R-27ET right after R-27ER

[AeriaGloria]

As manufactured clearly describe R-27T have an updated proportional navigation on the carrier. So we should have the option to get improvement for proportional navigation method taking account official description of the export representatives company of Russian federation. As community asked to improve western A-A missiles for a better implementation of PN. We have the right to ask for the same to be implemented as official sources confirm.

 

The PN coefficients are right there in LUA. If you can tell what was changed, what do you possibly recommend changing?

[Fri13]

Updated compared to what?

 

To previous/old one? What you think "updated" means? if there is only one version, then there can't be "updated" as it means there is a newer version than previous one.

[Fri13]

IMHO it could mean one of two things - either as GGtharos suggested, some form of APN(where "updated" could be another term for "Adaptive") or just a general brochure statement along the lines of "up-to-date" technology.

 

Either one means that it has made the missile capable to answer modern threats....

If there is no updates, then the previous/old one is capable to answer to modern threats.... But there is update so it has been needed now.

[pepin1234]

The PN coefficients are right there in LUA. If you can tell what was changed, what do you possibly recommend changing?

 

Did you see my track 1 on post 32. You will see R-27T leaving the rail on pursuit. So is not 100% implemented maybe. I invite you doing the same activate override and turn the nose a bit to look for a possible interception point. You will see R-27T leaving the rail on pursuit. That’s why R-27T reach target with poor speed and energy.

[Seaeagle]

Either one means that it has made the missile capable to answer modern threats....

If there is no updates, then the previous/old one is capable to answer to modern threats.

 

Not really - no manufacturer will state in their sales brochure, that their product is using an outdated guidance law :) .

 

... But there is update so it has been needed now.

 

"updated" compared to what though? - compared to some previous version of the R-27T specifically or just to IR seeker technology of earlier missiles. If its the former, then how and to what extend was it updated....if you don't know, then how can you ask ED to implement it?

 

You guys are paying far too much attention to a single word, that could mean anything including meaningless advertising talk.

[Fri13]

The PN coefficients are right there in LUA. If you can tell what was changed, what do you possibly recommend changing?

 

That is illogical question.

As if one knows something is changed, it doesn't mean that one knows how something is changed.

[pepin1234]

.

"updated" compared to what though? - compared to some previous version of the R-27T specifically or just to IR seeker technology of earlier missiles. If its the former, then how and to what extend was it updated....if you don't know, then how can you ask ED to implement it?

 

It is an updated proportional navigation as official source confirmed. All your analysis to try to change the concept of proportional navigation is worthless it is a PN. Is not working like so from the first moment the R-27T leave rail go exactly contrary direction without interception calculation so is not implemented and is making R-27T waste energy making extra large curve.

[dundun92]

The ET uses PN rn pepin. Pure PN causes that big initial turn, which is why you have upgraded versions like APN, or a variable PN constant.

[Fri13]

Not really - no manufacturer will state in their sales brochure, that their product is using an outdated guidance law :) .

 

No one would claim that something is "updated" if it is the "outdated". As when the weapon buyer first receives the specifications, it will compare them to real missiles that they match.

 

You guys are paying far too much attention to a single word, that could mean anything including meaningless advertising talk.

 

When ED says that they have not even read that R-27 would have received any updates, then single manufacturer claim is evidence that there is updates done.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

No one would claim that something is "updated" if it is the "outdated". As when the weapon buyer first receives the specifications, it will compare them to real missiles that they match.

 

 

 

When ED says that they have not even read that R-27 would have received any updates, then single manufacturer claim is evidence that there is updates done.

I understand what you are trying to say, and this is indeed the realm where we are forced to make assumptions based upon some nondescript but credible information.

 

There still are a number of other questions that need to be answered here

 

Is the new seeker/missile in service?

 

 

 

This is a big one with the CIS Arms industry as they make quite a few ambitious projects that people don't pick up and buy like the K-30/izdeliye-300 for example.

 

 

Is it compatible with existing platforms in DCS, so that we know who gets it who doesn't.

 

Does it have enhanced ECCM detection range?

Is it even a new Seeker or an improvement to an older one?

 

 

If you answer those questions ED might just give you a more modern R-27T/ET

[pepin1234]

I understand what you are trying to say, and this is indeed the realm where we are forced to make assumptions based upon some nondescript but credible information.

 

There still are a number of other questions that need to be answered here

 

Is the new seeker/missile in service?

 

 

 

This is a big one with the CIS Arms industry as they make quite a few ambitious projects that people don't pick up and buy like the K-30/izdeliye-300 for example.

 

 

Is it compatible with existing platforms in DCS, so that we know who gets it who doesn't.

 

Does it have enhanced ECCM detection range?

Is it even a new Seeker or an improvement to an older one?

 

 

If you answer those questions ED might just give you a more modern R-27T/ET

 

All your questions are answered in the official tactical missile corporation authorized state entity to export those weapons already on use in Migs and Su

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

All your questions are answered in the official tactical missile corporation authorized state entity to export those weapons already on use in Migs and Su

If they wont believe that, get confirmation from a ground tech, crew chief or pilot then.

 

 

They'll probably listen then.

[AeriaGloria]

So how should it be changed? You want it to make a not so hard turn to target even though it doesn’t have range? In which case there’s also no guarantee an “updated” PN means a softer turn to target. All PN is is maintains a continuous line of sight bearing, there’s no way to make it behave differently at close range or long range, so with a softer turn you might end up with close in shots getting trashed, all because a brochure says their PN is updated in some way.

 

Pepin and Fri all of your efforts are best spent trying to have the CFD rework prioritized. There you will get your turn with less energy bleed, all while having a PN guidance law that is as close as can be guessed.

 

Hell im surprised that I haven’t seen tacview charts of the new R-27 and R-77 performance that got tweaked last patch, practically no word.

 

If you have a recommended change to the LUA I’m sure ED would listen, but if we go off of updated what even is a better PN law? What makes a bad PN law?

 

Updated could even mean the PN just changes as LOS rate changes, like I’m sure a lot of missiles do, it’s a nice word but unless someone can define what needs to actually change in the way the PN law is simulated in the game or LUA, then ED has nothing to go on even if they wanted to fulfill pepin1234’s wishes more then anything else right this moment

 

 

If this brochure said how it was updated, perhaps by taking range at moment of launch from pylon, then I would be behind you. But a “better,” “worse,” or “updated” doesn’t mean anything to an equation without context. You have a PN law right now that works pretty well at all ranges, what about it needs to be changed? How would a pilot notice any difference?

Edited August 14, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[pepin1234]

If they wont believe that, get confirmation from a ground tech, crew chief or pilot then.

 

 

They'll probably listen then.

 

Yes this is the standard you wanna set as F pilot in DCS. But you don’t make rules here.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Yes this is the standard you wanna set as F pilot in DCS. But you don’t make rules here.

Its not the standard I set, its the standard ED has set.

 

 

I'm basing the advice I give you on successes I've had

 

Like this https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4448979&postcount=9121

 

Since manufacturer data didn't convince him.

 

 

 

I don't understand why you're being so impolite with these accusations when I am trying to help you.

[pepin1234]

Thanks for your compliment. Your wishes to ask every single ground crew member rock :huh:

Edited August 14, 2020 by pepin1234

[Seaeagle]

It is an updated proportional navigation as official source confirmed.

 

Yet you have absolutely zero idea what that means - all we know for sure is that it uses proportional navigation and thats nothing new.

 

All your analysis to try to change the concept of proportional navigation is worthless it is a PN.

 

What "analysis"? - all I am saying is that a manufacturer claiming that something uses an "updated PN" doesn't help anyone to understand how it has been improved and thus useless for ED.

 

Is not working like so from the first moment the R-27T leave rail go exactly contrary direction without interception calculation so is not implemented and is making R-27T waste energy making extra large curve.

 

So you are claiming there is a bug with PN as such in the sim - thats a completely different discussion, which has nothing to do with whether the RL missile has improved PN logic or not.

[Seaeagle]

No one would claim that something is "updated" if it is the "outdated". As when the weapon buyer first receives the specifications, it will compare them to real missiles that they match.

 

Any manufacturer will try to make their product look as good as possible and describe it in the most favourable terms.

 

When ED says that they have not even read that R-27 would have received any updates, then single manufacturer claim is evidence that there is updates done.

 

No it isn't - the website in question just lists whats on offer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a particular weapon is fully operational and in service.

[SgtPappy]

I found a copy of the one for the R a while ago but its really low res. Anyone have a higher res version?

 

Awesome thank you!

[dundun92]

FWIW tax is a flanker pilot in DCS, so this isnt a case of "F Pilots" pepin. You need to be more descriptive, else as far as ED is concerned theres nothing to change.

[pepin1234]

Yet you have absolutely zero idea what that means - all we know for sure is that it uses proportional navigation and thats nothing new

 

If I have zero idea and you confirm exactly that R-27T have PN such it is what I am telling too. Then How many ideas you have? You just confirmed the same I told.

 

So you are claiming there is a bug with PN as such in the sim - thats a completely different discussion, which has nothing to do with whether the RL missile has improved PN logic or not.

 

I am not claiming nothing. I just telling look my post 32 track 1 you will see the missile leave the rail on pursuit and that’s wrong and is a waste of energy and speed. Of course there are other users here are telling have zero PN and that’s not correct. So as you are the person with such a power to judge how big ideas have everyone. Then do some read around the thread you will see what I am telling you

Edited August 15, 2020 by pepin1234

[dundun92]

Pepin, the big initial turn in DUE to PN. PN CAUSES it. Nobody claims the ET has zero PN.

[pepin1234]

Pepin, the big initial turn in DUE to PN. PN CAUSES it. Nobody claims the ET has zero PN.

 

Missile went left while bandit goes right. What you missed in track?

[Fri13]

I understand what you are trying to say, and this is indeed the realm where we are forced to make assumptions based upon some nondescript but credible information.

 

We need to accept that studio making the module (or weapons, units etc) should be allowed to make an educated guesses in the parts that are mystery or there is no documentation (user experiences are weakest evidence of them all). BUT, that doesn't mean that one can invent things if there is nothing pointing at anything.

 

There still are a number of other questions that need to be answered here

 

Is the new seeker/missile in service?

 

That is a another subject that is problematic, does something need to be in service overall to be in DCS?

 

Example, Mig-21Bis has a RN-24 and RN-28 nuclear bombs. We can have next kind questions to be made for Yes/No answers:

 

1) Has those been in service?

2) Has those been used?

3) Has those been built?

4) Has those been in warehouse?

5) Has those been trained for?

6) Has those been documented anywhere?

 

What many considers as "In service" meaning that there are aircraft flying with them. But that is multiple levels higher already than what is required for something to be in DCS.

 

The RN-24 tactical nuclear bomb is a good example because it gives people quickly understanding that not all weapons are in operational use, but they still exists, and weapons are always going through multiple different phases before they get to be carried in some aircrafts. There can be political reasons, there can be logistical reasons, there can be the simplest reason that the squadron is not trained for that given weapon so they will never see it or hear it. Different countries has different policies and doctrines, things vary and so does command structure, opinions and all. One doesn't take a RN-24 and carry it to the border patrol because if your neighbor country would be carrying a tactical nuclear bomb ready to be dropped just by anything, it would be highest possible threat to all. Why these large strategic bombers are severe threat to be checked out for all possible radiation in intercept as you might never know what they are really carrying.

 

In weapons designs where you have to design them for a given shelf-time and then given operation-time and then with given use-time. Like missile can have a 10 year shelf-time before you need to take it to operation, then it can have 2 year operation time (now it is total of 12 years) for ready to use. And then when you are ready to use it, when you arm it you have given minutes/hours in it.

 

So you are going to see as well lots of weapons for training purposes that are very near the "date of _______" as it is cheaper to clear the inventory by launching normal missiles and drop bombs on training grounds than it is to recycle them or refurbish etc. (But in case of the nuclear weapons, it is cheaper and faster to process them than use them).

 

So a new R-27 seeker can be sitting in the warehouse, get some few training shots, get mentioned for a couple pilots only and the few base command structure key members that such thing is there and it is available IF given conditions are met. Only a very few units can have been built, sitting in the warehouse somewhere, only a few test pilots part of the program has any knowledge of them and that is it. No one really knows about it in the industry, there is no documentation, there is maybe some casual leaked evidence here or there that but nothing solid than just "a rumor".

 

Then 20-30 years later something more valid pop-up somewhere and "secret is out".

The cold war era is very interesting subject because there is so much all kind projects and situations overall, that you couldn't know at all at that given time. Only much later does the truth come out (if it is allowed). The similar thing is with the WW2 etc. Then comes the problem that people who has been there who could give some "red line" to follow are dying. And then it becomes more challenging to really find out as time passes on. And it becomes major mystery as you end up to situations like a Egyptians, Romans or Mayans buildings from millenniums ago, doing things that are not possible even today.

 

Typically we know less from our close history than we know from our longer history, but the history itself becomes very mysterious. And WW2 as well cold war era is tragedy in the case that digitization happened, lots of information is lost because old archives has been transferred, destroyed purposely and digital information is made people to think that "if it is not on the internet, it doesn't exist". For a given point at the late 90's there were very rare archives opened in the Germany and Russia. Until they got quickly closed up again because the truth was not wanted to get out. Too many skeletons were in the closet.

They say that in the USA the Congress Library is amazing place, because in their laws it is required that every political paper is to be archived there if it is not classified. But they do not make there any kind index or archiving that would help anyone else to find the documents. So you need to be there physically going through all the documents, papers and everything, until you find something. It can be scattered to multiple locations separately so you have one evidence in your hand, but you are missing next 10 pieces of it and they are somewhere in all there. So you just dig and dig and search until you start to get through the "web of walls" and you start to see the overall picture.

And when there are even today some "walls" between Russia and man other Western countries, it is challenging to "hear/read" what is on the otherside, and even inside the Russia.

 

This is a big one with the CIS Arms industry as they make quite a few ambitious projects that people don't pick up and buy like the K-30/izdeliye-300 for example.

 

Every weapon should be considered overall in the mind "Is it possible to be implemented in DCS World" with enough educated guesses? As we could get lots of things with lots of them having educated guess parts, but it raises the question: Do We Accept It?

 

Like, if we learn 50% of something and it would help us to get 80% of it in the game, would it be allowed to be in the game with a expectation that IF and WHEN we learn more, we get updates to it? When an errors are found, they get fixed? Or do we just need to take the ultimatum and try to expect that "If it is not 100% correct, then it shouldn't be there" attitude? As with that way we should remove all the other weapons than iron bombs and guns basically. Like we do not know much at all about AIM-7 and AIM-120 series, yet it is there. The R-27 is truly a mystery as lots of it is behind "We don't know".

Like while back I emailed to manufacturer of R-27 about the article and I got information that is not accepted here at all. And it can't be presented even because it is more of a "blasphemy" and as it is not technical documentation, it doesn't matter really because it is already countered by "unknown person somewhere", regardless that there is as well at least one "unknown person somewhere" that countered it. So what can be done when you have evidences for two sides? You would need to investigate more, deeper and ask right questions.

 

Is it compatible with existing platforms in DCS, so that we know who gets it who doesn't.

 

Again that is something that people would quickly deny simply with "lack of information" premises. Like take example the APKWS II guidance section to standard 2.75" rockets. Manufacturer clearly states many things about it not requiring no modifications to hardware or software or at all. Yet people argue against it because they can't believe what the manufacturer clearly specifically states, and don't understand the topic where there is no connection what so ever between weapon and pod. And it again goes to the old same argument "It was not on the year when the aircraft was modeled for, so it can't be there" even if the new weapon is 100% backward compatible. It just gets denied by people who are hanged up to ultimatum of the very specific year, nothing else. Yet they are ready to fly that aircraft in mission that is from any other year, fight against an aircrafts that didn't exist in then or would be long time ago replaced with a far more modern ones etc.

This is similar with R-60, R-73 and even R-27T when it comes to Su-27, MiG-29, KA-50, Mi-24, F-14 etc etc.

And it raises the questions like "Is the rocket pod same thing as the launching aircraft?" or "Is the launcher adapter same as the launching aircraft?" or "is the bomb lugs part of the aircraft?". Like there are interesting modifications done for R-27T to get it to be a SAM. Sure you have a shorter range, but nevertheless that someone solved out that on the field! Similar thing with the S-5 and S-8 rocket pods, someone got an idea to bolt/weld couple pods on custom iron parts that gets attached to roof of ground vehicle (various kinds) and get its electronic firing mechanism working and now you have a "short range rocket artillery".

If you give a man way to hack things, many can do some basic things. But if you get a trained man to hack things, they do clever things.

 

Does it have enhanced ECCM detection range?

 

All these are unknown even today for R-27 family, nothing about even possibly updated one.

It is just questionable that why would Russia (or anyone else) use today 37 years old missile design if it is so bad overall as it is portrayed in the game? You launch a missile at target that dropped CM 15 seconds earlier and some time after launch the missile is like "Gee.... There is a CM 30 degree off from the locked target I was chasing, I will go there!". There was nice thread about these illogical things, showing how terrible the R-27 is in the game overall, and it got heated arguments that "it is correctly done" etc. And because "no information to tell otherwise, so it must be so". And anyone could have seen in the videos that how idiotic the engineer and designer must be to allow a such thing to happen. Like R-27 would be a first missile a 10 year old would build without any idea what is "out there" against it. So how one can even talk about what kind updates there should be, when the R-27 is already so bad in the game, and it is even bad considering that the game ECM and CM systems are so basic and completely broken?

 

Is it even a new Seeker or an improvement to an older one?

 

That again is the question that can't be answered, as there are couple kinds changes being the seeker, but one doesn't even know what is in the public expos shown, as one wouldn't likely bring the updated one to be shown for every possible enemy and intelligence officers. You use lots of those public things to deliver misinformation and saturate with changes that doesn't mean a thing. You even fly and carry things that might not be working, you make official documentations and sources to tell lies. So it really becomes just "believe what you want" kind thing.

 

 

If you answer those questions ED might just give you a more modern R-27T/ET

 

But that is not the question. As it is ED job to do investigations, research and so on. It is not forum users job to go and do work for them. They are responsible to contact the manufacturers directly, get the public quotation and then present it to community "We went, met this and this guy, he showed us these and these documentations and said that "_______" and "______"."

 

We can only raise questions about the game, about the observations and dig through various different evidences for the ED. It is all up to ED to do all the proper work from start to finish then. But if they get to same challenge "We do not know otherwise" then it is not an argument that something couldn't be done, as there would need to be evidence "That is not possible". Lack of evidence is not evidence. And there is evidence that R-27 has an updated PN, while we (as community) knows nothing about how or when, it is just to point to the ED official statement that "there is evidence that some updates has been done for PN systems in newer missiles" and nothing more. It is not a demand that ED should do "this and that" changes, but just to change the opinion "There is no updates to R-27 for 37 years" to "There might have been PN updates to R-27, we need to investigate it and keep and open mind that there is some new information about it in the future". (at least that is my request, that ED would just acknowledge that there is such evidence, and they are like "Okay, the missile has likely been updated".

 

It really is so simple and small thing. Not a demand to changes or so, just acknowledgement "Thank you for evidence that there might be updates". It is just a change of status from "NO!" to "Possibly".

 

As there are people who already argue against logic that Russia would use a 37 years old unmodified, non-updated, missile that is almost like designed from the worst missile and seeker designer in their industry.

If I take an hammer, I know very well why and how it was designed and I know as well that it is already at least a 44 years old. And I know as well very well that I don't need any updates, upgrades or changes to that given hammer at all. It has its original grip, its original head, it has nickles and scratches all over it and paint is badly wear off. But I know that hammer does its designed task more than required.

I as well know that various cars I have driven, every single one requires different levels of maintenance and service every year. There are things you do for daily, weekly and monthly bases and then some by season and kilometers. But if you do all properly, the vehicle works wonderfully for most of its time in use (average car sits in the parking slot 98% of the time, only being driven 2% of its lifetime).

 

But either one is not meant to be used in combat, to destroy or kill anyone else!

Those are not in the competition "Who can kill me better if I have this!".

 

Like take a look at the car racing industry. Every year there are manufacturers with teams and drivers to compete with each others just with fraction of the seconds. Spending lots of money just to do that. The sports industry is similar, since the old world records has been made in sprinting, javelin throwing, swimming etc, the improvements has not come from the better training methods or better athletes, but from the better equipment. Better fabrics, better shoes, better material, oils etc etc. You can only push human so far, until you come to full limit. You need to find all the possible small limitations and improve those to get better results.

 

And Russia use 37 year old missile just because it is so perfect? Because it is so terrible that it doesn't matter does the pilot die or not? They don't have money to improve the seeker, but money to design new aircrafts, new engines, new radars, new everything else than update a seeker?

 

I give you an analog for that. You have your grandfather WW1 rifle that doesn't shoot straight, gets jammed easily, your cartridges are likely so badly moisturized that most are duds.

Yet you want to keep hunting so you invest money to new clothing, new scopes, new hideouts, you buy the licenses, you go weekly to the shooting range etc etc. And you keep that old rusted piece of iron....

Does it make sense to you?

 

Or how about if it is the old rifle but it has no rust, it shoot perfectly straight, it is almost like perfect from the hand-crafted small factory with just small scratches here and there etc. You just update the scope to shoot further easily, you use more modern loaded cartridges to give you even better results etc.

Does it make sense to update it? You switch to other if the old one doesn't anymore perform what you ask from it (like bolt vs semi-automatic) or it becomes otherwise unsuitable (too heavy, too long, too accurate etc), but keep it if the real limitation is a man holding the rifle and not the rifle itself...

[Fri13]

Any manufacturer will try to make their product look as good as possible and describe it in the most favourable terms.

 

Not exactly.

 

There is a difference when you are selling weapons so you get funding for n+1 projects to make a new weapons to be sold, and to make weapons that you use for defense purposes.

 

No it isn't - the website in question just lists whats on offer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a particular weapon is fully operational and in service.

 

Irrelevant. The question of this all was that ED has not heard/read any updates to be made to R-27. This is not about "Please give us X and Y features....".

And if a new updates version is for offer to be sold, it is not a evidence that it is not operational or not in service.

 

Just like in any business, if you offer something to be sold, then you are ready to sell it when a customer asks for it.

 

When you say "R-27EP is available" then you sell it when customer comes in and says "We would like to buy 20 units of R-27EP".

 

If you don't like the customer, no one is forcing you to sell it to them.

But if you are listing stuff to be sold and you don't have it than on paper of the procedure, then you don't really sell anything to anyone as they don't trust you anymore at all.

 

The typical weapons sales are done that you first list the public data. Then you get contacts and when business is further and you have concluded trust, you provide accurate specifications as answers for the questions. Then buyer gets change to buy some units or you show them the performance and give the data so they can compare your provided specifications to the hard data, and now comes the customer decision to validate the reason to purchase or not.

(There are cases of political pressure and purchases, where weapons has been bought just with simple meeting, never even seeing what is to be received/delivered. And it can be cultural thing as well.)

 

BUT for the game we are talking about it is irrelevant that is something in service or not. We are not here to simulate the history, we are not even simulating the reality (this moment). We are talking about a game that is based to _some_ real things, but with lots of educates guesses and probabilities. The game is about sandbox. It is about simulating things that doesn't really happen. It can be a F/A-18C Lot 20 vs MiG-19P, a scenario that would never happen in 2020 over a Persian Gulf. It can be a L-39AZ vs F-16C Blk 50 over a skies of France.... Again likely something that would never happen. It is about F-15C in a 1991 firing AIM-120C-5 against a F/A-18C over small piece of land near Chinese border...

 

All fantasies, all illusions and all nothing more than far far from the reality, history and facts.

 

This game is not about a X-wing in the hangar bay of Area 51, this game is not about a laser cannons bolted to F-5E wings. Or not about similar things.

 

There are lots of things that should be in the game, and only question about the mission designer scenario and will.

 

Weapons are not part of the aircraft. They should be separate topics completely. ED should implement lots of weapons, and then check that what are officially supported by the platform (meaning, no R-27 for a MiG-19P) and some gets questionable (APKWS and Ugroza on all rocket launching aircrafts with compatible pods) and are purely about the mission designer decision. It is easy as going just not to tick "Enable this weapon in this mission". After all we are not restricted to reality, not restricted to history and not restricted to physics, and we should not be restricted either for 100% pure fantasy that this game is hard core simulator that is emulating every single wire, every single bolt, every single connection and digital chip...

 

This is simulator, this is based to some reality limitations, but many are just about possibilities.

It is illogical to demand 100% accurate simulation, as there is no such thing ever. You need the real thing to do that, and it is not anymore simulation. Some people just need to understand the realities, what is that this is a game and it has entertainment purposes and value as much as training value.

 

People here are arguing about bits in AIM-120 or R-27 performance, yet no one cares at all about the ground units, not about the ridiculous status of the SAM performances and capabilities. Many people thinks that multiplayer is so important for this game, completely ignoring that even when ED says that majority are single players. People want to feel here something special that they can connect to server and go make some stuff go flames and think that they are in hard core simulator, completely ignoring the facts that they would never reach the tank they just blowed up as they likely would have been shot down by a SAM or been shot down by a enemy CAP or never even been able to even see the target.

And then these use arguments "But it can't be in the game because we don't know does it have a 4 wires or 3 wires....".

 

It would help a lot if ED would just simply start implementing lots of all kind things, improve things and let the players decide how to fly a custom missions, and allow mission/campaign designers to easily design missions based their scenarios and sell those campaigns for those who accept it. Meanwhile lots of players would enjoy from more possible features than impossible, and if someone has problem that R-27P/EP exist in this game, they can very well either not to use it, or avoid flying in the servers that allows it.

 

Edit: Example this whole thread point. Why not launch a R-27ET after R-27ER? It should be possible. One should be able to lock the missile easily (In the Su-27 the IRST will spot the missiles that were fired) and even launch a IR missile after the radar missile and get the changes that the IR seeker would go after that rocket motor.

 

The real Su-27SK manual states that R-27T shouldn't be launched inside 8 seconds after a R missile, because the seeker will capture the R missile heat. There is as well 6 second limit, but I don't now recall what for that was, but it was similar thing. So you are limited to launch missiles for front hemisphere in given time periods. So not allowed to launch a two R-27T to same target without that 8 second pause. But in the game it shouldn't be a hard coded that in 8 seconds it would lock on and after that not, instead it should be understood that why and how does the seeker lock on the missile front of it and use that modeling in all scenarios. So you build the logic, and use that logic everywhere if that thing would happen.

We need to have in simulation lots of downsides, restrictions etc and not by hard coded "Sorry, I am not going to allow you to launch a second missile inside 8 seconds after previous one" but really allow the player do the stupid and wrong things, and explain them then why what they did was stupid and wrong. Part of the simulation is always the downsides as well, not just the nice things.

 

So in this case the original poster should have been able launch the R, and then the T and have the T follow the R, with all the troubles and problems, as well even possibilities, as it can't be so that the T will lock permanent to missile plume (or flare) and ignore aircraft, but will not do the same to aircraft (and ignore missiles or flares).

 

Those logics doesn't seem to be in the game, and it needs improvements.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Fri13