TaxDollarsAtWork

When does the new patch with the CFD ER drop?

No because other cleaner official graphs say the same thing

Must explain why they went with a sleeker less boxy design on later models, planform alignment perhaps?

This might jog your memory a bit Use this link for more context if you're still need more context on the episode two months ago my friend. https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/miqzdf/we_all_like_consistency_and_standards_right_well/

You know, I have been thinking about this for some time, remember that incident where you redrew official R-27ER graphs in the manual to your own interpretation with a blue pen. Swore up and down the draftsmen were wrong and then now the graphs were kosher again. How do you explain that? Questioning what should be the most authoritative source? Or even, you being the only person in ED who seems to think the P2P shouldn't be on the Flanker as a result of game balance To me that looks like one sided behaviour unless you can share information on why that source is suspect or how an outrageously small number of the Su-27S/P in service actually have such F2F DL capabilities.

For some its because of the PLA Representation in DCS W

I am inclined to agree with you here, this doesn't change the fact it didn't have Link 16 for most of the 80s and 90s, the version which ED is modeling Also it would appear that your statements on the Su-27 DL seem to go against the party line for whatever reason I hope you understand I have no horse in this race either way (I'd only be biased if he had an F-35 ), I'd like consistency on behalf of ED on how it models its aircraft. Please make all aircrafts as true to their real life counter parts as possible.

You are mistaken the Elmendorf Eagle's had the APG-63v2, the rest of the fleet got the v3 later on. Back onto the topic of JTIDS I do believe you lack the full picture to talk about such things http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf15_1.html This source explicitly mentions "Provision for a "Joint Tactical Information Display System (JTIDS)" datalink, to be fitted later. However, JTIDS was cancelled in 1989. " If this source does not satisfy you how about official USAF Documentation? https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=448394 Snippets worth discussing. From page 18 from page 19 34 aircraft with JTIDS until superseded by MIDS LVT in 2004 @Chizh

I wonder why that logic didn't carry over to the F/A-18 and F-16? Maybe because its a Simulator? In spite of that, its a capability that exist irl in the plane being modeled, why is it not present? When will it be present. It is present in SP I might add.

Compared to real life J-11A numbers how do you see the planes time to climb and acceleration figures particularly transonic acceleration

The TVC stuff would be cool to see as an Easter egg on the J-11 or as a mod!

That's crazy, didn't ask though. So will you fix the radar detection issues in the F-15 and Su-27 like I mentioned earlier?

That's what I thought as well, though if it was just that they'd probably tell us flat out there is no hope for the module. Seems like they're teasing us and I'm excited to possibly see the Su-30MKK/MK2 by Deka. Would be a day 1 preorder

Obviously being Russian doesn't make them experts on Russian RWRs and what they are installed in. One still needs to look at the historical context of the information at hand, through out the 1990s western discussion and knowledge on the Flankers was mired in myth legend and rumours of projected capabilities being standard in the fleet. People were believing things as nonsensical as rear-facing radar, backwards firing missiles, and Flanker launched Buk missiles to shoot down AWACS. Might I remind you we're having this discussion because of something some one possibly pulled from an old Jane's publication from the peak of flanker hysteria. Given how often it comes up in the Russian forums I'm more inclined to believe the Su-33 was partially receiving a more sensitive SPO-15 based complex 'Freon' with the ability to display on the IPV or Ecran, than I am to believe it was the L-150 all along. And that because of its issues it was quickly superseded in service and relegated to being a brief footnote in history. Though it doesn't hurt to be skeptical of this claim as well I'm more skeptical of yours for the reasons I laid out here. What am I arguing? You said partial SPO-15 installation wasn't a thing (instead that it was partial L-150 installation) when it is explicitly mentioned it was SPO-15 Blocks. If you meant to say, had no functioning RWR then say that, it is a different statement from 'had no RWR' as part of the set was in the aircraft albeit in a mostly non-functioning manner

Weak radar detection, similar issue to what the F-15 has https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/262840-n001-has-poor-lock-and-detection-ranges-compared-to-manual/

No, you are wrong and I find it surprising how wrong you are given that you were a party to the discussions that threw the information around It may not have been the Pastel because in this post he mentions the RWR in question he was talking about is the Freon. On the topic of the Freon another poster shed's some light on what it was since you might've forgotten It was an already existing RWR system that borrowed some of the SPO-15s components possibly the more sensitive and accurate antennas but was able to better process a wider range of threats and display it better. He explicitly mentions Ecran/HDD display of this information. Since you didn't read it last time I will share again where he explicitly says there were blocks of the SPO-15 installed and later on talks about how some if it worked most of it didn't. This puts another hole in your partial Pastel theory. Now I will be the first to say I am not infallible, I can get things wrong and I do not know everything. But I do know more than to take dated 90s weapons expo info & Jane's to the bank as the word of god straight from mount sinai. If any of what I said was wrong please go ahead, prove me wrong. It would make my day to learn something new.

So this recently surfaced Does this mean work has started? @uboats

No, you are wrong. Mentions of the Su-33 having no RWR are hyperbole. Russian Pilots say that early in its life some were delivered without it and some delivered with parts of the system installed (albeit non functioning) because of problems with the wing folding mechanism and wiring. It was after a period of overhauls it was made to work somewhat it seems.

It is the top down tactical display mode of the radar picture The Flanker in game has it

If they're simple enough to implement I'd like them for the novelty and to experiment planes like the MiG-29 might get more use out of them given how weak that radar is by comparison

The Kh-31A requires certain air to ground and sear search modes not present on the vanilla N001 You would need an N001 with "P" in the name as that denotes air to surface capability, so a N001VP/VEP equiped Flanker could use it (Think Su-27SM family or Su-30MKK/MK2s. They use these radars) The Kh-31P needs the L-150 Pastel RWR to work with, the in game Su-33 is modeled after a 1990s one with an SPO-15. Some time in 2004 they were upgraded with the L-150 but apparently not made fully compatible with the Kh-31P though people in the Russian forums do say it was trialed. Although a humbler upgrade a noughties Su-33 with the better RWR, Glonas assisted SVP-24 CCRP and the ability to possibly carry LGBs for ground forces or friendlies to lase would be cool. Or at least the R-73 RMD-2 and the one after that

Late 70s Soft-wing F-4E.

-1 Add takt mode to the 29

I do believe you may be missing the point of my post. What I am saying is the radar being modeled as a 70s F-15A would be anachronistic And should be modeled on APG-70 63v1 or PSP/MSIP figures at the very least if possible. To reflect capabilities of the eagle fleet of the era. Please reread my post I'm sure I made this clear I am also curious as to what ED thinks about giving the FC3 air-crafts a Velocity search mode

ED still needs to address the inconsistency in the manual it says 63v1 So while adjusting it to a 1970s 63 or a 80s PSP would be technically still 'wrong' Could ED in the future adjust it to have detection ranges like an APG-70 using (what might be) Razbams speculative APG-70 data and change the manual to say APG-70 as well? As I understand a handful of C eagles did get the -70, so it wouldn't be an anachronism and still reflect the improvements in radar the eagle fleet had in the later half of the 20th century compared to its introduction.