GGTharos

How about proving them wrong then? You obviously have loads of knowledge and documents on the subject so what's the problem?

Just a start, there are probably far better accounts of the engagements out there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engagements_of_the_Gulf_War

There are at least two separate MiG-25 engagements, one of which ended WVR and one high-fast with both sides taking shots at each other, and at least one MiG-29 engagement which ended WVR and a lock or even a shot was taken at an eagle at or under 4nm.

No, in-game.

Are you saying that the MPRF simulation aspect isn't there?

What public data? MPRF should be 40% of HPRF range. It's just physics.

That wobble is probably more visible than it is significant. Otherwise there would be a significant range cost which documentation doesn't bear-out.

In the western jets you get full range of each PRF, but the time required to run a full frame is doubled (more specifically, you have to run two frames instead of one for full coverage) so there may be a perceived loss of range based on the radar scan volume.

Right now in say, the FC3 planes, interleaved acts like some sort of different mode with an intermediate range. It isn't actually 'interleaved', it just tries to 'average' some sort of results for interleave but it is incorrect. It should provide the maximum ranges permitted by each PRF, on alternating bars like in the 'full fidelity' models. I believe ED does not want to do that for FC3 because it would require for the FC3 radars to actually process radar frames and basically it would add complexity.

You offer a good demonstration of not knowing the subject but just wanting things to be equal

They are micro-doppler extraction which is a whole technique sitting upon another technique ... most of the discrimination I've heard of for detection is just be out of the notch and be above noise floor, nothing more. For locking on, you'd use doppler and range gates, for keeping track you might start looking at RCS discrimination in the event you had a sudden RCS bloom (not reduction). A bunch of missiles have size switches but AFAIK this sets fuze sensitivity and maybe seeker activation range. If there's any RCS discrimination going on there I don't know. There could be thresholds but given that RCS is variable IRL, I think they'd be fairly large bins.

More often than some want to admit. This is true. And the vast majority have not. Certainly not from the over-g's being complained about. Too bad. Even when they will suffer them (I'm sure it'll come) it's still going to be worse for some that it is for others.

So veeery ballpark but, you're going to eat a bunch of drag when you pitch up, and then you're already sunk by zero-aoa drag when you hit 1km (amd 0 aoa drag is not all you have, you have some induced). Looks right to me, but maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture or I miscalculated. Your only opportunity to accelerate or even maintain speed is between 0 and 1km, and even there your margins are slim.

The 29's motors have fairly poor performance at slow speeds IIRC. Anyone someone posted the thrust curves here, I don't know how that lines up against your tests.

Being larger only theoretically changes detection distance, nothing else. This is assuming they don't have any RCS reduction features. And sure there are mach -3-4 AShMs out there, even old ones. So what? Again all it changes is detection distance. I've never heard of the radar discriminating by RCS. Last I checked it's literally all about detecting whatever's in the air and outside of the doppler filter and above the noise floor. Yes, the track system in DCS isn't great, but it's not true that the hit won't be displayed on screen. Position and closure is known from a single pulse or at least a single train of pulses for the doppler. If you can build a track for a MiG-25 you can build one for an AAM. Sure, it would take time to build the track but not as long you may think. I agree though it won't be anything close to instant. You will never discriminate based on RCS if you don't have to. Give up on that made up idea. The first order of EW in some cases is to change the RCS of a target to be bigger than it appears. Heck, chaff does that. All you need is a little ECM to drop the SNR. So what if you can't think of it? That I agree with.

How would they know? What's the difference between an AAM and a supersonic AShM that you want to shoot down? Or a MiG-25/31 going mach 3? Oh no, combat is messy. There are valid Mach 3-4 targets out there. You probably don't want to miss them. Sure, but that's a different issue.

The margins when considering drag are narrow. How long would you expect it to climb before altitude-induced loss of thrust occurs? Are you looking at CAS or TAS?

By using rocket fuel which includes the oxidizer and fuel ... whereas a jet engine gets it oxidizer from ... air. Which must be rammed into the intakes. Congrats on your physics fail

If there are low altitude acceleration charts for the MiG-29, you can easily find out if the engine power is correct or not.

I don't know if the F-5 can reach 12g at all, but I have definitely seen it survive a very enthusiastic 10g turn into superior bandits...the airframe was destroyed soon after because the GLOCd pilot was well .. GLOCd and flying less than 1000' off the ground.

Oh please. You know all of that is BS, this is all about said targets knowing when they're being launched on in TWS.

It's the contrail. Jet engines and rocket motors will create contrails in different conditions. Theoretically ED could take this into account but the whole contrail thing is already pretty simplified.

Yes I did that, with the caveat 'maybe my knowledge on the subject is outdated' which is was I don't know if you read the whole thread but I'll try to boil it down - no names 'cause they're not needed and not important: 1) The complaint was made that the eagle won't break under g (true), while flankers do (this last part is only important for the sourcing of the complaint ... the complaint stands on its own anyway) 2) Then statements were made to the effect of how easily the eagle would break, because flankers break easily 3) Responses to 2 saying it really won't be that easy to break are then interpreted as it being ok to not have a DM or equating it with indestructibility 4) In all of this as well, statements regarding pilot g tolerance are made, further confusing the issue, but eventually that part is settled 5) Questions remain about f-15's g-onset time. Anyway, as far as I personally am concerned, there's really not much do be discussed WRT the eagle, for me it's like this: 1) Do we need to implement a g-based DM? Yes 2) Will it affect most dogfights? F no. As in it won't be anywhere near as harsh as some want it to be. Will it surprise people who like to pull loads of g while heavy? Yes, as it ought to, and people who significantly over-g while not so heavy. There are other issues, captured below (like you should not be able to reach more than 12.5 g on a eagle IMHO) 3) Do we need to implement a speed-based DM? Yes 4) Control surfaces need to disintegrate when Vne is exceeded and they are deflected, so that DM is needed too. And yes, other aircraft need this too.

Great, so the MiG-29 has UFO strength but the eagle is still at fault. Did you have to work hard to get to this condition? Could the MiG-29 still do those things that were complained about in the gif posted here without breaking? I even directly wrote that the question isn't 'should there be a limitation' because no one says that.

^^^^ Yes I understood that, this is why you added the 'for example' Random values don't take different airframes into account, you would have to manipulate distribution. Unless you mean changing the values in the random value call then yes. By my very naïve calculations, and going completely off of memory, the F-15 is rated at 9g at 38000lbs. This would give it an ultimate load limit of about 12.2g at 42000lbs before the airframe starts bending which would approximately correspond with known over-g incidents and also indicate that the F-15 won't come apart at the 1.5 x g-limit but a bit later. But it will bend and be unusable after landing. Also, I'm not adverse to start damaging equipment at this point, ie. break the radar or HUD (I mean what else can you break on the FC3 eagle?) and accumulating airframe damage, which should be unrepairable in-game. There are a lot of things that you can do in addition to this, like change the FM ... but this stuff is a lot of work as well, so damage accumulation should suffice until the aircraft is broken. Now lets take a 'three bagger' ie. a 58000lbs eagle, which you're unlikely to encounter with full fuel but you never know: That aircraft would start bending at 8.8-8.9g, and would break apart quickly. That's not even taking into account pylon strength for holding the full fuel tanks.