able to see things like plume and cooler airframe components from all aspects) But even there plume is basically undetectable past about 10km due to atmospheric absorption. null

The uncage thing for 9B's on the F86 needs to get fixed too. IIRC I made the same bug report there ages ago as well.

Yeah now do sales numbers... who bought how many.

It will have R60's at a minimum.

SEAD in DCS without some sort of external IADS script is kina a joke gameplay wise at this point. And thats just basic stuff like turning off a radar or relocating a battery. Much less stuff like decoys/false signals etc. I think I recall HB saying that actual seeker heads will be modeled i.e. targeting different bands and with various other things, i.e. some had smoke some didn't, some had G-bias some didnt. And so forth. Frankly the Shrike was a pretty crappy ARM tho. Anyhow this has nothing to do with the 29.

Yup, all of that is IR 101. Less range at low alt due to more atmosphere. More range looking up against cold sky. Most of the detection charts specify the conditions I forget all the ones for KOLS but they are listed usually a few thousand meters and with whatever target usually a mig21 or Tu-16. Usually they also specify the background and the loss of range due to it being vs cloud background or earth. What the manuals don't talk about much is IR clutter and reflection which are major issues when looking at ground (especially urban), or nicely lit cloud edges. But various mig-29 pilots have chimed in on the clutter issues when using the IRST.

The fun part no one seems to get about "afterburning" is that you don't see AB plumes past a few miles in IR because of rapid CO2 absorption in IR ( i mean this is IR 101). And early missile seekers can't see it at all. At best you get some increase in the radiated energy from the "hot metal" bits. In general the current ED IR model seems to be based on a poor understanding of how IR actually works.

You got 2 saudi airbases for DS1... you got enough iran for iran/iraq. Hell you even got Khark island (focal point of the iran/iraq air war). So yeah if the map looked like this I'd be happy, however I have serious doubts it will.

Will it include a decent bit of the iranian border area for 80's scenarios? Yeah this would be ideal, but I think its way over optimistic.

In general the "IRST" mode of the KOLS was regarded as pretty useless by pilots. Being a linear PbSe sensor more or less backs that up since it will have issues with long range detection, and the lack of clutter processing will make it work "poorly". It was good at cueing weapons at short range with the helmet mounted sight though. The FC3 "IRST" modeling is in general really poor.

Passive anti-radiation modeling is a fairly complex thing, and honestly IDK how well its done in DCS.

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.