TaxDollarsAtWork

Not to knock on a junior dev like Deka too much but I do like the vapours added to the J-11A even if they may look more dated and less detailed than say those on the MiG-29 and F/A-18. I do think it would be a great idea if ED put those onto all planes that don't have them in the meantime. It certainly is a good visual cue to have in a dogfight.

Yes I remember how that happened, the Dev was a Russian national, not american and wanted to take F-16 manuals outside of the country to Georgia, this would be an ITAR violation. There was also talk of him having F-35 and F-22 manuals 'just as a hobby thing' he put it more or less and he certainly didn't make a FOIA request for that one more likely than not it would have been denied if he could. Seems like a reasonable enough pretext to send him to federal prison as that does sound like espionage. Can we really say the Redfor or FC3 planes are where they should be? We can make a huge laundry list of demands with all the bugs and features lacking not even just to the playable stuff but also about the lack of AI assets for both blue and red to fit a 2000s or 2010s battlefield. The problem is more one of neglect of the sim environment and older modules on behalf of ED. They've fallen into the same trap common to Russian Military MMOs I need not name where they rather add a new shiny toy to wave in the customers face and when they realise it is incomplete buggy and broken, release yet another one and abandon the old one rinse and repeat. I'd say the Eagle and Flanker are more a victim of the Boom bust Hype cycle than any secretive cabal of RED/BLUEfor boogiemen. Regardless, neglecting their past projects doesn't reflect well on ED what ever their reasons may be.

You hit the nail on the head, there is a reason ED chose to do the F-16 and F/A-18, and that is those are the main planes in a certain sim named after a bird of prey of the Falconidae family. It was because of constant comparisons to this game through out the years that ED was forced to acknowledge their mismodeling of missile aerodynamics and poor guidance law. Maybe what is needed is some good spirited capitalist competition (ED as a Russian company might not like that but) where a community of programmers takes a certain 1998 Novalogic flight sim named after an ancient greek simple machine. And give it a face lift bringing it into the 21st century offering high end red for aircraft simulation. That would certainly stimulate ED to finish modeling their own lot of Russian planes maybe even add more. On that note some have said here that ECM isn't useful to begin with in DCS, that might have been so a long time ago like in 2018 or 2017 when the missiles were flying air breaks with the range of a spud gun on a maneuvering bandit. But now with missiles like the AIM-54s and AMRAAMs that loft and retain their energy a thousand times better in turns than before it would massively help if ECM functioned a little more like it should. It would let you get closer and start a fight higher very important factors in BVR.

Is there a graph with that trans sonic acceleration somewhere?

I never said it was at a substantial advantage over the Eagle or anything like that, it did though present some trouble for US planers since in many ways it would be trading with enemy aircraft as if it was as good as a contemporary F-16 or F/A-18 being that it was the only Combloc fighter at the time to actually engage in BVR combat with some semblance of parity, the MiG-29s at the time are nothing but ratrod MiG-23s really without any real ability to sustain and contest air control. Posture would play a part in it too, say in a 1990s vietnam or serbia Redux scenario Flankers with R-27Es as DCA could limit the autonomy of strike packages by harassing them with longer range high energy Alamo Slavos forcing the packages to maneuver and reset turning them into mission kills further restricting Package size over the target area. Given just Russia's obsession with the F-16 one could easily make the case the Early Flankers sole purpose was to greatly limit what ever impact such an important backbone type would have in combat. I think that is worth noting.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this. The Su-27SK with R-27Es up against Teen series fighters with AIM-9Ms and AIM-120A/Bs and avionics of the 80s and 90s, is still arguably a rather even match up in most context. It does struggle against the noughties MLU types but that's par for the course for legacy avionics and weapons. As countless exercises have proven.

Hopefully its an F-4E Block 54 or 56

The RMD-1 has a FOV of 45 degrees on the rail and 60 in flight. The RMD-2 has a FOV of 60 degrees on the wing and 75 in flight. The in-game one has a FOV of 45 on the wing and 75 in flight and you can check this in the game files as OM Viz and need to convert the number from radians to degrees. Chizh has said that we have a Hybrid of both versions but will soon get 2 proper version with the RMD-2 also having better flare resistance.

An option like this isn't bad, its quite healthy for the game. Many people on this board have forgotten that what killed flight sims is the lack of transitional games like light sims and survey sims that simplify a good portion of flying and remove some of the tedium and making it less daunting and scary for new comers. The complexity of DCS is a major selling point but also a curse in regard to the game's market reach. ED has been aware of this under served market of people wanting something a cut above Ace Combat but not quite DCS A-10C II. If they break into it with MAC, fantastic it'll be for the better of the sim genre if it can bring people in asa gateway title. If they do it through varying levels of difficulty in DCS that is also fair I suppose. It would allow them to grow into the Sim and tackle the genre portion by portion. Learning to Crawl before they Walk and Run.

Whats the status on the fix? Seems to be an FC3 issue as the F-15 also suffers from it.

Radar performance more akin to a Phantom than to a Flanker... Remember its a finished module and all that...

Speed at that point even in a straight line test tells us a lot about how energetic the missile is. Maybe they wanted Mach 4 (as an exaggeration) at impact for this chart Maybe they wanted 500kmh at impact Knowing termination parameters is important to get an accurate picture of a missile's range

Yes but what speeds does the R-27 pass/hit the target at in those conditions this has to be some kind of pre-briefed shot I don't really believe this to be an R aero figure with some slack in there maybe its an E pole shot or R opt

Then the question is why doesn't my F-14 F/A-18 and F-5 randomly explode when I land on the Kuznetsov and taxi? Can we get that bug fixed? I'd really like it if the virtual russian sailors spontaneously made these planes explode in our land of make believe because thats realism or something.

Great video these visual representations are fantastic for new players Good job OP

Any Irkut Su-30 is equally welcome but I am not sure if Deka would be able to do any You would need a double (in the case of MKM & MKA Triple since you factor in the client nation) coincidence where UAC and HAL are OK with it being made Because of political sensitivities I am not sure HAL would be OK with Deka making the Su-30MKI/Etc Here's hoping Deka proves me wrong though I'd like to see it happen.

Although ED did some time ago promise to give us the new Kuznetsov for free I can understand why as a result of covid they've gone back on that. Its only natural a company has to make a buck. The problem is 50 dollars is a little steep for some considering one might only want the New Kuznetsov and not care for the Super carrier & F/A-18. Or probably already owns the Su-33 and F/A-18. I think it would be a better option to allow people to buy as much as they want or need and sell the new Kuznetsov separately like ED does with FC3 modules.

R Aero stands for the absolute maximum kinetic range on a target provided the target doesn't change direction or react at all. Usually when people mention the R-27ER has 125km range that's an R aero figure probably tested at about 15km alt. But it makes me wonder shouldn't R aero at around 10km alt be around 80km then? That's just speculation but anyway. Minimum Abort Range (MAR) is the lowest range some one can execute an abort maneuver where they turn cold and defeat any and every possible on coming launch.

But at what speed would the missiles be hitting at this 66km range? What maneuvers if any is the target doing?

Who knows maybe they'll bundle the Su-27/33 DL fix with the 'F-16 II SLEP Upgrade' for the low price of 40 dollars with added DLC some of us don't care for Just like they did with the Kuznetsov

About that part of the manual, it has been brought up a few times but do we know what the termination parameters were? Is this 65km shot considered an R aero shot or is this a MAR/E-Pole shot? We do have another chart if I'm not mistaken with fly off ranges which might help determining this but it also has the same lack of context.

Don't hold your breath, its really one of those things on indefinite hold. Originally they promised it for some time midsummer 2020 then autumn then some time around February/March of this year though they always say the F/A-18, F-16 and now Apache keeps delaying it

Only after they let us pay for modules with foodstamps

Very interesting thread and neat historical find thanks

What else do we know about the Ts100M? Based on the MiG-29S numbers can we get a decent estimation on what improved n001 detection will be like? I think dish info is out there somewhere dunno what else would be a factor