TaxDollarsAtWork

So correct me if I am wrong but when the N001 fires an R-27R/RE the radar doesn't emit the DL and SARH signal at the same time from the start of the launch and the missile chooses which to use Or does it emit both signals at once and the missile chooses which is appropriate based on what the seeker sees?

They could at least work to make FC3 aircraft feature complete Many things are lacking and they show now inclination to implement these capabilities despite being present in almost every serving example, such as the Eagle's underperforming radar and ED's refusal to add peer to peer fighter DL on the Flanker TKS Meanwhile F-16s get HARMs on hardpoints USAF ground crews say it isn't possible?

DCS has some odd bugs at the minute for starters the APG-68v5 is behaving more in line with say an APG-68v9 or APG-73, And the F-15C for one reason or another has the exact same radar detection values as an N001E, If they ever do decide to make an F-15C with an APG-63v1, MIDS, JHMCS, PADs and other niceties it would be more in line with peoples expectations of the plane

I think that was the idea with Deka's J-11A MFI-55 update It would be welcome I'd say

I think there is still much confusion In summary at least how I interpreted what was said by the Devs, In the earl 90s to maybe early 2000s very little to none EWR / AWACS that could feed the Su-27SK/J-11A DL was around in China though the capability remained on the planes The problem arises in that the EWRs and AWACS regardless of compatibility feed the Flankers. I feel an easy work around would be an option to disable TKS DL but keep (the yet to be implemented; wink wink nod nod Deka) fighter to fighter and peer to peer modes Similar to how MIDS can be turned off in options

I think I'm tired of waiting I gotta find a sim where the Russian planes are much more than clay shooting pigeons and rock adders bravos and actual LONG BURN Alamos Dunno about you doc, this turkey shoot along with lack of dynamic campaign and tricky IADS makes the game a snooze Peace out

Doing wind tunnel testing out of the country isn't unheard of at all. The Avro Arrow was wind tunnel tested in the US a bit, that doesn't really make it an American design though. Its about the same as loaning or renting a calculator. Don't see the issue here

I don't doubt this but can you link the page from the manual so we can make a bug report and bring proper attention to this and other Su-27/33 bugs

Even as a lay person on the subject of aerodynamics I don't understand how a longer fuselage could be seen as a bad thing as long as the plane can in with a combat load and maybe mid mission fuel state achieve a decently aft enough cg I may be misunderstanding this but its desirable especially in a canard design as the cg shift moving aft increases instability and also increases forward canard volume, both advantages working to enhance the planes nose pointing capabilities and load/unload times

You said this would be possible depending available information, what information would you need? Radar specs? RWR info? Avionics logic?

I think you guys are reading a bit too much into it, Think a little fellas, ED has always said it isn't out of the question for a third party to do such a plane but its tricky for them. Now let's put on a tinfoil hat for a second and think, If I had to wager to guess; why would the Russian MoD give potentially sensitive data to a company with close ties to western militaries and in some part run by a former CIA dude, on types like the Su-27SM Su-30M2 etc which only recently went out of production? Back on topic I would be very happy if they gave us something like along the lines of a Su-27SK/SM or Su-30M2 Possibly even a partially upgraded Su-33 FF to be sold in a pack with the Kuznetsov face lift and Syria map

A long time ago I think ED said it wanted to do a Su-27SM or Su-27S, what happened to that

ED should consider adding this to DCS It could be done through a knee board similar to laser codes are changed in the F-5E

Something I am confused by is why the DCS manual state the radar is an APG-63v1 yet ED is only contemplating giving it 70s radar performance that would be 2 ~ 3 generations behind where it should be Couldn't they use these figures as a base and play with numbers in their formula till it could reach detection ranges as laid out by some reputable source's estimate parameters like a Jane's publication Along with other avionics tweaks

Well on one hand the F-22 is a noughties aircraft which happens to be contemporaneous with our F/A-18 and F-16 and also happens to be out of production But on the other hand the F-35 seems about as tailored to the export market as say the F-16 and JF-17 so there is a distinct possibility for either :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Would be interesting as well to see AIM-9P and AIM-7E4s on Teen series planes where applicable as well

I'd rather ask for a Su-27SKM / Su-30MKK first and if that can't be had a Su-27M or Su-27SK could be fine last ditch efforts

If the Su-30MKK proves to be too ambitious a pursuit for Deka, could a full fidelity later J-11A with MFI-55 in full fidelity be an option? Or even an early model without the MFI-55/extra screen? That would certainly lack and MFD.

While the soviet era MiG-29M & Su-27M certainly provide an interesting avenue to explore I do firmly believe they should test the waters with either a Su-27SKM or Su-27SK Particularly the later as quite a lot is known of its avionics capabilities and was much more widely exported and used than a Soviet era MiG-29M and Su-27M

I agree with that in a sense WW2 lacks a lot of supporting assets and its best to work from May of '45 backwards to increase overlap

I believe you are mistaken, the bug is not the delay it between pushing the button and getting a launch It is that right after the missile is launched on a target it stays on a linear path longer than it should In game that means it flies one to one second and a half in the safe linear mode before homing into the target, when it should only do this for .4 seconds before it maneuvers for its bandit, in accordance with the Su-27SK manual

Can we also expect updates on how the work is progressing similar to how the F/A-18 progress was tracked and predicted?

They keep telling us MP is only 10% of the community and refuse to believe anyone buys FC3 because they actually like Eagles and Flankers etc Lets hope they at least bother to Fix the F-15Cs bugs at this point

While yes there are lots of Cold war aircraft, what happens in MP is that usually the only slots filled are those of the most modern and capable fighters. Not that its a bad thing, its rather natural that people want to use the MIDS AIM-120C5 AIM-9X JDAM JSOW and so on. What happens next is no one wants to fly the Opfor and then you get a mirror match Hornet vs Hornet Or NATO vs NATO planes (ground units), this goes for both air quake servers and dynamic campaign ones. While aircraft like the JF-17 do somewhat alleviate the game would be best served if it had more planes like it as well as higher lethality ground units. Even from the perspective of Blueair more modern redfor units AI or playable air or ground allows a greater variety of scenarios to sim The redfor units don't have to be peer assets themselves since this isn't about balance, many new 2000s era chinese and russian systems were not at all, its about creating an eviornment that allows of a depiction of both 1980s 90s and 2000s Russia China and other client states

For most if not all A2A action you always have the important controls bound on your HOTAS its not much different in scaning locking using CMs etc in a FF and FC3 plane Makes for the the same enjoyment of the PVP air aspect