Sideburns

Have you tried the Aim9p5 for a frontal shot, its not every effective. Just as for the R60, they are quite similar in practice. To spell it out a frontal shot is easily defended for both missiles and both missiles are capable of frontal shots. However the MiG21 can potentially have up to eight shots vs the F5's two, and in practice probably has twice the missiles of the F5. Point being a frontal Aim9p5 shot is typically wasted, not to mentioned the potential for a R3R frontal shot. At the moment the Aim9p is not practically capable of frontal shots at all. Hence my proposal that the R60 and Aim9p5 are broadly equivalent. I do not believe there is a sliding slope in this situation if people stick to the numbers and actual capabilities of the missiles in game, but feel free to try out the sliding slope fallacy if you wish. While pilot skill is a factor the balance of the underlying weapons is quite skewed atm (note ripple firing is an affliction to both sides, but not worth mentioning here). While the F5 gunsight is quite good the gun still sprays badly and the damage inflicted can be very variable especially against the often wonky MiG21 damage model (a few patches ago we observed a MiG21 taking forty 20mm hits but still flying and fighting). But back onto the missile topic at hand... On the lethality point most R60 hits are typically debilitating hits, granted an outright kill is less likely a debilitating hit does typically win the fight against the F5. Given the number of missiles carried by the MiG21 you also have enough to double tap people. I don't think I've ever seen a small fighter plane require three R60, perhaps some people might mistakenly fire a third due to poor trigger discipline. I had already mentioned the slightly better reach, this is acknowledged against the R60 close in and high G capabilities. As before, the Rb24j bug demonstrating the high value of a missiles manoeuvring capabilities to enhancing lethality. Before the R60 we had a nice mix of aircraft tangling and rear aspect only missiles, interesting dogfights. My short session last night it seemed quite one sided and red was 100% MiG21. I'm offline for a couple of days but hopefully the aim9p5 argument is worth consideration. I guess see how the red/blue win rates go with the new patch and lack of aim9p5. To me, as someone who has flown both sides and also reviewed the raw missile data, this seems unfair.

I'm sorry to hear that is the case, it appears a mission maintainers job is never ending. But unfortunately I have another query / suggestion. Is there also a reason the F5 gets only the Aim9p whereas the MiG21 has the R60? Feels like we've gone full circle with the balance discussions and ended up with an imbalance here. The R60 has twice the manoeuvrability of the Aim9p series and also a cooled seeker head compared to the aim9p as modelled in DCS (taken from the missile definition files). We've seen the accumulative effect of missile manoeuvrability on missile effectiveness thanks to the RB24j pre-fix situation. Granted the Aim9p5 does have better CCM and slight better reach. In service dates for the R60 and Aim9p5 are also similar, not to mention the MiG21 gets double mount R60 if they wish. No wonder blues were having a hard time when I popped on last night. I would suggest permitting the F5 to carry the Aim9p5 to balance the R60.

Is there a reason open range mission Viggens have no a2a missiles? The Rb24j is now modelled as a Aim9j / aim9p as per the newest patch notes.

I was meaning to write a statement like this, but couldn't have done it better. To have a communication from the developer that states the Av8b as feature complete and then in the next sentence to state there are still features to do feels like 2+2=5. Also years ago when EA was introduced to DCS I was under the impression that there was some quality control by ED but this doesn't appear to be the case. Like many others for me the solution is simple, withhold further purchases until the EA situation is improved. This is not to say I don't want to participate in a sensible EA program, having enjoyed modules and submitted bug reports, but it needs to be better defined w.r.t timescales and exit criteria from EA. Also bugs should not exist for years. I feel like community trust has eroded rapidly over this issue.

Really positive to hear and I agree. All hail our glorious cold war server overlord Alpenwolf!

I also quite enjoy the wake turbulence as it makes dogfighting more interesting, it does feel at least a little overdone though. In an F16 at max turn rate you will come back into your own wake turbulence after a turn or so :/

Baltic Dragon was on the Razbam Discord and apologised as he has been asked to finish this and the detailed manual but has been delayed by Covid19. Not ideal but also seems like a genuine reason. Still, whoever calls it feature complete is wrong.

I think entering "product sustainment" with at least an acknowledgement of bugs and missing features and a commitment to resolve, perhaps not all but most issues, would have worked better. As it stands "product sustainment" by itself is a kick in the teeth to those of us who have been patient with Razbam and submitted bug reports in good faith. Sets a really bad precedent for the DCS ecosystem as a whole.

I have also done testing. Seems to be performing a lot fairer to me now, doesn't manoeuvre nearly half as well as it did with subsequent consequences for poorer chase and tracking ability as you would expect for an Aim9p series missile. It appears to be fixed.

Good news everybody, the Rb24j changes are in today's hotfix patch notes: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.5.6.54046/ It should now manoeuvre as per other Aim9p models and effectively be an Aim9p3 (assuming they have only changed the Coefficient of lift values as suggested)

Thanks for the update, good to hear the RB24j fix is still on the cards.

Looks like it has unfortunately not made it into DCS 2.5.6.53756 :(

I am glad to hear you prioritise family time over DCS time, this is the way it should be :)

Not sure if you are a native English speaker but you may wish to be careful with your language as it could be considered patronising. I never expected to be or implied I be treated differently to other paid up customers and I am aware of this thread's contents and recent updates. Good point on the radar bug that has persisted for several updates now, I wouldn't disagree this should be the priority. And you're right, I am assuming it needs correction based on the prevailing and as yet unchallenged evidence that the MiG21 is over performing at low speed, and also in a smaller part based on my own experience in developing flight sims. Is there an ETA on the review by the more experienced team member?

As a paid up customer when can we expect the flight model corrections to arrive?

Any update on this?

Ban the Viggen, clearly OP.

Completely agree, sorry to clarify but I meant even with an F14 with its gun only it will be a handful for the other fighters, even with their Fox2.

Time for an F14 AWACS :D I think if you loadout the F14 empty, just with a gun, it is still going to be quite formidable in the merge with rear aspect heaters only and a full F14 crew.

Thank you for paying attention to this inaccuracy. It is particularly important for the "cold war" restricted equipment type servers.

Bit of a odd move for someone "done with this server" and a misrepresentation of the weapon restrictions and discussions. It's a hard balancing act and will always be a work in progress, also the weapons restrictions vary by mission. You may wish to play both red and blue sides, if you can and as a few of us have done, to get the full picture. https://www.reddit.com/r/floggit/comments/i4t3c3/the_cold_war_server_has_had_enough_of_the_viggen/ Also, w.r.t your original complaint, did you even take the time to read why the Rb24j was restricted? There is an actual bug in the missile that makes it twice as manoeuvrable as other Aim9p models and hence it was unrealistic and OP. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=281391

Bear in mind this is among the earliest fighter based TWS radar systems, has relatively wide Doppler filters and is also designed for the fleet defence role (i.e. high closure targets). Don't get me wrong though, it is annoying filtering through the false TWS contacts.

The new night time mission is interesting but not a fan. You either die of eye strain or adjust the gamma for ghetto dayz style night vision. Perhaps a little too dark for early fighters and lack of NV? At least some moonlight?

Yes, I didn't say it was solely or completely dependent on ping and packet loss, but these definitely seem to contribute. CPU load is also a factor, I did put in a bug report to default the DCS process to high priority when launched to try and help combat this on a large scale. The 2.5.6 netcode is also a large contributor.

If you watch the netstats available it does seem to get worse with dropped packets and higher pings (>300ms*), which makes sense. Just the netcode seems terrible at dealing with this common issue, and I'm fairly sure the netstats show for your connection only. *As a former developer myself there is only so much a simulation engine can do to overcome such latency.