Octav

Wrong ;) It have no affect on medium and high altitudes. On low altitudes it have affect. Why is that? What is the explanation? And it happens in lock mode, or in search mode? P.S. - and what about the different sizes of the target box, depending on the radar mode?

Yes thats the abbreviations for those modes(in that order) :) I think what Octavian means it that the target box is displayed differently in different radar modes - i.e. not a question of adjustment, but about the nature of the symbology used. Hello Jens, Yes, that's what I mean - the box has different heights, based on the mode - smaller in V mode, about double height in AVT, and triple height (relative to V) in D mode - it's size is the same, measured in km's of distance, but because these 3 modes have different max ranges, the box is scaled-up accordingly. SNP has it's box wider (if I remember correctly, about 1.5 times - I'll have to check the manuals, I'm not at home at the moment, so I have no access to them for a few days), and the TP(STROB) box is a rectangle with a small base and a more than double height. (to prevent confusions, TP(STROB) is the BVR EOS mode) Anyway, I'm glad to hear that there are no more losses of lock in BVR modes, when banking more than 110 degrees. Cheers, Ocavian

Re: Riple fire R27 You should wait until the R's motor burns out, or the T might lock on to it - or fire them in reverse order: T first, R next. Octav EDIT: In real life, of course - in LO it seems there is no problem firing them like click-clik

A new question for the ones involved in 1.1: is the new radar model including those features: different sized boxes for V, D, AVT, SNP, TP(STROB) modes? One more thing: what about the long-disputed loss of lock in V/D/AVT mode when bankled more than 110 degrees? It was decided (after countless arguments, and prior to 1.02 release) that it affected search modes only, and it appeared as a feature affecting the lock mode also - any changes ? Octav

Re: Poll - Active radar missiles for Su-27 Only if they decide to model (even basically) a Su-27 version that can deploy them (even if it isn't in massive use in the RuAF). Otherwise, you might see me asking for the MIG-29 SMT :D Octav

Hm... for that alt... that's more than enough... For reference, the 29's RCS is about 4 sqm. Don't know the KC-10's RCS.

What are the altitudes of the figther and the target? If you were above 10k feet, and the tanker even higher, the numbers are good - electronics don't produce miracles - for a given RCS, abd a given antenna diameter and power output, you're going to have similar results, regardless of the electronics (they might give you a few percent extra, but don't expect wonders only because it's the F-15 radar). Octav

First they have to sort out all the bugs out of the damage model of the MiG-1.42 plasma generator. If you get hit, you loose the entire plasma field, and all your stealth is gone. This shouldn't be the case, unless you loose the generator itself (which doesn't happen very often, you'll have to be torn apart to damage the generator), or if you loose electrical power (which isn't the case, I've lost the entire plasma field with no damage to the electrical system). When you get hit, you might loose the plasma generating gear associated with the part of the aircraft that got hit - so if a radar is not painting you on that area, there shouldn't be any problems. I'd like to see that adressed in the next week's patch. Octav

Re: Whats wrong with sigs ?? It's the fact that most Russian members (which are the majority on those forums) are restricted to slow connections. It's on the top of this forum: http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=2170&sid=49ec6f6b62c61060b8a8a7a75a68a51b In case you've missed it. Cheers, Octav

I think there is a problem with the Su-37 model - after scraping the runway with the nozzles, during takeoff, both of them were bent 20 degrees upwards, and they were using that as their vectoring point - I had to push the stick fully forwards, to keep the nozzles pointing straight back - is this normal/reallistic?

Well, the physics of the wake turbulence and jet wash are very complex - I would suspect that calculating those for every aircraft would half your framerate, at least - and don't forget that they go on for miles. The actual wake turbulence, which may cause some problems, comes from the wingtips, those may cause some serious flow disturbances on an airfoil. Regarding the engines, an engine nozzle is designed to exhaust the jet at a pressure equal to that of the enviromen - that's the point where you get maximum thrust, so that means the jet exhaust doesn't create a lot of turbulence, and it is a pretty straight path, dissipating it's remaining energy pretty fast. Of course, passing through it an a very close range (tens of meters), won't be a pretty experience. But, to model the compressor surges associated with the ingestion of combustion gases, a toally new engime nodel must be created - the current one doesn't seem to model that. You can go to the extremes, ingest rocket motor exhaust gases, and the engine rpm won't move a bit. Plus, most current engines (I'm sure about the AL-31 and the RD-33) have automatic surge protection devices, and the engine might ingest loads of gases, and go to several surges, without the pilot noticing it - the system is very effective, injecting oxygen in the combustion chambers, modifying the compressor geometry, and switching the ignition on as necessary, so that you will know about the surge only when you read the FDR, on ground. And, on a severe surge, you might feel a little loss of traction, accompanied by a small rmp drop. Octav

Shall I start describing the beautiful way the MiG29M2 is modelled? :twisted:

If I read you correct, if this is the heading of both of the aircraft at time of detection, the KC-10 is essentially heading away from you, this will weaken its radar return, because the velocity of closure has been reduced. If your try some testing I would be very keen to see what your results are :wink: For a tail-on intercept, it is actually pretty good - a head-on shot, with the fighter going at 800 kts, and the target at 400 kts, should give you some 100 miles

You are a good man SUBS17 8) You've hit JJ on his soft spot :D Octav

1.1? Sorry, wrong thread - I tought you were talking about 1.5... The new MiG-29UB, and Su-30MK are a BEAUTY!!!

Tomorrow :twisted:

oh my... I'm blushing... :oops: :P

The A/G mode is a real feature of the Su-27/MiG-29. It is employed in OPT mode, with an AG munition selected (dumb bombs, rockets and submunition dispensers, plus incendiary bombs), it has a balistic computer with every weapon's characteristics, which uses the laser rangefinder to calculate the distance to the target point, and combining that with the data from the air data computer, it calculates the shooting solution for the selected munition type. Octav

I see a chute... What a TARGET..... Geneva Convention?.... never read it...

For that I'll revert to blueberry jam :wink:

I'll use my highly directional solid state 25 KW tracking jammer - it will follow your wing, and jam it - you have no chance :D And if that doesn't work, I'll sitch to strawberry jam - you can't beat that :lol:

I've never had the chance to check this in lomac.... But most radars, once the've locked a target, switch to a different filtering method, that allows them to keep lock of a beaming target, especially if they are below the target's altitude - I'm glad they implemented that in lomac, although most radars, when loosing a locked target in the ground clutter, will most of the time start tracking the ground, instead of just loosing lock - that would be nice to model... Octav

Well, to have some practical numbers... At 1000 km/h closure speed, for a radar with a notch gate of 100 km/h, the beaming angle should be between 84 and 96 degrees. At 500 km/h closure speed, the angle could be between 78 and 102 degrees For a 200 km/h notch gate, the angles become: at 1000 km/h - 78 - 102 degrees at 500 km/h - 66 - 114 degrees Octav

Well then, I'll use my wide band 10 KW jammer to prevent you from launching your wireless missiles :lol: Octav

:?: :!: You really have Lock On? :wink: Hmm... try to put 27T on a russian 29A. The S takes them but not the A, don't know why but it's so. I don't fly the German 29... And I've heard something about enabling the 27T on the Russian A's as well, as it appears that they were also fitted with that capability.