TaxDollarsAtWork

In this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/256081-su-27-and-j-11-slower-to-regain-airspeed-after-maneuvering/page/3/ There seems to be a significant discrepancy from the in game Su-27 and the Su-30M2 with regard to transonic and super sonic acceleration Do you know more about the variance and what conditions the Su-30M2 acceptance flights tend to be? Is this a flaw in the FM? The difference should be only a couple seconds according to RuAF pilots familiar with both airframes Also when can we expect the N001's radar performance to be brought up to its real world numbers according to the manual? https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/262840-n001-has-poor-lock-and-detection-ranges-compared-to-manual/

I'm curious, what information is lacking for Deka? What parts of the manual incomplete? Given their comments in other sections they know about the N001VE Is information on the L-150 Pastel lacking?

I find Yeffim to be one of those types of questionable historians writing lots of dubious claims. Not saying to entirely discount all of his research but he can be a bit of a charlatan. Most other histories of it say the La-7 was present and in force by late, first deliveries were in I believe July of '44 so they would've been there in force by the time of the Budapest offensive. As for the allied planes, I feel that the Engine settings could be increased, a bit The mustang surely needs 75inches, thats what it would've been standard by the time of the Dora and Kurfurst and the Spit I forget what engine the DCS one has as I don't own it but anywhere from 18 or 25 lbs would make sense, I lean more towards 25 because Believe thats what they were using when operating in the low countries at the time, makes our 44~45 environment in DCS more fun if we can play with engine rating more like the game that wont be mentioned

In this track I attached you can see the N001 in game is unable to perform as described in the Su-27SK manual I used a clean JF-17 in the testing since it has a 3m^2 RCS, the figure used in the manual. I tested the 8500m look up cold Locking and detection in the track The manual states Look up from 8500m COLD (MPRF) 50-55km detection 45-50km lock Look down from 8500m COLD 30 to 40km detection 30 to 35km lock I was only able to lock at about 22 to 25km in my test But I'd imagine other spots are broken as well I remember some issues at the 1000m alt If you have more information feel free to add. N001 poor MPRF.trk

For Stern WEZ you're best off going into an SP mission and shooting your missile while flying at about Mach 1 or so, holding that speed and firing. Then once the missile stalls out and hits the ground (Or goes below mach 1.2~1.5 or something) you can look in tacview to gauge how far the missile went from your plane until it stopped accelerating away. For MAR you might wanna turn on the labels and external views and set the AI up to replicate normal shot parameters like 25k ft co alt co speed Mach 1.3 launches or w/e on you and you see how much cranking and diving and what else you need to do to stay alive at some point you'll find it. Quickest way would be to look at every tacview flying on public servers, heck don't fly if you dont feel comfortable yet, just sit and let it record and watch how factors like high to low and low to high influence missile kinematic range if you're shy or something

What makes you say the Su-27SM has the same 1980s N001 and not an upgraded N001V

Re read my post it states the J-11A has the RVV AE in addition to the usual RuAF Su-27S weapons. It doesn't use the exact same N001E found in the Su-27SK, the 27SM1 & 30MKK use the N001VE with improved detection as a result of the french processor replacing the obsolescent Ts100 and adds new modes such as MTI. Aside from that the plane has a better RWR. The L-150 Pastel which has interesting utility and cohesion with ARMs in the same fashion the ALR-67v3 on the F/A-18C in DCS does on an MFD (Think EW page) For air to ground the plane would also have new guided missiles and bombs, such as EO Bombs, EO guided Missiles such as Kh-29Ts and Kh-59Ms, and ARM Kh-31Ps in addition to all the unguided stuff

No RuAF or PLAAF Flanker has AMRAAMs, I am not quite sure what you mean by this. If you want to say the J-11B is equivalent to the 27SM fair enough I suppose but that is not the one in game. That one uses indigenous Chinese missiles only. The J-11A in DCS is just a home built Su-27SK using the usual complement of 90s Russian missiles and the RVV AE. As for the Su-30MKK/MK2 they operate about a little over one hundred of them. A smaller quantity yes but not an insignificant amount this doesn't detract from them being put into service as a result of being superior to the SK and its still a sizeable fleet. You can read more about their reasoning here https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/china/ChinaPerspectives-4.pdf Other countries have opted for MKKs and SKMs for similar reasons.

Dunno how you can say a Su-27SK is interchangeable with a Su-27SM1. China literally dropped its follow on orders of Su-27SK' to instead receive more Su-30MKK/MK2s which have mostly the same avionics suite and improved radars & RWR of the Su-27SM, clearly not a case of them being the same plane effectively. On that note China was an early adopter of that modernization, why so few units from the PLA's inventory?

I'm curious as to why you keep saying that. The current FM doesn't take into account the 3g pull at maximum range as laid out in the chart since it was treated as an R aero figure when it wasn't, something you acknowledged. You've also mentioned it would get a new more efficient autopilot and the improved drag modeling will mean it retains energy better in turns, which means better effective range against maneuvering targets. Would you please elucidate as to where exactly is the bad part of the update? I ask because I'm curious what other aspects of the missile are over modeled.

FC3 as defined by ED'S own terms should be no more different in how authentically core capabilities are modeled from FF planes. The interaction with them though should be only through keybinds not actually clicking on it. They can fully model them by starting to Fix errors and bugs in FC3 and bring the planes up to the standard they promised. If they couldn't do it right like they said the first time with FC3 why should I trust ED to do it right in FF?

https://docuri.com/download/us-air-forcedoc_59c1e0f0f581710b2869dcaf_pdf Page 47 and 48 mention in greater detail what the AIM-9S is, "AIM-9S was a Raytheon-developed AIM-9L modification for FMS. Contains most features of the AIM-9M, except for IRCCM. These include an improved seeker and the low-smoke motor. Flight testing began in mid-1990, and 300 were approved for sale to Saudi Arabia in 1992." Other sources say more or less the same thing

Well if they make a plane that is simply too redundant making it a poor value proposition I can see them misinterpret that as "Russian planes don't sell" If we see a Russian plane after this, it's because of the bug numbers the Mi-24 reeled in not the MiG

I understand people want it, people want lots of things but its more reasonable to better allocate time and resources elsewhere. I didn't say the promised to make FC3 planes FF, I said they promised to fully model them. And I'm not keen on having another EA module draw attention away from core issues in the game. Like primitive AI and EW modeling. Lack of Dynamic Campaign and IADS. Bug fixes for FC3 and other planes and helicopters. I'm sure I mentioned every FC3 radar is grossly under modeled? When I say redundant I'm talking about what it offers as a sim experience, not its ability to dance with 4.5gen Blue air. DCS has a lot of peculiar planes like TF51s and L39s but they fill some niche and I just think that factoring in that the MiG-29A exist as a FC3 module they're only shooting themselves in the foot more or less with the FF one. It won't have that extra oomf compared to its FC3 brother to make people pay the big bucks. This isn't at all like A-10C v A-10A. I'm not against an old plane at all. But they could have probably chosen a more unique project if they really wanted to. Like in my opinion the Su-24MK.

Thats exactly how I want the later 9Ms implemented into the sim.

These late model AIM-9Ms? They certainly exist I can link some more references tomorrow http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/12025/fms%3A-sidewinder-missiles-for-hungary-(oct.-1).html http://www.designation-systems.info/dusrm/m-9.html

Are there actual plans for a real AIM-9S (could be implemented as an AIM-9M with 9P levels of CCM) and even later AIM-9Ms like the -8/9 not just early 80s -2 and -3?

My original post towards you was actually in response to this post,

I'm seeing a lot of people attacking Maximus' position as being unreasonable. Seems like sound thinking to me, why encourage ED to make a FF version of a module it already has available to consumers. Especially when other aspects of the game go neglected? FC3 and the MiG itself has a myriad of bugs that go one unfixed because they claim its already a finished product. So you want to pay them more to do what they couldn't do but promised to the first time around? Not to mention delivered even slower if it does come since its a small company with many projects? Have I mentioned its grossly redundant too in what its offering? Telling ED it should not bite off more than it can chew seems pretty reasonable if you ask me.

Quantity is nice and all that but remember the Serbs had about a dozen Fulcrums during allied force, compared to the rest of their airforce? A drop in the bucket, what are the odds am I right? But what ended up happening was NATO planes still managed to come into contact with and blow up half the fleet of Fulcrum. What do you reasonably expect the enemy to do, bury their heads in the sand and not use their modern kit when the war finally comes around, depending the severity they're more likely than not to going to try to use them. Its an option that should be on the table for people making scenarios. It's a worthwhile addition as AI. Plus OPFOR isn't exclusively Russia, China is a big one with near peer capabilities that it would be fun to see more units from(Deka could use a hand finish that ED). Other Asian countries have lots of Russian built types that could potentially be adversaries in a what if proxy war (Marianas anyone?) Like to stay on topic somewhat. Indonesia has export Su-27SM1s and has long been a thorn in the side of MNNAs like Australia and Malaysia-Singapore Heck a Su-30MK might even be an ALLIED asset depending what you're simming

When the launch is sus!

At the heart of the Su-27SM1 and Su-30MKK its mostly mid a mid to late 90s MLU to an existing plane And info exist out there its why deka got a manual for a Su-30MKK and there are even some 29SMT ones out there Could be done as a Low Fi module

Probably the most important part for me

Well I figure if they had better radars and missiles at the very least they wouldn't get flexed on as hard I find the Su-30 just too easy to Short Skate and go banzai on because of the R-27ER being SARH (And it not really using multi-ship tactics to get the most of it) and how weak the kinematics of the RVV AE especially when compared to the AIM-120C5 Would still be a stupid AI but shooting PL-12s and R-77-1s I reckon it would be more fun than now

Those are early 90s planes at best and pushovers in my F/A-18, I want to fight against a Su-30SM type plane or a MiG-31BM AI, other sims have those types of planes. Lesser sims one could argue...why can't ED do the same?