GGTharos

12.5 for several seconds as recorded by internal sensors.

The MiG-29 can fly patrols as well, but it would certainly seem to be the 'low' part of a high-low mix, with flanker being the 'high'. It's basically the F-16 to an F-15. If doing intercepts, IIRC initially at least it was expected to dash to its target within some 100km, throw all kinds of fireworks around, and then haul tail back to base. That's not necessarily all it can do or what it was specifically designed to do, because it is also a very capable BFM machine and had BVR at a time when F-16s mostly lacked that capability. It's basic characteristics mostly lend it to that type of action though. It also does a reasonable job of delivering air to ground ordnance, so there is that as well. There is a list published by someone (you probably know this better than I do) listing the RCS' of various DCS aircraft. You can probably do some reasonably easy math to determine the detection range according to the radar equation and that RCS Certainly 3rd party modules have now gone beyond this and there is a probabilistic detection game happening. FC3 does not have this, and I don't know if the ED FF birds do.

Yes they do. It's just that the RCS assigned to many aircraft is the same or similar. I really have to wonder how you missed the detection range difference between say, a bomber and a fighter which is far more blatant than a slightly different RCS between fighters. That's because 'high flying targets' are just that, targets that don't know what they're doin beyond heading in some direction to try and catch something and lob a thing at it EOS itself should be plagued with false contacts as well, in particular if any clutter at all is present in the view, including clouds - that's one of them good reasons. The other good reason is that IRL these fights are flown with actual tactics, and no one's going to fly over known enemy territory without having eyes down that (or any) valley, and by eyes I do mean radar. Flying in a valley also means saying goodbye to your comms, including datalink - unless you have some form of a satellite terminal. In general, if you're GCI dependent you need LOS to your GCI and the other guy knows where you are anyway - so you can effectively kiss valley flying 'to be sneaky' goodbye IRL. It's not that you can't do it, but it's not going to be like DCS.

Make certain the DLL is copied into DCS as per instructions. Launch Tobii Experience and Game Hub as administrator, before starting the game. That's what makes it work for me.

Infinitesimally small, hehe. Right. If you want some measure realism, you need to make a commitment. People will play the way that suits them. That's all there is to it.

They'll do PvP. So no, he doesn't mean just PvE. Aggressors exist for a reason. If you want to just sling sticks without risking having to turn circles in the air without action though then yeah, you might not enjoy those.

He's not saying anything. Don't read into someone's wishes.

We're not getting an SM though.

MiG-29A (9.12, 9.12A) is not the same as a MiG-29 9.13 or MiG-29S (9.13S). While I don't know the difference between 9.12/9.12A, the 9.13 is physically different IIRC, and the 9.13S has a different radar and interface for it, for which there's no real documentation IIRC. The MiG-29G maybe is doable since it's a 9.12 with documented additions, IIRC.

The F-15C we have isn't any particular F-15C. It's kinda-MSIP, like the flanker and MiG are kinda whatever model they are. The radar got about as fixed as it's going to get for FC3, it picks things up at F-15 ranges now. Hmm, admittedly I don't play against people who game the game, but I find that the 7s can be quite threatening. I agree, the AP needs to be looked into a bit deeper. I wonder if there's trouble with the PTC there or if it's something else. The landing gear is rated for 600fpm@36000lbs as per IRL spec and it achieves that last time I tested, which was some time ago. THe only time I've damaged it or suffered any ill effects is if I drove over some hidden problem on the taxiway/ruway, or if I've taxi'd too fast or took turns too fast. That implies you had already damaged them or opposition had damaged them. Ham-fisted flying. Yes, this is bit of a weird issue but I attribute it to the lack of deeper systems modeling and not a huge deal. All radars in DCS that are offered to players kinda suck as far as ECM goes. As for the below, the only thing I'd wonder about is your taxi/runway experience but it's easily explainable.

Should not be possible to land in this condition (at least it would not be risked IRL) ... out of gas = fly to a safe ejection place and eject. The reasons for this (lack of hydraulic power and the resulting control transients) are not modeled in game.

I would not, all the other stuff gives you SA when DL is not available.

I would suggest that there may be something subtle at play here that we ca't really measure (but developers can) ... one semi-educated example could be g-onset. In the vast majority of cases, a more heavily laden aircraft should not be able to reach peak g as easily as a lighter version of itself, and it might not reach certain g loads at all. Because this requires careful examination of the available hydraulic power vs. resistance to the motion created by the airstream, it's a harder problem to analyze so I guess what I am trying to say is, maybe the problem isn't that the aircraft is breaking at those numbers, but that those numbers are reached too easily. Curves may be a potential work-around but they're not a great work-around compared to the physics simulation. There are other aircraft which have a 'lower' g-limit and they're not quite as fragile suggest this could use a more thorough investigation.

This is an issue that everyone has to look at, even just to deal with it on a temporary basis. There are definitely things that RAZBAM can do.

Without even an FF module, let's talk about the 'little things' that you could do, which would also translate to the Su-27 and MiG-29 to some degree, let's start with those: Sensors with more realistic search patterns and time required to execute those patterns (IRST vertical, looking at you) Sensors correctly placing the targets visually in the sensor display as the aircraft turns. Radar channel settings (which could lead to better ECM implementation) - channel settings can be chosen in the ME. Eagle specific: Hot/Cold symbols, cursor and target BRA/BULLS information, correct placement of NCTR data, waypoints on VSD, correct tws submodes using az-bump, and of course correct AACQ modes, including supersearch and GACQ. All of this without a full up FF module. Yes, there wouldn't be settings for anything but that's ok - I suppose no SIT page either, though it would be nice to get that.

Glad to hear you're moving to a single version - that should at least end certain types of arguments. A bit OT, but related: Automated testing is a must. The current problem (and possibly relatively frequent problems) with mission editor triggers and such things for example, are prime candidates for building an automated test harness. You're in good company not having it so far (Maybe you do, but it appears obvious that this is just not a fact at this time) as there are loads of software out there that don't go through test automation and it really is challenging to automate, but I think you really need that automated regression. The quality of the software appears to have increased which is great, but unfortunately such bugs are very impactful, highly visible (at least to certain groups) and should be covered by automation because frankly , relying on humans for this tedium is a bad deal.

You can search through the forums. It was a while ago and I don't recall any more whether it was on the English or Russian ones any longer.

Because people complained that it made the missile too good.

This capability had been put in and was later removed. Or perhaps there exist other bugs causing issues here, or incomplete features regarding the behavior of the range and doppler gates which are simulated for at least the 120 and I believe the 7 as well.

No, what is a bug is programming something and it doesn't work as intended. This is not a bug.

This is not a bug.

That's a poor argument. Although this complaint is specifically about the 120, anything that came out of it could/should apply to any 80's missile and probably a bunch of 70's ones, to include SAMs as well.

Fair question - the irony is that I agree with you, but the catch is this: What good is the community opinion (1) ? Maybe you believe this is harsh, but the fact is, most of the community doesn't know, those who know don't talk and those who have a better idea of what's going on without fear of spilling the beans so to speak are far and few inbetween but they are around. So, I think the goal here is to ask the right questions and get the right information, eg: What does it mean that the missile is too easy to notch? A couple of tracks is neat but doesn't mean anything, ie. 'works as designed' within the context of the game - closure < 25kts (as reported above) = break-lock. So, are we now going to talk about a target recovery attempt? It has been done in this game before. it was successful and guess what ... (1) people complained the 120 was 'too good' now, you actually had to stay in the notch and execute very accurately to make the thing stop hounding you. So ED turned that feature off. But suppose this comes back - now what? How do we deal with ECM and countermeasures, because obviously the missile could/should be affected (sometimes positively!)? Basically, saying 'it's too easy to notch' is stating a gut feeling without offering what it should be, never mind how it should be. One problem is that the notch works if you merely fly through it. Another problem is that if you go hot to cold aspect, it's possible (not certain but possible) that the in-game doppler tracker will give up. Essentially 'blinking' through the notch may constitute a break-lock. The simulation used to be much simpler than it is today, but some simple effects appear to remain. Without any debug prints though (which we will not be getting) it's really hard to judge what's going on any more.

RWR's being 'too accurate' isn't the problem, it's a truly minor part of the problem which you've already demonstrated by mentioning the cat's RWR, so why mention it at all? You're not offering a solution, and you're not offering any reasoning with respect to how easy/hard it should be notch, so your report as is leads to 'there's nothing to do here'. As for the last, no, there's no 'guiding an AMRAAM', it guides itself to impact, period. Best you can do is give it target position updates, but those are nowhere near as accurate as homing guidance and you shouldn't be hoping to fly the missile to a lethal pass (otherwise, what's the homing guidance for? It's expensive) You should be able to calculate this by flying a bunch of experiments. I don't recall the numbers which is why I'm not quoting them.

@BIGNEWY I believe this would be a 'low hanging fruit' to get into the game ASAP.