No one escapes in front of the Russian aircraft

[Darkwolf]

DCS is obviously not a 1:1 reproduction of environment. Even if FM and missile were an exact reproduction, they is still plenty of things that are different.

 

Just think like real pilot and you'll live.

Real pilots tactics are based on their environnement.

Base your tactics on your environnement.

 

You'll see that it can be actually very nice to analyse flights and fight, and then devellop strategy and counters for specific situations. for anyone that is in strategy game, that is a fun part in the game.

 

DCS world environnement has been more severely impacted by Mig-21 than any missile update, and watching every tacview i have, I've seen both F-15 and mig-21 usual tactics evolving over the months......

[wilky510]

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.

Frostie, i personally think CM easily spoofs any type of missile in the game. So in a way i agree with you.

[RoflSeal]

Frostie, i personally think CM easily spoofs any type of missile in the game. So in a way i agree with you.

 

Well, except Maverick.

 

Maybe F/A-18 will be really good at A-A when loaded with AGM-65

[Drona]

If it wasn't for the nasty avionics I would probably fly the flanker and could work with it' date=' not that this situation is ideal.[/quote']

 

Nasty??? Well, I find it quite ergonomically laid out and simple to use. Not a lot of HUD clutter and numbers to distract you. I'm from the East, so maybe that's why it feels natural and simple for me and "nasty" to you. Well, to each his own...:noexpression:

[Sweep]

All those numbers help you, though! :D

 

I'd like a modern Flanker, even thought it won't happen anytime soon...

[pr1malr8ge]

Nasty??? Well, I find it quite ergonomically laid out and simple to use. Not a lot of HUD clutter and numbers to distract you. I'm from the East, so maybe that's why it feels natural and simple for me and "nasty" to you. Well, to each his own...:noexpression:

 

I feel the same way as blaze, I'd love to fly the Flanker but the cockpit just makes me want to hurl my lunch.

 

Other then the lack of english the Metric system [while I can use it, I do have a degree in ME] I cannot convert it fast enough to use it effectively.

The other thing is the baby blue it might as well be sh** green/brown it just has no Appeal to me..

[Sweep]

There are other (external) colors...and cockpit mods!

 

But yeah, metric and stuff makes it a bit difficult for coordination/navigation...

[Drona]

The cockpit feels natural to me with all the instruments in the right places and colour very calming, not like the drab grey/black you guys have....

[Sweep]

This cockpit would feel pretty nice to me: wrong video (scratch that, found it)

 

There we go: [ame]

[/ame]

[TAW_Blaze]

Nasty??? Well, I find it quite ergonomically laid out and simple to use. Not a lot of HUD clutter and numbers to distract you. I'm from the East, so maybe that's why it feels natural and simple for me and "nasty" to you. Well, to each his own...:noexpression:

 

Okay, where do I start.

 

Cockpit interior color makes me sick.

 

Horrible cockpit layout with the RWR being in a positon that you have to abandon all hope of seeing outside the cockpit to look at it.

 

Radar display on HUD. Not a chance..

 

Radar operation and display. Real great that I can tell where the middle of my cone is pointed, except I don't know what the altitude ranges are at the range I'm looking at. Dream of a pilot!

 

Inability to distinguish altitudes between targets of same range and azimuth.

 

There's a lot more but these are the main ones. I might have a NATO avionic syndrome though, who knows. :D

[AussieGhost789]

^ Spoilt by western avionics :P

[ShuRugal]

Radar operation and display. Real great that I can tell where the middle of my cone is pointed, except I don't know what the altitude ranges are at the range I'm looking at. Dream of a pilot!

 

For me, i have this problem in reverse. In the F-15, I cannot use the radar because I don't know where my vertical radar LoS is. In the flanker, I always know what altitude I am aiming at relative to my own, and I have a good idea of my altitude span at any given range.

 

The HUD cue which shows the vertical LoS AND FoV of the radar in relation to the HUD LoS/FoV is, for me, a lifesaver. If I spot something visually that is too far to pick up in vertical scan (IE: contrail, missile trail/splash) I can instantly find it on radar by pointing my HUD at it and adjusting radar vertical to align with HUD. Similarly, If I lock a target that is far below me, I can point my nose at him, align my antenna to my nose, and have a much easier time picking him back up if he breaks lock by notching.

[Mamba]

I might have a NATO avionic syndrome though' date=' who knows. :D[/quote']

 

It sounds like you just have a preference for NATO symbology and philosophy.

 

To almost all of your discrepancies with the SU27 avionics, I could give a benefit no more tenuous. I for one hate the mess that is the A10C hud, even worse than the F15's. Your upside is wealth of information, my view is it's cluttered and could have been boiled down to essentials only. I think you can get used to either.

 

Now stop insulting my bird.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Mamba

[Ironhand]

All those numbers help you, though! :D

 

I'd like a modern Flanker, even thought it won't happen anytime soon...

The difference is that the info is presented graphically in the Flanker and numerically in the Eagle. It's just what you get used to. In the Eagle you have the impression of exactitude. In the Flanker it's all about the graphical relationships. A glance at the HDD in TWS tells me the returns' altitudes and airspeeds and headings in relationship to my own. Etc, etc.

 

Edit: In some ways, I suppose, in the Eagle you take your precise numbers and use them to visualize the situation. In the Flanker you simply skip the "precision" and go straight to the visualization.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Ironhand

[GGTharos]

But everything is visualized on the VSD anyway. And we're missing the MPCD's SIT display which adds to it all, sort of like the A-10C TAD.

[Ironhand]

But everything is visualized on the VSD anyway...

:) Just as it is on the HDD.

[Drona]

Cockpit interior color makes me sick.

 

It may to you, but its beautiful to others.

 

Horrible cockpit layout with the RWR being in a positon that you have to abandon all hope of seeing outside the cockpit to look at it.

 

You just have to adjust your view position. I can still look at my RWR while still looking outside. Also, listen to the audio cues...

 

Radar display on HUD. Not a chance..

 

That's actually very beneficial...

 

Radar operation and display. Real great that I can tell where the middle of my cone is pointed, except I don't know what the altitude ranges are at the range I'm looking at. Dream of a pilot!

 

Inability to distinguish altitudes between targets of same range and azimuth.

 

You just don't know how to discern info from the flanker's avionics. As Ironhand says, its all about visualization in the flanker and digits/numbers in the Eagle.

 

I might have a NATO avionic syndrome though' date=' who knows. :D[/quote']

 

Yes, you do.

 

And let me just say this especially for Blaze, just because you don't like a certain thing, that doesn't mean its bad, on the contrary, its quite useful for someone else.

[Sweep]

You guys might like/dislike a certain thing, but it still can be more (or less) useful in combat.

 

The real funny thing here is that the Russians are using Westernized displays in their newer aircraft/aircraft upgrades.

 

I saw something that looked like an F-15 SIT page in the Su-30SM. MiG-29K for example, uses a HUD layout similar to...was it F-14D? I forget. It makes me like their newer jets a bit more. :)

[Frostie]

I heard the latest USAF fighters shall be replacing the HUD with a mirror just so they can focus on their main threat.

[pr1malr8ge]

For me, i have this problem in reverse. In the F-15, I cannot use the radar because I don't know where my vertical radar LoS is. In the flanker, I always know what altitude I am aiming at relative to my own, and I have a good idea of my altitude span at any given range.

 

The HUD cue which shows the vertical LoS AND FoV of the radar in relation to the HUD LoS/FoV is, for me, a lifesaver. If I spot something visually that is too far to pick up in vertical scan (IE: contrail, missile trail/splash) I can instantly find it on radar by pointing my HUD at it and adjusting radar vertical to align with HUD. Similarly, If I lock a target that is far below me, I can point my nose at him, align my antenna to my nose, and have a much easier time picking him back up if he breaks lock by notching.

 

 

As far as "pointing" the nose at a target vissualy, you can do this with the eagle with less effort then the flanker.. how ever there is a HUGE feature missing in the eagle in this regards. SuperSearch, currently with the eagle you either use VSS or Bore [you could use Guns which is a little better then bore]. How ever if we only had SSM it would be much much easier then what we have now and what the Flanker has.

[blkspade]

You just have to adjust your view position. I can still look at my RWR while still looking outside. Also, listen to the audio cues...

 

The thing to point out about its poor placement is that IRL, you'd be stuck having to pan your head to look down at it. Sure in game you have the benefit of being able to play with the zoom/FOV, but you give up readability on the instruments/HUD if you aren't on a very large screen.

[Sweep]

I heard the latest USAF fighters shall be replacing the HUD with a mirror just so they can focus on their main threat.

 

:megalol:

 

Hah!

[GGTharos]

The other one is LBST (long range boresight, 40nm range IIRC but don't quote me on that number, I'll have to re-check the -34)

And right now guns is using the VSS pattern. As well, almost all of these modes should be slewable.

 

As far as "pointing" the nose at a target vissualy, you can do this with the eagle with less effort then the flanker.. how ever there is a HUGE feature missing in the eagle in this regards. SuperSearch, currently with the eagle you either use VSS or Bore [you could use Guns which is a little better then bore]. How ever if we only had SSM it would be much much easier then what we have now and what the Flanker has.

[GGTharos]

This is actually a difficult concept for a lot of people but the information is there; I'm not sure why people find it difficult, maybe it's not explained well enough.

The F-15 displays the altitude scan bracket on the left side of the VSD, as measured at the range of the TDC.

One important thing that's missing though is the correct vertical antenna angle indication. That should be a caret on the left of the VSD like the one that is displayed at the bottom.

 

For me, i have this problem in reverse. In the F-15, I cannot use the radar because I don't know where my vertical radar LoS is. In the flanker, I always know what altitude I am aiming at relative to my own, and I have a good idea of my altitude span at any given range.

[Ragnarok]

This is actually a difficult concept for a lot of people but the information is there; I'm not sure why people find it difficult, maybe it's not explained well enough.

The F-15 displays the altitude scan bracket on the left side of the VSD, as measured at the range of the TDC.

One important thing that's missing though is the correct vertical antenna angle indication. That should be a caret on the left of the VSD like the one that is displayed at the bottom.

 

I may not understand the terminology, whether they thought the "stabs", what is "stabs"?

 

On 26th March 1999, Captain Jeff 'Claw' Hwang says: "Took a quick look back to see if my stabs were still intact, rolled my elevation coverage looking from about 5K’ to 21K’ and — no kidding — stay in search for at least one full frame (believe me, I wanted to go back to single-target track"