falcon_120

Please, dont do the you are not with me so you are against me thing. Still ridiculous. Not only I want r27 and r77 to be improved, I said in this same forum (you can search my posts) that i think its time for ED to introduce other more modern variants like the R77-1. And one of my favourite all time planes, i would buy on day one is the Su30 in any of its variants (A su30MKI would be amazing and could be done by a third party) Fair enough. You are free to speak up about whatever you like, it is not my intention to tell you otherwise. If anything, my reply was concerning "how" you present your disconfort and how you talk about conspiracies. Which i still believe is not the reasons for what is happening. On the other hand many of your points are valid and need attention by ED. We need better ECM implementation, reworked r27/r77 and in general, more modern russian fighters.

Pepil, you need to stop this whining and conspiracy thing... it looks ridicoulous. You will be able to find 1000 examples of things that favour blue force over red force, that is true, but you will be able to find other cases where red force is actually overmodelled (For example, the R27ET detecting planes further away than a 9X is ridicoulous, as far as i know it does not have a data link so you should not be able to shoot further than maybe 8 nm ish away). So I don't think the reason is a conspiracy from ED to downgrade russian equipment. Most of the time, its just lack of resources to improve all legacy planes and content, and the fact that right now there are lots of american fighters under development is not actually helping either, cause money prioritisation obviously favors content for those fighters. But i'm sure ED would love to develop a SU35 if they got the chance, heck, most of programmers and management are russian and participate actively in the russian forum. I really want that ED start working on the R27 and R77 improvements, but you need to stop acting like a child talking about conspiracies.

Definetely i'd love to see some kind of simplistic EW simulated in game. Even if its just a probabilistic percentage of loosing lock, inability to use TWS, or the possibility to jam a fox 3 missile (with a certain random percentage). Anything a bit more complex than a basic noise jammer where you have a burnthrough distance. I understand that this is very difficult to implement, and could be very chaotic if done wrong, but I hope ED could make iterative small steps towards enhancing the EW environment.

MMm based on what? I mean, did you have motive to think the phoeninx should have the same chaff resistance of a much newer 120C missile? I don't say it as questioning you, just wondering the thought principle followed. I guess the radar in the phoenix is bigger and more powerful in terms of antenna size and peak power, on the other hand I'd think that CM rejection techniques through Digital signal processing would be miles ahead in the aim120C vs the phoenix given it is a much newer design. But it is an interesting topic to me.

My understanding is that it will be able to see link 16 translated data through a gateway, the most common one being a lovely E3 AWACS in a mission.

I totally agree with all of your points and the nuances you are expressing.

Well depends on which is the flyable state. It could be very much a PoC based on the f15 fm with a eurofughter 3d model on top of it to learn the ropes of the DCS world. . Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

XD. He supercruise at Mach 1.6 full of weapons in that simulator Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I dont see the point of your thread? Do you think the A10 will get a new maverick before the f16 have one? Based on what? ED already expressed on multiple occasions that currently a big push on the f 16 is being made, including the maverick. Hell you can even read what functions are already coded on the f16 mav Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

As far as i know that was a really old document, and you said it, it is an estimation they made, based on what they had at the moment. Can't see the point of it nowadays that we have more data, other than you tend to overestimate your enemy just in case... (e.g. MIG25 vs F15)

I would like to point out, cause maybe i've given a wrong impression, i'm not advocating about making up weapons features, performance and ranges if we have no clue about it, my point is that, if we have precise enough public information then it could be added into the game. And this is the tricky part, what is precise enough public information, wikipedia?, well no... or not alone... I would rather suggest a bunch a different sources including the weapon manufacturer that converges is some parameters oe values so that they are believable. I would love to see a common ground of standards of what is realistic and what is not, but i see that we are getting different weapons like the SD10, the future IRIS-T or who knows if a PL12 in the future, and i'm quite certain DCS would love to see an R77-1 or even if its just roughly comparable in performance to the current Aim 120B which i guess would be quite believable. Right now the R77 is really a short range missile with little tactical advantage.

Happen to have a source with motor data for the sd10? Yet we have whats called an approximate representation of the weapon... That is my point. This game is about realism, but sometimes i get the impression we require a 300 page test data documentation and the weapon engineer testimony to accept something while in other case a weapon manufacturer brochure is enough... Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Its time they introduce a newer version. Too many things has happened to DCS in the latest years (New modules, new weapons some of them really modern...). I think there is enough PUBLIC INFORMATION around as to make a good representation of a newer R77 (which still will be worse than the aim120 C we have, but at least more threatening a fun to fight against).

Cant talk about FM, but regarding drag, i'm quite possitive that there is a change in drag somewhere in the last open beta patches either in the bru 55 pylon or in the amraams. 1 or 2 patches ago, 6 amraams (double in pilons 2&8), 2 sidewinders and 2 bags could not go past M 1.02-1.1 ish. Lately you can get M1.2 in that configuration. I have no tracks to support this though. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Good point, never tried that since i thought it was an empty template with no further info. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

I see, thanks for the info :). BTW what does TUC stands for?

Once we get additional JHMCS features for A2G, am i safe expecting that? : -I will see the designated target through the JHMCS not only in the hud? - I will see the tgp diamond on the JHMCS? - We will be able to look to the ground and designate a point to slave other sensors e.g. The tgp. So, are those cappabilitties actually coming at some point or they simply do not exist in our lot20 F18C? Regards, Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Track? Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

If they implement that loadout I hope they will correct also the VR position so i can ride my hornet... yehaaaaaaw

I guess he refers to HOTAS integration, which is better IMHO in all USAF birds vs navy ones. Other than that i dont see how a normal B-Scope could have different ergonomies in the 68vs73 for sorting targets, etc... they represent the info basically equally. [emoji2955] Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Atazar, as said previously, in order for you to see a diamond in the hud, you need at least 2 donors declaring the bogey as a bandit. So for example you need at least, your own interrogation plus an awacs or another friendly aircraft that interrogates the bogey. Are you sure you dont get a diamond in TWS after the iff interrogation IF there is an awacs in the mission?

Exactly, probably the cause is either is a mission where you are the only source for the interrogation. To the OP, If you add an awacs to the mission you'll see iff working just fine. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

+1000 Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Iff works with TWS, you need to put the TDC over the target and press the Iff button, which is TDC depress or recce mark? I will look the exact name and tell you. Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

This is really needed. Its not a bug I guess, just a feature, but a long waited one.