GGTharos

... because FC3 rants aren't actually decade old rants since LOMAC came out? I mean face it, you're basically new here. You're not the first to ask for improvements - want to see how much stuff the F-15 is missing? Or maybe it's ok because it's not red? But it is a conspiracy theory. Neglect implies intent to harm. They're simply following the money with new modules, and as far as FC3 goes sadly they are mostly done until they decide they're not - I mean, the FM upgrades were a major thing. Maybe there will be some systems upgrades in the future.

ED has already commented before. They consider FC3 to be feature complete. It doesn't mater if they're red of blue.

I suspect that under the circumstances, removal of the specific speed bump (SAM) would be the mission itself. There's a lot of desire to run 50 missions in one mission, but this sort of GBAD would simply be its own problem, combined with enemy air power and layering.

There should be no warning when the missile locks on, the missile itself is passive, but a launch warning should be come whenever the SAM switches to a guidance waveform - this could happen at launch or later. Unfortunately DCS only supports a launch tone when a missile goes active, or at launch - not when the radar switches modes.

They are basically saying that these radars are LPI and your old RWR has no way of detecting the lock/launch. If you look previously in the thread I disagree with this but it's not my call

The missiles are semi-active radar homing. They require that the SAM illuminate the target for them.

ED said they won't make any more FC3 style modules (I guess MAC is the exception to the rule, but it's going in the opposite direction - FF -> FC3) ... so not really a flimsy argument for ED. The J-11A is a modification of the Su-27 made by Deka with ED's permission. So ... if you're a 3rd party you can do whatever you choose, ED as stated won't be doing any more FC3 things.

Sounds like it's software - specifically your HOTAS software if you have any.

The radar is working as it had before. It'll be nice when they bump up the range, Chizh already said publicly that it is under-modeled. As for your other problems, I would look really close at your controls with whatever diagnostic tools you have. It looks like there might be some 'gotcha' combinations that will turn off your engine, switch a profile somewhere somehow, etc.

Who's upset? It was a logical debunking of your argument. Sure. Which you'll never get because they either have no documentation or no permission to use it. So, the FC3 Su-33 is as close as you get and frankly make it FF won't make a big competitive difference. Same weapons, same capabilities in general - in fact, you may get a degraded RWR. And if you mean the upgraded versions of the 33, then you know as well as anyone, that this is well in the 'keep dreaming' area. And? Just because 'a thing' isn't modeled, we ignore everything else? Slippery slopes are not logical arguments.

No one is opposed to any of those modules, just your fantasy version of them. Next thing we do is make F-22s because well, we can just guess at them. Or Su-34s or F-35s, Gripens etc. There are already community mods for some of those - so the solution remains to ask server owners to include them, wish fulfilled. ED isn't going to do it and your arguments don't cut it. Yep, there are things that aren't realistic in the current modules. They're as realistic as can be based on documentation. You want to roll down the slow and ignore the 'based on documentation' part - your argument (that things in existing modules are already guessed at) is not valid because you want to ignore a major premise.

Play on restricted servers. ED has stated very clearly that no documentation = no module. You can always ask your favorite server admins to permit use of community mods.

I think he means ccm_k0.

It's not necessarily a case of 'want', they may have documents that they're not allowed to share.

There's a difference between the radar being able to do something physically and the step function prioritizing correctly.

No. The radar equation encapsulates SNR. I have bad news for you ... yes they are. They are very, very detectable. The RCS on cruise missiles is similar to the small AA missiles for a number of reasons. Sure, that I can buy to some extent but with a *. There aircraft are designed to attack other aircraft which will be coming in at mach 3, so a missile really has to get moving to drop outside of the filter banks. That's exclusively the purview of high altitude fast shots, and only at times where the missile may maintain a high speed - meaning a few seconds after lunch and from there on, it's slowing down. I have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't see the problem, ECM and chaff are there to cause problems as is. What's a couple more contacts?

You are correct, but there are the following issues: The number of missiles launched depends on doctrine. Different number of missiles and different sequence is used depending on the type of target, for example: 1) TBM - Shoot-shoot-shoot-look-(possibly more shooting). This is 2 PAC-2, 1 PAC-3. 2) Cruise missile: Depends on available time to intercept, start with shoot-look-shoot and if not enough time, shoot-shoot-look-(possibly more shooting) 3) ABT (aircraft): Same as above. The 'look' above means you wait to verify missile success/failure. The main problem here though is how bad you've made the missiles at hitting anything. PATRIOTs aren't bad at hitting missiles - they're actually really good (one of the main tests performed is actually PATRIOT shooting down another PATRIOT). In case of objections: PATRIOTs were bad at destroying TBM warheads, but they would reliably hit their targets - source: I have somewhere the 2000's analysis of PATRIOT vs TBM from the US Army, not civilian experts. Coming back to what's 'wrong' with PATRIOT: 1) The miss distance is too large because of the 'CEP' forced on missiles at both low altitudes and basic CEP applied to any altitude. It's excessive and IMHO poorly implemented: There should be almost zero miss distance vs. a non-maneuvering target. The CEP should grow if the target maneuvers, mostly proportional to the normal of the plane of motion of the target as seen in the seeker. The 'CEP' should then settle some short time after the maneuver is complete. 2) TBM intercept trajectory specifically is bad. The missile flies PN/APN all the way which is completely incorrect for this application. 3) Low altitude target intercept trajectory is also very poor, and the forced 'CEP' isn't helping. 32 missiles to intercept 4 cruise missiles is an unacceptable result. There is no ABT/ABM mode: These are important because when PATRIOT is looking for one, it may easily miss the other. Its capability heavily depends on the mode it is put into - either defending from ballistic missiles or from everything else.

This is correct vs. TBMs, and either way controlled by doctrine which does not exist in DCS. The biggest problem here is the amount of missiles needed to hit this non-maneuvering target.

So he dropped chaff and your missile went for chaff then?

I do agree with your logic, and thanks for doing the work! What remains is to match the HuD image performance, but this is difficult to do because the information provided on that HuD is not meant for science.

Thank you for the explanation. The diagrams we have do not specify the shooting fighter having more speed ... but in some ways it makes sense, because having 0 closure IIRC would drop the lock. However, I think now the complaint will be that once more, the parameters do not exactly match the diagram. What is the source of the first graph?

While I can guess the axis labels, I think it would be best if you provided a general legend/explanation of your method I assume the blue line is the target aircraft. Where did the top graph come from?

You need to provide a track. Although at 3nm the missile should theoretically hit, you're very close to head-on Rmin (inside of it at some closures) and you have pretty much provided none of the information that matters.

That's more like low-yield nuclear weapon kill radius. Did you know that an Mk-82 has a 1km frag radius? Should be just blow up everything in a 1km radius from an Mk-82? Pretty much yep. Frag radius should be 300-400m, but the further away you are from the impact the less likely you are to be hit by any of these fragments - really unlikely beyond say 20-40m. If you're behind any sort of cover you're probably flat out safe.

As far as a Cd0 graph is concerned, very possibly yes. It's an entire graph, not just 'a number' but a different number at each point. The overall shape could show all sort of things, like a narrower or extended peak, different slope, etc. Without at least doing a CFD, claiming that R-27R and R-27ER have a similar drag is reasonable only because you don't have time/resources to run the CFD.