TaxDollarsAtWork

That is the crux of the issue, these bugs have yet to be fixed after what how long? The most pressing of which being the Radar detection and the DLs

He was arrested for an ITAR violation. He was not a US Citizen, none of the right people OK'ed the exchange of the manual to him, and he wanted to take it to Georgia or Russia. I could see why they threw him in prison. Rumour also had it he was trying to get F-22/35 manuals just for his collection. But those are just rumours. Regardless other sims like early 90s and late 80s Falcon games had MiG-29 AIs to fight its not like you need the same information to make a FF one to make an AI only adversary. Unclass information for J-11s Su-30SMs and so on should be more than enough. Or do you expect me to believe they got actual F-117 info when they put it as an AI in the game

They commented and said something along the lines of Chaff being too powerful at the moment because they couldn't really model Chaff+ECM effectiveness the way they wanted to A few months ago they tried to play around with it but it brought about weird ECM related bugs All we can hope for is some kind of better EW emulation like the a certain sim which won't be named

Thats interesting doesn't fall in line with what other ED people have said

That was effectively just an early Su-30MKK

That argument would work, if it wasn't that the 27 DL didn't exist at all in DCS, it does exist in SP. It didn't exist then in MP because of coding limitations, now it can exist. Clearly when it was made a feature like that wasn't seen as something that could be omitted like canopy deicing or something like that

Check where it talks about Standard System Modeling https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/#1512209 It being FC3 doesn't mean it should be any less authentic in capabilities depicted, only that the interaction is done through keybinds not switch flips Otherwise the FC3 planes would retain fictional capabilities like R-27EAs Kh31s and other things they once had

The K would be identical to the base line Su-30. The Su-27 in FC3 is an 80s Soviet S model it can't use the R77. Won't comment on the 90s Su-30M you posted since I don't think Deka or ED will do tech demo/flying g laboratory planes and things tend to change given what customer they were trying to cater to.

You should look into it. The F15C manual says its a 63v1, it is considerably off to even be the F15As radar. And the N001 and N019 have nearly half the look down detection they should have. Your example is fine but the current implementation is at odds with what ED said the product would be. And even their own definitions

FC3 is supposed to be a simplified interaction with the systems It doesn't justify having severely underperforming radars for starts and lacking abilities core to the aircrafts kit

It has given me the thought there could at some point later be a DPRK Assets pack, should Korea ever get added as a terrain H5s would fit there

I think some people are overstating the ability of the RVV AE. It by no means is a match against the 120C5. And on the same note many people are overlooking a key fact, the MiG-29A's poor weapons load. It will be limited to R-27Rs R-73s and R-60s No R-27ER/ET or base line T. The R-27ER and ET, ER especially are some rather strong tools and its because of those missiles performance that the Su-27 can compete vs current bluefor if restricted to 1990s weapons (so AIM-9M, 120A/B) in a many vs many encounter (2v2+) Something like a Su-27SK if you ask me better pleases both those fans of the 1980s 1990s+ Air combat. So it makes more sense to go down that path imo

The Su-30(27Pu/30K), has no new A2G weapons over a Su-27S. It was originally going to be a PVO Flanker with air to air refueling capabilities and the ability to work as a flying DL relay station for other Su-27P and MiG-31s in the air. The Su-27SK which is essentially our J-11 can use the RVV AE. Its why I think its the most reasonable choice if we can't get a Su-30MKK. I could see though why some people are interested in 2 seat planes like the Su-30K or Su-27UBK. Not me personally, its a mark against the plane for me. I can't share my toys.

At that point they could just try and do a Su-27SK/J-11A FF Wouldn't need to find info about the second seat

Quite a lot for the most part Radars lack of certain DLs and displays Certain panels and how they work

So instead of finishing the current MiG-29 or finishing all the other FC3 planes We're getting a FF MiG-29A. Why exactly? If they hope to con shmucks into paying 80 dollars for another EA module that's gonna be even more incomplete than the FC3 version for the next 3 to 5 years just so they can get off to feeling like a virtual shooting clay that is wonderfully optimistic of them. Still think they should have gone with a MiG-29K to please the boat boys or a more humble Su-27SK, either would have been a more sound investment.

F-22 Gripen Su-30MKI F-111F stuff like that

The avionics can not be discounted, the Sukhoi depends a lot on the Kinematics of the R-27ER, and being able to shoot farther and hold a better lock would make it stronger, I think that the biggest thing it brings, is multirole capability in a fast mover Being able to bring BVR missiles Anti Radiation missiles Bombs rockets and precision guided munitions all in one sortie on a sukhoi would be a huge leap forward

The missile reaches the parameters in the chart but only barely, by almost stalling onto the target When in reality at the max range it (in the chart) should still have some provisions to pull 2 to 3 G at the end for a few seconds Edit: On the topic of charts, which ones did ED use when making the 1990s R-77? And could they share it? I've seen people argue that a chart saying a max range of 50km and one of like 90km are correct. It would be nice to have for when the CFD rolls out we can have before and after measurements comparing it to the source material

The R-27ER in DCS does not match the figures on the range table.

When the drag coefficients are too high and the missiles range chart was misinterpreted resulting in an inaccurate missile. How exactly would it get worse? Knowing that its drag values need to go down and that the chart wasn't an R aero figure but one that allowed 3gs at the end. Safe to say it will only get better right?

I do not deny the authenticity of the AMRAAM CFD. When they say out range I'm guessing this means that despite the AIM-120s ability to fly out further aerodynamically (through lofting and even without) in terms of effective range against contemporary 4th gen fighters the Alamo Charlie by virtue of being able to sustain a higher speed longer and have it time out before say the AMRAAM becomes a factor the launch aircraft in some conditions. To put it in a simpler example say we have 2 missiles Type A and Type B Type A flys out to 50km at Mach 2 all the way Type B flys out to 43km at Mach 3.5 all the way If an Eagle firing Type B at an Eagle firing Type A at say 35km The guy firing the Type A missile will have to defend harder earlier compared to the guy firing type B meaning that the Type B effectively has better turn signaling range And while yes the US did not go with an air-breathing missile the US did go to the AIM-120C5 with a larger motor which is boost only iirc and this would fall in line with the thinking making the C AMRAAM fly at a faster speed longer and reduce its time to impact and increase the NEZ. Things that would nullify advantages of the R-27ER in many spots like even the 6~10nm pre merge / outer merge range probably even in longer range turn signaling shots. That is at least how I understand it based on what I have seen and read.

We've learned more on what the VVS/RuAF considers as .7 PK a shot The assumption that the R-27ER range chart is an Rmax figure was incorrect, it has a provision for being able to maneuver about 2 to 3g at the end according to a former RuAF pilot. So it has a similar provision at the end as like an AIM-7 chart like you mentioned before its an R opt/Rpi graph. This should be an important consideration moving forward when ED makes a CFD of the missile @Chizh I also wonder, do similar semi circle charts exist for the RVV AE and R-73? I've seen some different types claiming to be R aero figures but I am not sure if they're legitimate.

He wasn't a retired pilot (If you're talking about the Su-30 brief he was talking to a romm of retired pilots though), I could understand saying that he might not have the full picture since he was a support person on the ground that view point though isn't unique to him alone though. The sim is built upon unclass information, sure its possible one guy might misspeak and say the R-27ER out ranges the 120B when he meant the R-31. But why do multiple sources and pilots say the R-27ER has better range than the AIM-120B? Like this one? https://www.flightglobal.com/terminal-velocity/4498.article