No one escapes in front of the Russian aircraft

[GGTharos]

It's also not my missile model :)

 

And yep you got it exactly right.

[Bidartarra]

If you guys fancy a little read:

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html

Edited January 30, 2016 by Bidartarra
I can't type

[TAW_Blaze]

If you guys fancy a little read:

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Radars.html

 

I think I stopped at the part where it says 'written by Carlo Kopp'.

 

Sorry, it had to be done. :megalol:

[GGTharos]

It reads like this:

 

AMRAAMs are not so great in real combat, Pk is less than .5 (but it wasn't)

Also, we won't mention that the only R-27 combat report we've heard of has the R-27 showing a Pk of 0.05. It may be a suspicious report but it's the only one out there.

Instead, let's talk about all these Russian missiles that may not have even made it past the concept stage, and how great they are, and how Australia should be paying the APA founders to repair their F-111's, and not buying F-35's, and buying F-22's instead.

 

Nothing against your Bidartarra, but that's what APA is. They say some things that are correct, by and large their analysis is heavily slanted towards 'everything but F-22's suck'. They just don't quite say it like that and so any good information in there gets lost in that noise.

 

And BTW, no, their numbers of missiles aren't really good. They sometimes have useful missile specs, but AFAIK they source them from Jane's anyway. Their missile range numbers leave ... things to be desired.

[Bidartarra]

Nothing against your Bidartarra

 

No worries. I'm not an expert in missiles so I don't know what sources are reliable or not yet.

 

just getting into the subject after I got the Mirage (for obvious reasons) and because I happen to use a certain other Sim that renders the BVR things differently. Wondering why things are so different.

 

In the process of educating myself

[GGTharos]

I don't know if there is a good french source; you can try dtic.mil, but it may not be accessible outside of North America.

 

I also recommend looking at things like 'Tactical Missile Design' by Fleeman. You might want to have a look at the radar bible, though it's a pretty expensive book.

 

If you have access from your university, you might have access to aero journals that a lot of us can't really look at since they are paywalled.

 

As for falcon, their 120 FM was so over-modeled that I was wondering if I was shooting an ASAT, though in the end it does represent BVR better right now, and IMHO. Nothing that can't be changed in DCS but these changes are not trivial; to sort of answer your question, it's really a developer's choice how they'll model atmosphere, missiles etc. and I'll point out that the flight characteristics of missiles are just black magic; once you get into supersonic stuff, physics goes nuts.

 

Same thing with sensors and guidance etc ... not only is there a lot we do not know, it's already hard to model the stuff we do know.

Edited January 30, 2016 by GGTharos

[Bidartarra]

I don't know if there is a good french source; you can try dtic.mil, but it may not be accessible outside of North America.

 

I also recommend looking at things like 'Tactical Missile Design' by Fleeman. You might want to have a look at the radar bible, though it's a pretty expensive book.

 

If you have access from your university, you might have access to aero journals that a lot of us can't really look at since they are paywalled.

 

 

Ok thanks for the tips.

 

I'm getting interested in the matter a few years too late sadly. We had access to lots of publications in Engineering School when doing the master thesis and never thought to check such subjects. Subscription is well cancelled now I'm afraid.

 

There was some "wild" papers though, remember one about seagull soaring on waves to cross long oceanic distance, pretty unexpected subject but was a nice read from what i can remember.

[TAW_Blaze]

Recommend the radar bible. Great book, got it right here. :)

[Bidartarra]

Recommend the radar bible. Great book' date=' got it right here. :)[/quote']

 

You have a link? A google search sends me to ppl who have the bible in their radars. Not quite what I'm looking for haha

[ShuRugal]

but in the end there's one person poring through studies and other materials to see to it that such things get fixed right - that's me.

There's others working on other aspects, and I know you aren't one of them.

 

In that case, how about you leave off telling us poor flanker pilots how much we are gonna hate life when the fruits of your research are finally realised, and instead implement the fixes you keep telling us we don't want and let us judge the results for ourselves?

[probad]

Just gonna point out that IRL there's no such thing as "balance" and when you mix up realism and your personal interests you better be careful what you wish for.

[TAW_Blaze]

You have a link? A google search sends me to ppl who have the bible in their radars. Not quite what I'm looking for haha

 

George W. Stimson: Introduction to Airborne Radar

[Bidartarra]

George W. Stimson: Introduction to Airborne Radar

 

Cheers mate!

[ShuRugal]

Just gonna point out that IRL there's no such thing as "balance" and when you mix up realism and your personal interests you better be careful what you wish for.

 

Short of introducing a script whereby pressing "release weapons" in an F15 causes all airborne Su-27s to eject their engines, the situation cannot be made worse.

[*Rage*]

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

 

Except the claims I (and many others, Ragnarok, Ironhand, Shurugal, apocom etc...) am making are backed up by hundreds of tracks and tacviews showing how truly aweful ER guidance is in the presence of chaff.

 

No one who watches those tracks and videos can be convinced that is what the desired result is. Look me in the proverbial eye and tell me you would be happy with that level of modelling/expolitability.

 

The claims the usual F15 suspects are making are based on "this one time I was shot down by an ER - how terrible, its an uber weapon" ie empirically meaningless.

 

So I ask again, to the F15 drivers that are so resistent to this being corrected or fixed, what are you so afraid of? No one has answered me. Is it a balance thing?

[TAW_Blaze]

I don't know, but like I said, I stopped caring a long time ago. Maybe time for you to do that too.

 

This back and forth bullshiting probably doesn't help convince the devs there's something wrong though. :D

[wilky510]

In that case, how about you leave off telling us poor flanker pilots how much we are gonna hate life when the fruits of your research are finally realised, and instead implement the fixes you keep telling us we don't want and let us judge the results for ourselves?

Those poor poor Flanker pilots that are vastly superior in WVR to the F-15 also want to be superior to the F-15 in BVR too with 100% hit R-27's..

[Iceman1987]

I don't know' date=' but like I said, I stopped caring a long time ago. Maybe time for you to do that too. [/quote']

Don't want to act bold mate, but no one forces you to post here if you don't care. And to be honest, why should you care. You don't fly the flanker as your primary aircraft.

 

This back and forth bullshiting probably doesn't help convince the devs there's something wrong though. :D

 

If the devs as you see it als bullshiting then maybe you are right. But I don't think we are bullshiting.

[*Rage*]

I don't know, but like I said, I stopped caring a long time ago. Maybe time for you to do that too.

 

This back and forth bullshiting probably doesn't help convince the devs there's something wrong though. :D

 

I do care through.

 

And you care enough to post about an issue that doesnt affect you:)

[TAW_Blaze]

Don't want to act bold mate, but no one forces you to post here if you don't care. And to be honest, why should you care. You don't fly the flanker as your primary aircraft.

 

I'm all for making the game as realistic as possible, like I said before. But it's not worth the effort to bother, I've learnt that with ED. Don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed.

 

Pretty much every game I've ever played was all about a challenging competitive environment. If it wasn't for the nasty avionics I would probably fly the flanker and could work with it, not that this situation is ideal.

 

If the devs as you see it als bullshiting then maybe you are right. But I don't think we are bullshiting.

 

Read the thread again and then read some other missile threads and you'll see what I mean. All you see is people throwing mud at each other. Useful posts only once in a blue moon.

 

I do care through.

 

And you care enough to post about an issue that doesnt affect you

 

I know. Just posting for the fun of it. As you can see I'm not arguing about anything which would involve some level of effort. At the moment that level is close to zero. :)

[Sweep]

(...) Don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed. (...)

 

This is sound advice for any game, but especially simulations because crap takes a while to fix... :thumbup:

[Frostie]

Those poor poor Flanker pilots that are vastly superior in WVR to the F-15 also want to be superior to the F-15 in BVR too with 100% hit R-27's..

 

That's not what is requested at all, with improved missile behaviour comes improved BVR for all, it's not only in a Flanker that you suffer BVR tactically right now but also F-15. The way it works now is detached from applying real world tactics effectively, BMS for example you can enjoy BVR engagements using all the FC3 fighter platforms that don't degenerate into WVR because of poor missile performance and excessive CM effectiveness, a middle ground is needed and there was a time when FC had this but suffered other issues that AFM was supposed to address.

 

I don't buy into the Flanker pilots have it hard when the F-15 pilots also have issues with their own weapons it's just that in its current state it is much easier to win a head on WVR with ARH than a SARH, there is nothing wrong with this other than it being the only place that missiles have a chance to work and then it is still a lottery.

[ShuRugal]

Those poor poor Flanker pilots that are vastly superior in WVR to the F-15 also want to be superior to the F-15 in BVR too with 100% hit R-27's..

 

Obvious troll is obvious. Plz I can has status quo? Kthxbye.

[tovivan]

I, personally, could care less how magical the 120C would become if it were modeled the way you want it. I say "go for it", really. Give the 120C it's Wiki-ganda specs, and the R-27 family the same. From where I sit, the 120C won't be notably better than it is now, and I'll get my teeth back in the Flanker.

 

The difference here is that you mostly require features adding which have never been part of the sim, where as Russian birds have had features removed or ones added which don't work in mp, with the addition of missiles that not only have reduced range but now are more attuned to chaff and flare than they have ever been.

 

This.

 

This back and forth bullshiting probably doesn't help convince the devs there's something wrong though.

 

So why come on this side of the forum? You've lost nothing here, you don't fly Flankers or even Fulcrums...

 

Or you could go through the entire history of the entire missile thing and see what a huge joke it all is. This isn't the first thread of its kind, and it won't be the last.

 

That is normally a big red flag...

Edited January 31, 2016 by tovivan

[TAW_Blaze]

So why come on this side of the forum? You've lost nothing here, you don't fly Flankers or even Fulcrums...

 

Why not? It can be pretty entertaining to read some of the posts. I also like to stay in the loop.