Jump to content

TaxDollarsAtWork

Members
  • Posts

    690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About TaxDollarsAtWork

  • Birthday 10/10/1999

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    Flappy bird & Flappy bird II
  • Location
    United States of America
  • Interests
    Glowing in the dark, house music and EDM, Mercedes, Supras, Miatas, RWD and low traction

Recent Profile Visitors

7150 profile views
  1. Might not be the right place but I hope Deka devs might give us some insights into the pros and cons of the J-10 vs the Flanker family IRL Who has better sustained turn performance What game plans do J-10 and J-11 pilots prefer, angles or energy etc interesting things about the J-10s performance up close All other info is welcome too if you have excerpts from documentaries etc
  2. How would you describe the BFM advantages of the MiG-29 vs the Su-27 Did you you have better sustained turn performance horizontally? Better performance in the vertical? Quicker to unload and load the Gs potentially? Lower speed bleed rate?
  3. compare your 900kmh 1km cold shot range to the WEZ sims numbers in the same paramters Why so all that testing can get ignored again by Chizh/ED? We've posted this test countless times since the preliminary CFD what can I say except lurk more new friend
  4. Did you not just see my post? The ranges you gave are lower than the sim
  5. Here page 187 it talks about the fuel fraction and burn time 7500kg of peak thrust burns for 8.6 ~ 11 seconds Don't believe me yet find a copy here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2378427/ Also again Chizh you posted that corrected graph of yours but you are not an authority on the R-27E I am willing to accept some flaws in the chart, from my experience with older American ones its usually on the edges/certain flanking shots etc Yet these are always most accurate at Head on and in tail on paramters Something interesting is that at the Su-27 SUV Sim seems to always fall short by 15% ish percent in these spots too This is because it has greater built in safety margins as pointed out by other ED staff but Chizh refuses this to be true His own points even disagree with the DLZ sim Your new points also look a little suspect as they seem to make a perfect circle Most WEZ diagrams of this nature are like ovals shifted forward and with a gentler couture in the front and more dramatic one in the rear obviously shifted forward in a way so they have more range head on than in the rear the R-27R matches its manual's graphs with the 150m/s provision But the R-27ER can't even match the DLZ sim figures with that provision So why is that? Even on page 450 Maestro agrees a fully CFD'd missile should see improvements in the low alt stern NEZ department
  6. Id like to remind you of an old proverb. One swallow doesn't make a summer, especially if that swallow is very old... If you have have actual evidence saying these manuals and graphs are truly as errant as you claim I would like to see evidence backing that up. Otherwise your claim is circumstantial at best If the MiG-29 manual doesn't satisfy you maybe this other source showing the same findings will
  7. It's quite conspiratorial to say that all the best sources on Soviet equipment are widely inaccurate and useless. Especially just on the feeble grounds that it's because it is Soviet. sSpeaks more to a bias against these things coming from those who say that imo. I wonder what they'd use in lieu of their own documentation to train pilots irl. *preliminary CFD* It isn't the final version And ED is mistaken, their figures for the R-27ER/ET do not match known charts/fly off ranges, but also fall below figures given in the Su-27 DLZ sim they themselves posted Ironically enough the R-27R is more inline with all known documentation and other things we know about the missile like >150m/s cut off parameters in some charts This post here proves Chizh may possibly have been misled as to what the stern WEZ of the R-27ER should look like It was also pointed out here that the R-27ER burn times and thrust are wrong because of ED's use of an odd university value built on speculation compared to information found in manuals for the Su-27 & MiG-29
  8. It would not be surprising if this is a similar case to the Su-27SM1 Where the radar is still like the older Cold War version except with the addition of A2G modes It could be a N019ME as some one else in another forum said he asked a pilot to which he said we can now see fighters further But thats just hearsay
  9. The R-27Es have issues with their kinematics and range (like lower than stated NEZ not matching charts or time of flight from DLZ sims) that hopefully will go away with a CFD
  10. ED recently showed some love for the Eagle and added the much needed wing stress. I'm sure it was harder than changing a single value for the radar please fix it
  11. I hate to be the bearer of bad news But the Serb military says it received RVV AEs, Though they did buy R-27Es as well. Possibly because that Stern NEZ/Range is still pretty good hint hint ED I agree that DCS is best kept a noughties sim in terms of top end weapons. The most adequate top Opfor threat being either a Su-30MKK or Su-30MKI Properly modeled R-27Es and R-77s are a part of that as well though
  12. Are you using a typical US Keyboard? I found Right Alt + Home works for the left engine and Left Control + Home for the right. Right Shift + Home turns on both. About your HOTAS question I find sometimes when I reinstall the game my stick has throttle bound to it as well as pitch and roll axis Have you checked to see if all your axis are in order? You need power at 0% to start engines.
  13. Are you sure you are not mistaken? The new polars you gave are not consistent with the WCS numbers See here the 900kmh 1km alt figures the NEZ is given to be 8.47km, where your mark leaves that to be less The R-27R matches the green line figures and exceeds them a little (because of the 150m/s terminal closure we know the manual graphs have. The R-27R hits declared manual ranges with that 150 m/s buffer) The figures in the Sim must shave a little off as a bit off as insurance
  14. Would you be open to the idea of using APG-70 data to fix the F-15C's under performing radar There were in fact F-15Cs that used this radar albeit a handful but it would be better than what we have now which matches no IRL eagles at all
×
×
  • Create New...