TaxDollarsAtWork

That's interesting that the missile retains that nose pointing even now that is is 'dead' because of the ability to maintain control in the post stall I guess that comes from HOBS tapes making the missile otherwise 'smart' enough to maneuver here without putting itself into an uncontrolled spin or tumbling aimlessly? Something I've always be curious about is this behaviour coming from missiles that are not the R-77 AIM-120 AIM-9X and R-73 Like missiles who's guidance law is so primitive they're susceptible to orthogonal rolls like SA-2 SA-3s Should there missiles also exhibit these characteristics of nose pointing while 'dead' and stalling?

They seriously shot this down? What nonsense. Also not sure why everyone want's an F-15A or some other nonsense that's old as dirt I for one enjoy having planes in the game not old enough to be my parents. An '04~'09 spec F-15C with APG-63v1 DL and other goodies would be my favourite or even an F-15K

I've got a feeling that neither side here knows what they're talking about when it comes to MPRF and radars I'd recommend reading some radar theory PRFs are independent of power They merely determine how long a emitting bit most importantly a listening phase will be Different PRFs are useful for gaining different pieces of information about different kinds of targets As explained in more detail in this excerpt "The use of different pulse repetition frequencies (PRFs) delivers significantly different behaviors to airborne radars. For instance, the main purpose for using low PRF is to obtain an unambiguous range measurement. However, the tradeoff when using a low PRF is that the measurement of the target's radial velocity is highly ambiguous and can result in missing some target detections. On the other hand, high PRF is used to reduce or eliminate ambiguities in the measurement of radial velocity. A high PRF, however, causes a highly ambiguous range measurement. The true range is resolved by transmitting multiple waveforms with different PRFs." MPRF tries to take the best from both worlds to deal with issues of range and velocity ambiguity And an ace up its sleeve is that last part in most MPRF radars of the 1980s and onwards It's actually using multiple MPRFs, so a slightly low MPRF, MPRF, a slightly higher one and another one higher than that and comparing all that information as quickly as possible thanks to digital components running through duty cycles quicker than its contemporaries. Why has ED refused to fix it? God knows why, this company seems to hate money A LOT. It's a simple fix for a well loved plane. Yet they rather let themselves get upstaged by a company that makes FSX mods... They really shot themselves in the foot not doing a FF F-15C I wonder what excuse they'd use, that they'd need to do have a 3rd party do it because of some Russia law Gimmie a break

I pounded 4 of these before my last match and my squadron didn't like that very much Still won, maybe we should get a coors sponsorship I'd dig a Nascar FA18

In any case I think its worth mentioning @NineLineagain to see if ED will do anything on the mater Since last time he checked in here the thread was derailed

In that case you're barking up the wrong tree. Since around late 2020, it has been ED's interpretation that these signals even in STT are discrete in how they work in digital active missiles like the AIM-120 & SD-10/PL-12 The R-77 should behave the same, or the change should be rolled back on all planes. This thread is to prove wrong the assumption that some people at ED might've had that the R-77 integration was sort of jerry rigged and almost SARH like. or maybe they just forgot. (it seems to be specific to the missile not the platform) See above

This is further substantiated by these post confirming it Here a dev talks about how R-77 usage in the J-11A and Su-30MKK manual varies very differently from a typical SARH launch And here Chizh gives us more detail about it What I also find a little perplexing about all of this @GGTharos is how I need to tell remind you of things that you conveniently forget On this page the special processor/bypass is mentioned. And on the next page you post something, with how often you lurk on that thread you obviously read this before. I'd like to see what solid evidence you have to the contrary, not speculative fiction and conjecture. But if it really is something like old age making you prone to forget, and not a case of you arguing in bad faith. Allow me to remind you to take your meds and multivitamins today sir.

N001s that can fire the R-77 have modified channels for guiding it and the symbology even is different Its not a case of having the weapon come up with R-27R symbology and WEZ and being treated as one by the FCS so you are wrong. According to EDs interpretation of it the R-77 from the J-11 it should not produce a missile launch warning until it is active Now unless you have proof for your claims go away The thread has been derailed enough

In the Russian forums they say it was tested but never adopted as a capability

There are acceleration figures given in Su-27 Birth of a legend with more exact parameters such as weight and armament Here is a video comparing the acceleration to these figures

How about asking Deka for more thorough test data like this?

Possibly this chart could be of some help? I don't think any of my information is classified.

The FM seems to be very off Like in regards to trans sonic acceleration compared to IRL This video puts a Su-27 in similar conditions to the video of that ill fated Su-30MK2 test run video and its severely off More info in the original post here How about when the Su-27 is unable to match the G figures above 600kmh in the manual? Or even Chinese test data as pointed out by a deka dev Can ED give us a straight answer. it does seem ED has over done things regarding transonic acceleration or wave drag I am not sure. The forum has quite good info Im not sure why they've ignored it

I have already fixed this issue a year ago thanks

@Flappie Any news on this

Has ED forgotten to look at this again

@uboats I wonder if Deka would fix the J-11A's DL to work like the IRL TKS-2M. That is with both peer to peer and fighter to fighter sharing between Flankers between players Since the MFI-55 update can't happen for documentation reasons. At least we have documentation on this capability, ED is too busy it seems I wonder if Deka could fix it.

Uboats has said something like that in another J11 thread yes

Currently it has less motor burn time than it aught. We are hoping the full CFD may fix somethings about it

OP is making this way harder than it needs to be for himself OP could make two custom load outs with 120Cs One for the F-16 and one for the F-15 Then check in the unit payloads file under DCS saved Games and mission editor if the CLSID for the missiles match. If the do not he can take that CLSID and look up its specifics in the Quaggle data mine to see if there's any differences in seeker FOV or anything like that

The only Russian made Sukhoi we have seen flying with indigenous A2A weapons is the PLANAF Su-30MK2s A special testing J-11A was modified to use the PL-12 according to uboats for testing purposes but who knows what that entails Bellow are the aforementioned Su-30MK2s These sources have lots of issues for example The Wikipedia article on the Su-30MKK it claims that the first deliveries are with the N001VEP radar Which is a small error compared to claiming later on that it is a PESA radar, when in reality is an MSA radar unique to the Su-30MK2 The MKK has the N001VE A lot of these other mistakes come from canceled upgrade bids offered by Sukhoi and others or just other weapons expo speculation by defense writers taken at face value as capabilities already in the field. @uboatsI'd like to know how's progress on the internal makka test bed I know ED said we can't have it but can we see screenshots? Maybe in a bit propose ED to look it over again and see if it has potential as a module Makaka is a favourite plane for some so I can't resist asking

Could we ask truthfully how important that stat really is? AMRAAMs IRL are employed by trained pilots, much more familiar with the weapon and how to best employ it. And in some cases constrained by the context of the operation. Some shots could've been defensive flows to delay pursuit from enemy fighters. The absolute myriad of different skill levels and shot context in DCS MP and SP should easily prove to ED this 'stat' is kind of worthless. Should I spam out of parameter AMRAAM shots on the deck at mach .6 on MiG-31s in space at mach 2 at 66 miles until EDs stats finally fallw below the much vaunted .6 pk to have the AMRAAM fixed according to known documentation?

I have attached two files In look down from 8500m I lost lock at 25km and lost the bandit at 30 off scope in look up I lost lock at 30km and lost contact at 35km 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 su27 look down cold high alt.trk su27 look up cold high alt.trk

Dogfighting you know Who turns tighter who has better sustained turn etc

Whats the status?