SU-35S

[SUBS17]

The SU35S, when they model it, it would be nice to do this kind of Aerobatics:

 

 

 

SU35S is an awesome aircraft like the Hornet.:pilotfly:

[Dragon1-1]

But it wont do anything to solve the time frame disparity, it will just make the problem worse. More people flying around in these coffins while all of NATO is in late 2000s missile carriers.

 

All helicopters are at a serious disadvantage against anything carrying radar-guided missiles. It doesn't matter if it's old or new. Besides, Mi-24P is hardly a coffin. When it gets the new damage model, I wouldn't be surprised if it could eat an AMRAAM and come back to base. It's the newer helos that are fragile. Besides, if you want a technological match for the Apache, there's always the Ka-50.

[Kev2go]

No, but perhaps some equipment used to employ them is. Some chairborne fool likely classified something like the resolution of the cockpit display used to cue the weapon, and now the whole cockpit is off limits.

 

The Mi-24P was selected specifically because of how good its 30mm cannon was. The ones you mentioned use a dinky minigun that actual Mi-24 crews decried as being only useful as ballast, or so the story goes. Infantry in the open was just about the only thing you could kill with it, anyway, and in DCS, that's not a common use case. If you want something comparable to the Apache, Mi-24VP at least has a proper cannon in the turret.

 

Like anyones going to be strafing MBT's with 30 mm as thier main weapon of choice. (its fixed gun, not slewable like on the apache) Thats a fast way to get riddled with 50 caliber holes from IFV turrets or get clipped by a manpad.

 

The main tankbusting weapons of helicopter are guided AGTM missiles.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Kev2go

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I honestly question all this talk of sekrit documents

In game we have the Pyotr Velinki with a 90s upgraded S-300 system but no land based equivalent and same goes for the HQ-9 which we have a sea based version of.

 

Clearly ED & Deka have information to make more modern land systems why ED doesn't continue this like deka is unknown to me.

 

 

As for redair, many modernised Flankers were exported in the 1990s and early 2000s and are in some services now being relegated to reserves or still soldier on today in the airforces of cash strapped Client state, I don't see why they can't make one of those.

 

 

 

Deka has shown they have information on Su-30MKKs so there is clearly enough information for Su-27SKM or 30MKK type.

Would allow for a more realistic depiction of a 2000s near peer adversary seeing as we're getting the Marianas I can't see why we won't get a PLAAF tip of the spear fighter for the 2000s before it became solely and aggressor plane

[Dragon1-1]

Like anyones going to be strafing MBT's with 30 mm as thier main weapon of choice. (its fixed gun, not slewable like on the apache) Thats a fast way to get riddled with 50 caliber holes from IFV turrets or get clipped by a manpad.

 

The main tankbusting weapons of helicopter are guided AGTM missiles.

 

Of course they are, the 30mm isn't for tanks. It's for infantry in cover (IRL, those rounds are like hand grenades), light vehicles and such. You're not going to have any more luck trying to use Apache's cannon on tanks, BTW. The difference is, the Mi-24 is armored against .50 cal. :) In Afghan, at least, nothing short of 23mm cannon shells and RPGs really fazed them, to the Taliban fighters' dismay.

 

The Yak-B minigun on most Hind models would barely be able to scratch anything tougher than a truck, and even then, it'd have trouble hitting the broadside of that from any respectable distance.

[Kev2go]

Of course they are, the 30mm isn't for tanks. It's for infantry in cover (IRL, those rounds are like hand grenades), light vehicles and such. You're not going to have any more luck trying to use Apache's cannon on tanks, BTW. The difference is, the Mi-24 is armored against .50 cal. :) In Afghan, at least, nothing short of 23mm cannon shells and RPGs really fazed them, to the Taliban fighters' dismay.

 

The Yak-B minigun on most Hind models would barely be able to scratch anything tougher than a truck, and even then, it'd have trouble hitting the broadside of that from any respectable distance.

 

I understand that. I was not implying as such, but what i meant was that in other helicopters like an apache, It allows for more flexible employment as as opposed to point the nose of the helicopter directly at a targeted doing purely strafing runs.

[Northstar98]

But it wont do anything to solve the time frame disparity, it will just make the problem worse. More people flying around in these coffins while all of NATO is in late 2000s missile carriers.

 

Not really, the overwhelming majority of the assets in DCS are mid-to-late Cold War, where the Hind-P fits perfectly. The problem is the lack of appropriate Cold War BLUFOR modules (which are much more feasible than modern Russian aircraft), so far the only ones around are the F-14s, AJS-37 and F-5E-3, and 2 of those are 90s upgrades (well, until the F-14A gets released), right at the very end of the Soviet Union...

Edited October 19, 2020 by Northstar98

[Dragon1-1]

I understand that. I was not implying as such, but what i meant was that in other helicopters like an apache, It allows for more flexible employment as as opposed to point the nose of the helicopter directly at a targeted doing purely strafing runs.

True, and that's why Mi-24VP was eventually developed, though it doesn't have as much ammo as the Apache. I certainly wouldn't mind if they made that, but with a YakB turret, you might as well forget you have a gun at all. Hind crews certainly did, ultimately they had to resort to strafing runs with rockets and gunpods.

[impreza]

They should make some planes with fc3 level. SU-35, Su34, Su 30, Su24 and others. its not possible as a "complete module" but yes like fc3 with some details.

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by impreza

[Northstar98]

On 10/19/2020 at 9:30 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

True, and that's why Mi-24VP was eventually developed, though it doesn't have as much ammo as the Apache. I certainly wouldn't mind if they made that, but with a YakB turret, you might as well forget you have a gun at all. Hind crews certainly did, ultimately they had to resort to strafing runs with rockets and gunpods.

 

Well Chizh said we won't be getting the UPK-23-250 for our Hind as it wasn't used domestically on it, so that leaves the GUV-8700 which has either or 30mm AGS-30 or a YakB + 2 GShG-7.62...

 

So when it comes to the actual guns in the gun pod, they have exactly the same gun, just paired up with 2 guns that are even less effective...

 

9 hours ago, impreza said:

They should make some planes with fc3 level. SU-35, Su34, Su 30, Su24 and others. its not possible as a "complete module" but yes like fc3 with some details.

 

You still need a lot of these details to make even FC3 level aircraft, and as for the Su-35 (particularly the Su-35S), good luck modelling a PESA RADAR in even FC3 fidelity - we just about manage mechanical planar array RADARs which are modernised RADARs from the 70s, and that's on the full-fidelity aircraft.

 

Plus ED have since stated that they want to move away from low-fidelity and focus on high fidelity. Low-fidelity stuff is more of a MAC thing and the primary focus of DCS is high-fidelity, as the goal of DCS is realism (even if in some cases it falls short, which we can go on for ages about).

Edited February 17, 2021 by Northstar98

[WinterH]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

So when it comes to the actual guns in the gun pod, they have exactly the same gun, just paired up with 2 guns that are even less effective...

Yeah the difference is, you don't actually need to resort to gunpods this time around...

9 hours ago, impreza said:

They should make some planes with fc3 level. SU-35, Su34, Su 30, Su24 and others. its not possible as a "complete module" but yes like fc3 with some details.

As much as I love Russian aircraft, at that poit it' would not DCS for me anymore. Besides, like Northstar said above, even with FC3 you need to have some information about the way sensors/systems work, as well as, with the current level the bar is set even for FC modules, proper flight characteristics data.

[impreza]

hace 1 hora, Northstar98 dijo:

 

Well Chizh said we won't be getting the UPK-23-250 for our Hind as it wasn't used domestically on it, so that leaves the GUV-8700 which has either or 30mm AGS-30 or a YakB + 2 GShG-7.62...

 

So when it comes to the actual guns in the gun pod, they have exactly the same gun, just paired up with 2 guns that are even less effective...

 

 

You still need a lot of these details to make even FC3 level aircraft, and as for the Su-35 (particularly the Su-35S), good luck modelling a PESA RADAR - we just about manage mechanical planar array RADARs which are modernised RADARs from the 70s...

 

Plus ED have since stated that they want to move away from low-fidelity and focus on high fidelity. Low-fidelity stuff is more of a MAC thing and the primary focus of DCS is high-fidelity, as the goal of DCS is realism (even if in some cases it falls short, which we can go on for ages about).

 

I know its impossible to have a good recreation of the latest planes but its could very interesting to have them like fc3 style. They could make something similar to "reality" with know info to get more planes and add new planes to AI too. Any radar is 100% realistic. I think high level of recreation is for "complete" modules.

[upyr1]

 

On 2/16/2021 at 7:19 PM, impreza said:

They should make some planes with fc3 level. SU-35, Su34, Su 30, Su24 and others. its not possible as a "complete module" but yes like fc3 with some details.

 

 

This is what I am hoping ED does with MAC.

[Northstar98]

On 2/17/2021 at 10:25 AM, impreza said:

I know its impossible to have a good recreation of the latest planes but its could very interesting to have them like fc3 style.

 

Which still requires data...

 

On 2/17/2021 at 10:25 AM, impreza said:

Any radar is 100% realistic.

 

 

The Su-35S has a PESA phased array RADAR, how is making a module that has anything but that "100% realistic"? 

 

On 2/17/2021 at 10:25 AM, impreza said:

I think high level of recreation is for "complete" modules.

 

Yeah, but any semi-realistic implementation still requires stuff we presumably don't have access too. With the Su-35S, one its main advantages is it's super-duper PESA RADAR, if DCS just approximates it to a mechanical planar array, then aren't we just removing the advantages of these modern aircraft in the first place?

[Seaeagle]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Which still requires data...

Yes but not to the degree of FF modules.

Quote

 

 

The Su-35S has a PESA phased array RADAR, how is making a module that has anything but that "100% realistic"? 

I could be wrong, but I think he meant to say that "no radar is 100% realistic".

Quote

Yeah, but any semi-realistic implementation still requires stuff we presumably don't have access too. With the Su-35S, one its main advantages is it's super-duper PESA RADAR, if DCS just approximates it to a mechanical planar array, then aren't we just removing the advantages of these modern aircraft in the first place?

Yes but why would they need to approximate it to a mechanical slot array? - PESA technology is not exactly a completely unknown entity and the basic specs(general design, antenna size, output power etc) of the N035 Irbis radar are not secret.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Seaeagle

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Yes but not to the degree of FF modules.

 

But still to the degree where making SSM is incredibly challenging 

 

2 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

I could be wrong, but I think he meant to say that "no radar is 100% realistic".

 

I hope so.

 

2 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Yes but why would they need to approximate it to a mechanical slot array? - PESA technology is not exactly a completely unknown entity and the basic specs(general design, antenna size, output power etc) of the N021 Irbis radar are not secret.

 

Because DCS just about manages to represent 1970s mechanical RADARs, there are absolutely no provisions for modelling phased array RADARs or their capabilities in DCS, we just about manage to get faithful representations of mechanically scanned RADARs from the 70s. And while the things you mentioned aren't secret, I doubt they're sufficient to recreate the RADAR without some hefty guesswork.

 

And look at CubanAce's Raptor mod, while no disrespect to CubanAce, the RADAR (which is an advanced phased array AESA RADAR) is implemented as the APG-63 - a mechanical planar array. Okay it's a mod so not exactly comparable, but even so.

 

And before anyone says "but what about the MiG-31s RADAR, or the SPY-1?" all of these RADARs are heavily approximated the same way as every other RADAR i.e effective scan volumes, how many simultaneous targets, probability of detection and update rate, that's it; it doesn't even differentiate between 2D RADARs and 3D RADARs, they all seem to have 3D capability.

 

In fact speaking of the SPY-1, it's modelled as being the MPQ-53 - the STR/FCR of the Patriot, which is modelled as being essentially identical as the Fan Song, just different effective scan volumes, probabilities, simultaneous targets and update rates.

 

It's all there in the respective .lua files in the database (particularly db_sensors.lua).

[SUBS17]

BTW SU35S from PLANET THE JOCKS PLAYGROUND in the video that I posted has Superhornet engines and FLY BY WIRE!. It is not the same as a standard SU35S.

[Seaeagle]

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

But still to the degree where making SSM is incredibly challenging 

I agree.

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Because DCS just about manages to represent 1970s mechanical RADARs, there are absolutely no provisions for modelling phased array RADARs or their capabilities in DCS, we just about manage to get faithful representations of mechanically scanned RADARs from the 70s.

What has that got to do with anything? - DCS only now having "faithful representation of 70'ies radars"(not really - the APG-73 is 90'ies tech) has more to do with the need to do so in connection with modern FF figher modules.   

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And while the things you mentioned aren't secret, I doubt they're sufficient to recreate the RADAR without some hefty guesswork.

It depends on what you mean by "recreating" - an FF Su-35 module with all radar operating modes and how they are presented to the pilot, would definately involve "hefty guesswork".

 

But a working PESA radar model itself with the specifications of an Irbis or Bars - I really don't see why that would unachieavable. IMHO it would be more a question of whether you would want to put in the effort, if it can only be applied to AI or a flyable aircraft with the above mentioned guesswork in terms of operating it - i.e. well below FC3 level of SSM.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And look at CubanAce's Raptor mod, while no disrespect to CubanAce, the RADAR (which is an advanced phased array AESA RADAR) is implemented as the APG-63 - a mechanical planar array. Okay it's a mod so not exactly comparable, but even so.

Are you seriously using a user mod as an indication of whether ED can model PESA functionality?

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And before anyone says "but what about the MiG-31s RADAR, or the SPY-1?" all of these RADARs are heavily approximated the same way as every other RADAR i.e effective scan volumes, how many simultaneous targets, probability of detection and update rate, that's it; it doesn't even differentiate between 2D RADARs and 3D RADARs, they all seem to have 3D capability.

 

In fact speaking of the SPY-1, it's modelled as being the MPQ-53 - the STR/FCR of the Patriot, which is modelled as being essentially identical as the Fan Song, just different effective scan volumes, probabilities, simultaneous targets and update rates.

 

It's all there in the respective .lua files in the database (particularly db_sensors.lua).

They are what they are because they use old "abstract radar" code, which I guess is still considered sufficient for AI entities.....it doesn't mean that its impossible to model them in any other way if desired.

[Northstar98]

@Seaeagle

 

Quote

What has that got to do with anything? - DCS only now having "faithful representation of 70'ies radars"(not really - the APG-73 is 90'ies tech)

 

Which is derived from a 70s RADAR...

 

Quote

It depends on what you mean by "recreating" - an FF Su-35 module with all radar operating modes and how they are presented to the pilot, would definately involve "hefty guesswork".

 

Well, FC3 aircraft very much presents modes they have available to the pilot, realistically (it's not perfect but it's there). Do we even know what modes are available for this RADAR? Or how any of them are displayed, and what information is provided?

 

Quote

But a working PESA radar model itself with the specifications of an Irbis or Bars - I really don't see why that would unachieavable. IMHO it would be more a question of whether you would want to put in the effort, if it can only be applied to AI or a flyable aircraft with the above mentioned guesswork in terms of operating it - i.e. well below FC3 level of SSM.

 

I didn't say unachievable, I said DCS doesn't support it (at least from what I can go off of).

 

But then are ED at all likely to introduce new technologies to DCS, for what amounts to an FC3 aircraft (possibly even more simplified?), something that ED have themselves stated they want to move away from?

 

Quote

Are you seriously using a user mod as an indication of whether ED can model PESA functionality?

 

Not really indication of PESA feasibility in and of itself, though more because it seems that the theme going is that if we can't do x realistically (in this case the APG-77) as a full-fidelity or even FC3 level aircraft, simplify and abstract and keep doing so until we can - exactly like CubanAce's mod... I probably should've been more clear.

 

I'm using what's actually defined and present in DCS' scripts as to whether or not PESA functionality is present.

 

Quote

They are what they are because they use old "abstract radar" code, which I guess is still considered sufficient for AI entities.....it doesn't mean that its impossible to model them in any other way if desired.

 

And I never said impossible either...

 

But then you still need to put in the ground work to support phased array RADARs and their operation in the first place. And if FC3 aircraft and simplified aircraft are what ED are moving away from (which by all indications they are), why would they put the ground work in to facilitate such a RADAR for a simplified aircraft?

Edited February 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[CarbonFox]

Can't see even an FC3-level Su-35S coming into DCS. The Su-30M (not SM) or even the Su-34 would be more realistic if ED decided to add a few modern airframes to FC3/future MAC.

[Northstar98]

3 minutes ago, CarbonFox said:

Can't see even an FC3-level Su-35S coming into DCS. The Su-30M (not SM) or even the Su-34 would be more realistic if ED decided to add a few modern airframes to FC3/future MAC.

 

I can't personally see any new FC3 level aircraft coming given ED's intentions, so it's probably more of a MAC thing than a DCS thing.

[Seaeagle]

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Which is derived from a 70s RADAR...

A bit of a stretch - its derived from the APG-65, which is an 80'ies design, that already incorporated a lot of new design solutions compared with the initial version of the APG-63 from the 70'ies. Simply using a planar slotted array antenna, does not make the APG-73 a "70'ies radar".

 

You could just as well claim that the Irbis is 80'ies technology, because it uses a passive phased array antenna, which is somthing  NiiP already employed on the Zaslon radar in the early 80'ies.

 

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, FC3 aircraft very much presents modes they have available to the pilot. Do we even know what modes are available for this RADAR?

Yes - some of them anyway.

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Or how any of them are displayed, and what information is provided?

No - very little anyway.

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I didn't say unachievable, I said DCS doesn't support it (at least from what I can go off of).

There are a lot of things DCS currently doesn't support or model until someone feels the need to change it.

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

But then are we likely to introduce new technologies to DCS, for what amounts to an FC3 aircraft (possibly even more simplified?), something that ED have themselves stated they want to move away from?

You yourself mentioned SAM systems that use PESA radars. Besides, who said ED is moving away from "FC3 aircraft" - if I am not mistaken they still intend to make a product("MAC") involving this level of aircraft.....is it even clear yet whether this will be stand-alone or remain part of DCS as just a renamed FC3?.

 

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

No, not an indication of PESA, because it seems that the theme going is that if we can't do x realistically or as a full-fidelity or even FC3 level aircraft, simplify and abstract and keep doing so until we can - exactly like CubanAce's mod...

Well CubanAce didn't have a choice - ED does.

9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm using what's actually defined and present in DCS' scripts as to whether or not PESA functionality is present.

 

And I never said impossible either...

 

But then you still need to put in the ground work to support phased array RADARs and their operation in the first place. And if FC3 aircraft and simplified aircraft are what ED are moving away from (which by all indications they are), why would they put the ground work in to facilitate such a RADAR for a simplified aircraft?

I am sure they wouldn't, but as mentioned above, there are other applications for properly modelled PESA radar functionality than low fidelity player controlled aircraft :) .

[Northstar98]

5 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

A bit of a stretch - its derived from the APG-65, which is an 80'ies design, that already incorporated a lot of new design solutions compared with the initial version of the APG-63 from the 70'ies. Simply using a planar slotted array antenna, does not make the APG-73 a "70'ies radar".

 

Fair enough, I'm probably getting my RADARs mixed up. But at the fundamentals...

 

Quote

You could just as well claim that the Irbis is 80'ies technology, because it uses a passive phased array antenna, which is somthing  NiiP already employed on the Zaslon radar in the early 80'ies.

 

But in this case they're 2 different RADARs with different capabilities, albeit using similar technology. There's more in common with the APG-65 and -73, than the Zaslon and Irbis. As Irbis is newer, it's even more difficult for ED.

 

Quote

There are a lot of things DCS currently doesn't support or model until someone feels the need to change it.

You yourself mentioned SAM systems that use PESA radars.

 

Yes and the only thing going is the 3rd party IADS module which seems more involved, but at the moment we seem to still be proposing what it'll include and player interest. I'm not aware of anything more such as a target release, or whether it's confirmed as definitely coming.

 

Quote

Besides, who said ED is moving away from "FC3 aircraft" - if I am not mistaken they still intend to make a product("MAC") involving this level of aircraft.....is it even clear yet whether this will be stand-alone or remain part of DCS as just a renamed FC3?.

 

BIGNEWY on discord, I'll see if I can dig up the message. They plan to move away from simplified aircraft in DCS, what that means for FC3 I have no idea, though an FF 9.12 MiG-29 is planned. MAC is a standalone product AFAIK, essentially being more of a replacement for LOMAC.

 

DCS while a successor to LOMAC went a bit further, going full fidelity.

 

Quote

Well CubanAce didn't have a choice - ED does.

 

They do, but whether they actually will is another question, as I said, the only thing going for them right now might be the 3rd party IADS module. As far as RADAR modelling goes, there's enough on ED's plate to get the current set up to scratch - especially as far as EW is concerned.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[Seaeagle]

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Fair enough, I'm probably getting my RADARs mixed up. But at the fundamentals...

Sure but then the N019 and N001 could be termed 60'ies technology - they aren't really.

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

But in this case they're 2 different RADARs with different capabilities, albeit using similar technology. There's more in common with the APG-65 and -73, than the Zaslon and Irbis. As Irbis is newer, it's even more difficult for ED.

Sure but the Irbis is based on the Bars(from ~ mid 90'ies), which in turn is a N011(from the late 80'ies) fitted with a PESA antenna and even retained its hydro-mechanical drive  :) . Anyway, my point was that PESA technology isn't exactly cutting edge - its been around for decades and is essentially a "normal" radar with electronic beam steering.

 

 

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

BIGNEWY on discord, I'll see if I can dig up the message. They plan to move away from simplified aircraft in DCS, what that means for FC3 I have no idea, though an FF 9.12 MiG-29 is planned. MAC is a standalone product AFAIK, essentially being more of a replacement for LOMAC.

OK but they said the same 15 years ago when Black Shark was under development - but then changed their minds and incorporated "lomac"(as "FC2") into DCS to avoid having to maintain two separate sim environments.

 

Besides, what does it matter whether its part of DCS or standalone in this context? - its still ED developing an "entry level" simulation and, as I have mentioned before, it would IMHO be more interesting to(at least try) use it for things that are currently out of reach for FF DCS modules, instead of just "dumbing down" existing FF modules for MAC/FC3 or whatever you want to call it :) .

 

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

DCS while a successor to LOMAC went a bit further, going full fidelity.

I know the history mate - the first ED product I bought was Flanker 1.0 in 1995 :D

19 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

They do, but whether they actually will is another question.

Indeed - thats always the question with ED.

[Northstar98]

48 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Sure but then the N019 and N001 could be termed 60'ies technology - they aren't really.

 

I'm not talking about the technology, the APG-73 is a derivation of the 65 - they're variants of the same RADAR; the N019 and N001 aren't.

 

Quote

Sure but the Irbis is based on the Bars(from ~ mid 90'ies), which in turn is a N011(from the late 80'ies) fitted with a PESA antenna and even retained its hydro-mechanical drive  . Anyway, my point was that PESA technology isn't exactly cutting edge - its been around for decades and is essentially a "normal" radar with electronic beam steering.

 

Yeah, broadly how PESA RADARs work is absolutely known; just the same as passive and active SONAR or basically any other sensor.

 

That doesn't at all mean it is feasible to implement the RADAR into even an FC3 aircraft. You said yourself that we don't even know what modes the RADAR has available or how they're displayed.

 

It also doesn't change anything about DCS as it still doesn't have any provisions (from what I can tell) of implementing any phased array RADAR; the only phased array RADARs we do have are approximated the same way as any other RADAR.

 

Spoiler

Here's just a comparison between the P-19, a legacy mechanically scanned 2D RADAR, and the MPQ-53, the STR/FCR of our Patriot PAC-2

["p-19 s-125 sr"] =
        {
            type = RADAR_AS,
            scan_volume =
            {
                azimuth = {-180.0, 180.0},
                elevation = {-15.0, 45.0}
            },
            max_measuring_distance = 160000.0,
            detection_distance =
            {
                [HEMISPHERE_UPPER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 160000.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 160000.0
                },
                [HEMISPHERE_LOWER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 160000.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 160000.0
                }
            },
            lock_on_distance_coeff = 0.85,
            velocity_limits =
            {
                radial_velocity_min = 15,
            },
            scan_period = 6.0,
        },
        ["Patriot str"] =
        {
            type = RADAR_AS,
            scan_volume =
            {
                azimuth = {-180.0, 180.0},
                elevation = {-15.0, 60.0}
            },
            max_measuring_distance = 260000.0,
            detection_distance =
            {
                [HEMISPHERE_UPPER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 260000.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 260000.0
                },
                [HEMISPHERE_LOWER] =
                {
                    [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 260000.0,
                    [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 260000.0
                }
            },
            lock_on_distance_coeff = 0.85,
            velocity_limits =
            {
                radial_velocity_min = 15,
            },
            scan_period = 1.0,
        },

 

 

 

Quote

Besides, what does it matter whether its part of DCS or standalone in this context? - its still ED developing an "entry level" simulation and, as I have mentioned before, it would IMHO be more interesting to(at least try) use it for things that are currently out of reach for FF DCS modules, instead of just "dumbing down" existing FF modules for MAC/FC3 or whatever you want to call it

 

It doesn't and it's irrelevant, as I said before (though I got my quote wrong), BN said that they don't have any plans to do more FC3 aircraft. So that probably takes the Su-35S out of the realm of possibility for DCS - which is what this thread concerns.

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Northstar98