GGTharos

Then try recording the shortest track possible. Is this happening in MP only?

They should be. Issues with fuzes etc. aside, it does not mean that the attempt and guidance would not work. Just have the 'attack bombs' option deselected by default, since the SAM AI right now lacks the ability to properly prioritize, missiles lacks the proper fidelity to simulate fuzing with greater detail that could make this less practical and so on. If you had a single aircraft and a JDAM on the scope, shooting the JDAM wouldn't be a big deal, IMHO. Real warfware presents a lot more challenges.

There's a significant difference in terms of distributing something via EDSA that the programmers in Russia did not program, and them actually programming it.

Well, 7.33x1.5=11g, or just under. That's not what's being complained about. As far as RAZBAM goes, if you over-g the F-15E hard and long enough, you bend the wings (in theory, the airframe also) and they stay that way, imposing a squirrelicious FM. Other modules also break weapon stations etc, and it would be nice to see all of those things exist together in a module, as 'over-g' has different values for various things attached to the aircraft, or the aircraft itself.

Sustained operations. These don't really exist in DCS or in most flight sims. But it's still a sim and you can get a fresh aircraft every time so you don't really get to draw a line. Just because you don't like that they can pull 34920349g one time doesn't mean that they can't, or that this is wrong. This already exists. Like I said, RAZBAM raised the bar here. And again, the feedback IMHO as I suggested - log aircraft fatigue in the debrief so that people know what they've done to the aircraft and since understanding fatigue requires serious undertaking IRL I would object to having some sort of 'fatigue bar' that can be referenced during flight. So to put it another way - if the wings breaking is the result of fatigue (this aircraft's limits would be low compared to modern fighters, so easier to fatigue), the result is correct and what's needed is feedback so that it is understood that this is the result of mistreating your aircraft. If, on the other hand, it's the result of say wake turbulence? Fix that stuff - wake turbulence has had issues in DCS so just turn that off.

Consider that there might not be a problem: People are flying with combat loads, exceeding 6g (or having a higher than allowable entry g for a loaded roll, which results in higher g due to roll coupling) - and slowly fatiguing their aircraft. They then break the aircraft an 'unexpectedly low g'. But there could also be other issues as well. This is why fatigue output into the debrief would be great - log it as if taking damage.

@BIGNEWY @NineLine are we allowed to post parts from the F-5E-1 here? It's from August 1978.

There's no realistic way to punish them, and you shouldn't try. You're not flying a realistic scenario, but your aircraft is supposed to be simulated as realistically as it can be. For everything else, there's WarThunder - I mean MasterCard The idea here is that you're not going to maintain an airframe in-game realistically anyway, even if there was a campaign where you could accumulate fatigue and lose the airframe to it, how hard you use it up would have more to do with the intensity of the campaign than anything else. In the game though you just get a new airframe every single time. I doubt this will change. I haven't been able to break it so far so I'm not sure what's going on either. Admittedly I didn't try very hard, but I yanked 10G until GLOC and the needle indicated that this is what I maxed out at. I did it more than one in a row and the wings didn't break - so I think what we need is some output from the game, even if just in the log, to tell us that we're fatiguing the airframe and how much, and/or a record of this in the debrief you see after you exit the mission. This would probably help identify where exactly all this breakage is happening.

As far as we know, they are. They have stated numerous times that they do not wish to get politically entangled for the sake of gamers.

Did you roll while pulling? The transonic zone is the most vulnerable zone for g tolerance, coupled with the loss of several g when applying asymmetric g.

Stick to 5-6 g

It is supposed to vary according to many things. It's not simple, so I assume it's WIP.

This is too funny, it's like the R-77 is datalinking/illuminating for the R-27. HoJ shouldn't work if you're not illuminating your target either.

2.9s 8000lbs. Yep. There are two main drivers of the different motor types: Diversity of vendors (one goes bankrupt or something else happens, you have the other) and reliability improvements for the rocket motors.

Not an entirely incorrect result. Not sure why people expect HARM (or indeed ARM of any type) to be better at DEAD than bombs. It's just not. While SAMs should generally have the capability to engage bombs, it doesn't mean they'll be successful at it - the missile's fuzes for example might not be designed to engage such a physically small target. Nut as far as radar and guidance goes, as long as the radar isn't being jammed they should always be able to make the attempt. Having said that, as mentioned in this thread I would completely expect priority to be given to the mothership though so to sum up ... again, not a particularly incorrect result. I think more likely is the ease with which you can see dot on the ground, making these SAMs easy to find, and the lack of any useful decision making, decoy emplacement and use or other evasion tactics by the SAMs built into the AI logic. And of course, the lack of defense layering.

It is. You're simply missing some information. No aircraft can go vertical and not lose speed. Near the ground, at low altitude where the pressure is high enough and if you start at high speed, you might be able to accelerate vertically for a short time - but the pressure will drop quickly and the amount of thrust generated by the engines depends on that very pressure - so it's that plus the speed. So you lose pressure by altitude, you lose indicated airspeed, and thus all you're doing by going up is starving the engines of the very air they need to maintain this thrust. So to sum up, you need to ram air into the engine to get more thrust. Less air (lower density + lower airspeed) = less thrust.

There is a lack of yaw/roll coupling, but this is DCS-wide. This probably affects the amount of stability based on various factors, and is easy to test by applying the auto-roll conditions, you'll see that you cannot produce an auto-roll.

This ^ The thing about having a big warhead is that this is what is recommend against a bomber. DCS doesn't represent this sort of thing too well.

Unfortunately I have no idea. I haven't flown the F-5E for a while now

There's no 'transfer' - the missile seeker is cued to look in that direction and it does it's own work for locking the target. This is why pre-emptive flares should work. This mechanism doesn't really apply to DCS, at least not consistently.

It wasn't the the first ship to get shwacked by an anti-ship missile because they were not expecting it/prepared to face that type of threat for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with what we assume the '5/25/50/m floor' means for a given SAM. The issue of dealing with sea-skimmers in particular has been written about since the 50's. @MBot makes a very good point here, these missiles aren't 'low probability to intercept', they're next to impossible to intercept. This is a DCS missile/SAM thing, not a an Rb04E thing though.

It's 50km at medium-high altitude shot from M0.9 against a head-on (non maneuvering) target with the same parameters and 100km shot from 15000-20000m altitude at mach 2 against a target with similar parameters.

In other words, no you cannot use this mod in integrity-checked servers, so you cannot have a PL-12 there.

Again the math has to be done to demonstrate that something is wrong. Once you reach a certain speed, the drag force is a wall that you cannot break through without enough thrust.

The real answer here is that you have to do the math. Air resistance increases exponentially with speed and the missile's thrust is limited.