Harlikwin

Problem in MP is that its not coalition based and he will call all "blue" jets friendly, while he calls "red" jets enemy. Which can be rather confusing when the F14 becomes a red (IRAF) jet.

I mean, literally former warpac nations are part of NATO now, literally there is nothing sekrit or exploitable on the 9.12 Mig29. The west literally knows everything and have for decades. So the whole dokumints thing is mostly bunk. You can literally goto public libraries in former warpac countries and find detailed docs for this jet, everything from maintenance to flight manuals etc. I know a guy raiding them for mig23 docs as we speak. But Russia is Russia, and logic doesn't necessarily apply. LOFL...

Good. It's the more common of the two. And can approximate IRAF birds better. Be neat if we get the IRAF F14-95 at the same time. Even neater would be if ED did a IRAF F5E.

I'd love to know more on the kjl if you want to pm me.

The problem with that idea is that literally the JF17 uses the same radar, same tgp, same displays/avionics the early J-10. So unless you posit the JF17 is too classified or "made up" then it should be in the realm of possibility. All you really need is FM data which may or may not be out there somewhere.

That would make the most sense at least.

Also as to the whole Mig-23MLA vs F4E debate. More or less the Mig23 should be slightly better in most of the ways that matter, at least on paper. It turned a bit better than the phantom across most of the envelope, the radar was better. The missiles in terms of DCS probably matter less since ED doesn't model anything with seeker types. Technically the R-23 seeker should be better than the 7E series. And the R-24 in theory should be on par or better than the 7F fired from the phantom. AAM wise, the R60/60M were gonna be better than the early sidewinders in terms of tracking/dogfight performance aside from range. Once the 9L shows up, then the shoe is on the other foot. But as numerous people have pointed out, it was complicated IRL what jet would get what. In general the "on the paper" advantages are small however you slice it, so it will be down to how well things are modeled on either jet. Maybe HB models Jester 2.0 to be able to read thru clutter and lock stuff unrealistically, or maybe not. Or maybe either FM is off by enough to make the jet more OP or UP than it was IRL. Sad. your link is dead.

SEAM was a Navy winder thing. So Aim-9D/G/H/ and then the L. AF versions didn't have it. I.e. E/J/N/P. IDK how SEAM might have been added to the phantom for use with the 9L though, it might have not had it for the L. (edit. yeah I see klarsnow already covered this). Yeah, you can see the "double-D" scan pattern, that navy jets do with it on the tomcat IIRC. Fun fact there being is Iran never got their "navy" missiles, so they had to jerry rig Aim-9J/P to the tomcat, and therefore no SEAM there.

Pretty sure I recall reading the F4 radar couldn't actually illuminate the 7F out to its max range.

A full Fi J-10 would be great. Lots of similarity systems wise to the JF-17 for the early ones. But I kinda doubt it.

Yeah the whole DCS FLIR "model" is just bad. Like the ground has variable contrast depending on time of day and so forth, while in DCS its pretty static from what I can tell. Also, vehicles in general should have different contrast regardless because they are made of different material with different emissivity and so forth. IR is not some simplistic "predator" model, what something looks like is a combination of emissivity and reflectivity of the material, as well as heat. I've repeatedly shown images here of stuff at the same exact temp that show up entirely differently in FLIR. The idea that some object will magically disappear if it becomes the same "temperature" as the background shows how badly ED misunderstands FLIR at a basic highschool level. Moreover basic sensor principles don't seem to exist. Like there is no detection range difference between first gen pods like LANTIRN, and later 3rd gen pods like ATFLIR/Litening, whereas IRL there were major differences in detection ranges between those systems due to how much more sensitive the latter pods were (which amusingly became a problem because issues like veiling glare on the battlefield, but I digress). I mean if more people understood it they'd be up in arms if the mig21 radar performed like the AWG-9 as an example. With regards to modern pods like I said, alot of the actual technical information you'd need to model them well is either unknown or very well obfuscated. Or even the case of basic stuff like "digital" zoom on the Litening pods which I'd hope guys that code things like graphics should understand its not even modeled. But the fact of the matter is at best we have one "model" working in the LWIR part of the spectrum, and most of the modern pods working in MWIR part of the spectrum.

I'm sure Iran or Israel will be happy to post all that stuff up here Cooper talks about STARM use in his F4E book IIRC. In general Iran had the pick of the US inventory back in the day.

The LANA pod was basically a hudflir like we have in the harrier, it also had a low mag zoom mode (2x IIRC), so for example it could be used for CCIP deliveries on targets as one example. but it was used for night navigation more. Hopefully they can model it similarly to the F15E navflir. I mean sort of, what we have is a much later version of the hud/systems. It was similar to the early 16A huds, but our 16C hud is way later.

Guess we have to wait till 2.9 to see if anything actually got fixed. But in general various missile parameters are wrong, and it looks like seeker behavior for a few of them is really broken. R3S should be similar to the 9B at least in terms of seeker performance. They did improve the gas generator it used a slightly better motor though etc. But the seeker was literally plug-n-play with 9B missiles. Also all missiles still track through clouds. Which of course they should not.

Not really. I mean up close maybe, but in general 90% of the videos you see of FLIR stuff is at very close range and from almost any acceptable range its gonna look way worse. Especially for early generation pods like the LANTIRN. LANTIRN is also far less sensitive than the later 3rd gen pods and operates in LWIR, meaning you won't even see targets till you are close. There are a few F111 pod videos that illustrate this "phenomenon" with PAVETAC where you basically don't see the target till you are right on top of it. Also meteorological conditions near the target are a massive issue with thermal, high humidity environments will greatly degrade FLIR performance. Whereas nice dry weather in Nevada will work great for thermals. These are major pilot/weapon planning issues when planning actual strikes/attacks. Of course none of its modeled in DCS not one Iota. Yeah so all of those things you mention are things with sniper to various degrees. However, AFAIK all of that information that could be used on a technical basis is classified AFAIK. In general ED does poor job of modeling anything with the lasers on the pods either, especially say the basic not-classified in the least fact that lasers don't work through clouds. But also yes, later pod lasers will have more range. At least Razbam made the LANTIRN pod laser turn off above 25k. Even more stuff that isn't modeled by ED at all is the fact that one of the major feature of the pods is to basically be able to transmit video to JTAC's over DL and vice versa in various circumstances. Of course beyond the half baked JTAC model no one really uses much we aren't getting anything like that. Though alot of that is not really classified but just not something ED is interested in doing. Overall the other half of the issue with the TGP's is ignorance about the topic from the community in general. Most of the playerbases' knowledge of the topic IMO comes from Hollywood movies or other video games that also do really poor job with modeling anything like it. So you have people whine about the image isn't good enough or its too poor etc when they literally have no clue what they are talking about.

Honestly Razbam could likely do it. Cuba had 9.12, Overstratos worked on em IIRC. And document wise, literally the 29 is an open book for all of its systems and FM in detail from German, Czech, Slovak, Polish sources. Honestly it would be good to get a Razbam high quality Radar and maybe even IRST models. ala the F15E. But I guess we will see how the mig23 goes first and I think they might have a mig25 on their plate coming soon too.

I mean all of FC3 is oversimplified for the most part aside from maybe the FM's and there is still debates about those not being right. Honestly i half expect to laugh if/when ED releases the FF 9.12 version of the Mig-29 because literally it will be worse and harder to use if they actually model all the major systems right and all the big redfor guys will cry because its less capable than FC3 or because they can't exploit FC3isms in MP. Radar, will be far more janky with both look down issues as well as processing overloads and the controls if people use them realistically will be more difficult to use correctly. IRST, same thing, shouldn't see through clouds and really aside from HMS cueing was mostly worthelss due to limited processing abilities and having to deal with clutter etc but DCS doesn't model IR at all at this point. HMS actually needing time to lock and not displaying stuff etc. The only upside might be Lazur, but we will likely get that with the 23 and again, really depends on how well that is actually integrated into the core of DCS. Sadly I expect it to be some sort of simple point you at a target system like the M2k TAF, which basically ignores 90% of its actual capabilities and how it was used IRL. All the same would also be true for a FF Su-27 but add in DL stuff being more complex/worse for it.

Still both the Ka-50 and 25T might as well be prototypes. The J-8PP while it did fly was a prototype etc. Its just if you have enough docs on hand. I'm sure Deka did the PP because they couldn't do the actual "in service" Chinese versions. But hey a an outdated airframe with outdated western avionics built in cooperation with the west? Yeah even the CCP can honestly say yeah, nothing sekrit there the west doesn't know about since they helped build the things. And yeah I'm sure the recent political situation in russia is not great for developing much of anything.

People think that, because thats exactly what ED did with the Ka-50 and the Su-25T. And what Deka will do with the J-8PP. So its certainly within the realm of possibility for DCS.

Do they only track rear aspect and have like 0 CM resistance?

the TV and other panels were removable on the M4... There were panels for SEAD stuff, or TV guided etc. Those two silver looking "things" below the modern radio were how they were mounted. Watch the video, look at the bottom and it says SU-22M4

SA-3 had a few versions. SA-4 wasn't exported AFAIK, IDK if there are docs. But yes jesus we need an SA-7 and an actually accurately modeled SA-9.

Realistically we need a low digit sam mod. There were like 3-4 major variants of the SA-2 for example.

Its a good question, but I'm gonna be real doubtful.

Pretty sure that was canceled, since they couldn't figure out how to make the current flat DCS maps curved. Or "its a thing we want to do"