GGTharos

14nm. They hit when the MiG-29's were 8nm away. There aren't a whole lot of documented longer range shots IRL, if any. As for the first missing, I don't recall that. 3 missiles were launched (a single by the wingman) and there's no information about how many hit (obviously two, possibly all three).

I had to re-check myself on the up-engine. So most M2Ks were built with the engine we have in it now, but the initial batch received a previous, slightly weaker version. As for the thing with the MiG-29 turning capability, I trust the person who said it but again it is not something we can model. @F-2 that's some good research.

I'm not out to call anyone a liar. First of all, he did not write the interview himself or give a detailed account of anything that is of substance to us - think about it this way, if you were trying to model an M2K or a MiG-29, what information has he really given you? The answer is nothing. For one, which engine was that M2K packing, do we know? Our M2K in DCS is up-engined. The standard is the aircraft's maneuver charts from the aircraft's flight testing. There is no substitute and basically any such interview like the one you found is only a beginning point investigation and nothing more. The issue we come back to is that we don't have any real charts for the M2K. BTW I heard from a combat pilot a long time ago that MiG-29's have issues with making a good turn for reasons that aren't necessarily the fault of the airframe/flight characteristics, which are things that aren't modeled in DCS at all. He flew exercises against those MiG-29s, so his experience was that of an opponent. My point with mentioning that is that you can hear and read a whole bunch of stuff, but again it's only something to start investigating, not something you can model.

Okay, then ... I am of the opinion that we don't have the real life data for the Mirage 2000C, and that while your unqualified expectations of its performance are a thing we all do about a given aircraft, you need to accept that they are just that: unqualified expectations. A single random interview from somewhere doesn't change anything, and this isn't the first aircraft about which claims are made based on nothing but some interview (we've had several F-15C can't accelerate veritcally but this dude said it can! questions before for example). In DCS you have a climb and min radius advantage in a MiG-29 vs M2K, BFM accordingly and do not play the rate game, play the energy game.

There's nothing wrong with DCS BFM - understand the capabilities of you opponent and deal with it, like you'd have to if you flew real BFM. In any case DCS gunzo scenarios are completely contrived anyway, so they just flat out make no sense with respect to realism.

The real answer is you have to look. Get stable and glance at it. You could also map the 'quicklook' keypad 0 + 3 to help you out.

Thanks. This just seems like 'low hanging fruit', that's all. Add a radio call to control the desired bank angle by the pilot who's refueling. The default should become 30 deg (it halves the turn size which is significant for operating the racetrack) which is going to be a little harder than the current 15 but it is a happy medium in terms of difficulty IMHO. Bonus points like controlling this from the ME (and which is the minimum/maximum bank angle available to the calling player) can be added later.

Bumping. @BIGNEWY, this would be very good as a quality of life enhancement overall - it helps mission design a lot. The main issue as stated above is airspace management.

What sub class? The F-15E airframe with CFTs and and -229s is 9000lbs (about 4000kg) heavier than the F-15C airframe when empty. So yes, they will weigh the same when you put 6000 kg into one and 1700 in the other. You can do the math yourself and then see where the math doesn't add up - maybe I missed something.

It should cause that. It does in the C.

It's subject and correct and wrong at the same time. You're right' the 'weight' isn't there in a light gray, because it is much lighter ... but at the same time, the 'weight' isn't there in a light grey because the CG is different, and this makes a pretty huge difference IMHO. The F-15C is simplified in some ways but not in this way - the beagle has more nice and extended feedback for the 'feel' of the flight though, again IMHO, and of course the beagle models the systems in much more detail - here I refer to hydraulics etc.

An empty C is about 29500lbs, full tank of gas about 13500lbs. That brings it to 43000lbs. An empty beagle weighs in at some 39000lbs, and 17% of 22000lbs internal fuel capacity with CFTs is say 4000lbs, bringing it to 43000lbs. You'll have to break it down into details then. A fully fueled F-15C is 43000lbs, an empty E with -229s and CFTs is close to 39000lbs - they're not the same. So, what do you see that's wrong?

29500lbs empty, the beagle is close to 39000lbs with pilots, oil, and the -229s. No gas.

Its eyeball is steerable.

It's not a thing in eagles in general.

It is not used by the pilot AFAIK, disengaging the NWS allows the wheel to free-caster which could lead to bad things. It's used for moving the aircraft around physically AFAIK. This may be a thing for RAZBAM to look into. The issues of ground handling may be a problem in general in DCS - but you can also set curves for your rudder to help out. I use a gentle touch of the rudders and it all works out for me, YMMV. Aileron also helps (stick deflection against the wind to keep that wing from getting extra lift)

Correct, it is always on and it is turned off pretty much for the tugs and personnel to move the aircraft around. As per the eagle manual (IIRC, it's been a while) put all wheels on the ground and use aileron to neutralize drift.

You shouldn't really be able to reach a g at which you can snap the wings unless you're loaded. There is an additional (maybe minor, maybe not?) issue here where the elevators have no resistance due to air pressure, achieving deflection and thus g that they shouldn't be able to - basically the highest recorded G on an eagle, ever, is 12.5 which ended up with bent wings, fuselage etc. But it didn't break apart. Not really surprising, but you'd bend the wings depending on how long you kept that g going (maybe you'd bend them no matter how long at that g). The issue in DCS is asymmetric g, so you need to put in a bit of roll with aileron or especially rudder. Another possible issue is that the wings are being broken instead of being permanently bent and affecting the FM. This is a bit of a compromise between realism and gaming - making the wings break is relatively quick and easy, making them bend and screw up the FM is less so. Not an issue - do a bit of research on the STOHL curve for g tolerance. Basically the brain has a few seconds of oxygen available even if you mess up your AGSM. The higher the g, the less that available consciousness time.

If you want to affect AWACS/EWR, get SOJs Which should be added.

The right way to deal with it is have the receiver deal with blink jamming as it would have to do IRL. Alternatively require ECM to be active for x amount of time before it affects the receiver (so, not a warm up of the ECM like we have in FC3 but rather the receiver is 'numb' to it for the first 1-2 sec) - and while this won't negate blinking (not that it necessarily should negate that) it will make it less effective, ie. not a force-field or guaranteed miss. This could be tuned to achieve the desired result. It could even be player/server tunable and enforceable, allowing some variance in ECM capability (today, this side or aircraft or system has the upper hand etc)

I'm using the -1. Check my math The empty weight without CFTs is 33500lbs. The CFTs add 4400 lbs to this, so you get 37900lbs with CFTs. The CFTs have a drag index of 20.1 (for reference, two bags or single centerline bag are approximately 11 on the DI, so the CFTs are just shy of the drag index of hauling 3 bags) The lantirn and tgp add about 1100lbs, with a respective DI of 9.4 and 7.5, for a total of 16.9 and with the CFTs, 37. Assuming you want to be as clean as possible, your basic DI is 20.1 before we add any air to air weapons, but compared to a light grey you're already configured as if you were hauling three bags and an additional 7000lbs of weight just for existing. So yes, they're not parachutes, and you've got more thrust but none of this is trivial.

I agree, that's a great method for using what DCS makes available! Thanks!

So the way to use it is basically to copy-paste those given aircraft into their mission position once the template puts them in there?

Hi Rudel, because I don't use templates often, could you show what the content of the template is? This is very interesting to me

If it wasn't effective, chaff wouldn't be carried. But the use of it wouldn't be as simple as we have it in DCS - chaff would be used in very particular ways with specific dispensing intervals and maneuvers as well as inclusion of ECM. We don't know how each system would be affected by it - the DCS implementation is a simple stochastic model that works on its own.