TaxDollarsAtWork

Might not be the right place but I hope Deka devs might give us some insights into the pros and cons of the J-10 vs the Flanker family IRL Who has better sustained turn performance What game plans do J-10 and J-11 pilots prefer, angles or energy etc interesting things about the J-10s performance up close All other info is welcome too if you have excerpts from documentaries etc

compare your 900kmh 1km cold shot range to the WEZ sims numbers in the same paramters Why so all that testing can get ignored again by Chizh/ED? We've posted this test countless times since the preliminary CFD what can I say except lurk more new friend

Did you not just see my post? The ranges you gave are lower than the sim

Here page 187 it talks about the fuel fraction and burn time 7500kg of peak thrust burns for 8.6 ~ 11 seconds Don't believe me yet find a copy here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2378427/ Also again Chizh you posted that corrected graph of yours but you are not an authority on the R-27E I am willing to accept some flaws in the chart, from my experience with older American ones its usually on the edges/certain flanking shots etc Yet these are always most accurate at Head on and in tail on paramters Something interesting is that at the Su-27 SUV Sim seems to always fall short by 15% ish percent in these spots too This is because it has greater built in safety margins as pointed out by other ED staff but Chizh refuses this to be true His own points even disagree with the DLZ sim Your new points also look a little suspect as they seem to make a perfect circle Most WEZ diagrams of this nature are like ovals shifted forward and with a gentler couture in the front and more dramatic one in the rear obviously shifted forward in a way so they have more range head on than in the rear the R-27R matches its manual's graphs with the 150m/s provision But the R-27ER can't even match the DLZ sim figures with that provision So why is that? Even on page 450 Maestro agrees a fully CFD'd missile should see improvements in the low alt stern NEZ department

Id like to remind you of an old proverb. One swallow doesn't make a summer, especially if that swallow is very old... If you have have actual evidence saying these manuals and graphs are truly as errant as you claim I would like to see evidence backing that up. Otherwise your claim is circumstantial at best If the MiG-29 manual doesn't satisfy you maybe this other source showing the same findings will

It's quite conspiratorial to say that all the best sources on Soviet equipment are widely inaccurate and useless. Especially just on the feeble grounds that it's because it is Soviet. sSpeaks more to a bias against these things coming from those who say that imo. I wonder what they'd use in lieu of their own documentation to train pilots irl. *preliminary CFD* It isn't the final version And ED is mistaken, their figures for the R-27ER/ET do not match known charts/fly off ranges, but also fall below figures given in the Su-27 DLZ sim they themselves posted Ironically enough the R-27R is more inline with all known documentation and other things we know about the missile like >150m/s cut off parameters in some charts This post here proves Chizh may possibly have been misled as to what the stern WEZ of the R-27ER should look like It was also pointed out here that the R-27ER burn times and thrust are wrong because of ED's use of an odd university value built on speculation compared to information found in manuals for the Su-27 & MiG-29

It would not be surprising if this is a similar case to the Su-27SM1 Where the radar is still like the older Cold War version except with the addition of A2G modes It could be a N019ME as some one else in another forum said he asked a pilot to which he said we can now see fighters further But thats just hearsay

The R-27Es have issues with their kinematics and range (like lower than stated NEZ not matching charts or time of flight from DLZ sims) that hopefully will go away with a CFD

ED recently showed some love for the Eagle and added the much needed wing stress. I'm sure it was harder than changing a single value for the radar please fix it

Bump Has ED forgotten FC3?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news But the Serb military says it received RVV AEs, Though they did buy R-27Es as well. Possibly because that Stern NEZ/Range is still pretty good hint hint ED I agree that DCS is best kept a noughties sim in terms of top end weapons. The most adequate top Opfor threat being either a Su-30MKK or Su-30MKI Properly modeled R-27Es and R-77s are a part of that as well though

Are you using a typical US Keyboard? I found Right Alt + Home works for the left engine and Left Control + Home for the right. Right Shift + Home turns on both. About your HOTAS question I find sometimes when I reinstall the game my stick has throttle bound to it as well as pitch and roll axis Have you checked to see if all your axis are in order? You need power at 0% to start engines.

Are you sure you are not mistaken? The new polars you gave are not consistent with the WCS numbers See here the 900kmh 1km alt figures the NEZ is given to be 8.47km, where your mark leaves that to be less The R-27R matches the green line figures and exceeds them a little (because of the 150m/s terminal closure we know the manual graphs have. The R-27R hits declared manual ranges with that 150 m/s buffer) The figures in the Sim must shave a little off as a bit off as insurance

Would you be open to the idea of using APG-70 data to fix the F-15C's under performing radar There were in fact F-15Cs that used this radar albeit a handful but it would be better than what we have now which matches no IRL eagles at all

It just happened I'd want to say over almost a year now, it was mentioned in this thread when it did happen. I was hoping by the time I caught a break from classes ED would've elaborated more on the change but there seems to be no mention of it. And I agree these things should be consistent across the board.

This is the same basic principle at work with the AIM-120 & SD-10. ED since about a year and half ago has decided to go with the interpretation that this M link is either too ambiguous for RWRs to perceive being about them, or well concealed enough in the beam's pulse train. Now why the difference in DCS?

If you have proof that it uses CW from the Fighters radar please post it.

Teen series aircrafts and the JF17 do not work like this. You can even put SD10s on the J11 and it'll only give you a launch warning when the missile goes active

Many good points were raised here on the FM Has ED acknowledged that there are some issues that need to be looked at Some discrepancies with documentation and in game performance

Is there any proof that the R-77 needs to use PDI or other CW illumination when fired? In STT it produces a launch warning (before the missile has gone active) when ED has moved modern digital actives away from that interpretation

According to ED's current interpretation M link generation is apparently discrete enough to not spook targets in TWS or STT for these types of missiles since its not CW So ED should be consistent and fix this though it seems to be just an R-77 issue not a J-11/MiG-29 one

This is not the only bug this thread is about though

When firing the R-77 in STT the enemy receives a missile launch warning when this should only happen when the missile seeker has gone active. If I'm not mistaken this is how other digital actives are modeled in game such as the PL-12 and AMRAAM Until then the target should only see it is being locked. Is this a problem with the Radars in game turning the CW Illuminator on or going into PDI on even though the R-77 does not need it Please let me know if this is an N019 / N001 bug or feature

Its been a while I think ED should review both F-15 Pylon drag (seems to be an over all DCS issues those pylons) and this issue with the Flanker

Could this be the source of the poor transonic acceleration in game compared to the Su-30MK2 video?