Sideburns

This week is also the lead up to a rather large patch, 2.7, so they probably have their hands full testing and fixing for that.

Was about to say, I'm 50/50 between A and B, the A has remained more popular for longer than I expected on MP servers. It is good to see people enjoying both variants.

Currently for a mix of economy and time to height I do mach 0.6/0.8 up to 15-22kft, then level off a bit to accelerate to mach 0.9-1.10 while continuing to 35-42kft. Above 30kft the engine seems to accelerate much better once it is past 400knts IAS, so consider maintaining or loosing some height to gain speed if you are below 400knts up high. But yeah, the F14B is point and shoot, the F14A takes some planning and uses more fuel to get to speed. I also acknowledge the DCS F14 is still a work in progress, not trying to claim this is correct IRL.

@Blue73Appreciate this is an old thread but thanks for the inspiration to create an auto-switching F16 mimic CRUISE page and AJS37 waypoint/CK output/fuel state/alt 16x2 LCD output

I'd recommend focussing your efforts on the argument at hand rather than attempts at personal attacks. The original context of this point was commentary on imbalance regarding the AJS37 being able to carry six IR missiles, well so can the MiG21 or up to 8 IR missiles mission permitting (i.e. where the R60m is available at bases for other types and the MiG21 is willing and able to do the transit, appreciate this is not the way it is meant to be played or every mission in the CW server rotation). Hence the original point on the Viggen being able to carry six was a poor argument w.r.t balance. Glad you are back online, hope to see you in the skies again soon

You are incorrect. Having just hopped on the server it allowed 6xR60 to be mounted, and as you say it is possible to mount 4 R60 and then 4 R60m where these are available in the mission. Probably not a realistic loadout but the MiG21 can currently mount 8 R60 type (i.e. R60 and R60m) missiles.

Very interesting, cheers for collating. Going to go give my AJ-37 a try

Lets check out some in service dates of the modern jets just to keep any bias in check and address that "bit of a stretch" comment: (Source Wikipedia) KA-50 - 1995 Su-25 - 1981 (note access to 2xR60m*) Su-25t - 1990 (note only 8 production aircraft irl and also that the Su-25t has access to 16xVikhr, 2xR60m*, various kh-25 versions) MiG21Bis - 1972 AJS37 - 1992/1972** (Restricted to Rb75a, bombs, rockets. No Bk90, Rb15f or Rb74) Av8b/Av8bNA - 1981/1989 (NA adds FLIR and cockpit interface improvements, for the majority of CW server daytime missions FLIR is not a usable advantage until it has the target indication which afaik is not yet implemented.) A10a - 1976 (Restricted to aim9p, 6xaim65) F5e - 1972 Gazelle - 1973 *Granted this is a loadout restriction of sorts and I appreciate the R73 is disabled. Yet in the comparison between airframes it is an advantage. The Su-25 can manage some good turns rates when it is not fully loaded. **The biggest/most relevant differences afaik between the AJ-37 (IOC 1972) and AJS-37 are the ability to use modern and smart weapons (BK-90, RB15f, Rb74 afaik not available in CW server), Ternav & cartridge (against perfect nav in FC3 aircraft such as the Su25/Su-25t) and ability to carry 2 vs 6 Rb24/Rb24j (probably the most legitimate complaint here). Don't forget the MiG21 can carry up to 8 R60 if it so choses albeit with some performance penalty. Regardless time spent here discussing such things is better spent enjoying DCS and other things in life.

It feels like you are attempting to introduce strawmen to the argument? For what it is worth I think the F5e radar might be also overperforming as well based on some basic research. The comparison with the Sea Harrier radar is because it is also a small dish, light fighter monopulse radar but with a more modern design and digital signal processing, so you would expect the Sea Harrier radar to perform better whereas this doesn't appear to be the case, hence the comparison. I also note some modules do model degradation of radar based on the environment and usage, so this can be modelled developer dependent and not all radars in game are perfectly operating all the time. On the GCI comment atm the MiG21 radar performs well enough that you can use it as a search radar fairly reliably. If the real life MiG21 radar performed this well I suspect its use would not be as dependent on GCI tactics for air to air. @Hiromachior @-Rudel- any chance of a comment on the MiG21's radar performance and if it is considered to be in the right place at the moment. I know there have been some fairly big changes to the radar recently, are further developments and adjustment ongoing?

From some Lightening pilot interviews I understand the radar alt warning was more a night time flying safety feature rather than an F16 style MSL and hard floor warning or when to pull up from diving attacks.

Seeing a lot of AIM120 inexplicably failing good shots in the F16, missing at high mach, supported and high closure with no chaff or manoeuvre by opponent. Feels like the jammer bug is being abused. I suggested before it might be worth universally disabling jammers / ECM effects if this is the case as a quicker fix, or fixing the missiles.

No need to try to put people down in your response, I'd also be careful not to assume people's backgrounds and experience. It seems to be repeated a lot that the RCS value is static in DCS but with no reputable source I have found so far. Just wanted to check the source of this information and by my own admission I wouldn't be surprised if DCS did it this way to keep things simple. I would take your direction on where this information is if you want to share? Though having done some analysis of DCS files and submitted a few bug reports I suspect I have probably seen a few of the data files you are thinking of and that the actual radar simulation is buried in a dll / dll's. On RCS aspect simulation you could / I would use a precomputed lookup table to keep it quick and limit it to a few of the factors you mention, such as aspect in the first instance. I know from experience this is realistic to implement on desktop grade computers. It need not be a full simulation as you imply.

Not demanding changes, asking for a confirmation that the radar is performing as intended. Trying to promote a discussion on this following the recent big changes and based on publicly available information. Also as we have seen many times with DCS just because it has been that way before doesn't mean it is correct. I stated the RP21 ranges as some accounts indicate the radars are related. I also provided some RP22 ranges from http://www.flyshark.ayz.pl/Stacja_angielska/sapfir.htm, but you seem to have either overlooked or ignored this. The MiG21 / F5e / typical small fighter plane RCS size is generally considered to be 2-6 sqm. As before this source indicates a 30km search range for a 14sqm bomber size target, which seems reasonable for a 1960s radar and it follows that it should significantly less for a small fighter size target. The general consensus is that the RP22 aka Jaybird was a pure monopulse radar, not pulse doppler (I appreciate monopulse techniques are also used by pulse doppler radars). Monopulse radars are a form of amplitude or phase change comparison radar to accurately point the radar against a target and discern range, popular in the 1960s, the f5e also uses a monopulse radar. The presence of ground returns on the radar screen also suggests a lack of doppler ground return processing, a fairly common feature of airborne pulse doppler radars to enhance their range by filtering out this noise. It has been "stated" on that thread, presumably sourced from somewhere, that the RP22 was a simplified version of the early MiG25 Smerch A radar, also a pulse radar, whereas Wikipedia states the RP-22 was development of the RP-21MA. Either way it appears to be pulse radar derivative, with the MiG23 and later MiG25 variants being the introduction of primitive pulse-doppler radars (and obviously some MiG23 export versions being seriously downgraded with the RP21/22). https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/136731-rp-22-sma-sapphir-radar-bug-with-153-update-1/ https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/uragan-5b-smerch-smerch-a-radars.23306/ Before you continue do you have any evidence or sources that the RP22 was a pulse doppler radar as you state? It would be polite of you to present some sources for your own information before trying to dismiss other's sources so readily. If you have any evidence or sources supporting a 30km range for the RP-22 against fighter targets these would also be useful. The Polish manuals I have found emphasise the MiG21bis radar is still intended for GCI use, rather than independent operations, implying it has poor search and track qualities. Also, as before the Harrier FRS1 Blue Fox monopulse radar, developed in the 70s and being a digital radar system, was picking up fighter targets 8-14 miles. A lesser range than the DCS MiG21bis currently picks up fighter targets. Finally, interested to know the source on "It's also worth noting that RCS is uniform regardless of aspect in DCS"? I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, mine was originally intended as a suggestion that this might be modelled, but you say it absolutely as if it has been stated somewhere by ED or you have analysed the code?

I will keep testing but based on one test flight last night and then some MP sessions looks to be resolved.

F14a seems a lot more sprightly now, easier to get to mach and also corners without losing as much speed. Feels like a fighter again.

I'm fairly sure closure rate and notching means more to a doppler radar, target aspect and the variations in reflectivity as a result of target aspect would be more important to a pulse radar and possibly it is this variation you are seeing. Typically radar dishes and jet engine compressor blades make for good radar returns in a frontal aspect, planform aspects can also enhance return but unsure how far DCS or the MiG21 goes to model this. On clutter, the target/clutter distinction is a lot clearer in the MiG21, with a distinctive symbol for target, vs the F5 presenting clutter as potential targets so it is a bit trickier in this respect. Regardless if you have an issue with the F5 radar suggest you submit a bug in the F5 section of the forums, otherwise it could be inferred you are trying to balance the two aircraft off each other rather than have them accurately represented in DCS when you take the discussion this way. A quick test in the MiG21 shows it is picking up an F5e at 30km / ~16 miles hot aspect and co-altitude 6200ft as per the attached images. I haven't gone into too deep a dive on the Internet for Sapfir documents but Wikipedia states: "In theory it was able to detect fighter-sized targets from a range of 20 km, and lock on to them at a range of 10 km though in practice this got reduced to 13 km and 7 km respectively." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-21_Sapfir Granted these ranges appear to be for the RP-21 rather than RP-21M or RP-22. Best I can find on the RP22 is "Search range 30km, tracking range 15km versus a 16 sq m target." but I'm guessing the F5e is not a 16 sq m target. As before is the MIG21 radar performance in game correct? Feels like it is overperforming at the moment and I don't recall picking up fighter targets at such a range a year ago when I seriously tried to use the MiG21 radar before the FPS issues. Others also seem to have also spotted this.

In a brief few tests on the cold war server it is nice to see that the MiG21 is now without the FPS hit that has plagued it for over half a year, but it does seem to work remarkably well now at low level. Reliable target detection of Sabre and F5s at max distance, while at low level and with hills in the back ground. Does anyone know what references are being used for how well the MiG21 radar performs? For comparison the Sea Harrier FRS.1 radar is stated as picking up fighter size targets at 8-12 miles and the MiG21 appears to outperform this atm. Granted I need to do some proper testing on this.

You know now you mention I rarely take F14 tanks back to base but when I do it has had the same problem, and I had forgotten it. Perhaps a moderator can move this to the appropriate DCS world bug section. I posted to re-highlight this issue in the hopes of an update, guess it is still reported and present for a year now.

Anyone who has played long enough has seen the effect high AoA has on the game and also people seemingly deliberately exploiting this to avoid missiles and gunfire. Can we please have some attention on the high AoA warping issue.

Still appears to be an issue, re-arm on ground doesn't replace empty centre line tank. Must remove and replace to get a fresh, full centre line tank.

The AWACs is not an all seeing eye, it has a finite range and can be notched or an opponent can use terrain to mask. Also bear in mind it takes time for a radar contact to become a track and then to be transferred by DL, it may be the case the track is being lost before it can be conveyed by DL but is being relayed by voice radio to you. In these situations I try to keep a mental map of intermittent radar & DL contacts and tracks as well as voice comms on contacts. Should it be better then it is, perhaps, it is representative of the real life difficulties of maintaining a radar track and picture, probably.

The manual at is quite useful on this http://heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#pulse-doppler-mode "As the computer routine calculating these tracks need a set track refresh time of 2 seconds this limits available azimuth scan area and bar settings to either 20° 4 bars or 40° 2 bars. When entering TWS the computer automatically selects the ±20° 4 bar scan disregarding the RIO set scan volumes unless those are set to ±40° 2 bars in which case that is used instead." If you are in TWS and have anything but 40/2bar set, it will be in 20/4bar.

It would be nice to see, atm the Aim54 can lose 400-700 knots in the correction turn and a lesser amount in go active. The transitions are very jerky.

It is quite gratifying assisting with bug hunting for HB as you are very attentive to issues. Thank you for looking into it. You can bet your last $national_currency that I will be checking this on patch release

When the Phoenix no RWR warning issue was apparent it was taken seriously by HB and most server owners. In the latter case many missions removed the Phoenix until it could be fixed. Unfortunately given ED's monthly update cycle this did take some time to arrive, during which time most F14's were relegated to fox1/fox2 situation with sparrows and sidewinders. It was a fun time to explore these missiles for many. I also generally find the F14 community one of the most honest w.r.t not exploiting bugs, reporting bugs and striving for accuracy. As well as finding HB one of the most respectful module developers when responding to legitimate and illegitimate bug and issues in their modules, as you may note by their responses to you on this topic. While DCS is not perfect, it is highly enjoyable in multiplayer because of the general accuracy, strengths and weaknesses of each module. If you don't enjoy multiplayer fine, but stating it is not a multiplayer game/simulator when many enjoy DCS this way just serves to make you look foolish, as does your focus on pay to win. As per Naquaii's response, what do you hope to achieve here? Would you like some tuition on how to beat the F14 in MP?