No one escapes in front of the Russian aircraft

[Exorcet]

Maybe the solution is not flying the 27 anymore.

Not if the in sim behavior is inaccurate.

[DarkFire]

Maybe the solution is not flying the 27 anymore.

 

Blasphemy!!! :D

 

I may be stating the very obvious here, anmd preaching to the choir, but the issue with the Pk of the R-27R / ER is solely due to CM spoofing the guidance radar. Does anyone remember the first week or so after 1.5 was released? When there was a bug that caused chaff to have no effect? During that week the Pk of my ER launches was easily 75 - 90% against all sorts of targets.

 

Missile kinematics, i.e. the very short range that all missiles have in DCS at the moment, is a different issue and one that I'd very much like to see being solved. I've seen it written that the reason ED won't adjust things to give realistic ranges at say 20,000 feet is that missile performance becomes wildly excessive at above 40K'.

 

However, does anyone actually fight up there? IAS for both the F-15 and Su-27 is so low at that sort of altitude that trying to conduct a turning fight up there is pointless. OK, I can envisage a situation whereby the new meta would be to climb and accelerate to 2.6M at 45K before launching missiles at long range, but at those unrealistically extended ranges the target, if the pilot has a clue, will have a significant amount of time to evade the incoming missile kinematically.

 

I'd therefore respectfully suggest that it would be much more useful for all pilots (applies equally to A-10C, Su-25T and Ka-50 pilots who want decent ranges for their PGMs) if missiles were tuned to have realistic ranges at 10 - 25,000 feet altitude which is where most combat will actually take place.

 

For the record, I want all the missiles to have an accurate range. Although it neither is nor should be the aim of the game, having realistic ranges and a... fair... CM rejection ability would naturally provide "balance": Eagle drivers could enjoy having a very effective AIM-120 with its ARH abilities while the Flanker and Fulcrum drivers amongst us could make use of the superior speed and acceleration and (arguable) slightly better range of the R-27ER. I'd imagine that the air to mud people who enjoy flying the relevant NATO and Russian jets & choppers would also then be happy that their A2G missiles would have decent ranges.

[SinusoidDelta]

Blasphemy!!! :D

 

I may be stating the very obvious here, anmd preaching to the choir, but the issue with the Pk of the R-27R / ER is solely due to CM spoofing the guidance radar. Does anyone remember the first week or so after 1.5 was released? When there was a bug that caused chaff to have no effect? During that week the Pk of my ER launches was easily 75 - 90% against all sorts of targets.

 

Missile kinematics, i.e. the very short range that all missiles have in DCS at the moment, is a different issue and one that I'd very much like to see being solved. I've seen it written that the reason ED won't adjust things to give realistic ranges at say 20,000 feet is that missile performance becomes wildly excessive at above 40K'.

 

However, does anyone actually fight up there? IAS for both the F-15 and Su-27 is so low at that sort of altitude that trying to conduct a turning fight up there is pointless. OK, I can envisage a situation whereby the new meta would be to climb and accelerate to 2.6M at 45K before launching missiles at long range, but at those unrealistically extended ranges the target, if the pilot has a clue, will have a significant amount of time to evade the incoming missile kinematically..

You won't be getting to 2.6M with missile on either jet. Regardless, missile range increases drastically with altitude and Mach. As you know, the rocket burns for a finite period of time, initial V is higher, atmospheric density at 40k is a fraction vs. sea level and Cd decreases above the transonic region. High altitude, high Mach launches therefore should increase the missile's delta V, more delta V equals a lower rate of deceleration, hence a dramatic increase in range. It's not the missile propulsion necessarily that's to blame in DCS, it's the atmospheric model being propelled through to consider.

 

Not directed toward DarkFire but this thread in general:

 

-Chaff also effects the host radar, AFAIK it does not in DCS....yet no one complains

-The ER combat record is abysmal, should we disregard that information?

-What type of radar does the ER employ and why should it be less susceptible to chaff?

-How many chaff bundles can the Su-27 carry? How many for the F-15?

 

The argument being raised here is purely one of fairness without technical detail. The systems in question were developed and engineered by some of the greatest minds in human history. I'm certainly not one of them. I mean no disrespect that those posting aren't either but we all need to try a bit harder to influence the developer.

 

Missile effectiveness shouldn't be reduced to a chaff lottery. Radar shouldn't be less vulnerable to chaff because one "thinks" or "feels" it should. It should be based on empirical data, either cited or learned. Otherwise we are going in one big circle....

Edited January 29, 2016 by SinusoidDelta

[DarkFire]

You won't be getting to 2.6M with missile on either jet. Regardless, missile range increases drastically with altitude and Mach. As you know, the rocket burns for a finite period of time, initial V is higher, atmospheric density at 40k is a fraction vs. sea level and Cd decreases above the transonic region. High altitude, high Mach launches therefore should increase the missile's delta V, more delta V equals a lower rate of deceleration, hence a dramatic increase in range. It's not the missile propulsion necessarily that's to blame in DCS, it's the atmospheric model being propelled through to consider.

 

Not directed toward DarkFire but this thread in general:

 

-Chaff also effects the host radar, AFAIK it does not in DCS....yet no one complains

-The ER combat record is abysmal, should we disregard that information?

-What type of radar does the ER employ and why should it be less susceptible to chaff?

-How many chaff bundles can the Su-27 carry? How many for the F-15?

 

The argument being raised here is purely one of fairness without technical detail. The systems in question were developed and engineered by some of the greatest minds in human history. I'm certainly not one of them. I mean no disrespect that those posting aren't either but we all need to try a bit harder to influence the developer.

 

Missile effectiveness shouldn't be reduced to a chaff lottery. Radar shouldn't be less vulnerable to chaff because one "thinks" or "feels" it should. It should be based on empirical data, either cited or learned. Otherwise we are going in one big circle....

 

Agreed. It's difficult getting above 2.0M with weapons in the Su-27. FWIW I think the missile kinematics is probably fairly good and agree that the range problem is caused by limitations in the atmospheric modelling, probably the pressure gradient with altitude.

[winchesterdelta1]

Maybe the solution is not flying the 27 anymore.

 

To make a point we maybe should do just that. What is DCS without Flanker?? I would certainly be disappointed if everybody would fly F-15. The main reason i'm playing this game is diversity and Multiplayer simulation. Because i do agree that these missiles fixes are taking to long. But what do i know about the decision making and how difficult the programming and stuff is. But sometimes people just need some incentive / pressure..

 

Or do like the 104th server with the mirgae and the AIM9. Improve it a little till you have the real data so Su-27 pilots and F-15's can be happy. The question is.. What do you want more. Realistic tactics with a little missile guess work? Or missiles that clearly don't work correctly with unrealistic tactics that make everybody mad.

Edited January 30, 2016 by winchesterdelta1

[GGTharos]

Agreed. It's difficult getting above 2.0M with weapons in the Su-27. FWIW I think the missile kinematics is probably fairly good and agree that the range problem is caused by limitations in the atmospheric modelling, probably the pressure gradient with altitude.

 

????

 

Based on WHAT? There's nothing wrong with the atmosphere, the issue is in the drag coefficient curve for the missile.

[winchesterdelta1]

Like i heard GGTharos once said.. Being a fighter pilot is not guess work. It's training and calculation and knowing what you are doing. With the missiles we have now it's more guess work. Both sides ER a little bit more that AIM-120C.

[pr1malr8ge]

So according to everyone pro RU planes launched chaff should make me imune to ER's ohh figured I'd give it a go.. NOPE not imune and I as //RAGE said exploited chaff by dropping a whole crap load and behold I still got smacked and I even put in a slight maneuver. Sorry but I'm not sold on the ER being worthless.

[Sweep]

Chaff does jack-you-know-what head-on.

 

Get past 135 aspect and try again.

 

Edit: I mean below 135...

Edited January 30, 2016 by Sweep

[TAW_Blaze]

Chaff does jack-you-know-what head-on.

 

Get past 135 aspect and try again.

 

Edit: I mean below 135...

 

But they are claiming you can fly head on into ERs and defeat them with little to no effort by spamming chaff.

Edited January 30, 2016 by <Blaze>

[*Rage*]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2660028#post2660028

 

Watch first. Then comment in this thread. Chaff renders the missiles useless.

 

I love how the dedicated F15 drivers are trying to brush this under the carpet. What are you so afraid of?

[TAW_Blaze]

Seen them enough times. It's just hilarious how everyone claims totally different things.

[Solty]

I think most guys here want to have easy kills just by shooting in BVR. From what I saw BVR works IRL only with AWACS and against MiG21,23 and 25. That might not have pilots that know what is really going on. Here you fight against F15C that is fully aware of what is going on. I am a noob and I dough 1v1 against my friend and he shot me down in bvr 80% of the time. Why? Because he knows what he is doing. I didn't xD

[Iceman1987]

Seen them enough times. It's just hilarious how everyone claims totally different things.

 

Which different claims have been made?

The only other claims come from some eagle drivers who want to maintain the situation as it is to have the easy kills. Most kills on the servers are AIM 120. When I am on teamspeak the Eagle driver start to 'panick' when they see an Mig-29 on their RWR. If it is a flanker they start their standaard tactics.

 

If they don't want to fix the missle issue; then lets them fix the data-link issue. Or will the Eagle pilots be against that too?

[RoflSeal]

Which different claims have been made?

The only other claims come from some eagle drivers who want to maintain the situation as it is to have the easy kills. Most kills on the servers are AIM 120. When I am on teamspeak the Eagle driver start to 'panick' when they see an Mig-29 on their RWR. If it is a flanker they start their standaard tactics.

 

If they don't want to fix the missle issue; then lets them fix the data-link issue. Or will the Eagle pilots be against that too?

 

You always see a 29 on the radar. F-15 RWR doesn't differentiate between MiG-29 and Su-27.

[Bidartarra]

I think most guys here want to have easy kills just by shooting in BVR. From what I saw BVR works IRL only with AWACS and against MiG21,23 and 25. That might not have pilots that know what is really going on. Here you fight against F15C that is fully aware of what is going on. I am a noob and I dough 1v1 against my friend and he shot me down in bvr 80% of the time. Why? Because he knows what he is doing. I didn't xD

 

Well, I play Falcon BMS alot (which is supposedly quite realistic).

 

The same missiles found in DCS are also there. where an Amraam in DCS can't shoot past 11nm at 20,000ft, in BMS I've scored kills from 18 to 20nm away. I can assure you switching from BMS to DCS I know my pain.

 

And boy I fear those R27 and R77 in BMS, I hate them actually.

 

DCS has its advantages no doubt, but there's definetly improvements to bring.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Bidartarra

[TAW_Blaze]

Which different claims have been made?

The only other claims come from some eagle drivers who want to maintain the situation as it is to have the easy kills. Most kills on the servers are AIM 120. When I am on teamspeak the Eagle driver start to 'panick' when they see an Mig-29 on their RWR. If it is a flanker they start their standaard tactics.

 

If they don't want to fix the missle issue; then lets them fix the data-link issue. Or will the Eagle pilots be against that too?

 

One bunch saying chaff makes ER totally useless in all circumstances, enabling the opposition to fly straight at any ER launches and defeat them by spamming chaff and barrel rolling.

 

Another bunch now saying chaff is useless at head on and only becomes useful in the beam or cold aspect.

 

Another bunch claiming ER is fine. Probably a few more bunches inbetween these.

 

Personally I'm in the 'not giving a damn' bunch. I just posted to point out how funny things are. My own perception based on personal experience is that ER is more capable than it's claimed to be. Whether they improve it or not, I frankly don't care. I'd like DCS to be more realistic but I can't be bothered with this anymore. When you fly a certain amount of hours and experience things one way and then some guys try to convince you of the exact opposite things become interesting. Eventually I figured I'd stop caring because it's not worth the effort.

[AussieGhost789]

Speaking from my own experience with the R-27ER, in look down situations it is abysmal. I often see it going for the first chaff deployed when I review in tacview. In look up situations, I find it to be far more reliable.

 

Stat tracking was just enabled on the MDS US server and on it I have a 32% hit rate with the R-27ER. Not sure if that kind of hit rate is what should be expected in the real world, or if it should be more/less? Personally I am disappointed with the missiles performance in look down situations, but whether its performance is realistic in that situation is not known to me. Of course, these are just server stats in a more or less uncontrolled environment, but I thought I'd just throw them out there.

[ShuRugal]

Speaking from my own experience with the R-27ER, in look down situations it is abysmal. I often see it going for the first chaff deployed when I review in tacview. In look up situations, I find it to be far more reliable.

 

Stat tracking was just enabled on the MDS US server and on it I have a 32% hit rate with the R-27ER. Not sure if that kind of hit rate is what should be expected in the real world, or if it should be more/less? Personally I am disappointed with the missiles performance in look down situations, but whether its performance is realistic in that situation is not known to me. Of course, these are just server stats in a more or less uncontrolled environment, but I thought I'd just throw them out there.

 

The problem I have with the ER in its current state is that it is sufficiently easy to spoof that any launch outside of 15km does not require a significant shift in offensive posture to ensure survival, and a launch outside 20km can be ignored long enough to get a pair of 120s to pitbull state.

 

Yes, it is still a dangerous missile, and a completely clueless target will be downed more often than not. However, the fact that an aware pilot can safely ignore a -27 long enough to get his 120 where he wants it is resulting in absurdity in online tactics.

[FLANKERATOR]

We'd love to hear from ED, I know Yoyo is the man when it comes to flight models but who's in charge of everything related to missile performance?

 

Newsletters pass by filled with exciting new yet not a single word about this particular issue...

[tovivan]

I've had an AI A-10C in my sites 1km in front of me, flying straight and level. I was in Su-27. Shot at him 2xER. One ER never even got a lock, just flew STRAIGHT from the rail, the second ER went towards the A-10, but then at half-point for some reason suddenly swerved 90° to the left and then slammed into the ground. The A-10 was deploying neither chaff nor making any sort of evasive maneuvers, weather was clear and I had a firm lock. In the end I had to shoot it down with cannon. Another plane in that mission I had to ram to get it down because I was out of cannon and all missiles just failed to lock or went on their mission to Mars.

 

Now please explain to me how these missiles are not bugged and that it's supposed to be this way?

 

I love how the dedicated F15 drivers are trying to brush this under the carpet. What are you so afraid of?

 

The end of their easy life.

 

Right now they have total domination and it's doing wonders for their self-steem and arrogance. As soon as East missiles get fixed they will actually have to WORK for their kills (*gasp*, can you believe such a concept? Unthinkable!).

 

That's why they try with everything they are to impede or even prevent fixing of our horribly bugged R-27's.

 

If they don't want to fix the missle issue; then lets them fix the data-link issue. Or will the Eagle pilots be against that too?

 

IIRC from some threads, they already are against that.

Edited January 30, 2016 by tovivan

[GGTharos]

As soon as western missiles get fixed it'll back to the same whining from the east flank ;)

 

As soon as East missiles get fixed they will actually have to WORK for their kills

[karambiatos]

As soon as western missiles get fixed it'll back to the same whining from the east flank ;)

 

Well since neither seems to be happening :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

Exactly. And it's really funny that he's talking about 'east missiles', too.

[tovivan]

As soon as western missiles get fixed it'll back to the same whining from the east flank ;)

 

Not if our's get fixed AT ALL. And I'm no longer counting on that from ED.