Besides cockpit textures what else is missing?

[gmetzo]

What else is missing from this magnificent module? in terms of weapons systems or avionics and whatnot

[Mike_Romeo]

What else is missing from this magnificent module? in terms of weapons systems or avionics and whatnot

Nothing, its feature completed. They are just do bugfixing and some texture and model optimations if I remember correctly.

 

 

Edit: The checklist page is missing

Edited June 17, 2020 by Mike_Romeo

[L0op8ack]

Nothing, its feature completed. They are just do bugfixing and some texture and model optimations if I remember correctly.

 

 

Edit: The checklist page is missing

 

 

simple checklist page implemented,

 

but not detail enough and not tested.

[Airhunter]

Missile and rack pylon textures. Perhaps an in-cockpit pilot model if that's planned?

[Max1mus]

What about

 

-Radar detection range not being dynamic, it has a set value for anything beyond 91 deg and 89deg. On other modules, even FC3, it varies more with aspect

-Radar tracks being completely undefeatable apart from notching or masking, turning cold and flying 300nm away - JF-17 still tracking

-Radar unnotchable at closer distances, multiple times harder than DCS F-16 and even F-18

-Radar unjammable apart from denying IFF

-TGP in Air to Air mode tracking targets perfectly under all circumstances at 20nm. F-18 TGP and even IRST systems are not that good in the sim (F-18 <8nm)

-IR signature too low (much lower than F-16 for some reason)

-RCS too low (3, lowest for any 4th gen in the sim, even F-16 has 4)

 

Maybe the feature list is complete, but these things seem to need tuning since in some aspects they are modelled worse than FC3 (infinite radar range on tracks, near unnotchability aswell as unjammability and detection range not changing with aspect properly). For me personally these (quite essential for air to air combat) features need to be finished before i could consider the module in a buyable state.

Edited June 17, 2020 by Max1mus

[L0op8ack]

What about

 

-Radar detection range not being dynamic, it has a set value for anything beyond 91 deg and 89deg. On other modules, even FC3, it varies more with aspect

-Radar tracks being completely undefeatable apart from notching or masking, turning cold and flying 300nm away - JF-17 still tracking

-Radar unnotchable at closer distances, multiple times harder than DCS F-16 and even F-18

-Radar unjammable apart from denying IFF

-TGP in Air to Air mode tracking targets perfectly under all circumstances at 20nm. F-18 TGP and even IRST systems are not that good in the sim (F-18 <8nm)

-IR signature too low (much lower than F-16 for some reason)

-RCS too low (3, lowest for any 4th gen in the sim, even F-16 has 4)

 

Maybe the features are complete, but these things seem to need tuning since in some aspects they are modelled worse than FC3 (infinite radar range on tracks, near unnotchability aswell as unjammability and detection range not changing with aspect properly)

1. it is, do some test

2. masking will break lock, if target cannot be acquired after predict timing

3. yes, break lock in close range is very hard, unless LOS rate is very high

4. TGP A-A uplook will get very steady lock

5. you get more power from engine, your gas tempreture have to be higher or/and more high tempreture gas, you can not get both at the same time

6. mig21 RCS is 3m^2, JF-17 still have RCS 3 m^2 after so many improvements, especially the inlet(30% - 50% of RCS is from this part), rethink about it.

7. from what you said and your attitude, I think you will never buy it.

Edited June 17, 2020 by L0op8ack

[Max1mus]

2. masking will break lock, if target cannot be acquired after predict timing

3. yes, break lock in close range is very hard, unless LOS rate is very high

5. you get more power from engine, your gas tempreture have to be higher or/and more high tempreture gas, you can not get both at the same time

 

- It shouldnt be just masking though, if i go cold and seperate 300nm away from it, the radar shouldnt keep the track, when i last tested this a few weeks ago it still kept it.

- Breaking lock at close range isnt just hard, its impossible. Hard is what i would call EDs F-18 radar (F-16 radar is much easier to defeat in comparision). If that isnt modelled exactly as per some documented or SME data but rather by feeling, perhabs some retesting would be appropriate. It seems very unreasonable for a radar that should be comparable to the F-16s.

-The IR signature in afterburner has a value of 2. On the F-16 if i recall correctly it was 3. Its even stealthier than the M2000 there iirc, making it the stealthiest 4th gen in DCS as currently modeled.

 

I do not have the knowledge to counter your explanation on the RCS part, but a fully loaded JF-17 with dual racks surely isnt going to be as invisible as a clean MiG-21.

Edited June 17, 2020 by Max1mus

[Chiron]

- It shouldnt be just masking though, if i go cold and seperate 300nm away from it, the radar shouldnt keep the track, when i last tested this a few weeks ago it still kept it.

- Breaking lock at close range isnt just hard, its impossible. Hard is what i would call EDs F-18 radar (F-16 radar is much easier to defeat in comparision). If that isnt modelled exactly as per some documented or SME data but rather by feeling, perhabs some retesting would be appropriate. It seems very unreasonable for a radar that should be comparable to the F-16s.

-The IR signature in afterburner has a value of 2. On the F-16 if i recall correctly it was 3. Its even stealthier than the M2000 there iirc, making it the stealthiest 4th gen in DCS as currently modeled.

 

I do not have the knowledge to counter your explanation on the RCS part, but a fully loaded JF-17 with dual racks surely isnt going to be as invisible as a clean MiG-21.

 

from what we have here u dont have any Idea cuz u are not flying JF-17

 

JF-17 Radar can be notched i saw it many times cuz i am flying JF-17 as my main aircraft nothing else ....... believe it or not but i saw some expert pilots can notch me inside 10nm and i can't lock them so ( u are wrong as usual )

 

now lets go to IR signature .... i am flying with Expert people as i am a member of TAW so i didn't saw anyone complain about this part in fact i got locked very easily no such a thing

 

when u are cold with 300nm as i can see here u are saying anything cuz u just hate JF-17 and i dont think this section will welcome u anymore cuz u are say nonsene words JF-17 radar can't lock anyone beyond 60nm i dont know how u got this idea from ( that is mean u dont know nothing at all ) so 300nm and u are still tracked ???? i think u should sleep well and warm up cuz nightmares can be harmful for your health

 

( wrong as usual ) that is u cuz i saw your Posts in Aim-120c section as u are saying that this missile is not good ( Wrong again )

 

let me ask u simple question ............ are u flying in DCS ????????

Edited June 17, 2020 by Chiron

[AeriaGloria]

Max1mus, regardless of the radar, JF-17 is a smaller plane then F-16. It’s engine is same size and thrust as Mirage 2000, F-18 engine, it’s almost two thirds of the total thrust of F110, so by all rights it should have lower IR signature. 2/3 of 3 = 2

 

Also no plane in DCS has pylons or weapon effect on RCS modeled

 

By the way for anyone else reading checklist page works great, it actually turns red and green as you flip stuff, pretty cool

Edited June 17, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[Mustang25]

Are we getting a system like FPAS? I remember they said it was down the road and I'm hoping that it is still a feature that will be added.

[AeriaGloria]

We should get a similar page eventually

[Shrike88]

We should get a similar page eventually

 

This is Excellent news ! Loving the initial implementation of the smart checklist pages also.

[amalahama]

Radar is not complete, I still find AA modes irregular and buggy sometimes, compared with DCS F-18. Also, datalink is unreallistically overpowerful at the moment

[Chiron]

Radar is not complete, I still find AA modes irregular and buggy sometimes, compared with DCS F-18. Also, datalink is unreallistically overpowerful at the moment

 

Datalink is is over powerful and unrealistic ( can u explain why u said that )

[paco2002]

Datalink is is over powerful and unrealistic ( can u explain why u said that )

People doesn't understand how powerful Link 17 is xD

[rrohde]

Datalink is is over powerful and unrealistic ( can u explain why u said that )

 

Most armchair pilots are highly opinionated, and don't really know much about the real jets and their systems. Saying that something is "overpowered" pretty much means that they're looking at DCS as a game, rather than a simulation of real systems, and want for developers to "balance" it like a little online shooter. ;)

[AeriaGloria]

I mean whenever I look at videos of people using link 16 in DCS I’m pretty envious. I mean western jets have TDCs for their HSD so you can get stuff on particular targets, or the MSI to overlay data link with radar, those are really powerful things Jeff can’t do.

 

Link 16 also gives you what 3 radios? And Jeff only have two before data link!

 

FC3 Flanker data link is the one that’s messed up, it doesn’t even get masked by ground.

 

But if there is something wrong with it I’m happy to see it changed. I’m sure there’s a couple things that haven’t been added software wise that will add a lot to flying:)

[Fliegerkalle]

Internal Sounds and external Sounds are hopefully Not finished

[amalahama]

Datalink is is over powerful and unrealistic ( can u explain why u said that )

 

Well not the datalink itself, but the information flow is. Again, the datalink assumes that all nodes have some sort of "god eye" and can see all AG targets around, SAMs, ships whatever, regardless they are emitting or not. Just put an JF-17 close to shut down SAM sites and boom, their locations are instantaneously given away through the DL. Realistic behavior would be that each node transmit the target they are attacking, that is, the 'SPI', because it's the only AG contact that is accurately geo-referenced by the attack system at a given time

 

Most armchair pilots are highly opinionated, and don't really know much about the real jets and their systems. Saying that something is "overpowered" pretty much means that they're looking at DCS as a game, rather than a simulation of real systems, and want for developers to "balance" it like a little online shooter. ;)

 

Oh you are really, really wrong. I recommend you to read the STANAG 5516 to begin with if you want to get closer to the knowledge that my daily work requires :)

[AeriaGloria]

Well it’s not every ground unit, it just seems the major sams and ships. Just like link 16 has but without threat rings. Ka-50 does same thing. Maybe there is some logic with how assets detect them in the first place that could be improved, but what is different about how JF-17does it then others?

I remember the thread we last discussed this, wasn’t it determined that it’s data sent by AWACS/EWR? Kind of like an abstract representation of how known coordinates might be fed to the data link through other means?

[Tiger-II]

Most of what Jeff displays is datalinked from AWACS.

 

 

Jeff can be totally RADAR silent and you'll still have quite the picture on RWR.

 

 

As for display/knowledge of all ground assets in the "fog of war" - that's a DCS limitation, and works on the basis of if a friendly unit is nearby (within a certain range and within a certain time period) then all ground assets are revealed as if visually spotted and reported.

 

 

There is nothing magical about the RWR though, and the RADAR will not magically see what isn't there, either. It must actually scan the ground/water to reveal whatever is there at that time.

 

 

RADAR emitters are seen by AWACS and if datalink is up it will paint those, too, but only the emitters, not other ground units (that wouldn't make sense).

[Airhunter]

1. it is, do some test

2. masking will break lock, if target cannot be acquired after predict timing

3. yes, break lock in close range is very hard, unless LOS rate is very high

4. TGP A-A uplook will get very steady lock

5. you get more power from engine, your gas tempreture have to be higher or/and more high tempreture gas, you can not get both at the same time

6. mig21 RCS is 3m^2, JF-17 still have RCS 3 m^2 after so many improvements, especially the inlet(30% - 50% of RCS is from this part), rethink about it.

7. from what you said and your attitude, I think you will never buy it.

 

What kind of attitude is this? What if he indeed bought your modules? I surely did, I think it's great but there are areas where the performance or behaviour is pretty questionable. As a developer you should respond to any kind of constructve criticism equally and professionally no matter how "it come across" - also backing your own claims with some data would be great as everything you claim seems to just fall from the sky and we need to just "believe" you because you have some sikrit chinese documents. Gimme a break...

[Chiron]

What kind of attitude is this? What if he indeed bought your modules? I surely did, I think it's great but there are areas where the performance or behaviour is pretty questionable. As a developer you should respond to any kind of constructve criticism equally and professionally no matter how "it come across" - also backing your own claims with some data would be great as everything you claim seems to just fall from the sky and we need to just "believe" you because you have some sikrit chinese documents. Gimme a break...

 

i will answer the same answer Chizh said to me

 

You do not have to believe in anything of course.

 

:thumbup:

[Tiger-II]

What kind of attitude is this? What if he indeed bought your modules? I surely did, I think it's great but there are areas where the performance or behaviour is pretty questionable. As a developer you should respond to any kind of constructve criticism equally and professionally no matter how "it come across" - also backing your own claims with some data would be great as everything you claim seems to just fall from the sky and we need to just "believe" you because you have some sikrit chinese documents. Gimme a break...

 

Deka have more than documents. They have access to the actual simulator, and it wouldn't surprise me if they have access to an actual aircraft, as well as "sikrit chinese documents".

 

I trust Deka as much as anyone else regarding what they've modelled, and more so because they've demonstrated access to the actual simulator, which is no small feat.

 

Going full conspiracy theorist, they have no reason to lie because think of the propaganda value of making it accurate, if it really is that good? It's not a Chinese front-line fighter, and not even in service with them, so they have no real reason not to publish accurate information, and it's a way of saying to the world "you think our smaller export fighter is impressive, imagine how good the other stuff is".

 

Don't forget the Chinese sub that appeared in the middle of the US Pacific fleet and challenged the aircraft carrier... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

 

The biggest mistake would be to under-estimate their capability.

 

What do you find "pretty questionable"? Let's discuss it.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Tiger-II