TaxDollarsAtWork

I would also like to see corrected radar detection for the APG-63 and N001 in the coming MAC

Will MAC Allow Peer to Peer and Fighter to Fighter Contact sharing between clients in MP (with the Flanker family) Will radar detection bugs be addressed with the Su-27/33 J-11 & F-15C?

No, in my first post I said they were older entries.

You'd enlighten more people by showing how a certain couple of ED employees bicker with and berate SMEs on the Russian forum.

Possibly, not sure they're allowed to change that part of the code.

A little dishonest to say the AIM-7M is some OP God's missile pepin, considering its range is underperforming compared to IRL data.

Recovery is possible, the sooner the better I found. You want to induce as much pitching up and down as possible then start imputing right roll left rudder and vice versa you will eventually catch the nose down keep it down and recover. Its all about building up as much oscillation pitch wise

I did some digging into the files, I found two entries that I found interesting. R_73__AA_11_Archer____Infra_Red = {"clsid": "{FBC29BFE-3D24-4C64-B81D-941239D12249}", "name": "R-73 (AA-11 Archer) - Infra Red", "weight": 110} *R_73__AA_11_Archer____Infra_Red_ = {"clsid": "{CBC29BFE-3D24-4C64-B81D-941239D12249}", "name": "R-73 (AA-11 Archer) - Infra Red", "weight": 110} R_77__AA_12_Adder____Active_Rdr = {"clsid": "{B4C01D60-A8A3-4237-BD72-CA7655BC0FE9}", "name": "R-77 (AA-12 Adder) - Active Rdr", "weight": 175} *R_77__AA_12_Adder____Active_Rdr_ = {"clsid": "{B4C01D60-A8A3-4237-BD72-CA7655BC0FEC}", "name": "R-77 (AA-12 Adder) - Active Rdr", "weight": 250} These are the CLSIDs for the base game R-73 & 77 and the new ones are represented with an asterisk I tested the gimbals and range, they're pretty much identical it does give weird hardpoints that either clip into things float or are redundant A2G hard points

Their CCM values are the same as the AIM-9M and other contemporaries from the era the 9X is considerably better, scroll to the bottom, this has the Counter Measure Rejection values from when they were viewable before 2.7 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r3vEbiLWu_riHekhnd8JVUUw-cYqHoif/view ccm_k0 is what you're looking for the lower the number the better the rejection is and iirc it should be logarithmic too

This is almost like not having pitch dampeners on say an F-5 Issue that needs to be addressed not a case of L2P

It's been in game for a while, performance wise its mostly the same last I played with it on a modded plane. Does remind me, the in game version is the RMD-1 (both radio and laser fused ones), our planes should also be compatible with the RMD-2, according to RuAF pilots introduced some time in 1995 featuring improved IRCCM and 60/75 deg gimbals. It's been requested to ED and acknowledged, we just don't know when

With the FA18 getting adjusted, can ED focus on this as well?

Issue persist, tested look up MPRF detection at 8500m Lost lock at 30km lost contact at 35km JF17 test 8500m n001 look up.trk

Yes but I do believe trying to make an Irkut Su-30 out of it doesn't fee right. Chasing capabilities for the sake of capabilities, even if anachronistic goes against the core tenants of simming, keeping it real and believable. Making it able to use Domestic Chinese weapons like on the MK2 makes a lot of sense because it allows for simulating the most common Heavy Weight Types in PLAAF service, domestic Flankers out number their Su-30 counter parts at a rate of about 5 to 1. It allows mission makers to reflect the rapid growth of China's own domestic tech base, particularly in the department of Anti Ship missiles and strike. The bulk of their inventory is not cold war vintage Kh-31Ps but domestic more modern YJ-91s and things of the sort, because the YJ-91 and other Chinese munitions reflect the current trends in the PLAAFs Anti ship strategy. With its improved guidance and attack profiles capable of sea skimming in ways that dwarf its original soviet ancestor. I know it might upset the purist among you but the Su-30MKK/MK2 can be restricted by mission designers to exclusively use Russian weapons in case one wants to Sim another export operator of the type.

bump for @uboats

Call sign: Gryphon 55 | TaxDollarsAtWork : MiG-21Bis Call sign: Gryphon 33 | Maximus : Redfor GCI

How different is Deka allowed to make the J-11? You've already expressed no interest in adding P2P & F2F DL modes, but with the impending MFI-55 update, would they be allowed to add it? Also with missiles, what happened to adding predictive guidance and kalman filtering??

Later ones do, according to Janes and this other source it depends upon batch and bloc 70 deg on older MKIs 90~100 on later ones with the new gimbal for the bars https://www.janes.com/defence-equipment-intelligence/air-combat-systems/su-30mki-equipment-profile https://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html#8

Very nice addition with the new Chinese Betty Thanks Deka we appreciate it!

This says something to the effect of 100 degrees https://www.niip.ru/catalog/eksportnaya-produktsiya/bars/ Would be interesting to see a Su-30MKI Mk1/2 or something

That's interesting, that's interesting. Can you take a look at this page http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html and hit control + f then type in flaps. Or even just this report alone http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/352-meyer-12may44.jpg I'm amazed by how many pro fortnite gamers and airquake chads the airforce had in WW2 Even the P-38 was the chariot of gamers as it (and a few other WW2 aircraft) had specific maneuver settings on their flaps http://akvictoria.by/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/P-38-Lightning.pdf pg 53 of this PDF The real reason not to use them post WW2 planes is the turn circles and speeds at which combat is typically happening you get a bigger hit to rate than you really get from the only slightly better radius, and in most of these reports flaps are at like 8 deg, 10 deg 15 if were being generous because of those 20 deg outliers. So while uncommon in WW2 depending on plane type mostly, its dishonest to say 'it never happened' Even Marseille, a know flaps abooser, gained 158 victories What a noob and a gamer huh?

I gave the OP a timeline of what usually happens in a DCS Airquake server like GS/104th etc, where people are not usually flying in a coordinated manner on coms with one another to illustrate the thinking and problem solving needed. I can not tell him what to do with every possible outcome since so much is situational. Should they both go cold his flanker flight could simply get clear get high and press the enemy 2 ship. What I said isn't exclusively about back pedaling Against 4.5 gen teen series planes slinging the AIM-120C5 with 9X MIDS etc the Soviet era flanker naturally doesn't really win. Its outclassed by plane anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/4th more effective than it over all. At some point in an exchange the Flankers need to judge if they will soon get an opening on the enemy 2 ship to secure a kill and if not bug out. But that's a 2 v 2. You can't exactly win there with even mistake margins with a legacy platform (by comparison) but you can make life hard. You do get more options when you start doing mixed force encounters with say F-14 / F-16 / JF-17 joining the opfor side depending the server It is though much more of an even fight with only 1980s or 1990s weapons and its a shame so few servers still exist with these restrictions

Because of two things, it allows you to take turn signaling shots vs the AIM-120 by virtue of its speed energy retention and range. And the NEZ makes it easier to kill running bandits within 8~10km ASL. You want to go into SP and learn the ranges of the AIM-120, See what shot can be defeated by cranking or going cold. Next you want to learn how to push off an AMRAAM carrier, usually you will shoot at the midpoint of Rmax 1 and Rmax 2 with the R-27ER with a decent amount of alt it doesn't really work below like 1000m. Then you crank (to nearly max gimbals) and dive (to the deck pretty much at full speed, the dense air slows the enemy missile down considerably) and support the missile until half of the range that you shot. (Example shoot at 40km support till 20) This shot isn't exactly meant to kill him but should kill him if he attempts to crank through it. You can unsupport the missile and focus exclusively on defense if the bandit goes cold or fully starts beaming. It has gotten the desired reaction. The enemy is no longer able to support his wing man/friend ahead. Now here should you have a wingman to counter an F-15/16/18s defensive L&L tactics both of you can pincer the remaining bandit and use the local superiority gained to kill the out of position bandit. You can press the flanking bandit from the pincer in EO without alerting him until you can take that 10~8km ET or ER kill shot, because in a wide enough pincer he can only deal with you guys one at a time It can look something like this As a Fox 1 limited aircraft (for the most part) you can not take 1v1 fights but that's ok since all BVR is Many vs Many a fight of better positioning

In this Forum post a RuAF Flanker pilot talks about the R-27ER v AIM-120B range relationship https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/236399-su-27-otvety-lyotchikov/?do=findComment&comment=4555768 "Так а что там с оценкой дальности амраама у наших? Плюс/минус паритет." Yes, you could say this is elaborate maskirova on behalf of both parties. I do believe there is some truth in what the pilots are saying especially when you consider how many generations out of date these two legacy missiles are. It's almost entirely the case that by now they've probably been analyzed by both sides of the fence because of purple nations caught between Russia and the US. Sort of like an open secret, these comments give us some idea on how the two relate to each other, not exactly the why. That's where CFDs come in to answer some questions about the why. As for changing your mind, This Navy thesis has something interesting to say on page 13 (20 in the PDF viewer) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36715157.pdf A similar case can be made for some of the sources in about the R-27ER 120 range relationship Like that one time a certain gentlemen said a bunch of unclass information in a certain briefing. I do believe the video was posted here some time ago. I don't believe the 120 CFD to be wrong, but I do expect to see the R-27 CFD to fall mostly inline with what the pilots say.

2 the ED ones only has the under the engine ones as a result of an error Thats a ferry configuration not a combat one